Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0466 Farrell Street (2)Transmittal To: Ray Belair, Dept. of Planning and Zoning City of S.Burlington 575 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 Attention: Chris We Transmit: the following: ❑ as per your request ❑ prints ❑ under separate cover ® copies ❑ by mail ❑ reports ❑ by messenger ❑ studies ❑ by pick up ❑ reproducibles ® by overnight carrier ❑ product literature ❑ computations Dewberry Mr 10`" Floor Boston. MA 02210 Date: 09/30/09 Project No: Project: US Cellular 594322 Reference: cc: for: ❑ your approval ❑ your review and comment ® your file/use ❑ revision and submission ❑ distribution ❑ as requested by ❑ as approved by ❑ as submitted for approval by Copies Date Number Description 3 09/30/09 594322 S. Burlington CDs Rev-2 09-30-09 Comments: Mr. Belair, Please find the above referenced items. Thanks, Matt Signed: Matthew F. Tilden If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at once Phone: 617-695-3400 ext. 3120 Fax: 617-695-3310 Email: mtilden@dewberry.com DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 4 Applicant #SD-09-32 until 6 October 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-09-38 of David Zullo to subdivide a 4.88 acre parcel developed with an auto and boat sales, service and repair facility into two lots of 1.06 acres and 3.82 acres, 3017 Williston Road (Marine Collection): Mr. Choiniere, the property owner, said they are trying to get lot #2 to be available to his son who owns the adjacent property. There would be no new curb cuts and no changes from what is seen there today. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-38 of David Zullo subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. onditional Use Application #CU-09-07 of KJK Wireless to relocate ante n on an existing tower from the 80 foot level to 119 foot level, 466 Farrell Street (former Channel 22 tower): and 6. S e Plan Application #SP-09-68 of KJK Wireless to amend a previously appr lan for a telecommunications tower. The amendment consists of relocating antennas on the tower from the 80 foot level to 119 foot level, 466 Farrell Street (former Channel 22 tower): Mr. Gashlin, representing U. S. Cellular, said they have some equipment they want to raise to the top of the tower. Mr. Farley said he thought that tower was coming down. Mr. Belair said if it was, they've changed their minds. Mr. Gashlin said that with regard to Stipulation A, they will bolt the antennas at the 119 foot level, but they will extend to 122 feet, and that will be the total height. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Conditional Use Application #CU-09-07 and Site Plan Application #SP-09-68 of KJK Wireless subject to the stipulations in the draft with Stipulation #4 amended to show a total height of 122 feet. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Site plan Application #SP-09-71 of Gonzo's Indoor Golf & Academy to amend a previously approved plan for a 14,700 sq. ft. building with multiple number of uses. The amendment consists of. 1) converting 700 sq. ft. of retail use to a 12-seat tavern to be used in conjunction with an indoor recreational use, and 2) adding personal instruction use in conjunction with the indoor recreation use,1860 Williston Road (formerly Western Tool): September 11 , 2009 Bob Gashlin KJK Wireless 8 Providence Avenue Falmouth, ME 04105 Re: 466 Farrell Street Dear Mr. Gashlin: Enclosed, please find copies of the Findings of Fact and Decisions rendered by the Development Review Board on September 15, 2009 (effective 9/15/09). Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, A4 Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # 7008 0150 0003 6150 6864 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com southPLANNING & ZONING August 26, 2009 EF Farrell, LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 RE: 466 Farrell Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public hearing notice that will be printed in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. Cc: Bob Gashlin, KJK Wireless 8 Providence Avenue Falmouth, ME 04105 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT O5403 t0 802.846.4106 fax 802.846,4101 www.sburl.com Catherine Mceahern Nancy Osborne Burlington Indoor Tennis Ctr 117 Hadley Road 119 Hadley Road 142 W. Twin Oaks Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Community Land Trust Champlain Oil Company, Inc. PO Box 523 PO Box 2126 Burlington, VT 05402-0523 South Burlington, VT 05407 Thomas Family Trust et al Attn: Michael Dowling 518 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Acadia Heathcote, LLC c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Ave, Suite 26o White Plains, NY 1o605 O'Dell Allocated Housing Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc. 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 Jane Quilliam Rev. Trust 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Warren Wolfe 138 Woodlawn Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Eastwood Commons & City's Edge c/o Park Place Management Co., Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, VT 05403 Jason Lawson 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas Family Trust et al Herman & Mavis Thomas 64 Southwind Drive Burlington, VT 05401 Denise Blanchard 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 04503 O'Dell Bond Housing Limited Partnership 22o Riverside Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Farrell St. Senior Housing Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Alice Boucher PO Box 5573 Essex Junction, VT 05433 Mike & Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas Family Trust Et al c/o Gary Franklin Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 Deimer Properties, Inc. PO Box 64678 Burlington, VT 05406 Madeline Cervvini i11 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Bacon Street Properties LLC c/o Apple Tree Bay Property Management Burlington, VT 05402 United Way of Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Victoria Brooks Bevins 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Brendan & Monica Taylor 8o Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Nancy Cunha Michael Abbott Nathaniel Merrill 197 Mutton Hill Drive 6o Spitfire Drive 99 Hadley Road Charlotte, VT 05445 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 South Burlington, VT 05403 Homeshare Vermont, Inc. O'Delll Parkway PUD Association 412 Farrell Street, unit 3 PO Box 1335 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05402 PLANNING & ZONING August 26, 2009 RE: 466 Farrell Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice that will be published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public hearing. Sincerely, JannBeagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.corn Site Plan Application Permit Number SP APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): LFSSEC; VERn9O)? r RSA AM. 2 - B2 , INC.9, k 9 6/S CELL Ul r4 �2 ow,lFQ : 4F FA442E6.[.... 44C. di; a • . PC. APX 1335. a4,141- 116r rl. V> oSV02 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): 9 /�.C�Dv/dEit/rE A•vE•. �`A•L/'l•10UrAe. OMB 05//40S' t-Z-7-'V`P?-•8_ 1/ 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): SEE' 43E4o tAl a. Contact e-mail address: R U AslIZIAle- AA . coat 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: od,9&� 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 151/0 oos z o C 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): i2E4ve*re _X6snAy .¢�rE-.y�uss<s F,eo w Vo'r-owg—e E`4,15V ro //9"ELEy A/VD /t_, rM5 145 S5�W / //1/ S/TE PGA4N 1 Site Plan Application b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): rEZC-Co In C aAt/ fA-T/ONS EAC/ 4 / r>/. ?ES/OEN7'1A 41. COMOf477AC/-q L c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): uyc,,1,4A1!�E:p d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): N/A 7-#Iis P,eo✓ter W/LL o/VLY 4rcFEC7- 7-ffE r-owe-A 5neI1crue.E AND f3[//42/Nti SCt 1=oo7-,46E W144. R---Z2 t1AZ UNC}t�//CaED e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): A1A -r,*IS pgo-/Etr wlee- oNG-1 A-,,;,-eEGr 7-#E rowe—A S772tlCnI�E. A�Q WORK ON 8u/4iN 5 45 f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): N/<i rff/S pgo,lEC.r w/4L cA14V 7 e Tows- sr z1crui2E- Aeslye rr7Az. 6/N/r5 w/GL Re�i'1 *In L/NC# 4Nr4ED g. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and pro osed, note office versus non - office employees): un a9�rl,f� Fftc/G/ t' �EX�,sri NC,�r/f*r .HMGG. A2 -QUTA- D/1E m*l g r V/.S/r Pete /41of7754 o1I 4V rj h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 7'owg--A sfE/Gs/r W/`4 n/or B�` EXrENt7ED 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: 114efAe6E- Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing /9. 9' % / sq. ft. Proposed _% / sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 61. S % / sq. ft. Proposed _% / sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed %_sq. ft. *' 44L ON F� ,C< EGL- Sr. /5 D/f vE17 2 Site Plan Application d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) P(� * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ 12, 000 - So— b. Landscaping: $ c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 1VoivE 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): 11NAA.owN (l/dC,rc/3'16� 1 b. A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): UnrknowA/ (41/1CWA46erD c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): U4Ka owM 6I 4_CW,4` !J&P) 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 2V17 (" uhm���� ��cr�✓r� ;� 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 2 V17 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE; A1&y 2-00 14. ABUTTERS (please list all abutting landowner. Include mailing address. Also include those across a street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet if necessary) SE'e ,9-n-,f c,,f,cD 3 Site Plan Application 15. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). 4 Site Plan Application I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. F702 u,$ �EL4GfLr}� SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SEE! f�`>l"ffC'h%�D �GIT�kJ/Z /Z�Tl�7/� L S'TTL�� SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION: - REVIEW AUTHORITY: L/ P Develo ment Review Board [IAdministrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: l� Complete, ❑ Incomplete Planning & Zoning or Designee I✓ // Date 191, Z ao EF Farrell, LLC. et. al. P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 To: Zoning and Permitting Authority RE: Vermont RSA No. 2-B2. Inc. (a.k.a. US Cellular) Zoning Applications to Relocate Antennas on Existing Tower at 530 Shelburne Rd. US Cellular has leased space at the above mentioned tower facility and plans to relocate its antennas from the 80' tower elevation to the 119' tower elevation and incorporate associated items as shown on its site plan dated August 12, 2009. As authorized representative of this property, I hereby authorize US Cellular and its agents to file zoning and permitting applications, conduct hearings, and other associated business as it relates to the permitting and abovementioned work. Sincerely, i Eric F. Farrell Date PARCEL ID OWNER OF RECORD LOCATION CITY 1540-00510-C Champlain Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, Vt 05407 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas c/o Gary Franklin Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd. P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, Vt 05402-1489 0670-00514-C Thomas Family Trust et al Attn: Michael Dowling 514 Farrell Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas 64 Southwind Drive Burlington, Vt. 05401 1540-00490-C Deimer Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 64678 Burlington, Vt 05402 0670-00466-C F & M Dev. Co., LLC c/o Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 1540-00570-C Acadia Heathcote LLC c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue Suite 260 White Plains, NY 10605 510 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 514 Farrell Street S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 490 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 466 Farrell Street S. Burlington . 570 Shelburne -Rd - S. Burlington 1 0670-00075-C Burlington Indoor Tennis 25 Joy Drive S. Burlington 142 West Twin Oaks Terrace South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00080-C Burlington Indoor Tennis Center 75 Eastwood Drive S. Burlington c/o Twin Oaks Sports & Fitness 95 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00345 O'Dell Allocated Housing 345 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00349 O'Dell Bond Housing 349 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 220 Riverside Avenue ' Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00409 Burlington Community 09 Farrell Street S. Burlington Land Trust P.O. Box 523 Burlington, Vt 05402-0523 0090-00017-C Bacon Street Properties LLC 17 Bacon Street S. Burlington c/o Apple Tree Bay Property Management Burlington, Vt 05402 0090-00020-C Warren Wolfe 20 Bacon Street S. Burlington 138 Woodlawn Road Burlington, Vt 05401 0750-00029-R Alice Bouche 29 Hadley Road S. Burlington P.O. Box 5573 Essex Junction, Vt 0750-00033-R Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road S. Burlington 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00037-R Jane Quilliam Rev. Trust 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 2 .a 0750-00065-R } Mike and Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-67-69-R Victoria Brooks Bevins 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-71-73-R Jason Lawson 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00075-R Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00080-R Brendan & Monica Taylor 80 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00086-R Nancy Cunha 197 Mutton Hill Dr. Charlotte, Vt 05445 0750-00089-R Lorna -Kay Peal Michael Smolin 189 Poker Hill Road Underhill, Vt 05489 0750-00099-R Nathaniel Merrill 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00103-R Denise A. Blanchard 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00111-R Madeline P. Cervini 111 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-113-5-R Michael Abbott 60 Spitfire Drive Plattsburgh, NY 12901 65 Hadley Road S. Burlington 67 Hadley Road S. Burlington 71 Hadley Road S. Burlington 75 Hadley Road S. Burlington 80 Hadley Road S. Burlington 86 Hadley Road S. Burlington 89 Hadley Road S. Burlington 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington 103 Hadley Road S. Burlington 111 Hadley Road S. Burlington 113 Hadley Rd S. Burlington 3 0750-00117-R Catherine Mceahern 117 Hadley Road S. Burlington 117 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00119-R Nancy E. Osborne 119 Hadley Road S. Burlington 119 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons 370 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00409 City's Edge 409 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons II 410 Farrell Street S. Burlington C/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00412.001 Farrell St. Senior Housing 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412,002 United Way of 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.003 Homeshare Vermont 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Incorporation 412 Farrell Street Unit 3 South Burlington, VT 05403 O'Dell Parkway O'Dell Parkway PUD Association S. Burlington PUD Common P.O. Box 1335 Land Burlington, Vt 05402 El CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit # � `i - U -"� APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Type of application (check one)- ( ) Appeal from decision of the Administrative Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation ( Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( )Other, PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY): A/©A/EE WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING ? 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone & fa #): !ESSEE: VE.f'rY10ryT RSA NO. Z-BIZ.C/S (fclz [�ie 0/V/JE2 EFFAF,QELL,LLG �f o/, 46 .&PX /335. i34-41,16764. V7- ®S,,102- 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (book & page #) 3) APPLICANT (name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 9 PROV1vEivc E AVe_ )=A1_,14 041, -W rhE OV16.5 4) CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive staff correspondence. Include name, mailing address, phone & fax # if different from above): c L E'S'S r�evv�o�-,vcE �vE., F�►G�rl04r-.5�, /YlE 05//o25 207 99'9 854�� 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 6) TAX PARCEL ID #: /6V.0 - 0052-0 c 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION use): A. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate TALE CO/Y//Y/(/f1/Cs�TIONS FAG1G/7Y ,DE510i5W7'/41 GO/f�Il1?E/LC/�¢L B. Proposed Uses on Property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): UA611,4116ED G/SE TELE�vii-� �i4c/G/T� C. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings & existing building to remain): UN'OMAIg6- ZV: 41-z- woAK w14z_ 7-/i-KE PL 4 fE ON Tr1E &-X L NI 7-0 Y/`c-,g� D. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement & mezzanine): 14AICA Af16 ED , 41-L WGAK WIZ.L 7'il KE t «h« b/V T fE CX/ST/�I/6 7`aWEI� E. Number of residential Units (if applicable, new units & existing units to remain): UN! �-A &-i) F. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing & proposed, note office vs. non -office employees): 1.liVcl_fA^/6ED. 7Wc TowE'•2 .�.4ciziry W14z_. G. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay districts are applicable): T o wER /�E-/U s,�r .4.v,D l�o o roe. r� r' wiG � i?E/n�4ii! G/i! ctfA�ifiG6JJ 8) LOT COVERAGE A. Total parcel size: Gi vcf/.4;yU&-p Sq. Ft. B. Buildings: Existing 117.9 % / Sq. Ft Proposed 101 % / __ 10' Sq. Ft. C. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 6/. 5 % / Sq. Ft. Proposed % / Sq. Ft. D. Total area to be disturbed during construction: 0" /_ — Sq. Ft. * * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9) COST ESTIMATES A. Building (including interior renovations): $ / 2, 000 . 00 B. Landscaping $ C. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC: A. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): 1411 wouly Ll�hCHAr/6f'P) B. A. M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): an"olVAI C. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): y416 oW&I 641116�41_ap 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION 2j /7 (�#pMgs�y1� F�ci�iry 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE AIW Zoo 14) LIST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS: (list names and address of all abutting property owners, including those across any street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet of paper if necessary): sEE- -77.4 ,,�E� I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 3� ;1�41 1115 CELL ULs'4� TT i�^jT / 9 ZOO 9 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: U �� REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviie/❑ Incomplete wed this application and find it to be: L� COMPL TE E40 rector of Planning & Zoning or Designee ate EF Farrell, LLC. et. al. P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 To: Zoning and Pennitting Authority RE: Vermont RSA No. 2-132. Inc. (a.k.a. US Cellular) Zonina Applications to Relocate Antennas on Existing Tower at 530 Shelburne Rd. US Cellular has leased space at the above mentioned tower facility and plans to relocate its antennas from the 80' tower elevation to the 119' tower elevation and incorporate associated items as shown on its site plan dated August 12, 2009. As authorized representative of this property, I hereby authorize US Cellular and its agents to file zoning and pennitting applications, conduct hearings, and other associated business as it relates to the pennitting and abovementioned work. Sincerely, �,,...11 W �+ jm�. yY ejl.f' d'•�r ii,•!e✓�Id..� Eric F. Farrell 4 Date ' PARCEL ID OWNER OF RECORD LOCATION CITY 1540-00510-C Champlain Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, Vt 05407 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust e: al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas c/o Gary Franklin Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd. P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, Vt 05402-1489 0670-00514-C Thomas Family Trust et: al Attn: Michael Dowling 514 Farrell Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas 64 Southwind Drive Burlington, Vt. 05401 1540-00490-C Deimer Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 64678 Burlington, Vt 05402 0670-00466-C F & M Dev. Co., LLC c% Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 1540-00570-C Acadia Heathcote LLC c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue Suite 260 White Plains, NY 10605 1 510 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 514 Farrell Street S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 490 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 466 Farrell Street S. Burlington 570,Shelbu>ne.Rd : S. Burlington 0670-00075-C Burlington Indoor Tennis 142 West Twin Oaks Terrace South Burlington, Vt )5403 0670-00080-C Burlington Indoor Tennis Center c/o Twin Oaks Sports & Fitness 95 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00345 O'Dell Allocated Housing Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc; 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00349 O'Dell Bond Housing Limited Partnership 220 Riverside Avenue Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00409 Burlington Community Land Trust P.O. Box 523 Burlington, Vt 05402-0523 0090-00017-C Bacon Street Properties LLC c/o Apple Tree Bay Property Management Burlington, Vt 05402 0090-00020-C Warren Wolfe 138 Woodlawn Road Burlington, Vt 05401 0750-00029-R Alice Bouche P.O. Box 5573 Essex Junction, Vt 0750-00033-R Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt Of 403 0750-00037-R Jane Quilliam Rev. Trust 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 2 25 Joy Drive S. Burlington 75 Eastwood Drive S. Burlington 345 Farrell Street S. Burlington 349 Farrell Street S. Burlington 09 Farrell Street S. Burlington 17 Bacon Street S. Burlington 20 Bacon Street S. Burlington 29 Hadley Road S. Burlington 33 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 0750-00065-R Mike and Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt )5403 0750-67-69-R Victoria Brooks Bevim 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-71-73-R Jason Lawson 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00075-R Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00080-R Brendan & Monica Taylor 80 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt C5403 0750-00086-R Nancy Cunha 197 Mutton Hill Dr. Charlotte, Vt 05445 0750-00089-R Lorna -Kay Peal Michael Smolin 189 Poker Hill Road Underhill, Vt 05489 0750-00099-R Nathaniel Merrill 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00103-R Denise A. Blanchard 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt Q5403 0750-00111-R Madeline P. Cervini I I I Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-113-5-R Michael Abbott 60 Spitfire Drive Plattsburgh, NY 12901 3 65 Hadley Road S. Burlington 67 Hadley Road S. Burlington 71 Hadley Road S. Burlington 75 Hadley Road S. Burlington 80 Hadley Road S. Burlington 86 Hadley Road S. Burlington 89 Hadley Road S. Burlington 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington 103 Hadley Road S. Burlington 11 I Hadley Road S. Burlington 113 Hadley Rd S. Burlington 0750-00117-R Catherine Mceahern 117 Hadley Road S. Burlington 117 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00119-R Nancy E. Osborne 119 Hadley Road S. Burlington 119 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons 370 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00409 City's Edge 409 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons II 410 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, .quite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00412.001 Farrell St. Senior Housing 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.002 United Way of 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT (15403 0670-00412.003 Homeshare Vermont 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Incorporation 412 Farrell Street Unit 3 South Burlington, VT C5403 O'Dell Parkway O'Dell Parkway PUD Association S. Burlington PUD Common P.O. Box 1335 Land Burlington, Vt 05402 4 KJK WmE- ,s 8 Providence Avenue Site Acquisition, Leasing and Zoning Falmouth, ME 04105 Phone: 207-899-8544 Fax: 603-386-6106 August 19, 2009 Ray Belair, Department of Planning and Zoning City of S. Burlington 575 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Vermont RSA No. 2-B2, Inc. ("US Cellular") Application for Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Approval to Relocate Antennas on Existing Tower at 530 Shelburne Rd. Dear Ray: KJK Wireless represents the site acquisition, planning, and permitting interests of US Cellular in Vermont and submits applications, attachments, and fees for conditional use and site plan review approval for US Cellular to relocate antennas on the existing tower located at 530 Shelburne Road. The height of the tower will not be extended and the footprint of the facility will not be expanded. Also, as you requested, I have attached copies of the most recent site plan for the underlying Farrell property as approved by the Development Review Board. Can you please place US Cellular on the Development Review Board agenda for September 15, 2009? Sincerely, Bob Gashlin For US Cellular CC: Ken Kozyra, KJK Wireless Doug Wilk, US Cellular Enc: Site Plan Review Application Conditional Use Application $326.00 fee ($188.00 site plan review + $138.00 conditional use) Farrell authorization letter Abutter list Site plan: US Cellular — 5 large copies / 1 reduced Site plan: Farrell (underlying property) - 5 large copies / 1 reduced DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 8 Mr. Knudsen asked why there is a difference between an accessory structure setback if it's used for a residence (5 feet) and a single family residence (30 feet). Mr. Belair said it is a difference between a principal and an accessory structure. This building would be converted from an accessory to a principal structure. Mr. Dinklage asked if they could go up. Mr. Belair said there would have to be a waiver because it would be increasing the degree of non -conformity. Because of the second story it would also not meet the setback. Mr. Cole, the adjacent neighbor, felt this was a significant change where there would now be 2 residence buildings on the same property with no requirement for the owner to live on the property. Mr. Dinklage noted the owner could legally tear this structure down and subdivide the property and have the same result. Mr. Behr said he felt there is a reason for the setback and that what is proposed changes the nature of the area. Mr. Krag said there would be more of an impact if they tore the building down and rebuilt it to the regulations. Mr. Knudsen suggested the possibility of a boundary line adjustment with a neighbor to give the applicant the ability to meet the setback. He felt this would be a much less expensive solution than to carve the property up. A straw vote indicated that no member was comfortable with the plan. Mr. Dinklage noted there is a swimming pool on the property that is not recorded in the tax records. - 11. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-34 of F & M. Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of subdividing lot #1 into five lots ranging in size from 0.25 acres to 1.36 acres, 345-514 Farrell Street: Mr. Farrell said Lot #14 is the parking lot west and south of Creative Habitat. Lot #15 is the lot east and north of Creative Habitat. The postage stamp lot is for the tower. Lot #12 is for the addition to the senior building. All the remainder is Lot #1. Mr. Belair reminded the applicant that for zoning purposes, those lots are not recognized. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-34 of F & M Development Co., LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 9 12. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-35 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of. 1) razing an existing car wash and television station, 2) constructing a 24,800 sq. ft. 2 and 4 story addition to contain 28 congregate housing units and 3,000 sq. ft. of social service use to existing 63 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) constructing a 48,500 sq. ft. 5-story multi -family dwelling to contain 43 dwelling units, Farrell Street and Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell showed the location of the proposed buildings. He noted that the Bacon St. building is now 4 stories instead of 5. He also showed the location of the dumpster. The sidewalk put in by Diemer will be torn out and a new sidewalk with curbs will be put in. Mr. Farrell then reviewed building heights. A 19-foot waiver is required. He showed the Bacon St. building at the reduced height. Regarding building colors, Mr. Farrell said he will make some suggestions at Final Plat and see what the Board says. Mr. Farrell noted that a drainage problem has been created for the Wolfes. He indicated that as part of this project he will put in a yard drain for them and will also redo their concrete apron. A row of cedars will be put in along the apron. Mr. Dinklage asked if anything else is being done for traffic calming, possibly a stop sign to discourage people from cutting through to get out at Bacon St. Mr. Dinklage asked if staff is comfortable with the shared parking situation. Mr. Belair said it is within the allowable limits. The applicant has counted the Farrell St. spaces. Mr. Belair said he would like Public Works to take a look at the Bacon St. spaces. He added that when the Creative Habitat building comes into the PUD, the number will change. The applicant is proposing 828 spaces, which represents a 24.2% parking waiver. Mr. Belair noted that the plans he received still show the Bacon St. building as 5 stories. Mr. Farrell said that is a mistake and he will correct it. Ms. LaRose said staff would like a clean plan to approve. Ms. Wright said they need a preliminary plat approval for 2 funding sources. Members agreed to review a corrected plan at the special meeting on 23 September. Mr. & Mrs. Wolf provided the Board with a copy of the things Mr. Farrell has agreed to do for them. They asked that the plan not be approved until they have written consent DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 10 from Mr. Farrell to do those things. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-35 of F & M Development Co., until 23 September 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to participate in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on 27 October. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at Midnight. Clerk /v a(, 0 Date September 17, 2009 Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Re: SD-09-34 Dear Mr. Farrell: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on September 15, 2009 (effective 9/15/09). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the amended final plat plans must be recorded in the land records (in mylar format) within 180 days (must be submitted to Ray Belair for recording along with an $13 recording fee per mylar by March 12, 2010) or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me. ;Si,cerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 6888 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802,846.4106 fax 802.846,4101 www.sburl.com " J DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 5 said he would favor bonding for half of the cost for 5 years. Mr. Belair said the Public Works Director prefers option #1. Members agreed on Option #2. Mr. Belair felt the City Engineer should determine the amount needed and then require half from this developer. Mr. Stuono questioned the burden on the developer to the north who would have to build an access to the north. Mr. O'Brien said he wouldn't necessarily have to build an access to the north. Mr. Conner said the challenge is that planning for this part of the city discourages cul de sacs. What is proposed here would require a waiver, and with the property to the north another waiver would be required, and the city wouldn't want 2 cul de sacs next to each other. Mr. Dinklage said the ideal would be to close this curb cut and force all traffic to the north where there is an intersection. But this would require a very long cul de sac, which wouldn't be good either. Members agreed on a 5-year bond for half the cost as determined by the City Engineer. Mr. Dinklage felt they staff and City Attorney would need time to draft something that makes sense. They would have to take into consideration a trigger to pull the money from the bank, a trigger for returning the money if there is no final approved project, what to do if no connection is required, etc. Mr. O'Brien said the neighbors to the rear of lot #9 want the pine trees planted by Furlong to be removed and replaced with 8-foot evergreens. Mr. Belair said staff had no objections. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-31 and Final Plat Application #SD-09-32 of Buckthorn Group until 15 September 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-35 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven building, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of 1) razing an existing car wash and television station, 2) constructing a 24,800 sq. ft. 2-and 4-story addition to contain 28 congregate housing units and 3,000 sq. ft. of social service use to existing 63 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) constructing a 48,500 sq. ft. 5- story multi -family dwelling to contain 43 dwelling units, Farrell Street and Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell said he had some meetings with abutting neighbors and will present something of an alternative that came from those meetings. He then reviewed what is . a S F DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE b already built on the site and the site plan that was submitted at sketch plan and the first preliminary plat hearing. Mr. Farrell then showed the grading and drainage plans. Everything will be tied into the existing pond. Mr. Wolfe said that water from the berm all runs to his back yard. This situation didn't exist before the berm was built. He felt this will get even worse with the current proposal. Mr. Farrell said he told Mr. Wolfe that he would go out and look at the situation and re -engineer the drainage. Mr. Farrell said the sewer will go to the City of Burlington and water will come from South Burlington. Power poles will be converted to underground. Mr. Wolfe said the sewer connection to his property had been severed and it cost him $5000 to get a hook-up. Mr. Farrell said they have agreed to have a surveyor stake the boundary and will deed the property with the row of cedars to the neighbors so the trees would be on the neighbors' property. They will also walk the berm and see where neighbors would like additional plantings. Mr. Farrell then showed the lighting plan. He will use the same fixtures as the previous development. The existing small park will be regraded so it is better for active recreation. Mr. Farrell showed the elevation of the senior building and noted a change from 30 to 28 units. It will be built down into the ground the equivalent of half a floor. Mr. Haddleton raised the question of "shadowing" and asked whether his property will be blocked from natural light in the winter. Mr. Farrell said the berm now casts shadows on Hadley Rd. neighbors. He then showed a line of sight for a person in a Hadley Road backyard. He also showed pictures of what it would look like from Hadley Rd. with the proposed buildings superimposed. The footprint of the Bacon St. lofts remains the same, but the new plan is to build them into the ground somewhat. Some of the 40-foot maples from the Olympiad will be replanted in a new location. Regarding color, Mr. Farrell said people had objected to the color plan, and he may do a more muted color, like the existing buildings. Mr. Barritt said since earthtones predominate, a green and black building would be a "sore thumb." Ms. Osborn asked if there are any regulations regarding "green buildings." Mr. Farrell said there is a state standard to meet for Act 250. He added that they work with DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 7 Efficiency Vermont will upgrade heating systems, etc. This actually saves them money. Neighbors asked that the long building be modified so it doesn't look "like prison cells." Mr. Dinklage said the Board has a limited ability to deal with design. Ms. Osborn said their neighborhood isn't what it used to be. There is a lot of foot traffic at night and a lot of foul language being used. She asked when the mass density stops. Mr. Wolfe asked how this development would impact schools. Mr. Conner noted that Vermont school populations are decreasing. South Burlington's school population has remained quite stable. Mr. Dinklage added that the School Department would see the plans and have to sign off at the Act 250 level. Mr. Haddleton said he wanted to be sure that all the things Mr. Farrell has promised to do are incorporated into the language of the final stipulation. Mr. Farrell said he had a memo with language which he can provide to the Board.. Mr. Haddleton asked that there be no construction on weekends. Mr. Farrell said that would be OK on Sundays but Saturday might be difficult. Ms. Wright said that from a Cathedral Square perspective having a yard adjacent to their property would be better than a park, but they were willing to go along with what the Board requires. Mr. Barritt said he wanted to be sure that demolition of the radio station and car wash are done with concern for lead abatement. Neighbors don't want a cloud of lead in their neighborhood. Mr. Farrell said the state would monitor that. Members then considered whether Bacon Street should be a public or private street. Mr. Farrell felt the time to raise that issue was when the "slate was clean" not now when there are things built there. He said he would have sited buildings differently if a public road had been required earlier. He also said that the City Engineer had asked them to deed it at a dead end to the city, which they agreed to do. He felt that to ask them now to extend it is unreasonable and doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. The only people who use the street live in these buildings. Mr. Conner said the road can be private, but the default would be that regulations required more than 9 units to be on a public road unless the Board waives it. Mr. Farrell said these are the same regulations that were in existence when City's Edge was built, and the issue wasn't raised at that time. Ms. LaRose said the impetus is about "public form." She felt the impetus for a public street is the building that is now being proposed. If the road isn't public, there will be buildings surrounded by parking lots. She felt a "street presence" is needed. Mr. Farrell said the neighbors all like living in this area. He felt that if they do a good job DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 8 with plantings, park, and site work, it will be the same as having a road presence. Ms. Wright said there is a very busy street in front of their building. She would have a problem with another road for people to speed through the neighborhood. Mr. Wolfe agreed with Mr. Farrell and felt a public street would become a shortcut for speeding traffic that would endanger the elderly and children. Mr. Haddleton also felt the street should not be public. Mr. Behr felt the issue should have been addressed before. If the street were to become public, it would terminate in a parking lot. Ms. Wright felt the traffic issues would be a nightmare. Mr. Dinklage suggested a middle ground: creating a more walkable environment that would let seniors walk to Shelburne Rd. on Bacon Street. Mr. Farrell said it is already a pretty walkable neighborhood. Ms. Quimby felt it would be impossible to turn left out of Bacon St., so why create a road that people can't use. Mr. Belair said parking is short more than the 25% parking waiver, more like a 30% waiver. Mr. Farrell said the parking works out great. Every building works. He felt there is a technical problem with the ordinance. Members did not support extending Bacon Street as a public street. Mr. Dinklage said the Board would like to see as much of an urban feel as possible. The applicant will also have to deal with the parking shortage as the Board can't approve more than a 25% waiver. He asked about including the Creative Habitat spaces as part of the shared parking agreement. Mr. Farrell said that could result in their being "held hostage" as they have no control over those spaces. Members stressed that they can't approve more than a 25% waiver. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-35 of F & M Development Co. to 15 December 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-34 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved unit development consisting of 1) 383 residential units in seven buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of subdividing lot #1 into five lots ranging in size from 0.25 acres to 1.36 acres, 345-514 Farrell Street: Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-34 of F & M DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 SEPTEMBER 2009 PAGE 9 Development Co. until 15 September 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-09-36 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development of Phase 1 consisting of 156 residential units and a 100-student educational facility, of a 334 residential unit project. The amendment consists of subdividing a 14,155 sq. ft. lot into three lots, 34, 38 and 42 East Fisher Lane: Mr. Belair said staff had no issue with the request Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-36 of South Village Communities, LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-37 of David Krag for a planned unit development to convert an accessory residential unit to a single family dwelling on a lot which is also developed with a single family dwelling, 250 Spear Street: Mr. Belair said the applicant had asked for a continuance. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-37 of David Krag until 15 September 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Site Plan Application #SP-09-66 of Wesco Real Estate 11, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 12,000 sq. ft. warehouse. The amendment consists of designating portions of the parking area for outside storage, 4 Harbor View Road: Mr. Stone showed where the entrances are located and also the location of the loading dock. Mr. Belair noted that there is not enough aisle space between the parking spaces proposed along the southerly area and the cars that would be behind them. 22 feet is the required distance. Mr. Stone said storage would be screened with a slat fence on the side that faces Harbor View Drive. Members were OK with some opaque materials within the slat fence on the north and west side of the fencing. The approval motion was amended to add the following stipulation: The fence on the north and west side of the property shall be made opaque, including the gate. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-09-66 of Wesco Real Estate II, } rr � � ®*I EW southburfington PLANNING & ZONING September 28, 2009 Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Re: SD-09-35 Farrell Street and Bacon Street Dear Mr. Farrell: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on September 23, 2009 (effective 9/23/2009). Please note the conditions including that you must submit for final plat within 12 months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, n�Beagley Planning & Zoning Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RE it item 4 iete 'terns y • K 18 Print yof Restricted C7 • i so that we narne and a - Attach this can retue or on the oard to i 1. Article Ad front if spy 57 Fe s.� dre1-9 ssed to Posta � Certified Fe Return �t ins o�eme RRe�u f e 4 % (Endo sement Del. eR I d 70te/ Post..._ _ 1 107 Febru- DOf1lestic Return Receipt raw 3 Agent J AddresSee ie of Deliver, No � Merchandise 102595_02! 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tell 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.corn PLANNING & ZONING September 28, 2009 Elizabeth and Warren Wolfe 20 Bacon Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Bacon Street Lofts Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Jana Beagqley Planning & Zoning Assistant Enc. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Parking Summary The Parking Summary depicts the changes in required and provided parking and the parking waiver requested as a result of today's request. You will notice an increase in our parking waiver request from 70 spaces (7.6%) to 215 (21.0%) (an increase of .4% from Sketch Plan), on a purely technical basis. The increase from Sketch Plan is the result of the elimination of 5 spaces on Lot 1 in favor of a small recreational green space for use by the residents of Bacon Street Lofts; plus the reduction of 1 required space due to the reduction of the number of congregate housing units from 30 to 28. As presented at Sketch Plan review, we believe this waiver is fully justified for the following reasons: • The number of spaces on Lot 2 - Eastwood Commons I (89 units) equals 1.66 spaces per residential unit. • The number of spaces on Lot 3 - O'Dell Apartments (160 units) equals 1.31 spaces per residential unit. • The number of spaces on Lot 4 - City's Edge (60 units) equals 1.75 spaces per residential nit. • The number of spaces on Lot 9 - Eastwood Commons II (74 units) equals 1.58 spaces per residential unit. • The number of spaces on Lot 11 - Grand Way Senior Housing (63 congregate housing units), after deducting 12 spaces for the "social services" use (3,000 sfl and 29 spaces for the general office use (8,300 sfl, equals .97 spaces per unit. • The buildings on the above referenced lots have been at substantial full occupancy since their completion variously beginning in 2002 and the parking provided for each use has proven to be very adequate. Bacon Street Lofts - The 43 (revised from 41) residential units proposed for Lot 1 will have total of 67 parking spaces (surface and - garage), representing a ratio of 1.56 spaces per unit. The adequacy of this amount of parking is enhanced by the fact that 28 out of 43 units or 65% will be 1-bedroom or efficiency units, as compared to the other buildings in the O'Dell Parkway PUD, where the number of 1-bedroom units averages only 15%. Senior Housing - The 28 Congregate Housing units proposed for Lot 12 (addition to Lot 11) will have a total of 28 parking spaces (surface and - garage), representing a ratio of 1 space per unit (almost identical to the existing condition on Lot 11). The "social services" use proposed for the addition is relocating from the existing building on Lot 11; therefore its parking requirement is already accounted for on Lot 11. 0 Page 6 Lot Coveraze Summa Overall lot coverage calculations reflect the inclusion of the Ben Franklin property, which (technically) is not part of our PUD and which is nearly 100% covered, per the prior request of the DRB. Per the Lot Coverage Summary provided under today's application, total building coverage increases from 19.9% to 20.7% and overall lot coverage decreases from 61.5% to 58.7% (the elimination of 5 surface spaces on Lot I in favor of more green space had a negligible (less than a hundredth of a percent) impact on the overall lot coverage calculation. Building Height - Lot 1 Lot 1 has an "average pre -construction grade" (APG) of 212', which will remain unchanged post -construction. The height of the flat roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is at elevation 265.5' (a reduction of 5.5' from Sketch Plan) representing an overall building height of 53.5' (reduced from 59.0' from Sketch Plan), as depicted on drawing E-1, "North Elevation - Bacon Street Lofts". The elevator shaft will project 4 feet above the main roof and the mechanical equipment would project 3 feet above the main roof, however both will be located in the central portion of the roof mass and therefore not be visible from the ground. By way of neighborhood context: The main roof section on the Grand Way Senior Housing building on adjacent Lot 11 is at elevation 261.75'; the cornices above the stairwells are at elevation 264.5; and the top of the elevator shaft is at elevation 265.75. A 19.5' height waiver was granted by the DRB to elevation 269.5'. Therefore, the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 3.25' to 7.25' above the closest neighboring building. • The actual elevation of the main section of the roof at Eastwood Commons I1 (Lot 9) is 264.25', while the stairwells at the east end and north end of the building are at elevation 269.25'. The elevator shaft is at elevation 269.25'. A 19' height waiver was granted by the DRB to elevation 270.0'. • The actual elevation of the main roof section at Eastwood Commons I (Lot 2) is 267.00', while the stairwells at the west end and north end of the building are at elevation 268.00'. An 8' height waiver was granted by the DRB to elevation 269.0'. Per Section 3.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the allowable flat roof height (before any height waiver) would be 247' feet (212' APG + 35). Assuming the elevator shaft and mechanical equipment need to be considered in the actual roof height calculation, we hereby request approval under Section 307 F (1) for a maximum height to elevation 270.0', requiring a height waiver of 23' (270' minus 247). This represents a reduction of 2 feet from Sketch Plan. 0 Page 7 As summarized above, the maximum building elevation requested herein is within 1 foot of the maximum elevations approved by the DRB for the 3 previously constructed adjacent buildings. I repeat my assertion made at Sketch Plan whereby the actual differences between the proposed and existing adjacent buildings will be undetectable when viewed from the ground. Building Height - Lot 11 & 12 Lot 11 had an "average pre -construction grade" (APG) of 215', and 216' post - construction. When Grand Way Senior Housing was approved on 9/21/05 (#SD- 05-73), it received a height waiver of 19.5' to elevation 269.5'. The addition proposed on Lot 11 &, 12 would have the same roof elevation as the existing building, as depicted on drawing E-2, "Elevations - Grand Way-2", included herein. Accordingly, we hereby request an extension of the waiver received for the original building for the new addition, namely 19.5' to elevation 269.5', pursuant to Section 307 F. (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Trash Enclosure Building We proposed to construct a trash enclosure building on Lot 1, which is exactly the same as the ones constructed on Lots 2 and 9 (Eastwood Commons I & II). Trash collection for the Grand Way Senior Housing is contained within the building. Landscaping on Lot 1, the Berm and Common Park of Farrell Street Construction costs on Lot 1 are estimated at $3,650,000. The estimated cost for plantings at Bacon Street Lofts ($26,878), Supplemental Planting on the Berm ($4,050) and supplemental plantings on the common park on Farrell Street ($6,637), total $37,565 or slightly over the 1.0% minimum required. These costs do not include other landscape improvements (i.e. benches, barbecue grills, patio areas, etc.). A 3-year landscape bond will be provided equal to the value of the plantings. Landscaping on Lot 11 / 12 Construction costs on Lot 1 are estimated at $1,800,000. The estimated cost of the plantings for the Grand Way II addition are $18,024, representing approximately 1.0% of the estimated construction costs. These costs do not include other landscape improvements (i.e. benches, barbecue grills, patio areas, etc.). A 3-year landscape bond will be provided equal to the value of the plantings. 0 Page 8 Additional Information At the request of the DRB and in response to concerns expressed by our neighbors, we will provide the following additional information at the Public Hearing: • Shadow Study - Demonstrating that the proposed buildings will not cast shadows over the abutting properties on Hadley Road. • Site Section - Presenting the visual impact of the proposed buildings on the abutting properties on Hadley Road, taking into account their height and setback from our north property line and demonstrating the comparative impact of a 35-foot high building located (the minimum) 65 feet from our north property line. • Photo Illustration - This study will present the proposed buildings as they will appear from Shelburne Road, in the context of the existing built environment; plus this study will demonstrate that neither of the proposed buildings will project above the existing skyline, as viewed from Hadley Road. • Context Study - This study will present the height of the proposed buildings in the context of the existing buildings along the north side of Farrell Street and a comparison of these heights to a 35-foot high building. If there is remaining room on the agenda, please schedule us for a Public Hearing before the Development Review Board at its August 180, meeting. Enclosures 0 Page 9 LANDSCAPINGAAGHTING LEGEND- E)051MG 1. PROPOSED SHADE TREE PROPOSED .1n-11EY TREE PROPOYO ROMQaNG TREE PROPOSED CONIFER TREE (DD PROPOSED SIIRII8 �f`� PROPOSED GAOWRDCOWR RED PROPOSED PARIONG LOT LIGHT PxnflRE O PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FIXTURE J I I I I I I I I I i I� PROPOSED PARK! R� GREEN SPACE APPROX. 185' x 50' 5 7----- j •- • 7 I I —t I, o // • - - --- _ - � I • t / .017 O I I I IQ / - - - - I !! * * ENTRANCE LEVEL I BACON STREET LOFTS - -- FIFE 217.17 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL a, • \ J 20 GARAGE SPACES d ' 1 GARAGE - 208.0a- \/ I 1ST FLOOR -218.0 —1 / 13 / I LOBBY -212.5 54, --I • / / v IJ / GRAND WAY EXPANSION I I O 22 GARAGE SPACES / h a -- - • 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL/ SENIOR RESOURCE FFE218.5 GAR 208.17 jR \ I \ f 20 _ — — ' I1 .1 d 24 iI 23 p I I CREATIVE HABITAT AT l I ! I♦ 0 I EXISTING BUILDING I BEN FRANKLIN I lantlscajle archRects • planning consultants© mjb(jbo jbo 9l1612009 O'Dell Parkway PUD�T n 301 college street . buAington • vermont .05401 802 .658 .3555 G11P ucrW� c"i _1 u o 1• = 20' North East Overall Concept Plan C LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING LEGEND: EXISnNG TREE PROPOSED SHADE TREE ♦ PROPOSED MULTI -STEM TREE PROPOSED FLOWERING TREE PROPOSED CONIFER TREE M. PROPOSED SHRUB PROPOSED GROUNDCOVER BED g PROPOSED PARKING LOT V LIGHT FIXTURE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FIXTURE IR BERM: SUPPUMENTALPLANTING SCHEDULE - - -- - - Oty, Cptle Sc .'ft Name C N a Size Spec RemaMs Notes 3 GTM GLEDITSl4t W Mprm ne HpneNecust 21 "cal. B8B 6 PA 1 —A b Norway Spmca 1 8 Ht B88 5 PS PINII h Eeatem WhL P'ne a Ht BSB 9 BN Heritage n"arch 14-16 Ht. B8B RE L .3ED FOR APPROVALS - 9/16/09 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I l I I I I L. and L. BROOKS M. and P. J. A. LAWSON J. QUILLIAM HENNESSEY I � i I L—K PEAL F.and J. KOCHMAN I I & SMOLIN A. BOUCHE REV. TRUST I I I EXISTING C/RBERM PLANT INGSARE REPRESENTATIONAL V. B. BEVINS I I I I I N. MERRILL ACTUAL PLANT LOCATIONE WERE FLAGGED IN THE FIELD.' PROPOSED PLANTS WILL SO BE FIELD LOCATED TO PLAC — — _ — NEW PLANTINGS IN OPTIW LSCREENING LOCATIONS. - I I I WOLFE Fa�1. E ^��I■�1 �7 _ i q e, o fibTiirTfi�1 3 I) �_�I� �.I■■�r�.�.I��,�e��wfwera�aw=olasl.l..�r��Ise■i � ��hrM.�®®® ilk a • • • , ,,\7/ �/ ,'��`ens.l�Ires��ar.�!��a.l�ef�_OIA9"���°.�.'� � • , Rail ��}I 1 a r..fyri`ffaf ■ `je dbl BACON STREET LOFTS 'w": RESIDENTIAL 20 GARAGE SPACES GARAGE a a L�ttti 1 CIS' �A 1 ® zoo � jzt '• � mow; ''�',�'�.�"r:6v�y.�"��I � r ' � w l►iii+^'�I I I I I I I I I 1111 �.11� �" ' 1 THOMAS BUILDING 110. vr� 3 rr FF 213.37 qr - BN(3) I�I GRAND WAY EXPANSION 22 GARAGE SPACES 4-STORY RESIDENTIALI SENIOR RESOURCE FFE 218.5 - _ GAR 208.17 — — PA(3) \gym" :fp �oTO O'o. SOT 0 0 F•�°-' 'o�••a ' 0 dl vy uu �� • I, EASTWOOD COMMONS ii ' EXISTING BUILDING - --. HiL - '•`+, fir �- TENNIS :• FIneIPbt AmentlmeM R.nWrr"-MJB 6/r185 ReWetl prellMnery plat subMltal 9I15I09 n Revbe EcIl emxmna—,, Rppamy-M, 6I2ms landscape architects •planning consultants © tlmjb mjb e6/17/2006 O'Dell Parkwa PUD e. T`,T/1 Revlae ELll Gate Enireec y, Beim-m' 8I16I06 1 \ G Bacon Streel LpflelGmntl Way Expenebn- by Tm IX) 301 college street 9 budington • vermont . 05401 802 ssa •3555 http://www.yboyle.com mjb 1 ^ = 30' North East Overall Planting Plan EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCHEDULE FIXTURE OTY. MANUFACUTER LUMINAIRE 1 DISTRIBUTION WATTAGE VOLTAGE FINISH MOUNTING HT. NOTES 61 5 KIM LIGHTING BOUNCE 2 70 MH BL-P 14' C2 1 KIM LIGHTING CURVILINEAR 2 150 MH BL-P 20' C3HS 3 KIM LIGHTING CURVILINEAR 3 150 MH BL-P 20' HOUSE -SIDE SHIELD C4 3 KIM LIGHTING CURVILINEAR 4 150 MH BL-P 20' EXTERIOR LIGHTING STATISTICAL SUMMARY RELEASED FOR APPROVALS - 9/16/09 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVG MAX/MIN AVE/MIN _,k ___ 2.00 LIGHT LEVEL ROADWAYS 3.37 0.20 0.88 17.20 4.51 1.00 LIGHT LEVEL SIDEWALKS 2.90 0.21 1.14 14.09 1 5.54 0.20 LIGHT LEVEL PEDESTRIAN FIXTURE (14' HEIGHT) (j SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE (20' HEIGHT) L_ - --_ --------------- - _ ------ -- _ -- �- - r-- - - - -----------�- ----- - --- I � PROPOSEU PARK/ GREEN SPACE l-----%-----1 APPROX.185'x50' 64 q(/ I :' •. '; I , , \ oaa ait S aao 0.. ( J am A`Z I oil o ast Am odF _y 4 _ C4 1v n. 1a�oae oas aae o • • • • • •a • I 1&. L9B t 'm 0. am 9 '1 A75 a A30 At i Tea 2Pt. tAa: l ,.tt a.R an Dm am • L1, fal 1Ar tat t18 Om aai 0.n a�� la , °O - - ' - - - -- -•• •" ,�ii'• b za :>a its °�j \ air oal z3o as I' 1.'17 R A ee ae+ oao�,z1 .. a'se m 1 11 am tm ,Qs am o:ro aso aai 40 ,,h h 1 ,' 1:m a ;ais re um av 13 C4 ur zil 11 I'c, ,n cis ah C3(HS),m ,�ra� ' aol o s.ra o oa1 Im w +arm iae m ia! av o� (1a h oh ah' ii -Aa+ i'n 1h 1.% ,ir ai+ g ael. +.wa IIo 1-0L4 a.m a'ar oh on 021 am or as 01 asl oal \ 1m m Ist ,s( ,ae 1.01 nre ass a� asr !.'ee am o.rl cse le2 � I. am a:n ,m ill 15 1s, Im Iz am ae9 ase am a"n A anal im 1m la/ 14, 111 1" o:m am V; .. ua/ ✓JI � / ��v. .... y 1.t1' 1:re 1:n k 6 11 'i 1A, ,m + aae am aa2 Dar aat an ok 1! aw a3r a]e aer �e, 1.0 In lar 1 \1or A'sl aro oil as oe �,n Ole 'N 12, o.s Oa « Al an A 1io 1ai 'I ra 1IIe of a's+ s1 a''m roar om amlos �y If 1sa III om a% as 4s 1 ti 1e/ist to 1h Iar •aa +ae ,'m ll�t',l am as 0a1 ail al oa oi, a3 a'm aas amlasr ae as ah ore oh oae aie o't omlam .m ''sa zia 16 c11 am o:a A A, aea aa, O3 oh ok at�Ss al+ oas aie amlah y� oas as, of as Aia a Im om ael ,,ai la Ina 1'a1ns +ia 11s I'm aaa�-, I'Id 4,a7 an om aia an one oat on: ar aas a:m/aie oil 0ffi Ab aes ap Ast aie ou oaa Avra9s as z,s zis Tar G=aw asl am oit aso Oh a:m oh oaa oat ai' as aas am aaa oa, ast� am oa, a`ro aSa ' 051 awe •r' 1 oya -- - - i -0S✓am I. ou ON as an o.r Ari an o an at are oss owa a" as o. ah aaa was am o+ am am\ a, o:v oa1 aia ., os 1;F ah as ois aSr an 1! awa ai all- aie ace A'st all n s, a'eo are o� oil a aat A a3a �l am aar OR o a"s, A q as, AQ �s >, �w1 ah Am a:m aS1 ai, e.'w 3r oae ��a. � fiie• • - c_ , Ok as, /' ass Qea �e1 as. m oi.ms Ile I. �s AI wr o. au oea a�m o:. og aS o.m a, ane m�:x- nre ' ' r. am cic oh os au aS1 '. i ' nai •a y.11 ( I - / /-. st TOr- / •. n /:: / am afi A a , all 1. Gm a.Et 41t a4 a � t\ a% a]r 0.m AL' ae) a51 �, I ae m I 4 9 - - - I 1 or/ 0 as a cS, aas ail aro OR A e o.n I - - 1 •.n . I� ,� nN uk o �' 9 I Id' ra a ape av o� am ea, It aw, Ast OR •• - • • I I. - - - - - ons aer 1.ro ,as - - - I I,]I--- .� o:m ah 119 a:n 1� iie 111 1' I 1 ug• - l I of �ffi o oe - e om ak a:a, oa, ant ia ,.m ,.i ':: n � r // 17 li a b au a'se am an TRANCE LE � EN LEVEL 1 i II 3t aaa aaa oaa an am om +m T` I I� FFE 217.17 s BACON STREET LOFTSoI ns .ro 1 1 aw a oh am n �r er1. yr n i 1ae I / �zl _ /i 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL r ( a i 1` 4%ss aa1 osa ah 1m 1sa ail all om IA, re z - _--__- 20 GARAGE SPACES I GARAGE - 208.0 b11 n ai1 oae o. a. / L--- orz a ai am oc en z @ 1 i / /. 1ST FLOOR - 218 0 / „ 1 dh, a em a's+ o:n ix , z% ds F 13 J LOBBY 212 5 �"%1% ' a r#' air o'm an Am 1.0 tii to /a •r � / I � I ' / . P l! as ale ai.a. �, m 1 GRAND WAY EXPANSION of o a3 as oar asr 6 _s 'ie , 22 GARAGE SPACES �/ ��/%'•';' �/� ,� / aar_ m ala at an ml an as Aott a� rcn an am oa am am as as as sm ,ce Haas' ' oa all 0 4 on A are ah ass s I 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL/ ON ah Ole am oia a 0e om ws i SENIOR RESOURCE L IM R am osa Oil vl 0 as cea gn om a FFE 218.5 on 4 nm or 1q t Ire i. a a as on om oao om om IV mom i.ia its m 1 a9 a s I' v t Ib o- a o a3s aa1 on om o� @ GAR 208.117 / �� J / o e a, Voao eyr h 1b '� m , s �s aSt o:m os as o.1 aia au 1m 1m tm ,m 1 , �'r r�e a s m tq rk IN - o� a3e 159 o:o 1 r C� - o� M s 1io s m lil 1h i ,e I a;e i, ah of o.' am a un it t I'm Ok 1h ,� ,io1,kq� _ - - - oae a om oil oao to ,.io 1a lo,i iat 1E tia aia Oh la oae o"v ai aee os all a ost Lm a1 (an as 1 e mr 1 .o ue is 'ae a's, 1 /I / ' - - \ \ 1 �- oar an am a.n am am am o.n oal om am ael am aer am o.m om an oa Am am A om an am om 019 am al! am am ore aas am an aaa am an aer a8, A.n oai Ne sv au I I - t\ \ I I\ / aa, am am at a! It aa, os aft au oie o:se au o'ar as;•A 3m am as, am o'm am, a� ak te1'�.is.\s\sa 011 010 Ais as2 zm A6{tease A 4h oh A am osz oi, am ase � la� - _ o-�J I \•' - � \ aas Aa as o:m rlr as aia-nic'all•v3a'�ar alf oss o'ss al o:a Or ab�id-a16� aia ara ais av or t9r-e3s b+a�.e-e'ss-dn'"oce ex o�\o\ a`rf p3> aSl Aao o:n a.it au aas i .. _k;; ,• I®\. 24 v 23 � I - \ 0.\ \\ a,.. 0 ® I I CREATIVE T BE N N EXISTING BUI LDING NG i o I / T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC revbbns date _ _ snee, no-. 1 Ravlsatl rallmmary plat e„bmMel osn vzoas - -- --- landscape architects aplanning consultants a�Ign a bOa jbo �wa 7/0912009 O'Dell ParkPUD N4• 1 ----- 301 college street 9 burlington 9 vermont a 05401 802 a858 a3555 htlp://www.gboyee.com mjb amp V = 20' Lighting Plan and Summary 7 1:` SITE ENGINEER: ' I IL an. L BROOKSI I M. anp P. J. A. LAWSON I I I L—K PEAL I ID. A BLANCNARDI M. ABB07T N. OSBORNE I Kam 7 - I I J. OUILLIAM XENNESSEY J. KOCHMAN I I I & SMWN {. A BWCXE REV. TRUST I V. B. BEMNS IF.anp I I M. P. CERVINI I I N. MBRRILL I C. MCEACMERN IF CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. ASbOCGTON, L _ _ I sMFr smEEr 10 AIANSFIELDVIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, V7 05403 S V 802- .2323 FM. 802-8841— web: wmv.cee-N — I I — _ y _ uwLnwao 1wx F & M DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC I I RTEMA LAVItxAr 0 ER PROPERTIES, LLC I GLEE I LOT 10 0.83 ACRES I / / 1 DRIVETs JOY LANR¢ IWL wL mL DRAn �� Sf,�ONF V A• PROP ED o,--p� 0 o >� NmE REpEATON PR1Hi I I eBac® glP�P� Lp PH BUI NG LJI�l� Ro,OeED LARw EENBLAEE '— I 8AV p5220 I BUILDS NG ,w , I . f BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. sav NW ER i0 e. LOT 8 I LOCATION MAP BACON STREET 0'241AC. LOT, A,. R E I �/ 4.082ACRES I SCALE: 1 2000 feet •....,- .,. ._. ..,., I " -. R i � NENA�DITION1133y2D(28609F)) NL. EXISTING ENTRANCE —'n— PROJECT: �p O'DELL PARKWAY I FIR PO ,p I ( •:I �� IniaoASF) P.U.D. I I PROPOSED 6STORV RESIDENTIAL BLDG. "' � � 1 STORY ADDIT �: - I -Y+ _ TENNIS COURTS �• yK I I i GHAMPL IN I FEE 218.0 — I - BACON STREET BLDGS. GIL co.. NC. I OBBY212.s GAR 208.0 4 STORED ,E„ ADDITION LOT EXISTING PARKING I & RESID. ADDITION STRPROPOSED PR RTIESELL 025 — p o u, z � OLYMPIAD I FARRELL STREET W — I oM w g � LJ CLUB SOUTH BURLINGTON = PROPE_RTY s LOTIS 0 y 3 — I . o? ry I I VERMONT 0.51OAC. — .2 AC a. O w, w Oozna I o _w�LL C L_ _ ---1-------------- � _ _ _ •°wv —I I I ug < a _ THOMAS BUILDING I X.8 8 „ M.C. THOMAS FAMILY -. T14 q AC. TRUST, ET AL. FARRELL SIREET m w.. �. Nw :, .D �, EASTWOOD COMMONS I n FF 213.37 SENIOR HOUSING '°I �ES LIMITED EX. 83-]O SENIOR HOUSING UNITS&OFFICES I jKING +H+4 I°12.2d31A \,�PARINERSHIP D •� `T' LOT I I 48PARUNDERNEATH FFE 218.60 Q ; 1.29 ACRES GAR 208.17 =_ y EX. EASTWOOD COMMONS BULGING AR > FA LL ST BT 89 RESIDENTIAL UNITS OT 7 r IM FLR.— F.F. 222•-0' / E BASEMENT F.F. 212'-0' r wAu U O DI.vlar LOT 6 s o Q 0 0.392 ACRESPARK Local I W I f --J r � c EX. 40 Residential Units 1 I RE AININO WALL a � �- y I w/ 33 Parking Under I PETERS W/ 'A EX. 40 Residential Units CLOSURE 0 1st FLR.- F.F. 218'-0' r' o w 33 Parkin Under C--� BASEMENT F.F. 208'-0'• / g ACADIA HEATHCOTE LLC I °an 1st FLR.— FF 218•-0' BASEMENT F.F. 208'-0' C--- .f' .L IKE RACK( KE R I +� i S+ VAN ACCEssletE I NANDicAL RARN,Nc o o R"' o hr C, S '949n EX. 40 Residential Units O'D ING / I I w/ 33 Parking Under 4 S _i EX. 40 Residential Units 6 I tat FLR. F.F. 216'-0' I- W 33 Parkin Under BIKE PATH ® CmP BASEMENT F.F. 208'-0" / g DATE CBEC® REYIEIEN 1st FLR F.F.218'-0' ' BASEMENT F.F. 20B'-0' ENCLOSURE W/ I / / ENCLOSURE I CURB i `50 ' B.A. a .\ WWW I EXISTING BUILDINGS AND i 4 STORY BUILDING (CITES EDGE) li I SITES SHOWN WERE 0 I / 60 CONDOMINIUM UNITS r LL PR UNDERACT APPROVED 51 PARKING SPACES UNDER 1.t FUR.-F.F. 218'-8' \ GARAGE F.F. 208'—B' / , OVERALL / a vAGwO? / .,,rT - / CITEDGE LOT ® � t �i7 I _.:,_ LOT 4 �.�' I SEDIMENT vaNO r'IVtlll 1.601 ACR AWLOT 5 COMMON PLAN i y / / � \ 1.786 AC ES.— GRAPHIC SCALE�LL DAre Ennxmc NUxeER ,InnIIII E� - _ _ 1( — — — o D�st�rbon �� WOVEN WIRE FENDARDI FTEEL DO NDTS - V —.+.— — r AS EDE BAT BEN RE FENCE TO E /^\ INCLUDE ELEVAr ON20] ( IN FEET) r w i TA 1 Lnah - 80 It. —� y� /H111p s All SITE I IL. and L. BROOKSI I M. and P. I I J. A. LAWSON ENGINEER: 1 J. QUILLIAM I HENNESSEY r A. BOUCHE REV. TRUST F.and 0 1 V. B. BEVINS r ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC. 1 I I CIVIL iNaINcERIN� AS��_IA'fcu IN_ 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE SOUTH BURLINOTON, VT OUO3 1 COPYRIGHT F20 8028802IG RESERVED ee vt.can SCARFF i �-- --- __ _1 _ �_ — — — — — — — — — — _ °DP,�Dar m ,aM _ ftl°aTs ftESEa�a DRAWN AVEN E I I i F& M DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC ncx W.WOLFE LOT 10 SAV -- 0.83 ACRES APPROVE DEIMER PROPERTIES, LLC I NEW DUMPSTER �/1• I I ENCLOSURE I I PAD EL 212.0 6 �' FUTURE RE PROJECT: 0 I PCH I ®® PROPOSED PARK/ I ; " O'DELL PARKWAY I I BUILDING �® GREEN SPACE APPROX. 185' z 50' I 5 P.U.D. BACON STREET BLDGS. CREMOVE URB RADIUS EXISTN ® 4 & RESID. ADDITION 5 C RB NEW PAVEMENT o I, FARRELL STREET BACON STREET 0.241 AC. I NE> ONC CURB 136 I AC � NN BIKE RACK OI AREAO��� I CONC, SIDEWALK 'r WIDEI SOUTH RMONT BURLINGTON ONC. CUKf IS,N EW C C. U 12 o CURB 7 I LEGEND 7 N7 E o - - TRANSITION ON SDE ALI _ I EXISTING CONTOUR Q I - - T '.. '• `�c��-- - I - - -D3g- - - PROPOSED CONTOUR -- I _ I o - 12 . WIDE — — -- — FFE CON SIDEWALS PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE I I 217,17 0' WIDE - EASEMENT LINE SIDEWALK-- PROPOS �� O IRON PIN I I � RECONSTRUCT I CURB FOR a CONC. WON. 1 STORY FFE k I I C PROPOSED FFE NEW CONC. zn.1 HANDICAP SsGRAVITYSEWER LINE I ❑ 211.11 CU IE WIDE ADDIT ACCESSI?o v:� - - W - - WATER LINE I 5-STORY RFEIDE8 DIAL BLDG. 5 I OSED 13 NC. SIDEWALK 0E--- OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CHAMPL IN I I LOBBY 212.5 I 4 STORY ' I -ST--- STORM GRAIN OIL CO., NC. ANT I -UE--- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC r I ADDITION E0(}��fj2� GAR 208.0 ^E -T--- TELEPHONE LINE BUN STREET K C--- GAS UNE I PROPERTIES LLCI I NEW PLANTERS' I TWO � m MANHOLE INBENbI °vp.l I HYDRANT 2 c. cu B � 8 'COMM ® SHUT-OFF r- I II® I � r I o II LOT9 �1., .T■ .POWER POLE LOT 15 SIGN 0.510 AC. 24 I .2 A^CATCH BASIN OG o O I MOE OF BRUSH/WOODS o J / t D UGH T POLE d(J S BIKE RACK Nc � THOMAS BUILDING I I 0.�, adln0 dock M.C. THOMAS FAMILY °Odd°mP°`— I SIDEWALK 6 7 -- LOT 14 TRUST ET AL. \ ,o 0.739 Ac. HOME FARRELL STREET A— 9 9 UNITS &OFFICES FF 213. 37 SENIOR HOUSING EX. 63-70 SENIOR HOUSING 0+00 U I LIMITED DATE ERECEED ftenRO°N I �— � � I i 01— PARTNERSHIP 48 PARKING UNDERNEATH SID WA _ ,'., I LOT 1 1 FFE 218.60 a — � 3 1.29 ACRES GAR 208.17 �'f1NING W L r, I: � �spa EX. CONC. CUR �� 7 W/7' SIDEWAL5, ® J i ` 9 PARK .� A— SITE 4+00 5+ 0 ARR LL S ET 8+00 PLAN OT 7 - - + - —(— - SIGN—_Si�D F' —� - - - - - + t "BACON ST. u 3 I I .1 EIm _ 10' WIDE BIKE PATH S(OP siOP STOP o Local °ATE RMwING NllIIBER Q Display K 5-15-m GRAPHIC SCALE p 0.39 A� b 1 1 1 0 o r- w C-2 - I 0 � Pft01. Nn. agnr FEET) _ _ - - om 1 Innchch - 30 ft. w Bi d w I T SITE ENGINEER: _— L. and L. BROOKS M. and P. I I I I I J. A. LAWSON I . Iz I= I HENNESSEY ;als I= ii J. QUILLIAM I w I A. BOUCHE REV. TRUST F.and N 3 V. B. BEVINS r CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. a I 10 MANSFIELD VIEWLANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTO5403 SCARF F I I COI— 2323 FAX 802d60 2 .. web www cee h cam I . I I— — — — — — — I 1 � REeeRreo A VE N E � — — — — — — — — — _ _ �o�R�Rr ©= s DR. 1N F & M DEVELOPMENT CO. LLC Aa yti��T A o { wOLFE LOT 10 si',y==D o j DEIMER PROPERTIES, LLC I I NEW DUM s RR m 8J►y _ 0.83 ACRES APPROVED srE qq ONAL PAD EL. 212.0 _ _ - T _-- - _ - `\ N I TEL -j-_ - S U�ONJ6RE PROJECT: Hev s n o wl zN PCH ® PROPOSED PARK/ �' T1 O'DELL PARKWAY GREEN SPACE I EX.-MH #9 I w BUILDING ® APPROX. 185'x 50. I NT RIM=214.14f M P.U.D. z�i a EX. MH I I - E INV. IN (E,S)=206.14 A I ®I RIM=209.92 I k I OIL 2 INV. =206.1 EX. MH 1 •' . RECESSED <oz PC RIM-20795 V.=203.67 c'TRI o EX_H D. CURBBACON STREET BLDGS. CUT. Ac CAP P Y ( NC. _ _ .WATER UNE E7r il'A• 5 N INI2 1 C D UEft OVR EwSnN 12'WIDE4GRA& REBID. ADDITION '-�' �5m -- -- -- ----- IN.. AT??SRSIE OT- -.. 5NV.=201 95.. a - ti` NEW PAVEMENT - LL EET lit /�----'— —w--.—___ _ E SOUTHE URLINGTON �---12"ss---_BC_��� 0.41 Ac. N qg �� — —--s--=— 0 2" sD 3 Lva� fur-- — -----. — -- ---VERMONT SS--------� -_ I --NEW LAS 07-- q j N BIKE RACK h I TEL,CA r .3b AC. o NCURBEW ONC: O 7 ON I CU 0 - - — /_ LEGEND 'z Owl I 7 WI E Q2 RE EW ELECT = TRANSITION I LOOP FOR ..-- EASTWOOD Q E_' ;II EX. HYDRANT OI TBM - N FLANGE Q `° �I BOLT - 212.37 v a ~ III I NEW XFMR II I iu\ RIM-214�.24t2 INV. OUT-204 - PROPOSED � FFF NEW a 2,CURB-, 17 CU 5-STORY RESIDENTIAL BLDG. EXISTING- CHAMPL IN I FIFE 218.0 S UT LITY U P ED UNDERGROUND 3 I OIL CO., NC. LEC ICAL SERVICE TOz THE THOMAS BUILDING LOBBY 212.5 rI GAFF 208.0 FDC ARD7 I I N STREET c GiS �wCE- PROPERTIES LLCI I EX. MH E C CI CU B RIM=:N 60 �.' UE INV. IN (10"W)=204.34 I I\ I - _ _ ` I 1 NEW WATER SERVICE II I INV. IN (8"S)-204.6 I I I Yt INV. OUT (10"N)=204.38 LOT 1 5 DUMPSrER I TO THOMAS BUILDING 0.510 Ac. WORMERS ^ _ -I- - _ G __ VERIFY S12E OF EX. SERVICE UNE O o I o .. �' g- EX. CAS R I O __ __ ___ - MOVE EX CABLE Box E�. CONCRETE AD LAREOING/UNL0 DING PAVEMENTM Kill I� THOMAS BUILDING DR VT A. S I I - - M.C. THOMAS FAMILY SIDEWALK s 7 T 14 TRUST ET AL. ' 739 AC. t FF 213.37 { ! I N N E%Is NG CONTOUR -NEWF S' DE 336- - - PROPOSED CONTOUR _. SI EWALK R E _ _ PROPERTY UNE (APPROXIMATE IFFEII21717 A ER MAIN NG. EASEMENT UNE , SID WALE- A 17 IPROP6 tRETAI IO IRON PIN 1 STORY FFE .:, ..I RE,yONSTRUCT CURB FOR- - I WIDE CONC. I o GONG. MON. 2n 17 ADDIT HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY WATERY SE UNE 5'1 MADE W--- W--- WATER UNE I� OSED I 1 C.I31DENl -OE--- OVERHEAD ELECTRIC I! T LE 4 STORY FFE l,6s 1..': A T E jL7(J(�JII�IE I I I ST--- STORM DRAIN ADDITION I II E E/(CyyI�.C��(INC. RB CONC. CURB UE--- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC I ,Ay,[ K {LJ CONC. CURB T--- TELEPHONE LINE if I W/B' i - G - - - GAS UNE 3 / I N PLANTERS I I �e� TVV I m MANHOLE TRANS(7'xl4') Nrxrmo., pR,V,� f-Ell I� I N }'T, HYDRANT NNCN �� 8 Iv, I :,COME RI ® SHUT-OFF _ • lu I LOT 9 iN POWER POLE i4 .L' (" ^� n AC / C --- SIGN 24 I L S ■ CATCH BASIN -i Imo. I _' �'0 I �".'�'„x'�•v'%"� EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODS 23 w UGHT POLE WETLAND OL a Nc I -_ ® BIKE RAC( EX.-MH ., ote: All work to be performed in I RIM-216.45t IN-211.45 "' CCordonce with the Specifications LdoCkINV. lUa 6"E� `�j INV. OUT-2n.t5 I ' and Details for the Installation of anU mpst rs� S I j lines and Appurtenances for II1 Water Systems Owned by the \ hamplain Water District, the City o FARREILL STREET I' ,Q outh Burlington, Colchester Fire letails � istrict #1 and the Village of Jerich rkllr1%I Ill 10IhlP` EX. HYD. _ should be modified to the 11 lLOT 77777, 1.29 ACRES 117 77 A! _. EE ^ I11i11 I •. .IIIII�I \`'� IIII � _I �Il�iliK�L�i>♦J-13 e • iI .�� 1 . • ■\ ` �.UTILITY PLAN ,.: . - JT N rJl ..c INV. IN 0 NSCALE xOUT x (N)(8":)204,11 SMH GRAPHICI I: ■ 11 c — �i - - e. • , � � I� � IIIIIIIIII� RELE..-jED FOR APPROVALS - 9/16/09 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING LEGEND: EXISTING TREE PROPOSED SHADE TREE PROPOSED NULTI-STEM TREE PROPOSED FLOKERNG TREE PROPOSED CONIFER TREE CoPROPOSED SHRUB +�i . PROPOSED GROUNDCOVER BED g PROPOSED PARKING LOT U LIGHT FIXTURE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FIXTURE Z � W G Q Cn J ry J D C1 W I m C ! — — — — Y I O I NO I ry m J I I � IC I J I I W I U O I m SOD "• ©®• ORO=� om m� --llllllllllllll�.. 011lll3il •• �mz � U J J C/ LLL F- LIJ landscape architects . planning consultants 301 college street • budington . vermont . 05401 802.658 @3555 hnp://w .tibooe.mm GRAND WAY. EXISTING BUILDING I � I 1------------------ — 1 i � I I i — 1 i I � I I J I I � 1 I I I I I I I I i I � I I `N i1 ub F I� Ie 7 I' I I i FI Ili ` 00 I I _—\----------- 1 \ \ 04T II �\ 7/09/20090'De11 Parkway PUD - Bacon Street Lofts TTn V. = 20' Landscape Plan 1V G nvivlvro T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC T. J. Bovie Associates. LLC ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' 4TH FLOOR ROOF ELEV. 260.5' ELEV, 250.00 ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230,00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' E. EXISTING TREES (BEYOND) ELEV. 270.00' CLOCK TWR. APT. l ELEV. i254.00' _ ELEV. 260.00' — — — — — — EXISTING CLOCK TOWER APARTMENTS (BEYOND) ELEV. 250.00' ` E f- — EXISTING 20' ARBORVITAE ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230,00' — _ — — — — ELEV. 220.00' BACON STREET ELEV. 210.00' a O `m O ti — — — — — --- -- /-195'SETBACK ------------- g c z 0 a A C BACON ST. LOFTS PARKING PROPOSED PARK EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM L 8 L BROOKS PROPERTY HADLEY ROAD SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1 =20' ELEV. 270.00' BLOG HEIGHT. 85' SETBACK ELEV. 260.00' ®35' ELEV. 247.50' ELEV. 250.00' PROPOSED 49 MAP ELEV. 240.00' =r-- � — ELEV. 230.00' ----- -- ELEV. 220.00' _ _ _ _ — — — - — EXISTING 20' ARBORVITAE~ I ELEV. 210.00' �d O -------- ---+/-185' 0 m r- U O rc a I HADLEY ROAD I L SECTION A -A': HADLEY ROAD TO GRAND WAY EXPANSION (LOOKING EAST) 1 =20' SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) V .40' BACON STREET CFTRAr'L --L — ---- PROPOSED PARK I PARKING ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250,00' DNS II ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220,00' ELEV. 210.00' GRAND WAY EXPANSION Boyle raNawaa Aare r.vislom care ae��o landscape architects • planning consultants Jbo/mjb _ 9/01/2009 O'Dell Parkwa PUD 301 college street . budington . vermont . 05401 802 .658 .3555 httpJ/—.gboyle.mm a�ho ... aYas noted ELEVATIONS EX-2ALT EXISTING TREES (BEYOND) ELEV. 270.00' _. _........ _ CLOCK TWR. APT. 4TH FLOOR ROOF ELEV. t154.00' ELEV. 260.00' �ELEV.260.5' _ _ _ ELEV. 250.00' '"- —' — — — — — — EXISTING CLOCK TOWER APARTMENTS (BEYOND) m ® ELEV. 240.00' - ARBORVITAE ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' BACON STREET v s O `m O 1 -- --- -- /-195'SETBACK------------- � 0 c z v D .11 BACON ST. LOFTS PARKING PROPOSED PARK EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM L & L BROOKS PROPERTY HADLEY ROAD SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) r=20' ELEV. 270.00' 35' BLDG HEIGHT 65' ETBACK ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 247.50' ELEV. 250.00' PROPOSED 40' MA E ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' l EXISTING 20' I ARBORVITAE~ I I ELEV. 210.00' K O — — — — — — — — — —(- 185 m U w O tt a HADLEY ROAD L & L BROOKS PROPERTY EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM PROPOSED PARK I PARKING SECTION A -A': HADLEY ROAD TO GRAND WAY EXPANSION (LOOKING EAST) r-20' SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) N BACON STREET RPTRAr`IC— — — L — — — —I— — — — ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.W ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' ELEV. 270.00' _J_ L ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' DNS II ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.W ELEV. 210.00' GRAND WAY EXPANSION landscape architects . planning consultants Jbo/m)b 9/01/2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD j5^ee1 tleegn er mavwn br am 301 college street . budington . vermont .05401 802 .658 .3555 h6p1/—gboyle.com Ibo _ as noted ELEVATIONS EX-2ALT l ELEV. 270.00' STH FLOOR ROOF ELEV. 280.00' ELEV.-- ELEV. 250.09 {:$ ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1-•20' ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' SECTION A -A': HADLEY ROAD TO GRAND WAY EXPANSION (LOOKING EAST) r=20' SECTION A -A'; BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1•-40' ( C EXISTING TREES (BEYOND) w O rc a PROPERTY EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM PARKING ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.W ELEV. 240.09 ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220,00' ELEV. 210.00' ELEV.270.W ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.W Boyle eat, ..ddo� aw. o landscape architects .planning consultants jboWml e- „8/18/2009 O'Dell ParkwayPUD 301 college street • budington . veenont • 06401 802.658 .3555 bttpY1—gboyl•.com Jbo ^ a as noted ELEVATIONS E X �— .. .... ......... T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC I m SEE N07£ 3 I a 2 I 2WW N J. and B SNYDER VOL 216 PG. 491 I N04'S 4.97' N 49.99'58571 ' . 10' U71UTY ' EASEMENT TO Give - 5/B' REBAR S85'11'52"E ZONE: RESIDENTIAL 4 209-52 ZO COMMEPtCT4� 11 w >e BACON ST. u u t0.241 ACRES rri NBS'11'S2"W N85'11'52"W Q 5/8" REBAR 139.83' I 5/8' RE8AR O E I I I-� I a Fa 4< 5/8 WE O 1iVDIL39 w U PG. 551 Y I V N w 0 N/F L & L BROOKS I N/F N/F I M. & P. M. & .WARREN I a N/F IVOL N PM 4041 B. BARNEY J. KAHAN I L NESSEY VOL 3B7 PG. I VOL 461 PG. 694 N/F =I IF. & J. KOCHMAN A. BOUCHE 53 IVOL 393 PG 3981 M. STACKMAN I N/F L P. BROOKS I IVOL 219 PG. 44 l VOL 39 PG. 18 L _I�B t1' 1ZONE: RESIDENTIAL VOL. 30 PG. 328 0'-J Mcw AP 477.44' ZONE: COMMERCIATi - r N in 40'x65' TELECOMMUNICATION 1 PROPOSED TOIIV ZON�SEMENT �l0 40 SITE, UTILITY EASEMENT TO VERIZON LOT 10 d' Sa5.5e'10"E -EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 0.833 ACRES B/8 REBAR '5 FROM LOT 1 "S8571'5� E 111t �_j __ TO LOT 9 B 4rN1 51Bia..__ _j-_":_______ _'bT WIDELIX 10' UTILI �' UTILITY EASEMENT 20 FOOT WIDE_ SEWER EASEMENT °Ion TO MOUNTAIN TOG GREEN POWER VOL 260 PG. 112 o gVERIZONI VA B� P. 364 dPG. p�n EASEMENT FOR }- UTILITY LINES 1.99316% 0,9nn I VOL 50 PG. 481 rL. WVNY SBS'5t 13.1 U' CHAMP VOL 126 OIL C1- INC,' R. F LOT 1 Z VOL 120 PGS. 1-3 I A. & R. REYES I ry IVOL 12g PG. 31 EX. LOT SIZE _ IL i NO3'59'S2"E 5 5'OB' 9" f3.206 ACRES 25.00' /KE 7D.D3' -0.042 ACRES= I m SBS'11'52"E t3.164 ACRES I J 139.57' P.K. MAIL UJ mu 181.54' II m �so FOOT WIDE i IN/F 1HOMAS FAMILY TRUST, ET ALI 'I"' ACCESS EASEMENT _ I w 4 3 z OME I VE. UJ It I I I I TO CHAMPWN OIL CO., INC.l. w VOL. 126 PGS. 1-3 IN 0. 2 ACRES u 31> Im VOL. 318 PGS. 83 & 65 ?I- y �57yq, PLAN VOL 49 PG. 29 IF Im _S8617'42"E_ - -------------- 1d1�5g_------- ________-� 4.80', ••N'r7yq ` `��� 232.55' 52?� 0j` N69'04'39"W NBS'S5'10"W LOT 7 ,OMMON LAND w�lp Reiso' f0.160 ACRES _ S85'53'10'EN85'55'10"W R. PIPE 216.36' 283.46'�r Lp i N/F HEATHCOTE ASSOCIATES, LP VOL. 211, PG. 56 VOL, 217, PG. 1 REBAR RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2,�,63 City of So. Burlington h II- So' CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 0' UTILITY EA: 0 VER120N J. 602 P. 775 555'10" 00.30' PROPOSED I LOT 11 1.292 AC. sP PROPOSED 20 F00T WIDE RECREATION PATH EASEMENT B TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON o IrN/F N/F N/F N/F & K. JOHNSON F REDDINGTON A BAROVICK N, OSBORNE VOL 415 PG. 649I N/F VOL146 PG. 52 I H/F IVOL 117 PG. 173I IVOL 410 PG. 802Id fn N. & A MERRILL I G. end L BOLENDER LINK I I' iN IwL 455 PG. 113 I VOL 457 PC. 425 I IVOL 392 PG. 1351 li - _ ZONE: RESIDENTIAL 4_ MMIBs71'11 w� _ _ - - - ZONE: COERCIAL 2 533.38' - - ------=�`" BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. ----'" LOT 8 -' VOL. 260, PG. 112 VOL. 197, PG. 63 ----- -- - -_- EX. LOT SIZE=4.155 ACRES (0.073 AC. TO LOT 9) t ------------ ------------- NEW LOT SIZE=4.082 ACRES 3:1 I----'--------------- I gIv, I I I PROPOSED < I I 2180 AC. u I TENNIS COURTS j +0.042 AC. I I 1 =2.222 AC. I I I I I I -24' R.O.W. TO BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. PROPOSED 20 FOOT WIDE-� \ 1. 1 I11=42.57' RECREATION PATH EASEMENT 1 \ II TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON N73'22'• 99,24 I I\ R=228.5 9i P , 244.67' _ _ 1160�58' S85-55'10"E N85'55'10"W $ FARRELL STREET REBAR uac cc"nw uec cc.�", N J IJ Q;Q $W IOU 6I� Lzzit I Li.J _ NIN LOT 6 I i ! COMMON LAND t0.392 ACRES \ I 298.39' I I I R.O.W. THROUGH LOT 8 IN FAVOR OF III I LOT 3, LOT 4 & LOT 5 I :11 I I SEE REF. PLAT A IIII I i III ! mlll j I I R-231.5' Plii i i "65 FARRELL ST." LOT '3 Ih1y.r'� t4.449 ACRES R.O.W. THROUGH LOT 3 IN FAVOR OF L27.06', LOT 4 & LOT 5 / I III 24 PROPOSED 15 F0DT WIDE 444.69' SIDEWALK EASEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION "EASTWOOD COMMONS" LOT 2 LOT SIZE = t2.203 ACRES / � I I•III I i IIII I I I I I I I ------ _._.-._._._._. _. i I it � 7 58351'S65.4'10'DRAINAG E. - - rN 4 26ASEMENT Q R.O.W. THROUGH uoB:i ! 41 UIU 5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT I-HROLOTS 3& 4 LOT 4 IN FAVOR OF I LOT 3& LOT 5 I TLOT 5 1"CITY'S EDGE" LOT 4 t1.601 ACRES ELECTRICAL REF. PLAT 8 37,92' R-1402.69' R=45.50' REBAR m I ( h rp 'I O P" y6�7\7y t- W II II II -{I-5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT li TO LOT 5 II � SB%55'10'E �- 180.30' i. LOT 5 \ COMMON LAND` --' zz' t1.786 ACRES > �' S73'22'40"E R=153.5' 74.48' L= R�171.5' =7 0 ' - 159.03' e NEW FARRELL STREET R.O.W. -_-N85'55'10'W_ _ 159.03, II 1475'24'14"W 114.50' Ri 231.5' II II II g / spOb 9 , �L 11 �1 a�oS RFBAR i N Zc� ■J II , II I LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000 feet NOTES I 1. The purpose of this plan is to depict revised final boundaries of the O'Dell Parkway PUD. I Reference Is mode to Reference Plans A and S. This revision depicts the division of Lot 9, Lot 10 and Lot 11 from Lot 1. This revision further depicts the adjustment of 0.073 acres from Lot 8 to Lot 9. 2. The boundary survey was performed with an electronic total station and a steel tape. I 3. Bearings are referenced to ostronemle north based on existing monumentotion recovered along the eastsrly sideline of Farrell Street and color obcervatlone token October 20, 1999 and December 21, 1994. 4. Farrell Street has a 60 foot wide right of way. Reference Volume 211, Pages 237-238. The right of way was determined from existing monumentotlon and the plans entitled "Farrell Street" I dated December 6, 1962, Sheets 2-6, recorded in Volume 197, Pages 85-69, I 5. Shelburne Road has a 99 foot wide right of way determined by existing monumentation and the traveled portion of the road. Reference Town of Burlington Volume 2, Page 749. S. Hadley Road has a 50 foot wide right of way determined by existing monumentotlon and the I traveled portion of the rood. Reference Volume 11. Poge 19 and Volume 11, Page 230. 7. Murielpal water of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, telephone, electric and gas services are I available at the let line. of this parcel from the point of origin through public right of ways or recorded easements. 1 8. Not within the scope of the survey, there hoe not been undertaken any investigation whatsoever with respect to whether the property and each component there of Is In compliance with local or State permits. 9. These propperties lis within the Commercial 1 and 2, Conservation and Open Space Zoning Districts and RealdentI.1 4 Zoning District (50 strip of land to Hadley Road). 10. Existing 1" Iron pipes were found disturbed by snow plowing and mowing. They are to be replaced by 5/8" rebore to be at 11. There le an easement to extend and maintain highway elopes and embankments in this area. Reference Volume 194, pages 199-201 and State of Vermont Highway Protect Burlington M(5000)1, Sheet 41. 12. The Thomas Trust parcel Is benefited by easements for ingress and egress, parking, utilities, building canopies and maintenance. Reference Volume 50 page 461 and a map entitled Plan and Land Easements, 51B Shelburne Street, South Burlington, Vermont, Thomas A. Farrell, Owner", dated October 24, 1959 recorded in Volume 49 page 29. 13. This portion of Bacon Street will be subject to an Irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of South Burlington. PLAN REFERENCES A. "FINAL PLAT - O'DELL PARKWAY PUD" , prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. doted July 2000, last revised 9/19/2002. Recorded South Burlington Land Records. B. "Boundary Adjustment Between Lot 1 and Lot 2 - O'Dell Parkway PUD", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 4/23/2004. Recorded In South Burlington Land Rscorde. C. "Plat of Survey - Seaway ShopPing Center Corporation and Thomas A. Farrell', prepared by John Marsh, dated 6/4/81, last revised 10/22/81. Reference Volume 173. page 73. D. "Factory Outlet Center - Site Survey Shelburne Road", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated August 1982. Reference Volume 173, page 51, E. "Touchdown Properties - Plan of Land to be acquired from Gordenwoy Incorporated", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated November 1985. Reference Volume 200, page 18. F. "Lands of Heathoote Associates - Property Plat", prepared by Lamoureux. Stoma, and O'Leary, dated 8/2/95. Reference Volume 365. page 112. G. "State of Vermont Highway Project Burlington M(5000)1" plans dated 12/13/82, filed In the City of South Burlington Land Records. LEGEND - - PROPERTY LINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TIE LINE ------------------------ EASEMENT -- - - - - - - - - -- RIGHT OF WAY - • - • • - - - - ZONING DISTRICT LINE -x-x-x-x- FENCE 0 IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND ❑ MONUMENT FOUND 0 MONUMENT TO BE SET GPAPHIC SCALE p 5/8" REBAR W/ SURVEY MARKER BAR TO BE SET aIso • CALCULATED POINT ( IN FEET) 'a+ POWER POLE I inch - ft I I ; g 568 ZONES pay __V ON & --"E - - 5-11-05 TRc I ADJUSTED PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOT 1 & 9 �r=E- - -- --W� x% 10-4-a5 q1RC1 LOT it - REVISE AREAS '-_,,/20' WATER & NAURALN7B'4O'40 E �9' _--- _-------MCW, GAS EASEMEITIi the best of my knowledge & belie` this-�-OS ff & CORR-cCT NOTES I 53.60' •• _ plot properly depicts the results of a sury y -E`r05 s� LDDATIDN Di vOmON EASEMENT conducted under my supervision as outlined in 6the notes above,based on our analysis of Date CRevision 81 records & phyeicol evidence found. Existing Drawn b �- Date E �-�� 4Dt. STATE OF VERMONT HIGHWAY PROJECT boundaries shown ore in substantial y AC JUNE 20, 20D5 x BURLINGTON PROJECT M(5000)1 RAMP C conformance with the record. E I Checked by ?RC Scale 1" = 60' 45'3 ^E � 9 VOL, 48, PGS. 429-431 MON.' 74.63' SVOL. 48, PGS. 467�478 Timothy R: Cowan VT. L.S. 597 Approvad by T�� Project No. 99101 REVISED FINAL PLAT O'DELL PARKWAY PUD ... .. -.. .. � ...r ..,, ( SHEET SEE N07E 3 Q m� Q O I LL1 Z I M J W 2 w �Im N. V!) mNe HOME AVE. tto 1 81 W ig w °Il�t pIU O f( I"I V I to �w - - - - -------------- - ----- - -T S8514'18" 1• dPF 71-73 w 50100' I PROPOSED 20' WIDE REC. PATH EASEMENT p 33 y 37 A 65 1 6' TO CITY OF S. BURUNGTON 9 113-115 g 119 p 67+69 aIO1I II 9 89 N M 75 103 8 29 I L d BROOKS I N� I M. d P. (J.A UWBON I Q N/F I 99 If 717 N/F �1 7/7 N� ' I3 L N/F z �� L-K PEAL & d J. WIWAM V. 858 P. 321 D.A. BIANCHARDI M. ABBOTi A BO E VOL 88 PG. 404 I REV TRUST I 111,1 SEY N/F I F. d J. KOCHMAN M. SMWN N V. 528 P. 391 N/f V. 770 P. 90C. I N. OSBORNE 1 V. 387 P. S3B 1 i. V. S49 P. 673 N/F V. 410 P. 802 V. 393 P. 398 691 P. 2J9 V.B. BEV1N5 V. 219 P. 14 N. MERRILL M.P. CERMNI I I~ I V HERN 1 I a < �a z V. 557 P. 204 I I V. S73 P. 193 V. 554 P. 634 10-•� r-�- rvl I I V. OtE PC 670 z �"" L �ss•t�'11",= 1ZONE: RESID`NTIAL 4 I� m _ _ ZONE: RESIDENTIAL 4 477.44' ZONE: COMMERCIAL 1 - - _ �85Lt,� W� "a''' ZONE: 2 w Io w N� COMER PROPERTIES, LLC w N/FWO of � VOLW.WOLFE 329 40' x 6s' TELECOM. In SITE, UTILITY file to VERIZON po LOT 10 F&M DEVELOPMENT 10' UTIUTY EASEMENT I 3 COMMERCIAL 533.38' EASE. TO VERIZON ma SO4'04'50"W COMPANY LLC it I e c> z wlw 2 z VOL 479 PG. 704 No43rz4E 497' oil w� PG. 551 z -- 585'S5'10"E sz.19• 0.833 ACRES 585'S5'10'E _ 148.25� 72.0--- ILL "5 --- __ � �_�-�_307.36'----� ----- -�`" BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. O O ZiZ x _ r _ 585'11'S2"E of O ml'9 10- WIDE EASE. - l_,0' UTIUTV FxASE ENT -} LOT 8 w 10, UTILITY 49.99' ^' alup1i I to G.M.P.Corp. t 16 �15 0 VERIZON I d EASEMENT TO GMP 11't V. 1O9 P. 384 - - - -- 2 P. 77� c-� VOL 260, PG 112 58511'S2"E ZONE: RESIDENTIAL 4 '1 'S I- r/ VOL. 197, PG. 63 uri bL __J__ __ __ __ 34.943.00 VOL. I o 30592 ZONE: COMMERCIAL 1 _ - _ _______ ___w - ---------- z __ 7 -----------� }r= o --- _ --- ---�-- ---- -(•-i ------ --^� 4.082 ACRES 13 BACON ST. NO3'53'i6"Ef'f"------� 11 1 :° - / _ l-___La O 0.241 d: AC. 49.99'(_________________ _�= __ _____ Q _________ 3 f•„` i ___ _____er_ v N 20 WIDE SEWER T'-- _________]- t10' WIDE EASE. I F` 1___i__ N85'11'S2'W N85'11'S2"W I VERIZON z EASEMENT �I9 i T---- 139.83' 70.02' 4/.MF V, 602 P. 775 V. 260 P. 112 a �"----------__ da l 17 I S EASEMENT T FOR LOT 12 9 I 11 "EASTWOOD N/F I I Fq u. . LINES I 0.526 AC. " j COMMONS II" 3 I CHAMP "IN OIL CO.. INC. z �%' VOL. 50 PG. 481 o I =T voL_ 12. 1 . 1-3 BACON STREEr J10 q}` S85' S'70" I PROPEIRRES LLC �' Pa V. 600 P. 788 e ACCESS EASEMENT TO CHAMPLAIN OIL CO. VOL 126 PC. 1 NO3'08'07"E NOTES 1. The purpose of this plan Is to depict revised final boundaries of the O'Dell Parkway PUD. Reference is made to Reference Plans AA, A, and B, This revision reflects the division of Lots 12 and 13 and Parcels A and B from Lot 1. 5855510 E C1q,P 1 LOT 1 18.0 o0 13 00 I I I LOT 9 o'E I I W 2. The boundary survey was performed with an electronic total station and a steel tape. J 503'45'23"w �q, 1.360t Ac. o j 2.222 AC. I TENNIS COURTS w �I i 3. Bearings are referenced to astronomic north based on existing monumentatlon recovered along the easterly sideline of 11.51 1 LOT 13 o a 14 ( I NI I I v j2M Farcell Street and solar observations taken October 20, 1999 and December 21, 1994. _025 Ac. N27.4 I fvn 4. Farrell Street has a 60 toot wide fight olway (ROW). Reference Vo1.211, Pg.237. ROW determined from existing I rv0.55'OT 1 5 0.510 A 183.3 Q monumentatlon and plans entitled "Farrell Street' dated December 8, 1962, Sheets 2.6, recorded in Vol. 197, Pp. 85-89. 24 ROW ri NeS'55'10"W L - Y 5. Shelburne Road has a 99 foot wide ROW determined b xlstln -------------- /•1 I----------------J \ I ye g monumentatlon and the traveled portion of the road. L____ 17 _ 1B r"L�I 86•7i .083 20 - BT4'37-W15T36'.nW IlIm, FIj --RU- II 31III 1 '14Yw�' I0• 7mkin -24' 0.2I5.- loading' i 5453'285.3' ...m.n/ W Thomas Building' 433' "W Sy LOT 11 _ P I M.C. Thama. F. Tru. .t al. j 0.739 Aa vol. 5,1117 4e1 t m !� 0 14 1.293 AC. \ No PROPOSED 20' WIDE -- r 314 Bulldinq feu I IN m FARRELL STREET REC. PATH EASEMENT rx -! C It property SENIOR HOUSING UNITED a. (t p.) "r^ ^ PARTNERSHIP To an \`I / ! �t�•ij'37'E i@:o" __ 3 i•„a1 V. 739 P. 514 COMMON 24' R.O.W. 73 ♦ 18 ,n 1 1 I FOR LOT 9, LOT 11 & - BIB, BURUNGTON INDOOR LOT 14 TENNIS CENTER, INC. (HATCHED) 145.85' ro^ 58I00'_ LOT 85, NBS'S7'03"W DMMON LAND FARRELL STREET A®7J5 16�t AC.�R5�5T18"E 3f s��� e N05'S3'32"W F 215,23' N/F ACADIA HEATHCOTE, LLC I RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2009 City of So. Burlington b - LEGEND - �6 - - PROPERTY LINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ TIE LINE ------------------------- EASEMENT 61 - ------'---- - - - RIGHT OF WAY - - - - - - ZONING DISTRICT LINE -x-x-x-x- FENCE O IRON PIPEAEBAR FOUND ❑ MONUMENT FOUND El MONUMENT TO BE SET 5/8" REBAR W/ SURVEY MARKER m TO BE SET 17, POWER POLE ® TV TRANSMITTING TOWER 14 SEE ENUMERATED NOTES RE: EASEMENTS GRAPHIC SCALE DT PRWT ) 1 jean - e0 11. 50' CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1 4' R.O.W. TO BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. A , I I41.59' I R-57.0' R-228.5' 76.42' 19� PROPOSED 15 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK EASEMENT 444.81 TO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Q Q wlw IL 2.5' "EASTWOOD COMMONS" 37923'22°E LOT 2 2.203t ACRES U U i•] ui j ',-SEE REF. PLAT B Nzs•47'17" O j3 21,98' O i� 244.87' _ _ 180.58' N N °'/� S74'51.58"E N72'59'11'E N85'5�^0"W N855510" -!- i� 58.86' 62.29' 'y'Vr S73'22'40"E R-153.5' R-45.50' FARRELL STREET ss . 7 .48 5' oso, r�a7m' N85'55'10"W N85'55'10"W NBO, 8'(9° 1f E' s7 -136.02 3 157.07-� _ SO7f W __ _ y ODE PARLAY i LOT 6 _ - Safi s9 1 � Im PUD ASSO. nON, INC �e 159.03 qq COMMON LAND ° pl6 V. 878 P. 577 1 N fO 0.392t Ac. °p Bo•� 'oo NEW FARRELL STREET N85_54'16"W R.O.W. 298.39' - _ \\ I 73.18240"W 85 5_i __� hl� R.O.W. THROUGH IA D3 'n u I LOT BIN FAVOR OF R-168.5' N75.24'14"W \ Hal S85'5416 E I I i j LOT 3, LOT 4 & LOT 5 -7 .77 84.50' cos;,,a r• 36.58' I III 1 SEE REF. PLAT A N62.51'45"W 7111, R=231 s' 16.37L-84.97' R-231.5' 3 II I I II O'DELL HOUSING I SHOPPING CENTER1 11 --� LOT 3ji R.O.W. THROUGH 4.449t ACRES j I II I LOT 3 IN FAVOR OF jj / 27.98' I LOT 4& LOT 5 I o o 24' '^ II I I 1i Z�ry V/ III ii LOT EASEMENT j /I I I TO Reference Town W Burlington Vol. 2, Pg, 149. 5js 1Rt I E. Hadley Road has a 50 foot wide ROW determined by existing monumentaton and the traveled portion of the road. Reference Vol. 11, Pp. 19 and 230. W 14J �7. Munidpal water service, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, telephone, electric and gas services are available at me for Tines of this parcel from the point of origin through public right of ways or recorded easements. 8. Not being within the scope of the survey, there has not been undertaken an i 9 w p Y, y investigation whatsoever with respect to Q I whether the property and each component there of Is in compliance with local or State permits. S. Subject properties Ile within the Commercial 1 and 2, Conservation and Open Space Zoning Districts and Q I Residential 4 Zoning District (50 strip of land to Hadley Road). O / 10. Existing 1" Iron pipes found disturbed by snow, plowing and mowing are to be replaced by capped 5/8" mbare to be set. W 11. There is an easement to extend and maintain highway slopes and embankments in this area. Reference Vol. 194, wl� I Pg. 199 and State of Vermont Highway Project Budington M (5000)1, Sheet 41. d Im (n 12. The Thomas Trust parcel Is benefited by easements for Ingress and egress, parking, utilities, building canopies and D/ maintenance, not all shown on this plan, Reference Volume 50 page 481 and a map emitted "Plan and Land Easements, 518 till I. , Shelbume Street, South Burlington, Vermont, Thomas A. Farrell, Owner", dated October 24, 1959 recorded In Vol. 49 Pg. 29. W I I 13 13. Bacon Street subject to Irrevocable Otter of Dedication to the City of South Burlington. Vo1.543 P.343 (2002) 'R 14 14. 24' wide access ROW serving Lots 13 8 12 over Lot 9 and Lot 11. I I 15 15. 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 11, 12 8 13 over Lot 9. 16 16. 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 9, 11 8 13 over Lot 12. I 17 17. 33' and 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 1, 11, 12, 14,15 and Thomas building. 18 11. Rights -of -way (variable widths) over Lot 14 also serves Lots 1, 11, 12 and Thomas building. ' 19 19. Easement over portion of Lot 1 for access to and parking for Lot 11. 2Q 20. Proposed 20' wide utility easement over Lots 1 and 15 to serve Thomas building. PLAN REFERENCES - I A. "FINAL PLAT- O'DELL PARKWAY PUD" , prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) dated July 2000, iasAt revised 5/11/2006. Recorded In South Burlington Land Records (SBLR). I A. I "FINAL PLAT - O'DELL PARKWAY PUD" , by CEA dated July 2101, lest revised 111-002. SBLR. B. "Boundary Adjustment Between Lot 1 and Lot 2 - O'Dell Parkway PUD", by CEA, dated 412312004. SBLR. I 1 L I 1 _J 1 ' - II i P _ r• yl-.__._._._._._ c� oS rc____________ I _ �S6y55'10°E 'y4 180.30' N a�1 20' DRAINAGE j I 316.44' 28, v R ^ an I. REBAR 4y 9L� EASEMENT �' N04'O5'44"E P ,S n sl I N Z �• l Q Q I R.O.W. THROUGH I So I 14, C � I•-5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT LOT 4 IN FAVOR OF I c n �d''� ��`R`v / h cow THROUGH LOTS 3 & 4 LOT 3 & LOT 5 a 1a-8'L' LOT 5 �� 11 TO LOT 5 0 99 �i� N 1 j I ti o o COMMON LAND : '� Z REBAR 1I"CITY'S EDGE" 1.786t Ac. \ O'DELL PARKWAY l" �j LOT 4 - - PUD ASSOCIATION, INC �j 1.601 t ACRES / V. 67a P. Sn ELECTRICAL EASEMENT `� ' I I ' l r - i / RCI P\j ---� PE SP CE -� �o -� •�j,6/ 7-1 nl e M ' fJ gTg6 ZONE] NSERV PTION__' f__ - fT WATER & NATURAL '4-a GAS EASEMENT , N I I N78'40'40"E - _ 'M°N' zl PR MP G 4-1 -I - 7. �w o6.G3lIgE oF �RM0114 1M(5000)7RA DG ;;4L GTV V- 48.4 PAS 199 0 Drown by Checked by C. "Plat of Survey - Seaway Shopping Center Corporation and Thomas A. Ferrell", prepared by John Marsh, dated 6/4181, last revised I D/22/81. Volume 173, page 73, SBLR. D. "Factory Outlet Center - She Survey Shelburne Road", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated August 1982. Volume 173, page 51, SBLR. E. "Touchdown Properties - Plan of Land to be acquired from Gardenway Incorporated", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated November 1985. Volume 200, page 18, SBLR. F. "Lands of Heathmm Associates - Property Plat", prepared by Lamoureux. Stone, and O'Leary, dated 6/2195. Volume 365. page 112. G. "State of VT Highway Project Burlington M(5000J 1", plans by VT Agency of Transportation, dated 12113/82, SBLR RUSED PROPERTY LINE TO LOTS I, IZ 13 d 15 UPDATE ABUTTERS ADDED R.O.W. FOR LOT 9 AND LOT 11 Revision ACL Date JUNE 20, 2005 TRC Original Scale 1" = 60• TRC Project No. 99101 To the best of my knowledge 6 befief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records 8 physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are In substantial conformance with the record. This plat substantially conforms with 27 VSA 1403. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 REVISED FINAL PLAT O'DELL PARKWAY PUD FARRELL STREET CIVIL EN Jll\ICLitl l\I J %�wF)rlfilC �, INC, SHEET i0VANSFiELD ✓TEA LANE SOUTH BURLINGTON. t705403 802-8642323 FAY 302.66a22;1 r na... rea+f cum 0 z � 6ulltglan o vvwn ' F7 - r � 5t lL« li 'S a F N9 ALJ _. .$ 0 s�eneuun�on,v.os�n�. � , u VICINITY MAP N T S DIRECTIONS FROM BEDFORD, NH: TAKE RT-101 E. TAKE EXIT 3N FOR 1-293 N/EVERETT TURNPIKE NORTH TOWARD MANCHESTER/CONCORD. MERGE ONTO F E EVERETT TURNPIKE NORTH. MERGE ONTO 1-93 N. TAKE THE EXIT ONTO 1-89 N. ENTER VERMONT. TAKE EXIT 13 FOR 1-189 TOWARD SHELBURNE/BURLINGTON/US-7. MERGE ONTO 1-189 W. TAKE THE US-7 N EXIT TOWARD BURLINGTON. TURN RIGHT AT SHELBURNE ROAD/US-7. TURN RIGHT AT FARRELL STREET. SITE IS ON THE LEFT. U.S.Cellular We connect with you SITE NAME: SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 LATITUDE: 420 27'3m6llN LONGITUDE: 730 12123m5llW SITE NUMBER: 594322 SITE NAME: SOUTH BURLINGTON TOWER TYPE: 119' A.G.L. LATTICE TOWER SITE ADDRESS: 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 PROPERTY OWNER: EF FARRELL LLC DB MORRISSEY LLC PO BOX 1335 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 ZONING DISTRICT: C-1 DISTRICT APPLICANT: US CELLULAR C/O KJK WIRELESS 127 RIDGE RD. NASHUA. NH 03062 PHONE /: (603) 888-8974 ELECTRIC UTILITY: GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER (888) 835-4672 TELEPHONE UTILITY: FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS (888) 730-0066 COORDINATES* LATITUDE: 42-27'-03.6'N LONGITUDE: 73'-12'-23.5"W •PER GOOGLE EARTH PROJECT SUMMARY RFc �o �/ V q p %tyofso ' ?�09 F SHT. NO. DESCRIPTION T-1 TITLE SHEET G-1 GENERAL NOTES C—i I SITE PLAN C-2 EXISTING SITE PLAN & PROPOSED SITE PLAN C-3 EXISTING ELEVATION & PROPOSED ELEVATION C-4 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET INDEX THIS DOCUMENT WAS DEVELOPED TO REFLECT A SPECIFIC SITE AND ITS SITE CONDITIONS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANOTHER SITE OR WHEN OTHER CONDITIONS PERTAIN. REUSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS AT THE SOLE RISK OF THE USER. A.D.A. COMPLIANCE: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE U.S. Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08 12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05/07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/08 IFOR COMMENT Dewberry® Dewberry -Good kind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. I OTH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617,6953400 FAX: 817.095.3310 DRAWN BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: 7 MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER T-1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO ALL CURRENT APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES, AND COMPLY WITH U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (1 888 DIG SAFE 888-344-7233) FOR IDENTIFICATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS TO, OF, AND ON EXISTING BUILDINGS, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BY CONTRACTOR WITH ALL DISCREPANCIES REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. 5. DO NOT CHANGE SIZE OR SPACING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. 6. DETAILS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL; SIMILAR DETAILS APPLY TO SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY WHICH IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL BRACE STRUCTURES UNTIL ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR STABILITY ARE INSTALLED. THESE ELEMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: LATERAL BRACING, ANCHOR BOLTS, ETC. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, GROUNDS DRAINS, DRAIN PIPES, VENTS, ETC. BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 10. INCORRECTLY FABRICATED, DAMAGED, OR OTHERWISE MISFITTING OR NONCONFORMING MATERIALS OR CONDITIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER PRIOR TO REMEDIAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION. ANY SUCH REMEDIAL ACTION SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 11. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH THE WORK OF OTHERS. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT TO MATCH EXISTING PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE U.S. CELLULAR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. 13. ALL CABLE/CONDUIT ENTRY/EXIT PORTS SHALL BE WEATHERPROOFED DURING INSTALLATION USING A SILICONE SEALANT. 14. WHERE EXISTING CONDITIONS DO NOT MATCH THOSE SHOWN IN THIS PLAN SET, CONTRACTOR WILL NOTIFY ENGINEER, U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, AND LANDLORD IMMEDIATELY. 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ALL SUBCONTRACTORS ARE PROVIDED WITH A CURRENT SET OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL RUBBISH AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AT THE END OF EACH DAY. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WORK SCHEDULE WITH LANDLORD AND TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT AND DISRUPTION OF OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE FACILITY. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH U.S. CELLULAR WITH THREE AS -BUILT SETS OF DRAWINGS UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. 19. ANTENNAS AND CABLES ARE TYPICALLY PROVIDED BY U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS. PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID, CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH U.S. CELLULAR PROJECT MANAGER TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, ITEMS WILL BE PROVIDED BY U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS. ALL ITEMS NOT PROVIDED BY U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL ALL ITEMS PROVIDED BY U.S. CELLULAR WIRELESS. 20. PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID, CONTRACTOR WILL COORDINATE WITH U.S. CELLULAR PROJECT MANAGER TO DETERMINE IF ANY PERMITS WILL BE OBTAINED BY U.S. CELLULAR. ALL REQUIRED PERMITS NOT OBTAINED BY U.S. CELLULAR MUST BE OBTAINED, AND PAID FOR, BY THE CONTRACTOR. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL START UP HVAC UNITS AND SYNCHRONIZE THE THERMOSTATS. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL SITE SIGNAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. CELLULAR SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. 23. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT ALL SHOP DRAWINGS TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 24. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED U.S. CELLULAR SHALL PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED RF MATERIAL FOR CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL, INCLUDING ANTENNAS, TMA'S, BIAS-T'S, COMBINERS, PDU. DC BLOCKS, SURGE ARRESTORS, GPS ANTENNA, GPS SURGE ARRESTOR, COAXIAL CABLE. 25. PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY U.S. CELLULAR FOR INSTALLATION BY CONTRACTOR. 26. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO U.S. CELLULAR SPECIFICATIONS, AND AS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS. 27. SEAL PENETRATIONS THROUGH FIRE RATED AREAS WITH UL LISTED D FIRE CODE APPROVED MATERIALS. 28. REPAIR ANY DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH EXISTING PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. 29. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE AND DIRECT THE PROJECT DESCRIBED HEREIN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES AND FOR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT. 30. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY DEWBERRY A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF POURING CONCRETE OR BACKFILLING ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, FOUNDATIONS OR SEALING ANY WALL, FLOOR OR ROOF PENETRATIONS FOR ENGINEERING REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CODE SPECIFICATIONS: 1. ALL GENERAL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2006 (IBC 2006). 2. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE 2005 (NEC 2005). 3. ALL STRUCTURAL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH EDITION (AISC 13TH ED.). 4. ALL CONCRETE WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI 301) SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS (ACI 318) AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE. 5. ALL REINFORCING STEEL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACI 315 MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING REIINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES. STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES 1. STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AISC "SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS". 2. ALL EXTERIOR STEEL WORK SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION ASTM A123 HOT -DIP GALVANIZED FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. GALVANIZING SHALL BE PERFORMED AFTER SHOP FABRICATION TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. ALL DINGS, SCRAPES, MARS, AND WELDS IN THE GALVANIZED AREAS SHALL BE REPAIRED. REPAIR DAMAGED GALVANIZED COATINGS ON GALVANIZED ITEMS WITH GALVANIZED REPAIR PAINT ACCORDING TO ASTM A780 AND MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF WORK. 3. DO NOT DRILL HOLES THROUGH STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS EXCEPT AS SHOWN AND DETAILED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. 4. CONNECTIONS: a) ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE USING E70XX ELECTRODES AND WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AISC AND AWS D1.1. WHERE FILLET WELD SIZES ARE NOT SHOWN, PROVIDE THE MINIMUM SIZE PER TABLE J2.4 IN THE AISC "MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION" 9TH EDITION. AT THE COMPLETION OF WELDING, ALL DAMAGE TO GALVANIZED COATING SHALL BE REPAIRED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE BURNING/WELDING PERMITS AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY, AND IF REQUIRED SHALL HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENT DETAIL FOR ANY WELDING ACTIVITY. b) BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL USE BEARING TYPE GALVANIZED ASTM A325 BOLTS (SIZE AS NOTED) AND SHALL HAVE MINIMUM OF TWO BOLTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. C) CONNECTION DESIGN BY FABRICATOR WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY ENGINEER. 5. WELDING SHALL MEET THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE -STEEL. WELDING OPERATORS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE STANDARD QUALIFICATIONS AWS PROCEDURE FOR THE TYPE OF WELD REQUIRED. 6. SQUARE AND PLUMB THE STRUCTURE BEFORE TIGHTENING BOLTED CONNECTIONS OR WELDING ANY FIELD WELDED CONNECTIONS. SEE AISC SPECIFICATIONS 7.11.3. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO DEWBERRY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. PERMIT /STRUCTURAL NOTES: 1. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS/TOWER DESIGN DONE BY OTHERS 2. U.S. CELLULAR SHALL PROVIDE A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE TOWER PREPARED BY A LICENSED VERMONT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT, THE EXISTING TOWER AND ANY REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND REINFORCEMENTS HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SUPPORT ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTENNAS, SUPPORTS AND APPURTENANCES AND COMPLIES WITH THE CURRENT VERMONT STATE BUILDING CODE AND EIA/TIA CRITERIA THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONFIRM THAT ANY AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND REINFORCEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION ARE PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF ANTENNAS, SUPPORTS AND APPURTENANCES PROPOSED ON THESE DRAWINGS OR OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL NOTES: 1. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL CONCRETE ELEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES INCLUDING: ACI 301 "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS", AND ACI 318 "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE". 2. MIX DESIGN SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. 3. CONCRETE SHALL BE NORMAL WEIGHT, 6 % AIR ENTRAINED (+/- 1.5%) WITH A MAXIMUM 4" SLUMP AND HAVE A MINIMUM 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS SHALL BE USED: PORTLAND CEMENT: ASTM C-150, TYPE 1 OR 2 REINFORCEMENT: ASTM A-185, PLAIN STEEL WELDED WIRE FABRIC REINFORCEMENT BARS: ASTM A615, GRADE 60, DEFORMED NORMAL WEIGHT AGGREGATE: ASTM C-33 WATER: DRINKABLE ADMIXTURES: NON -CHLORIDE CONTAINING 5. MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED): A. CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH: 3" B. ALL OTHER CONCRETE: 2" 6. A 3/4' CHAMFER SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXPOSED EDGES OF CONCRETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 301 SECTION 4.2.4, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE EXPANSION/WEDGE ANCHOR SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. THE ANCHOR BOLT, DOWEL, OR ROD SHALL CONFORM TO MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR EMBEDMENT DEPTH OR AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. NO REBAR SHALL BE CUT WITHOUT PRIOR ENGINEERING APPROVAL WHEN DRILLING HOLES IN CONCRETE. 8. ADMIXTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE ASTM STANDARD AS REFERENCED IN ACI 301. 9. DO NOT WELD OR TACK WELD REINFORCING STEEL. 10. ALL DOWELS, ANCHOR BOLTS, EMBEDDED STEEL, ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, PIPE SLEEVES, GROUNDS AND ALL OTHER EMBEDDED ITEMS AND FORMED DETAILS SHALL BE IN PLACE BEFORE START OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT. 11. REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE COLD BENT WHENEVER BENDING IS REQUIRED. 12. DO NOT PLACE CONCRETE IN WATER, ICE, OR ON FROZEN GROUND. 13. DO NOT ALLOW REINFORCEMENT, CONCRETE OR SUBBASE TO FREEZE DURING CONCRETE CURING AND SETTING PERIOD, OR FOR A MINIMUM OF 3 DAYS AFTER PLACEMENT. 14. FOR COLD -WEATHER AND HOT -WEATHER CONCRETE PLACEMENT, CONFORM TO APPLICABLE ACI CODES AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IN EITHER CASE, MATERIALS CONTAINING CHLORIDE, CALCIUM, SALTS, ETC. SHALL NOT BE USED. PROTECT FRESH CONCRETE FROM WEATHER FOR 7 DAYS, MINIMUM. 15. CONCRETE SHALL BE RUBBED TO A ROUGH GROUT FINISH. PADS SHALL BE SEALED BY STEEL TROWEL 16. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED: A. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS CONFORMING TO ASTM A615, GRADE 60. B. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185. 17. SPLICING OF REINFORCEMENT IS PERMITTED ONLY AT LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS OR AS ACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR NOTED REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE SPLICED TO DEVELOP ITS FULL TENSILE CAPACITY (CLASS A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318. 18. REINFORCING BAR DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS, AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318, FORM THE BASIS FOR BAR EMBEDMENT LENGTHS AND BAR SPLICED LENGTHS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. APPLY APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION FACTORS FOR TOP STEEL, BAR SPACING, COVER AND THE LIKE. 19. DETAILING OF REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO "ACI MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES" (ACI 315). 20. ALL SLAB CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CAST MONOLITHICALLY WITHOUT HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, UNLESS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. 21. LOCATION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, CONFORMANCE WITH ACI 318, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE ENGINEER. DRAWINGS SHOWING LOCATION OF DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT DRAWINGS. 22. SPLICES OF WWF, AT ALL SPLICED EDGES, SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE OVERLAP MEASURED BETWEEN OUTERMOST CROSS WIRES OF EACH FABRIC SHEET IS NOT LESS THAN THE SPACING OF THE CROSS WIRE PLUS 2 INCHES, NOR LESS THAN 8". 23. BAR SUPPORTS SHALL BE ALL -GALVANIZED METAL WITH PLASTIC TIPS. 24. ALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE SECURELY TIED IN PLACE TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT BY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OR CONCRETE. TIE WIRE SHALL BE 16 GAUGE CONFORMING TO ASTM A82. 25. SLAB ON GROUND A. COMPACT STRUCTURAL FILL TO 95% DENSITY AND THEN PLACE 6" GRAVEL BENEATH SLAB. B. PROVIDE VAPOR BARRIER BENEATH SLAB ON GROUND. C;tyo f ' 19 3a evt/Z, " Un HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE CeRu I a r We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08/12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05/07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/08 IFOR COMMENT tIII` Dewberry® Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617.695.3400 FAX: 617.095.3310 DRAWN BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: _ _ MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 -- -�SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE GENERAL NOTES SHEET NUMBER ' G-1 EXISTIN PARKING , CEXISTING PARKING AR NOTES: t XIC I INU J 1. NORTH SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE. PARKING AREA 2. NOT ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED INFORMATION SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 3. SITE PLAN BASED ON PLANS BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., PROJECT O'DELL PARKWAY P.U.D., DATED 5-6-05. FARRELL STREET SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 0' 20' 40' *A HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE UA Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08/12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05/07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/08 FOR COMMENT m' Dewberry Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617.695.3400 FAX: 617.695.3310 DRAWN BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE DETAILED SITE PLAN & ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER C-1 N o z UTILITY METER (TO BE RELOCATED) EXISTING SITE SCALE: 1"=10'-O" 0' 10' 20' NOTES: 1. NORTH SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE. 2. SOME EXISTING & PROPOSED INFORMATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 3. INSTALL ANTENNAS, ANTENNA MOUNT & COAX PER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS. 4. UTILITY DESIGN BY OTHERS. 5. ALL PROPOSED BUILDING DEMOLITION & FUTURE CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (1 888 DIG SAFE) FOR IDENTIFICATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 7. SITE PLAN & ELEVATION CREATED BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY DEWBERRY ON 11/04/08. I EXISTING o -p- iroil 6' TALL IK FENCE EXISTING PROPERTY I / PROPERTY LINE I EXISTING 10' WIDE SWING GATE EXISTING US CELLULAR / EQUIPMENT ON 10'00' STEEL PLATFORM x 2 C-3 110" UTILITY GANG 3e PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PROPOSED 4 C-4 POWER IS TELCO CONDUIT \ TO EXISTING BACKBOARD EXISTING 1 BUILDING (TO BE DEMOLISHED) 11'-3"t 3 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND POWER & TELCO CONDUIT C-4 NEW SOURCE ON SITE (V.I.F.) X PROPOSED TELCO HOFFMAN BOX EXISTING 119' TALL A.G.L. LATTICE TOWER .+ / -�- EXISTING x ICE BRIDGE / EXISTING 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING PARTIAL CMU WALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=10'-O" 0' 10' 20' ------ Ric 4U��_ o C* p f Zp�9 sp e��i%/Zql` pn EXISTING STAIRS TO BASEMENT ENTRANCE LEGEND A.G.L. - ABOVE GROUND LEVEL C.L. - CENTER LINE HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE U.& Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08/12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05 07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/08 FOR COMMENT Dewberry® Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617,695 3400 FAX 617.695.3310 DR4wN BY:. _ GMT REVIEWED BY: MFT CHECKED BY: _ GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE EXISTING SITE PLAN & PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER C-2 01 U&Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 EXISTING PLATFORM (TO BE REMOVED) TOP OF_EXSITING PLATFORM ELEV. = 122'-0"t A.G.L. — 5 PROPOSED RELOCATED U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNA C-4 (2/SECTOR)(TYP.-6) TOP OF PROPOSED U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNAS ELEV. = 122'-0 t A.G.L. SOUTH BURLINGTON TOP OF EXISTING LATTICE TOWER ELEV. = 119'-0"t A.G.L. TOP OF EXISTING LATTICE TOWER__} ELEV. = 119'-0"t A.G.L. SITE NO.: 594322 C.L. OF RELOCATED U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNASAk ELEV. 119'-0"t A.G.L. = CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08/12/09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05/07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/08 FOR COMMENT EXISTING U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNA (TO BE RELOCATED) (2/SECTOR)(TYP.-6) C.L. OF EXISTING US CELLULAR ANTENNAS ELEV. = 80'—O" t A.G.L. Dewberry® Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNT (TYP.-3) (TO BE REUSED) 280 SUMMER ST. 1OTH FLOOR BOSTO^ 210 , MA �340 `^ PHONE:.695.3 3.3400 PHONE: FAX: 817.�5.3310 40 ��li G \�uululu 014 �V+0' EXISTING 119' TALL A,G.L EXISTING 119 TALL A.G.L. LATTICE TOWER LATTICE TOWER I „c EXISTING BUILDING (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING EXISTING PARTIAL ICE BRIDGE CMU WALL EXISTING BASEMENT ACCESS EXISTING GRADE _ ELEV. = 0'-0't A.G.L NOTES: 1. SOME EXISTING & PROPOSED INFORMATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2. INSTALL ANTENNAS, ANTENNA MOUNT & COAX PER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS. 3. UTILITY DESIGN BY OTHERS. 4. ALL PROPOSED BUILDING DEMOLITION & FUTURE CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (1 888 DIG SAFE) FOR IDENTIFICATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. SITE PLAN & ELEVATION CREATED BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY DEWBERRY ON 11/04/08. EXISTING ICE BRIDGE EXISTING GPS ANTENNA EXISTING US CELLULAR EQUIPMENT ON 10'x10' STEEL PLATFORM EXISTING 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING ELEVATION C� SCALE: 1 "=10'-0" 0' S' 10 20' .I EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING fICE BRIDGE '. (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING EXISTING CPS ANTENNA EXISTING US CELLULAR EXISTING PARTIAL ICE BRIDGE EQUIPMENT ON 10'x10' CMU WALL STEEL PLATFORM EXISTING 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE ' EXISTING BASEMENT ACCESS r-I OL EXISTING GRADE ELEV. = O'-0""±iA.G.L. PROPOSED 4 GANG 1 UTILITY RACK C-4 PROPOSED ELEVATION_ SCALE: 1"=10'—O" 0' 5' 10 20' LEGEND A.G.L. — ABOVE GROUND LEVEL C.L. — CENTER LINE HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE DRAWN .BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE EXISTING ELEVATION & PROPOSED ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER C-3 P.P2 UNISTRUT PIPE/CONDUIT POST 3" O.D. CLAMP (TYP.) O A -AA — 6 -0" a A -H w 0 J + M to 0w PIPE CAP (TYP) -P5000 UNISTRUT (TYP.) 3"0 SCH. 40 PIPE (GALV.) OR 3"0 RGS CONDUIT (TYP.) FINISHED 1 GRADE -18" 0 PLAIN CONCRETE PIER (TYP.) UTILITY MOUNTING RACK DETAIL (D SCALE: N.T.S. DEMARCATION PANEL SAFETY METER SOCKET/MAIN DISCONNECT AT METER RACK (BY CONTRACTOR) AND INSTALL LONG SHANK LOCK ON ARM TO PREVENT OF TAMPERING. SOLID TINNED COPPER TINUOUS TO GROUND RING 1 - 6" CONNECT TO GROUND RING COPPERCLAD STEEL GROUND 1'-0ROD 5/8"0 x 10'-0" LONG METER SOCKET_ GROUNDING 4 SCALE: N.T.S. RIGID STEEL CONDUIT PLUG RIGID STEEL CONDUIT COUPLING GRADE RIGID STEEL J CONDUIT PVC SCHEDULE 40 RIGID STEEL SIZE AS SHOWN TO PVC ADAPTOR ON LAYOUTS UNDERGROUND CONDUIT STUB -UP DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. L EXISTING GRADE WARNING TAPE TRENCH COMPACT FILL (90%) OR AS PER UTILITY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS 2"0 SCH 40 PVC ELECTRIC CONDUIT 1. IF FREE OF ORGANIC OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, EXCAVATED MATERIAL MAY BE USED FOR BACKFILL. 2. IF NOT, PROVIDE CLEAN, COMPACTIBLE MATERIAL. COMPACT IN 8" LIFTS. REMOVE ANY LARGE ROCKS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING U/G UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING. 3. IF CURRENT AS -BUILT DRAWINGS ARE NOT AVAILABLE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAND DIG U/G TRENCHING. 4. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE OF CONDUIT WITH WIRING AND TRENCHING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5. CONCRETE ENCASE UNDER ANY DRIVEN WAYS. JOINT SERVICE TRENCH SCALE: N.T.S. ` ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE ANTENNA COAX CABLE AZIMUTH AZIMUTH RAD COAXIAL COAXIAL COLOR MECHANICAL MARK SECTOR ANTENNA FEED LOC (TRUE NORTH) (MAGNETIC NORTH) CENTER CABLE LENGTH CABLE CODE DOWNTILT Al ALPHA BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" R 1' ANDREW A2 1 BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" R(2X) V ANDREW B1 BETA BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" W 2• ANDREW B2 2 BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" W(2X) 2• ANDREW G1 GAMMA BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" B 2' ANDREW G2 3 BXA-80040-8 BOTTOM TBD TBD 119' 175' AVA5-50 1 5/8" B(2X) 2• ANDREW NOTES: 1. ALL ANTENNAS TO BE FURNISHED WITH DOWNTILT BRACKETS. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE REQUIRED MECHANICAL DOWNTILT FOR EACH ANTENNA WITH RF ENGINEERS. 2. ANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT IS ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (A.G.L.). 3. CHECK WITH RE ENGINEER FOR LATEST ANTENNA TYPE AND AZIMUTH. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANTENNA TYPE AND AZIMUTH WITH CONSTRUCTION MANAGER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT INSTALL SHRINK WRAP UNTIL AFTER CABLES HAVE BEEN SWEPT. 6. THE USE OF ALTERNATE GROUNDING MEANS (SUCH AS LYNCOLE XIT) SHALL COMPLY WITH O.C.E.I. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PRACTICES. 7. GROUND ANTENNAS PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. B. R = RED. W - WHITE. B a BLUE. ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE SCALE: N.T.S. R�ccA�. City 2009 of '3 0. e Won HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE U& Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08/12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05/07/09 FOR SUBMITTAL A 12/11/O8 FOR COMMENT Dewberry® Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617.e95.3400 FAX: 617.695.3310 V 6801 jQr* DRAWN BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: __ MFi CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET NUMBER C-4 F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 September 15, 2009 Ray Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Agreement with "Hadley Neighbors" Dear Ray, I have met with several of my "Hadley Neighbors" (as defined below) and we have reached certain agreements that we would like included as stipulations in the Motion of Approval for our Bacon Street Lofts/Grand Way Senior Housing project, as follows: As referenced below, the "Property" shall mean Lot 1. (proposed Bacon Street Lofts building) and Lot 12 (proposed Grand Way Senior Housing addition); "Developer" shall mean F&M Development Company, LLC; and "Hadley Neighbors' shall mean the individuals residing in the neighborhood. immediately to the north of the property being developed. For purposes of the stipulations listed here, Developer will satisfy any notice or requirements relating to Hadley Neighbors by providing written notice to the following individuals using their current contact information: Timothy Barritt, Elise Guyette, Frank Haddleton, Kate McEachern, Jane and Delmont Neroni, Mike Provost and Mike Shellito. Stipulations 1. Prior to seeking final occupancy permits for the new structures, Developer will cause to be planted on the existing berm at the northerly boundary of the Property the following trees: nine Norway Spruce (approximately 8 feet tall or taller), five White Pine (approximately 8 feet or taller), and nine Heritage River Birch (approximately 14 feet tall or taller) and one Red Oak (at least 8 feet tall and to be planted near the top of the berm behind the Hennessey property at 65 Hadley Road). Developer will offer the Hadley Neighbors the opportunity to participate u1 the determination of the locations of such trees, and the trees will be planted at such locations as may be agreed upon by Developer and the Hadley neighbors who choose to participate in such determination. 2. The exhaust fans in the parking garage of the Lot building and Lot 12 addition will not be oriented so as to face north. 3. Developer will notify the Hadley Neighbors 15 days in. advance of the demolition of the car wash and/or the (former) TV station building. 4. The proposed park (approximately 50 feet by 185 feet, as depicted on the plans) will remain. a penmanently open. (non -buildable) area for use by the residents of Bacon Street Lofts and their guests and the residents and office workers at Grand Way Senior Housing and their guests. 5. Noise -Generating Exterior Construction Activities on Lot 1 and Lot 12 will occur only during the following hours: Monday thru Friday - 7:00 ain to 6:00 pm; Saturdays - 8:00 am to 6:00 pm; Sundays and national holidays - no such work allowed. "Noise - Generating Exterior Construction Activities" shall mean work that creates noise levels that would disturb or distract from. the peaceful enjoyment of the Hadley Neighbors. By way of clarity, exterior painting, landscaping hand -work and similar quiet activities would be allowed outside of the restricted hours. 6. There will be no further expansion of the building on Lot 12 beyond what is depicted on the current plans for a period of 15 years from the date of "Final Plat" approval. 7. The Hadley Neighbors are withdrawing their objections to the Bacon Street Lofts/Grand Way Senior Housing project in reliance upon. Developer's agreement to these stipulations and to various changes to the origilaI plan, which changes are reflected on the revised plan discussed at the DRB hearing on 9/1/09 and include the reduction of the height of Bacon Street Lofts to four stories above grade and the creation of the permanently non - buildable park area adjacent to the berm. Please call me, if you require any additional information or clarification on. this matter. Sincerely, Eric F. Farrell Cc: Timothy Barritt, 71 Meadow Road Elise Guyette, 22 Orchard Road Frank Haddleton, 37 Hadley Road Kate McEachern,117 Hadley Road Jane and Delmont Neroni, 66 Hadley Road Mike Provost, 64 Hadley Road Mike Shellito, 70 Hadley Road 0 Page 2 Eastwood Commons Shared Parking Study Developed in Accordance with Section 13.01 of South Burlington Land Development Regulations and Urban Land Institute - Shared Parking, 1983 Existing Proposed Weekday Saturday Use Size Peak Parking 6 am 10 am 12 pm 3 pm 11pm 6 am 11pm 1,000 sf or DU Ratio Spaces Req'd % Present # Cars % Present # Cars % Present # Cars % Present # Cars % Present # Cars % Present # Cars % Present # Cars Residential 383 2.25 862 1.00 862 0.68 587 0.60 518 0.85 733 1.00 862 1.00 862 0.98 845 Residential 63 1.45 92 1.00 92 0.68 63 0.60 56 0.85 79 1.00 92 1.00 92 0,98 91 (congregate) Office 11.3 3.5 40 0.03 2 1,00 40 0,90 36 0.23 10 0.00 0 0.03 2 0.00 0 Social Services 3 4 12 0.03 1 1.00 12 090 11 0.23 3 0.00 0 0.03 1 000 0 (VNA) (office) Residential 42 2.25 95 1.00 95 0.68 65 0.60 57 0.85 81 1.00 95 1.00 95 0.98 94 Residential 28 1.45 41 1.00 41 0.68 28 0.60 25 0.85 35 1.00 41 1.00 41 0.98 41 (congregate) Totals: 1142 1093 795 703 941 1090 1093 1071 Totals wl 25% Waiver 857 820 597 528 706 1 818 820 804 Total Parking Spaces Provided: 828 Spaces` Does not include existing (grandfathered) parking for Creative Habitat or Sports and Fitness Edge (Twin Oaks) Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 9/14/2009 Royal Coachworks 20 Bacon Street South Burlington, VT 05401 802-658-3387 wolfrides.com Written requests to preliminary plat applications #SD-09-34 and SD-09-35 Tuesday, September 15, 2009 Warren and Elizabeth Wolfe John Dinklage Development Review Board South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Ray Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Eric Farrell F & M Development Company, LLC P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Dear Mr. Dinklage, Mr. Belair, members of the development review board, Mr. Farrell, and all concerned members of this development process, We have been in communication with Mr. Farrell and he has offered to repair or perform, at no cost to me, these listed operations to be included in the plans for development of the above applications. 1. A drain and a burm will be installed along the property line abutting the East side of my property and a drain will be installed in the lower graded section of the property line abutting the South side property line of my property to relieve the storm water and winter melt -off drainage that is flowing on to my property. Placement and specifications to be determined by the engineers. 2. A row of 8-10 foot cedars will be planted along the East side property line abutting my property as a buffer to the park and gardens depicted on his plan. 3. Trees shown on the plan that are planted directly in front of my property will be removed from the plan. In addition to the above listed operations that we discussed with Mr. Farrell we are requesting the following: 1. The two parking spaces on the West side property line abutting my property and Diemer's property need to be reduced to 1 parking space so they won't overhang my driveway and mailbox. 2. The snowplowing of the parking lot in front of my property (Right of Way) will be performed in a timely manner, at no cost to me, and plowed to an area that will not present an environmental, visual or run-off problem. ( He suggested the park as it would not be used during the snowfall times) 3. I am concerned that the parking spaces surrounding my property could end up full of abandoned, dilapidated or vagrant parking as they are not directly connected to his building. This parking will degrade the appearance of my property as well as his and possibly create an environmental or safety issue. What can be done to prevent this? 4. Is the utility pole next to the southwest corner of my proper going to be converted to underground utilities? If so how will the connections be made to my property? 5. Mr. Farrell has agreed to certain repairs to my personal property as part of his project. Until we have those operations in signed, written form I request that his application NOT be approved. (Those operations to include but not be limited to: proper replacement of my parking lot, grading and leveling to rear of my lot, and drainage for West side of my lot) all to aid in proper storm water and winter melt off issues. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of otice of and appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days.. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: sja rl_II4��-67P1�1��(I� c NAME 1 MAILIN ADDR�SS PROJECT OF INTEREST C�("S'r��►Yec SCU�- cC,,v�. 0. P6 )3°'7 3,l 11 C— -I.'n' e/1 d� 4 V, e q C"'-) S 6�—sl �3vcI,\5T -3 q , -3 9 QC'( vo—k-�n C-0 i�2. i�V"Un ic. P-' 31 Q�'y-c-Dazn a v�j bz-, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARrG DATE: S�� ! +NA IO�' C�ag��V MAII pow( --�r NC 1 rw%JCU I yr IIV I EKES I 'POO6 wzW cc" S-c' ''v'i VR t Aj- S d . �i�? tacr, . ✓r l% e-1,.,pn 6-11 C O L cFf— V i.Li "f2a -P4 cax"ra Fc r r�-}-, M lel?e1l� l�a1 �t� �/ '�� s�cr7H nI>���s��sAV atIla-ye- �a(MV, �s 2"a/6inn/. esvo Interested Persons Record and Service List southhurlington VESMONT Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: ( S� I • [ 960 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY! NAME MAII Mr. AnnRg=cc.,.- -/Mw —On - _► . TO,. c CX c 0 � �-ac,/ P, d , Q"� YA Y 9, � � �- L , -., C..-/-bC., G s yob �-. No Text CITY OF SOUTH BURLING / ON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim subdivisionLotl.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION F& M Development Co. LLC, herein referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven (7) buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4430 sq. ft expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of subdividing lot #1 into five (5) lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 1.347 acres, 345-514 Farrell Street. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 27, 2009 and have the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Several of the proposed lots do not meet the dimensional standards for the district as laid out in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR). Therefore, for the purposes of planning and zoning, these substandard lots will be considered as part of the larger Lot 1. 1. For purposes of planning and zoning, lots 1,12,13,14, and 15 in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Condition" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING I ON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim subdivision Lot 1 doc Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed subdivision of lots does not affect any of the above criteria. As already stated, the lots will not be stand alone as their own lots for planning and zoning purposes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant address the issues raised herein before proceeding to the preliminary plat level. Respectfully Submitted, Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to.. Eric Farrell, F&M Development SOU`. i` BURLINGTON WATER DL-JARTMENT 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 www.southburlingtonvt.govoffice2.com August 10, 2009 Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: ®'Dell Parkway P.U.D. Bacon Street Bldgs. Dear Sirs: The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans for water infrastructure for the above referenced project. Please find my comments below. 1. The attached Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the ;South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. As this project continues, the Application for Water Allocation will need final approval from this Department, which will be contingent upon available water storage capabilities within the City. .2: Based upon the final water allocation request, water service fees shall be applied to the project based on the current Rate and Fee Schedule. It must be recognized by all developers that the Rate and Fee Schedule established by the South Burlington City Council may be modified by resolution at an open meeting of the City Council, and therefore subject to change prior to completion of the project. 3. The CWD Specifications are applicable to all new construction and reconstruction of water infrastructure. Variations from the CWD Specifications will not be permitted except as provided within the CWD Specifications. The appropriate CWD Supervisor as _- defined in the CWD Specifications shall determine the acceptability of any deviation from the those specifications. Private water lines and appurtenances shall be designed to . the same standards as public water lines and appurtenances. All water installafion work and water distribution material must comply with the "CWD Specifications". Details for this project must be the same as those within the above referenced CWD Specifications. 4. Sheet specific comments: a. C-5: The water services to the car wash, WVNY building and the-Thortlas building are currently connected to the Bacon Street water main that is served by the City of Burlington. Burlington must be advised that these services are being abandoned and the water main is being capped so that they can provide.- their requirements for this work. b. C-5: Since the Thomas building will now be served by the City. of South Burlington, a new water meter must be installed where the existing City of Burlington water meter exists. The customer will be charged for a new meter fee and water allocation fee, which must be paid before the meter can be provided. The new water demand from South Burlington for this building must -be included in the Application for Water Allocation. c. C-5: The nearest fire hydrant under the current access road plan is served by the City of Burlington. The SBWD is not responsible for the maintenance and operation of this hydrant. The SBWD defers to the SBFD on the possible need for another hydrant supplied from the new water main from Farrell Street. d. C-5: The new service to the Thomas building shall be sized accordingly and be either copper or Ductile Iron pipe, depending on pipe size. e. The additional demand for the existing Senior Housing building may require the- upsizing of the existing meter. New water demands must be provided'to this department so that we can determine if a new meter will be required when the building addition is built. The project owner will be responsible for all costs associated with a meter change. 5. The project shall be constructed, completed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the approved plans. No changes shall be made in the project without the written approval of the appropriate CWD supervisor. A copy of the final approved plans shall be submitted to the Department prior to construction of the water system improvements. 6. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly, and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance For The Control Of Cross Connections Within The Water System Of the City Of South Burlington, henceforth the "Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on the installation and proper setting of backflow prevention devices. 7. The above referenced CWD Specifications state that no water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior approval of the Superintendent. The appropriate CWD Supervisor may restrict work before November 15 and after April 1 during adverse weather conditions. 8. Eight -inch and larger Ductile Iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new mains shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. DI water pipe shall be Class 52, cement lined. Soil corrosiveness testing is required for this DI water main installation or the pipe shall be poly wrapped. 9. Mechanical joint restraints with twist off nuts shall be EBAA or Sigma, or approved equal. 10. It is a violation to discharge chlorinated water into waters of the state. All water used during flushing and testing of the new main must be dechlorinated prior to entering any water of the state. 11. For this project, the water mains shall be considered private. 12. This project is at the end of a dead end line, and therefore subject to all conditions created during routine and emergency operations of fire hydrants on dead end lines, including but not limited to extreme pressure fluctuations, as well as water quality issues that might develop from low demands on non -looped lines. 13. No parallel underground utility shall be designed or installed within four feet (4') of the water main from either side, or above the water main from the bottom of the main to finish grade. The exceptions of storm sewer and sanitary sewer are only as allowed by the CWD Specifications and the VT Water Supply Rule. No building or structure shall be built above the water line or within the water line easement. Generally storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be designed to be installed with a five-foot (5') separation unless provisions have been included to allow for proper support of either the storm water or sewer structures or water lines in the event of a needed excavation of the water main. The gas line, telephone line, and electric service are not shown on these plans. No utility shall be placed within five feet of any gate valve or ten feet of any fire hydrant. Generally, trees and shrubs shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 1� 14. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor must contact this Department to discuss City requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and backflow protection. 15. At least 7 days before the start of actual construction the contractor shall notify the SBWD of his intent to proceed, and shall arrange a meeting to discuss the project if necessary. 16. The SBWD shall be notified in advance to inspect all mechanical joint fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, thrust blocks, water line crossings, and testing prior to occurrence or backfilling. 17. After final flushing and before the new water main is connected to the distribution system, two consecutive sets of acceptable samples, taken at least 24 hours apart, shall be collected from the new main, and submitted to the Vermont Health Department for analysis. At least one set of samples shall be collected from every 1,000 feet of the new water main, plus one set from the end of the line and at least one set from each branch. All sample reports must be submitted to the appropriate Department prior to opening any connection to an existing water line. 18. Upon completion of the construction project, "Record Drawings" shall be supplied to the appropriate CWD supervisor in the form of one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy in Auto -CAD Version 2003 Format (.DWG) or newer. All Record Drawings are to include valve ties, and manufacturer make and casting date for all gate valves. Location ties for all curb stops, and water shut offs (WSO's) shall also be provided on the Record Drawings. 19. Further review changes may be required as this project proceeds through the permit process. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincer y, Jay Nadeau Superintendent CC. Cathyann LaRose Bruce Hoar Doug Brent Enc. Plan Reviews: O'Dell -Bacon St 8-09 r) Q O 0-1 Li z m J LLI I W HOME AVE. W O EE N07E 3 �la a Ua � W Z � N-- 2 o N/F DEIMER PROPERTIES.E W. WOO FE O w LLC _0 M VOL. 329 i U VOL 479 PG. 704 O PG. 551 " N04'31'24"E z Q'o 4.97'Iw S85'11'52'E OI O 10' UTILITY 49.99' EASEMENT TO GMP 51e'� 58511'S2"E ZONE: RESIDENTIAL 4 152= 209.92 ZONE: COMMERCIAL 1 77 G00 io 13 BACON ST. NO3'53'18"EFr__ ---�- _ w ---- m 0.2413 Ac. 49.99'(_________________. u F--- m N85'11'52"W _ NASY t'S2"w 1 n CHAMPLAIN OIL CO.. INC. VOL 126 P G S 1-3 Ll # ACCESS EASEMENT TO CHAMPLAIN OIL CO. VOL 128 P1, 1 NO25 0 .15'7"E _j85'09'05_E_ vx, N 17 i it BACON STREET �� V. 6091R 86 w m V. 609 P. 7B8 y 71-73 w� 50i00. 1 PROPOSED 20' WIDE nr REC. PATH EASEMENT (= TO CITY OF S. BURUNGTON / 113-115 / 119 y 33 p 37 M 65 / 67+69 11 N/F 9 75 rvl4i 1 I N 89 A 103 N 771 p 117 n / 29 L 8 L BROOKS I N� I M. & P. I N� J. WIWAM IN' J0. UWSON a �1 I i V. 659 P. 321 N/F I N 1 L-K PEAL e 9 99 EILAN D.A. I N/F IABBOTT I n I a IF VOL BB PC. 404 pEV TRUST I HENNESSEY Ny'F A. BOUCHE V. 3B7 P. 339 I F. & J. KOCIIYAN i V. 219 P. M I „ 3 SMWN N/F 525 P. 3910 V. `n'I o 549 P. 875 N/F V. 770 P. 90 N/F I M.P. N.N/F l V. 410 5B. 602 R I V. 393 P. 398 I V. 691 P. 239 V.S. BEMNS V.557 P204 10J i-+ N. MERRILL pl M I V. 515 P. 193 CERMNI C. MCEACHERN V554 P. 634 I I �f__ _I�a 1ZONE: RESID)iNTIAL 4 � ZONE: RESIDENTIAL4ni/ V. 601 P. 678 4o x es' TELECOM. LOT 10 F&M DEVELOPMENT 10' UTUTY EASEMENT iv "'o'' ZONE: COMMERCIAL 2 533.38' mlm elm SITE, UTILITY 10 vER¢oN z ---- S85i5 EASE. TO VERIZON saaoa'So"w COMPANY, LLC I, 0.833 ACRES yE J S85'S5'10"E 1 / w _ ,aazs'_ --- 72.0--- -- �-�_-_-.307.36'----,'--�--------r BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. - $ n -- - --�------------- �, ' 10' WIDE EASE. to G.M.P,Corp. 11 •� / V. 109 P. 364 _�_ _ �_ _ I v, ___________ -r= WIDE EASE. I' VERIZON V. 602 P. 775 EASEMENT FOR I UTILITY LINES VOL. 50 PG. 481 LOT 1 v 1.360t Ac. LOT 15 183.3 10' --L---- 17 2a _Row--�-------"` 20 18 _---- 34_44 WIDE SEWER V^20a�;12 d 1 LOT 12 I 0.526 AC. S85'S5'10"E 3 18.0, o 1 h c 1 LOT 13 g .025 AC. 17.4 q10 UTILIg KASENENTi----------�` J J o VERIzoN LOT 8 VOL 260, PG. 112 0 • 1 2 P. 77� ' 3.0o 10` r-- ---�i I- VOL. 197, PG. 63 4.082 ACRES c I w --------------- - NOTES - 9 p 1 I �'EASTWODD --------- r � e i. The purpose of this plan Is to depict revised final boundaries ofthe O'Dell Parkway PUD. Reference Is made to I COMMONS 11" m IL Reference Plans AA, A, and B. This revision reflects the division of Lots 12 and 13 and Parcels A and B from Lot 1. 35' S'10" z h I 1 D 00 I LOT 9 zp I I I w 2. The boundary survey was performed with an electronic total station and a steel tape. f� 14 I 2.222 AC. " I TENNIS COURTS I I w I ry n v Of I 3. Bearings are referenced to astronomic north based on existing monumenta8on recovered along the easterly sideline of Farrell Street and solar observations taken October 20, 1999 and December 21, 1994. I fr g 4. Farrell Street has a OO foot wide rlghl of way (ROW). Reference Vol. 211, Pg. 237. ROW determined from 504'04'50"7W 1 I I I I $� x u 2 \ existing monumentation and plans entitled "Farrell Street' dated December 6, 1962, Sheets 2-6, recorded in Vol. 197, Pp. 85-89. 19.94' JI ) I- _ I 5. Shelburne Road has a 99 foot wide ROW determined by existing monumentatlon and the traveled portion of the road. __ 50 ' « S03-45'23" 2,70' 7.OB' 1-TSt$iL'�TlCTA7' � 17 I 1 r..L 20 y 10' Parking I 1f 88'14'5TW & Iccdtmq nl- Rf--Qw : 1 S45'25'43"W B. 0.215' sceement inl� j 38.33' 'f11'37°W I I I "Thomas Building" Io LOT 11 J d j LOT 14 r M.L. Thomas Fom9y Truet, at I. ,,� Vol. 50 PSI. 481 �{�Ie 1.293 AC. Bundin tote 1 i I; a Nm FARRELL STREET PROPOSED 20' WIDE S2Y4 i rze', L / 314 Pro art REC. PATH EASEMENTP ySENIOR HOUSING LIMITED TO CITY nee (typJ i r PARTNERSHIP ��T4'37"E J§;-� N V. 739 P. 514 COMMON 24' R.O.W. I. 3 IFpi 1 I I FOR LOT 9, LOT 11 & umrvi i� I 19 I BURUNGTON INDOOR I NI I t, LOT 14 v TENNIS CE(HATO INC. 91, 91 '11'27' W `�+ N1 I (HATCHED) I� 4.80TQ�3�Y . Gaga.��� _ I458b, 58.00' 28.70 244.87' LOT7S?1:G�• R�t49..as, NessTo3°w oMMGN u�iD� 24' R.O.W. TO BURLINGTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. FARRELL STREET go, to FARRELL STREET v .m:"e1s"r,RO335 N85'S3'32"W N85'55'10'W N85'S5'10"W F 216.23' ----�- 2F3.8 136:02 ; 157.07-r__I-__ b pia PUD ASCI� PARKWAY+, INC COMMON LAND pl a V. 678 P. 5 7 3:Lw1 0.392t Ac. N/F ACADIA HEATHCOTE, LLC - LEGEND - 6 - - PROPERTY LINE - - - - - - - TIE LINE I' ----- ----- ----- EASEMENT - - - - - - - - - RIGHT OF WAY p - - --- - ZONING DISTRICT LINE -x-x-x-x- FENCE D IRON PIPE/REBAR FOUND ❑ MONUMENT FOUND El MONUMENT TO BE SET 5/8" REBAR W/ SURVEY MARKER 1 (1) TO BE SET 10, POWER POLE ® TV TRANSMITTING TOWER 14 SEE ENUMERATED NOTES RE: EASEMENTS GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FELT ) 1 inch - 00 ft I,8U•54� t5•7��� E _ _ 76.42 PROPOSED 15 FOOT WIDE 444.E SIDEWALK EASEMENT N TO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Q 4 Ij 2.5' U U "EASTWOOD COMMONS" N14'53'22"E R-.92'1402.69' 00 ! d;'= 2.2 3OT ACRES z U U )I,, --SEE REF. PLAT B N29'471TE 0 o 0 9 21.98' nJ o 58.86'8 E 7431'5N2.2972'59'15"E 58' ryh b R-153.5' R�45.50' S73'22'40"E 74.48' 580. R-171.5' N10. IIOO'17� ` =7 . W 7p0B0• $ NEW FARRELL STREET W R.O.W. J I 11 R.O.W. THROUGH N732240 W 3.18' zz - �s5510r����- 159.03 �(� nl I I 1 LOT 6 IN FAVOR OF I I LOT 3, LOT 4& LOT 5 R= 68.5' L=T3.7T N7524'14"W ti \s*• _ Zl 585'S416 E I 38.58' I l j SEE REF. PLAT A N62.51'45"W 84.50' R-231.5' 4. 7' 7j�`\p�"'0... 0. � 16.37' \ R=231.5 �aII I I II O'DELL HOUSING / LOT 3 ii I I I ~ SHOPPING CENTER la-r - !sj R.D.W. THROUGH 4.449t ACRES i LOT 3 IN FAVOR OF LOT 4 &LOT 5 495'27.! z4 II 1-5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT al 1 50' CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1 TO LOT 5 _________J yl_._ _ -.- - -. -_ - _ _ _ - -.-._ I _.�85i5r5'10"E�1 .� 20' DRAINAGE i 316.44" EASEMENT N04.05'44"E 6.26' l l U I O.W. THROUGH 1 U ^. .tv r-5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT T 4 IN AVOR OF c ha 3 �;y�` cow THROUGH LOTS 3 & 4 T to 3 & LFO7 5 I a Oi01 LOT 5 to 70 LOT 5 y 9g. COMMON LAND kE' I I ' U-CITY'S EDGE" 1.786t Ac. PUD PARKWAY \ A l" LOT 4 PUD ASSOCIATION, INC 1.601f ACRES ' V. 67e P. sn / ELECTRICAL EASEMENT CI_PrOPEN Stg 66 ZONE. ," NSE RV Aj10N, _ --'' 0' WATER & NATURAL W GAS EASEMENT N78'40'40"E �i �i� �- "_--"" 0 53.60' :I _ 7 � i �_ '��� '__---o-W 84ob.o3' RMONT H1M�r�OpO)� RA►�P C 0� 46 E '45 3 " ' BURUNGT 48 PGS. 199_200 MON.I 4 .�r4u 194• PGS. 1 Reference Town of Burlington Vol. 2, Pg. 749. 81Rf I 6. Hadley Road has a 50 foot wide ROW determined by existing monumentatlon and the traveled portion of the mad. 51 i Reference Vol. 11, Pp. 19 and 230. h � b LLj I 7. Munldpal water service, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, telephone, electric and gas services are available at the lot Imes of eJry > this parcel from the point of origin through public right of ways or recorded easements. og 8. Not being within the scope of the survey, [here has not been undertaken any investigation whatsoever with respect to Q whether the property and each component there of is in compliance with local or State permits. 9. Subject properties Ile within the Commercial 1 and 2, Conservation and Open Space Zoning Districts and Q i Residential Zoning District (50 strip of land to Hadley Road). O ' 0. Ezisting 1" Iron pipes found disturbed by snow plowing and mowing are to be replaced by capped 5/8" -be-to be set. There is an easement to extend and maintain highway slopes and embankments In this area. Reference Vol. 194, 1 I Pg. 199 and State of Vermont Highway Project Burlington M (5000) 1, Sheet 41. 12. The Thomas Trust parcel Is benefited by easements for Ingress and egress, parking, utilities, building canopies and maintenance, not all shown on this plan. Reference Volume 50 page 481 and a map entitled "Plan and Land Easements, 518 W / Shelburne Street, South Burlington, Vermont, Thomas A. Ferrell, Owner", datetl October 2 1959 reco dad In Vol. 49 Pg. 29. ' 13 I& Bacon Street subject to Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the Clty of Sauth Burl �iL3///P.344 (2002) 1 14 14. 24' wide access ROW serving Lots 13 & 12 over Lot 9 and Lot 11. I 15 15. 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 11, 12 & 13 over Lot 9. C` 1 16 18. 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 9, 11 & 13 over Lot 12. J/ /� ' 17 17. 3T end 24' wide access R.O.W. serving Lots 1, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 7,��ix,,..aqlj/(n�os building. (J 1$ 18. Rightsof-way (variable widths) over Lot 14 also serves Lots 1, it.4 1ZR 6.. building. /©O :::////// vo S ` 9 ' 19 19. Easement over portion or Lot 1 for access to and parking for Lot 11, O 1 20 20. Proposed 20' wide utility easement over Lots 1 and 15 to serve Thomas building. V - PLAN REFERENCES - I AA. °FINAL PLAT - O'DELL PARKWAY PUD", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) dated July 2000, last revised 5111/2006. Recorded In South Burlington Land Records (SBLR). i A. "FINAL PLAT - O'DELL PARKWAY PUD" , by CEA dated July 2000, last revised 9/1912002. SBLR. B. "Boundary Adjustment Between Lot f and Lot 2 - O'Dell Parkway PUD", by CEA, dated 4/23/2004. SBLR. C. "Plat of Survey- Seaway Shopping Center Corporation and Thomas A. Farrell", prepared by John Marsh, dated 614/81, last revised 10/22/81. Volume 173, page 73, SBLR. D. "Factory Outlet Center - Site Survey Shelburne Road", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated August 1982. Volume 173, page 51, SBLR. E. "Touchdown Properties -Plan of Land to be acquired from Gardenway Incorporated", prepared by F. C. Koerner, dated November 1985. Volume 200, page 18, SBLR. F. "Lands of Heathcote Associates - Property Plat", prepared by Lamoureux, Stone, and O'Leary, dated 6/2/95. Volume 365, page 112. G. "State of VT Highway Project Burlington M(5000)(", plans by VT Agency of Transportation, dated 12/13/82, SBLR. PROPERTY UNE TO LOTS 1, 12 13 & 15 .29-08 1 ACL I ADDED R.G.W. FOR LOT 9 MD LOT tI Date I Ch'k*dl Revision Scal Drawn by _ Date DUNE 20, 2005 Checked by TRC Original e 1" = 60' Approved by TRC Project No. 99101 To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properly depicts the results of a survey conducted under my supervision as outlined in the notes above, based on our analysis of records & physical evidence found. Existing boundaries shown are In substantial conformance with the record. This plat substantially conforms with 27 VSA 1403. Timothy R. Cowan VT. L.S. 597 REVISED FINAL PLAT O'DELL PARKWAY PUD FARRELL STREET CIVIL ENGINEERING ASKZIAIES, IN':] SHEET :0 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT OW3 1 8n2 86 2323 FAX- 902 86s 22]'1 e , 1a,, cee i. corn Owners EF Farrell LLC D&B Morrissey LLC c/o PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Cathedral Square Corp 412 Farrell Street South Burlington, VT 05403 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: August 19, 2009 \drb\sub\f&m\prelim_baconstreetlofts.doc Plans received: July 27, 2009 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-09-35 CATHEDRAL SQUARE CORPORATION — O'DELL PARKWAY PUD Agenda # 8 Meeting Date: September 1, 2009 Applicant F&M Development Corporation LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Location ) I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc F& M Development Co. LLC, herein referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven (7) buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash and television station, 2) constructing a 24,800 sq. ft. 2 and 4-story addition to contain 28 congregate housing units and 3,000 sq. ft. of social service use to existing 63 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) constructing a 48,500 sq. ft. 5-story multi -family dwelling to contain 43 dwelling units, Farrell Street and Bacon Street. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 27, 2009 and have the following comments: Setbacks: The proposed buildings do not meet the applicable front, rear, and side setback requirements for the subject PUD, as outlined in Table C-2 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Since this project is part of a larger PUD, the board may grant "relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots... in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area." The plan's adherence to this stipulation, to the extent it creates innovation in design in layout shall be discussed below in applicable areas of this report. In addition, the 28 unit addition is proposed to cross a property line which is prohibited under Section 15.02(A)(3) of the LDRs. This issue can be resolved by requiring the recording of a Notice of Conditions that the new five lots are to be considered one lot for zoning purposes. Density: The 24.42 acres generates 366 units at 15 units per acre. With the use of the density bonus for mixed rate housing, pursuant to article 13.14 of the SBLDR, the maximum allowable density on the site is 457 units. Congregate housing units are not subject to density review. To date, 383 (not including congregate housing) units have been approved and constructed. Therefore, 74 units of density remain. This application proposes 43 new market -rate units. Coverage: Staff has been in discussions with the applicant regarding the coverages for the property. The applicant has stated that the 514 Farrell Street property (Creative Habitat) has, is, and will continue to be counted towards building and overall overages for the PUD. The total building coverage for the site increases from 19.9% to 20.7% from approval dated 8/2/2006. The Overall lot coverage decreases from 61.5% to 58.7% from approval dated 8/2/2006. Staff finds the coverages to be acceptable and within the regulations for the zoning district. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc Building Height: The new Bacon Street Lofts building will represent an overall building height of 58 feet. The standard height limitation for the district is 35 feet for a flat roof. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a height wavier of 23 feet. The addition to the senior housing building will be 54.5 ft. in height, the same as the existing building, for a 19.5 ft. height waiver requested. The applicant has submitted a summary of heights in the surrounding area for consideration by way of neighborhood context (attached). The Board should review this request and render guidance. Staff supports the requested height waiver based on height analyses as well as a review of shadow impacts. 1. The Board grants a height waiver of 23 feet for the Bacon Street Lofts building and 19.5 feet for the senior housing addition. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. The Superintendent of the South Burlington Water Department, Jay Nadeau has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a letter dated August 10, 2009 (attached). 2. The applicant shall comply with the requests of the South Burlington Water Department per the letter dated August 10, 2009. The City of Burlington's Water and Wastewater Treatment, Distribution, and Collection Facilities will handle the wastewater disposal of this project. 3. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. 4. The applicant shall submit a site grading and erosion control plan as part of the final plat application. 5. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. I j CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access is provided to the proposed addition and the proposed new building by the same private access which currently serves the Cathedral Square building and the rear of the Creative Habitat building. This access will also connect to the east side of the existing building, providing a full vehicular loop around the Cathedral Square building. Bacon Street is a public street. As proposed by the applicant, it would dead-end into a private parking lot. Staff is concerned about this private drive and recommends that the Board consider the merits of providing a public street connection to Bacon Street. Section 15.12(D)(2)(c) and (d) of the SBLDR states that The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (c) The Development Review Board determines that the proposed length of a roadway or the significance of the roadway within the City's street network warrants public ownership. (d) The proposed roadway serves one (1) or more lots occupied by and/or proposed for non-residential or mixed -use development. A public street connection will allow for greater safety and control over what will likely be a highly used access point. This new building will create an attractive access to Shelburne Road for many of the PUD's residents and likely also through traffic from the eastern portion of Farrell Street and Swift Street. This connection should not be through a residential parking lot but rather through the appropriate medium: a public street. Furthermore, the proposed design creates a building which is fronted on three sides by a parking lot. Should the adjacent property to the west be developed, the parking area there would also be adjacent to the building, creating a building surrounded on four sides by a sea of parking. The Farrell Street development has long been held in high regards for its pedestrian considerations, good urban form, and appropriate street presentations. The proposed plan is not in accordance with this model, nor does it adequately achieve the "innovative design" that Planned Unit Developments call for in exchange for waivers of dimensional standards. This is a significant concern of the staff and it should be thoroughly discussed at the hearing. Staff recommends discussion of the merits of a public street connection from Farrell Street to Bacon Street. The proposed building is not an insignificant one; a development of a similar size and with the potential for such important street connections anywhere else in the city would create similar concerns. This Planned Unit Development has been an urban project that has evolved with good planning and form over the past several years. As the project approach its final stages it is especially critical that the City ensure that good planning continues in this highly visible and dense neighborhood. Finally, the Board should consider the potential for additional redevelopment on Bacon Street as well as on the lot directly north of the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building. 6. The Board should address the access, circulation, and appropriate urban form of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLING7 ON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\ relim baconstreetlofts.doc proposed project. According to the ITE, 81" Edition, the proposed building will generate 31.57 PM peak vehicle trip ends. This is estimated to bring the Planned Unit Development's total P.M. vehicle trip ends to 238 P.M. peak -hour vehicle trip ends. This is a decrease from the 632 vte's in the original PUD approval. 7. The applicant shall pay any applicable traffic impact fees for the additional vehicle trip ends the proposed amendment is estimated to create, prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the proposed building. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The subject property does not contain any wetlands, streams, or unique natural features. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. According to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large -lot retail uses, warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic movements, promote mixed -use developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and to provide a potential location for high - traffic generating commercial uses. Staff feels that the proposed development conforms to the purpose of the C1 District and that it is visually compatible with the area, which currently contains commercial uses and multi -family dwellings. The proposed uses will not interfere with the accessibility and continuity of the C1 District. Also, the proposed development is part of a PUD, which is encouraged in the C1 District. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The major open space area on this PUD is the land adjacent to the Interstate which comprises the IHO District. Staff feels this is an important open space area, as it provides a viable corridor along the Interstate and provides an aesthetic buffer between the Interstate and the PUD. However, as the overall PUD nears completion, staff would like to ensure that adequate public amenities are provided. The City fully supports infill development, particularly the higher densities achieved through this development. However, it is also important to ensure that there is a balance between the urban form and un-developed space. The plans submitted by the applicant include disjointed green spaces which are largely unusable. This is a serious concern which should be discussed. One potential remedy would be to combine the two proposed green CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc spaces along the northern property line, creating a viable, usable, green open space. This would also serve to increase the buffer between the project and the adjacent neighborhood. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide for adequate useable green space in the vicinity of the newly proposed building. It shall be of substantial size for use and enjoyment of the residents. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Chief shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. 9. The South Burlington Fire Chief shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. A public road serves all lots in the PUD with private access drives to serve rear parking areas and provide additional circulation. A sidewalk exists on the northerly side of the roadway and a 10' wide bike path exists on the southerly side of the roadway. The recreation path flows from Farrell Street north along the easterly side of the Eastwood Commons II parking lot, along the westerly boundary of the Twin Oaks facility, and eventually connecting with Hadley Road. There are several existing connections with adjacent properties, either through direct connections or access easements and rights of way. Staff has already addressed the issue of a public street connection and associated pedestrian amenities through this area of the development. Furthermore, the applicant should address a pedestrian connection to Bacon Street Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. 10. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The applicant shall submitted exterior lighting details (cut -sheets) for the proposed street lights and pedestrian lights on the property. Both of the proposed lighting fixtures shall comply with Appendix A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 11. The applicant shall submit exterior lighting details (cut sheets) for any new building mounted lights, pole mounted lights, street lights and pedestrian lights on the property. The City Engineer shall review the plans and provide comments. 12. The City Engineer shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. i � CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim bacon streetlofts doc The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff finds the proposed PUD to be consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: a. The plan is consistent with the stated purpose of the C1 District, as outlined in Section 5.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. b. The proposed PUD will produce infill development, which is promoted through the Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications. - The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, with the exceptions noted above. Based on the Land Development Regulations, the overall PUD will now require 1022 parking spaces The applicant has provided and/or is proposing to provide 811 parking spaces. This shortfall is 211 spaces, or 20.6%. 20 spaces immediately south of Bacon Street Lofts are apparently designated for off premise use. The Board cannot approve these unless either (a) receiving property owner is applicant or (b) these parking spaces are designated for use in the PUD. 13. The Development Review Board should approve a 211-space or 20.6% parking waiver. According to Section 13.01(J) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, parking or storage facilities for recreational vehicles shall be provided in all multi -family residential developments of twenty-five (25) units or more. Recreational vehicles shall not be stored on any common open lands other than those specifically approved for such purpose by the DRB through the review process. The Development Review Board may waive this provision only upon a showing by the applicant that the storage and parking of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited within all private and common areas of the development. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable This proposal is in compliance with this criterion. e CITY OF SOUTH BURLING7 ON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff has already addressed the height issues already in this report. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Staff feels this criterion is being met Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff feels this criterion is being met. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. This property poses an excellent opportunity to create access to abutting properties that will reduce private curb cuts, improve general access, and improve circulation. Again, staff recommends a discourse regarding a potential public street connection to Bacon Street. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLING l UN 9 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc The site plan depicts screened waste storage facilities. The applicant is proposing construction of a 12'x24' trash and recycling storage building. This building is similar to ones that already exist on the property (see photo attachment). Landscaping and Screening Requirements 14. The applicant should submit, with the preliminary plat application, a landscape plan and landscape budget in compliance with Section 13.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. This shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage area must be specified and located in an area that will minimize the potential for run-off. 15. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any utility cabinets on the site shall be effectively screened to the approval of the Development Review Board. Based on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the City offices, staff does not recommend approval at this time. It is important that the Board discuss the need for useable green open space on the property as well as the potential significant merits of a public road connection to Bacon Street. As such, staff recommends that the Board continue the application such that the applicant can further address these issues. Respectfully Submitted, Cathyar' nLaRose, Associate Planner Copy to.. Eric Farrell, F&M Development August 18, 2009 Re: F+M Development — Farrell Street and Bacon Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice that will be published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a of coin ,-Ar, c I is d to the subject of the proceeding.,, If you v�culd like to '-,ne)w r lore abuiAt the -proposed development, you may call this office al 846-4106, stor by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public hearing. Sincerely, Seagley Encl. 575 Dorset Street SOUth Burlington, VT 05403 tel 302.846.4106 fax 302.846.4101 wmv.sburl.com F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Aro- Date: 8/ 3/ 09 Re: Preliminary Plat Review - Lot 1 & 11/12 - O'Dell Parkway PUD Revisions In response to concerns expressed by the abutting neighbors, Cathedral Square Corporation decided to modify the design of the addition it proposed to its existing building. The new design is reflected on the following drawing: • O'Dell parkway PUD - Grand Way 2 North East &, West Elevations (Drawing No. E1, dated 7/ 14/09) The revised drawing replaces the following drawings that were submitted with our Preliminary Plat application on July 27, 2009. • _East Elevation - Grand Way 2 (Drawing E-1, dated 7/8/09) • _West Elevation - Grand Way 2 (Drawing E-2, dated 7/8/09) • North Elevation - Grand Way (Drawing E-3, dated 7/8/09) The revisions reflect a stepped roof design, including a 4-story section where it attaches to the existing building, stepping down to 2-story, then 1-story, as the addition extends to the north. The footprint of the addition remains the same and the overall size of the new addition is slightly smaller at Therefore, the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 3.25' to 7.25' above the closest neighboring building. 24,800 sf (versus 26,150 sf). The height of the 4-story section of the roof remains at 261.75 feet. The new addition will contain 28 congregate housing units, plus 3,000 sf of social services use. I also discovered an error in the one sentence on page 7 of my 7/27/09 Memo, under the heading Building Height - Lot 1. It is hereby amended, as follows: • Original sentence: "Therefore, the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 3.25' to 7.25' above the closest neighboring building." • Replacement sentence: "Therefore, the elevation of the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 1.0' above Grand Way Senior Housing, 1.25' above Eastwood Commons II and 1.5' below Eastwood Commons I." Please let me know if you require any additional information. Enclosures • Page 2 D C PROJECT MATERIAL5: NORTH ELEVATION ~GALE: 1 16" = V-U"O EAST ELEVATION �( -AH I: W" 1' 0" v_ WEST ELEVATION SCALL: 116" = I'-u" OIDELL PARKWAY P.U.D. (cenNo wav-z) t Eq m �j K Duncan Wisniewski IJ ARCH IT ECTURE) DATE: 7142009 I I'm had another "senior moment". The sentence I corrected in my 8/3/09 Memo, under the heading Building Height - Lot 1 needs to be further corrected, as follows: • 8/3/09 Replacement sentence: "Therefore, the elevation of the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 1.00' above Grand Way Senior Housing, 1.25' above Eastwood Commons II and 1.5' below Eastwood Commons L" • 8/ 10/09 Replacement sentence: "Therefore, the elevation of the roof on the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building is only 3.75' above Grand Way Senior Housing, 1.00' above Eastwood Commons II and 1.5' below Eastwood Commons L" The corrections are highlighted in yellow. I apologize for the confusion (on my part). Please let me know if you require any additional information. Enclosures E Permit Number SD -- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) 6- r f)A LL f- bA Wbi2i21sSP_(4 I LG .Vo Olt Rbv- III Aur-LIja6rniu,w r,ft-ryo2 AAf h v 1403 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 31 APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) ,�tw PC 190)6 3 3 f" M AN DVw. V ��rD �,. 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) K L Contact email address: jQel I (� � �?J2e l / R L �Sr� J V j • tO "I 3yt— S/ 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION IQu A . F4 i<"! t2z i 5 a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use)_ W6sr b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) 6t4L; d 1 &LCj On7 0 " /yb Gdyt �u 6 c /IV & cr c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) /V-D �v6E ry, Lt,L 00 3 �x133� d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) Al 4 e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): �+ g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts S ts are applicable): h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.: 6&4ObiuumAi of br t sue•PV "rS t, l�Ta /y f!s- S EE c" E"410 8) LOT COVERAGE'V 14�- a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing _% Proposed_ % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed % 9) COST ESTIMATES /U /+ a) Building (including interior renovations): $ b) Landscaping: $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost):ej®.o e 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC /U a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 2 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14) PLEASE LIST ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, INCLUDING THOSE ACROSS THE STREET. You may attach a separate sheet. 15) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 4� 1-n1- 1 DATE OF SUBMISSION: (� ��* ', � SIGNATURE OF APPLICAT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: liS Complete ❑ Incomplete 7 of Planning & Zoning or Designee 3 6"T 11 Date O'Dell Parkway PUD South Burlington, Vermont Owners of Record of Contiguous Properties April 6, 2009 PARCEL ID OWNER OF RECORD LOCATION CITY 1540-00510-C Champlain Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, Vt 05407 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas c/o Gary Franklin Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd. P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, Vt 05402-1489 0670-00514-C Thomas Family Trust et al Attn: Michael Dowling 514 Farrell Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas 64 Southwind Drive Burlington, Vt. 05401 1540-00490-C Deimer Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 64678 Burlington, Vt 05402 0670-00466-C F & M Dev. Co., LLC c/o Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 1540-00570-C Acadia Heathcote LLC c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue Suite 260 White Plains, NY 10605 0670-00075-C Burlington Indoor Tennis 142 West Twin Oaks Terrace South Burlington, Vt 05403 510 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 514 Farrell Street S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 490 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 466 Farrell Street S. Burlington 570 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 25 Joy Drive S. Burlington 1 0670-00080-C Burlington Indoor Tennis Center 75 Eastwood Drive S. Burlington c/o Twin Oaks Sports & Fitness 95 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00345 O'Dell Allocated Housing 345 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00349 O'Dell Bond Housing 349 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 220 Riverside Avenue Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00409 Burlington Community 09 Farrell Street S. Burlington Land Trust P.O. Box 523 Burlington, Vt 05402-0523 0090-00017-C Bacon Street Properties LLC 17 Bacon Street S. Burlington c/o Apple Tree Bay Property Management Burlington, Vt 05402 0090-00020-C Warren Wolfe 20 Bacon Street S. Burlington 138 Woodlawn Road Burlington, Vt 05401 0750-00029-R Alice Bouche 29 Hadley Road S. Burlington P.O. Box 5573 Essex Junction, Vt 0750-00033-R Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road S. Burlington 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00037-R Jane Quilliam Rev. Trust 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00037-R Frank Haddleton, et al 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 2 0750-00065-R Mike and Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road S. Burlington 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-67-69-R Victoria Brooks Bevins 67 Hadley Road S. Burlington 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-71-73-R Jason Lawson 71 Hadley Road S. Burlington 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00075-R Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road S. Burlington 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00080-R Brendan & Monica Taylor 80 Hadley Road S. Burlington 80 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00086-R Nancy Cunha 86 Hadley Road S. Burlington 197 Mutton Hill Dr. Charlotte, Vt 05445 0750-00089-R Lorna -Kay Peal 89 Hadley Road S. Burlington Michael Smolin 189 Poker Hill Road Underhill, Vt 05489 0750-00099-R Nathaniel Merrill 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00103-R Denise A. Blanchard 103 Hadley Road S. Burlington 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00111-1Z Madeline P. Cervini 111 Hadley Road S. Burlington 111 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-113-5-R Michael Abbott 113 Hadley Rd S. Burlington 60 Spitfire Drive Plattsburgh, NY 12901 0750-00117-R Catherine Mceahern 117 Hadley Road S. Burlington 117 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 3 0750-00119-R Nancy E. Osborne 119 Hadley Road S. Burlington 119 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons 370 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00409 City's Edge 409 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons II 410 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00412.001 Farrell St. Senior Housing 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.002 United Way of Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.003 Homeshare Vermont Incorporation 412 Farrell Street Unit 3 South Burlington, VT 05403 O'Dell Parkway O'Dell Parkway PUD Association PUD Common P.O. Box 1335 Land Burlington, Vt 05402 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington S. Burlington M F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell Date: 7/2709 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review - O'Dell Parkway PUD We hereby seek permission to amend our Final Subdivision Plat, resulting in the subdivision of existing Lot 1 into the following lots: • Lot 1 - Existing Car Wash building • Lot 12 - existing TV Station building • Lot 13 - Existing Tower • Lot 14 - Existing Parking • Lot 15 - Existing Parking In this connection, enclosed please find the following materials for your review: • Application For Preliminary Plat Subdivision Plat Review • Application Fee in the amount of $511 • Owners of Record of contiguous properties • Revised Final Plat O'Dell Parkway PUD - Per #SD-06-35 (Sheet 1, dated 6/20/05, last revised 5/ 11/06) • Revised Final Plat O'Dell Parkway PUD - Proposed (Sheet 1, dated 6/20/05, last revised 7/6/09) The purpose of this subdivision is to accommodate the following transactions: • Lot 1 - Demolition of the Car Wash building and the development of a multi- family residential building. 1 h • Lot 12 - Sale of this new lot to Cathedral Square Corporation (to be merged with Lot 11) for the purpose of demolishing the (former) TV Station building and constructing an addition to the existing Congregate Housing building. • Lot 13 - Retention of the Tower on a separate lot of record. • Lot 14 - Sale of existing parking to the purchasers of the Ben Franklin property. • Lot 15 - Sale of existing parking to the purchasers of the Ben Franklin property. Minor adjustments to the boundary lines and areas of Lots 1, 12, 13 and 15 have been made since Sketch Plan Review. Please schedule us for a Public Hearing before the Development Review Board at its next available meeting. Enclosures 0 Page 2 Permit Number SD - CITY OF OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Nai + D6 MOQjt++S�SEk, LLC e4txeDRAL, set z on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Ef F*RQErLL LL�G X (33% 13k GTib.•�,tPTos4nz ArvA 'L f-K ae . 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) r fa'N DE✓e. pkt r Pb t�bY 13-tQL/,n(arVA, vT bS40 Z tr—r-I S1�1-3eer� �t..�\ Scl 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) / >�r �QieC 1-We L IQVN�s �i�,V i DS'�Di iT�Li tlI 1-Z.,n., iCa - 42% Contact email address: EFA-Re�! - C+R P I � c -6T UT: Lnw4 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: ZS 13A C-j->,y -6 r1Z EST -t 1412 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) iUDS R" )6,1" Asu Fiu ou4 E,ur = sr5n - 61_— a .— b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and 117P of Pai-t, n, — „— —A ... -- — eSY103 LL(— c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) mot l - DIeW-ac.isk 31 toao 5F CAR (4ASH fic-ow sic r YSr,,SiriSf 1I/12.- tDWtvLtSif 10, 7Od S jF 7USP471pw �60K.15 Maej- 2(,/) YD 5F 6&Aao 6 "6 -X *Pstv)w b1SDc, *-L s rRvl t-Es t3�--SIG 4, 9 X-fsTrA*& 7 n, ooa S,P- S Fww1 aAe 4115Ao MtoL d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed if basement and mezzanine) 'SIC E and existing buildings to remain, specify e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) L D771 = �3 4&X1 ST7A0'G 494j6" 4r-it-M "eA0 i %f f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): Aj A- g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): �E� 4.-TT4ngW h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.: SEE 4--: "&r,* rwja a4 EAU n f A+ RA Lc E L. Aj to to <A-rtfl_ AA" _ n.1j r. CiA&4A.4_ DL.A-1'- O.Ld R IN I If is y 2. 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 1 1. 9 % Proposed 2-D • 7 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing% Proposed •7 % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed 0/0 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): j ): $ 3�tccDo %-8T f 37 S*S` - ;.% clot-� oDo - Tz- b) Landscaping: $ 1 if. 0 rt.( ' 11/ -L c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): /N D12. /IBC l�%�dC.ALGL"w j� TV C 66" W VA., PA. 2IL ©.-* L, L7 7- 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): s >C Ft LF_ b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): 5 e G Ft (�- E 2 c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 6,4j ✓4 lV IA- 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14) PLEASE LIST ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, INCLUDING THOSE ACROSS THE STREET. You may attach a separate sheet. 15) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. �✓�GtL(r SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT �Gc-c SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: lz Complete Fol 3 1 I, O'Dell Parkway PUD South Burlington, Vermont Owners of Record of Contiguous Properties April 6, 2009 PARCEL ID OWNER OF RECORD LOCATION CITY 1540-00510-C Champlain Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, Vt 05407 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas c/o Gary Franklin Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd. P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, Vt 05402-1489 0670-00514-C Thomas Family Trust et al Attn: Michael Dowling 514 Farrell Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 1540-00518-C Thomas Family Trust et al 0670-00514-C Herman and Mavis Thomas 64 Southwind Drive Burlington, Vt. 05401 1540-00490-C Deimer Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 64678 Burlington, Vt 05402 0670-00466-C F & M Dev. Co., LLC c/o Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 1540-00570-C Acadia Heathcote LLC c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue Suite 260 White Plains, NY 10605 0670-00075-C Burlington Indoor Tennis 142 West Twin Oaks Terrace South Burlington, Vt 05403 510 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 514 Farrell Street S. Burlington 518 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 490 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 466 Farrell Street S. Burlington 570 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington 25 Joy Drive S. Burlington 1 0670-00080-C Burlington Indoor Tennis Center c/o Twin Oaks Sports & Fitness 95 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00345 O'Dell Allocated Housing Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00349 O'Dell Bond Housing Limited Partnership 220 Riverside Avenue Burlington, Vt 05401 0670-00409 Burlington Community Land Trust P.O. Box 523 Burlington, Vt 05402-0523 0090-00017-C Bacon Street Properties LLC c/o Apple Tree Bay Property Management Burlington, Vt 05402 0090-00020-C Warren Wolfe 138 Woodlawn Road Burlington, Vt 05401 0750-00029-R Alice Bouche P.O. Box 5573 Essex Junction, Vt 0750-00033-R Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00037-R Jane Quilliam Rev. Trust 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00037-R Frank Haddleton, et al 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 a 75 Eastwood Drive S. Burlington 345 Farrell Street S. Burlington 349 Farrell Street S. Burlington 09 Farrell Street S. Burlington 17 Bacon Street S. Burlington 20 Bacon Street S. Burlington 29 Hadley Road S. Burlington 33 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington 2 0750-00065-R Mike and Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road S. Burlington 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-67-69-R Victoria Brooks Bevins 67 Hadley Road S. Burlington 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-71-73-R Jason Lawson 71 Hadley Road S. Burlington 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00075-R Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road S. Burlington 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00080-R Brendan & Monica Taylor 80 Hadley Road S. Burlington 80 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00086-R Nancy Cunha 86 Hadley Road S. Burlington 197 Mutton Hill Dr. Charlotte, Vt 05445 0750-00089-R Lorna -Kay Peal 89 Hadley Road S. Burlington Michael Smolin 189 Poker Hill Road Underhill, Vt 05489 0750-00099-R Nathaniel Merrill 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00103-R Denise A. Blanchard 103 Hadley Road S. Burlington 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-00111-R Madeline P. Cervini 111 Hadley Road S. Burlington 111 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0750-113-5-R Michael Abbott 113 Hadley Rd S. Burlington 60 Spitfire Drive Plattsburgh, NY 12901 0750-00117-R Catherine Mceahern 117 Hadley Road S. Burlington 117 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 3 0750-00119-R Nancy E. Osborne 119 Hadley Road S. Burlington 119 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons 370 Farrell Street S. Burlington C/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00409 City's Edge 409 Farrell Street S. Burlington C/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons 11 410 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, Vt 05403 0670-00412.001 Farrell St. Senior Housing 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.002 United Way of 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.003 Homeshare Vermont 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Incorporation 412 Farrell Street Unit 3 South Burlington, VT 05403 O'Dell Parkway O'Dell Parkway PUD Association S. Burlington PUD Common P.O. Box 1335 Land Burlington, Vt 05402 E BACON STREET LOFTS PLANTING SCHEDULE 7/9/2009 Trams City. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Remarks Notes wholesale installed 6 AxF ACER X freemanii'Autumn Blaze' Maple 2 1/2" cal. B&B $ 173.00 $ 2,595.00 2 ASGM ACER saccharum'Green Mountain' Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2 1/2" cal. B&B $ 199.00 $ 995.00 2 AGB AMELANCHIER x grandi0ora'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 7-8' Ht. BBB clump form $ 120.00 $ 600.00 5 ARH AMELANCHIER x grandinora'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Servicebemy 2" cal. B&B $ 149.00 $ 1,862.50 2 CA CORNUS alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood 5-6' Ht. B&B $ 55.00 $ 275.00 3 CVWK CRATAEGUS viridis'Winter King' Winter King Hawthorn 10.12' Ht. clump form $ 135.00 $ 1,012.50 5 GTM GLEDITSIA U.'Morraine' Morraine Honeylocust 21/2" cal. B&B $ 135.00 $ 2,275.00 275.50 1 GTSM GLEDITSIA U.'Shademaster' Shademaster Honeylocust 21/2" cal. B&B $ 182.00 $ 3 MSN MALUS'Spring Snow' S rin Snow Crab 2 1/2" cal. B&B $ 133.00 $ 997.50 13 PG PICEA glauca White Spruce 7-8' Ht. B&B $ 108.00 $ 3,510.00 3 UAP ULMUS americans Princeton' Princeton Elm 2 112" cal. B&B $ 185.00 $ 1,387.50 Shmhs sub -total $ 12,357.50 Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Remarks wholesale installed AAB ARONIA arbutifolia'Brilliamissima' Brilliant Red Chokeber 5-6' Ht. B&B $ 45.00 $ 112.50 CARS CLETH RA alnifolia'Rub S ice' Rub S ice Summersweet 3' Ht B&B $ 23,60 $ 172.50 R CAC CLETHRA alnifolia'Com acts' Com act Summersweet 30"Ht. B&B $ 23.00 $ 172.50 CAIH CORNUS alba'lvory Halo' Ivory Halo Dogwood 36" Ht. B&B 5' O.C. $ 24.00 $ 240.00 CAP COTONEASTER apiculata Cranberry Cotoneaster 18"-24" Ht. #3 Cont. $ 15.00 $ 675.00 DG DEUTZIA gracilis Slender Deutzia 18-24" #3 Cont. $ 20.00 $ 1,750.00 3 FNG FORSYTHIA'New Hampshire Gold New Hampshire Gold Forsythia 4-5 Ht. B&B $ 25.00 $ 187.50 1 HES I HYDRANGEA macro h Ila'Endless Summer' Endless Summer Hydrangea 24" Ht. #5 Cont. $ 25.0% $ 62.50 1 IJD IILEX verticillata'Jim Dandy' Jim Dandy Winterbe 24" Ht. B&B $ 19.75 $ 49,38 20 IRS 1ILEX verticillata'Red Sprite' Red Sprite Winterber 24" Ht. B&B $ 24.75 $ 1,237.50 20 RA RIBES alpinum Alpine Currant 18-24" B&B $ 20.00 $ 1,000.00 4 RCA RHODODENDRON'Catswbiense' White Catawba Rhododendron 30" B&B $ 38.00 $ 380.00 25 RRE ROSA rugosa'Alba' White Rugosa Rose 18" #3 Cont. $ 12.00 $ 750.00 4 SFP SPIRAEA fritschiana'Pink Parasols' Pink Parasols Spires 24" #3 Cont. $ 16.75 $ 167.50 6 TMD TAXUS x m. 'Densiformis' Dense Yew 30" Ht. B&B $ 30.00 $ 450.00 32 THE TAXUS x m.'Evedow' Everlow Yew 18" B&B $ 27.50 $ 2,200.00 1 VCC VIBURNUM cariesli'Cayuga' Cayuga Vibumum 4' Ht. B&B $ 60.00 $ 150.00 1 VPTM VIBURNUM plicatum tomentosum'Mariesii' Marie's Viburnum 6-7' Ht. B&B Is 110.00 $ 275.00 Groundcevenx R ParranUls sub -total $ 10,031.88 -Qty. Code I Scientific Name Common Name Size- Sec Remarks wholesale installed Bulb Allowance Locations to be specified -Architect $ 600.00 Perennial Garden Allowance To be specified by Landscape $ 1,500.00 82 HH HEMEROCALLIS' Daylily Mix 1 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 4.50 $ 922.50 10 IS IRIS sibirica Siberian Iris 1 gal. Cont. 18" O.C. $ 6.60 $ 165.00 6 PPD PHLOX pa niculata'David' David Garden Phlox 2 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 5.95 $ 89.25 100 PT PACHYSANDRA terminals Pachysandra 2" Cell Cont. 8" O.C. $ 0.45 $ 112 50 25 SIC STEPHANANDRA incisa'Crispa' Cutleaf Stephanandra 15" #2 Cont. $ 15.75 $ 984.38 10 WT IWALDSTEINIA ternata 113arren Strawberry 1 2 Ot. #2 Cont. 15" O.C. $ 4.60 1 $ 115.00 sub -total $ 4,488.63 + Hosts mix to be equal quantities of Hosts 'Undulate Varlegata','Royal Standard', 'Gold Standard' Senior Housing Total: $ 26,878.00 C/R BERM: SUPPLIMENTAL PLANTING SCHEDULE 7/9/2009 Trees Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Remarks Notes wholesale installed 9 PA JPICEA, 8' Ht B&B $ 145.00 $ 3,262.50 5 PS IPINUS strobus Eastern White Pine 8' Ht B88 $ 145.00 $ 1,812.50 9 BN BETULA ni ra'Hedta e' Heritage River Birch 14-16' Ht. B&B $ 180.00 1 $ 4,050.00 sub -total $ 4,050.00 GRAND WAY EXPANSION PLANTING SCHEDULE 7/9/2009 Trm Qt . 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 ASGMharum CodeIAMELANr.HIFP AAR AGCS CV GTSM MLDM PSC UAP2 'Green Mounten IER alnifolia'Regenent ER x randi0ora'Ce's HUS virginicuste Scientific NaqrinoetonElm t.i.'Shademaster'demaster loebneri'Dr. Merrill'Merrill rgentiient ULMUS americana'Princeton'm Common Name Mountain Su ar Ma le Serviceberry Select Serviceberry Fringetree Honelocust Magnolia Cherry Size 2 112" cal. 3.4' Ht. 7-8' Ht. 7-V Ht. 21/2"cal. 810' H 2 1/2" cal. 5" cal. Sec B&B B&B B&B B&B B&B$ B B&B Remarks Notes clump form female, clump wholesale $ 199.00 $ 99.00 $ 160.00 $ 115,00 175.00 $ 142.50 $ 200.00 $ 650.00 installed $ 1,990.00 $ 990.00 $ 800.00 $ 287.50 $ 1,750.00 $ 356.25 $ 500.00 $ 1,5 00 Shn,he sub -total $ 7,633.75 Qty.WLLAfrUfi�a'GPoidfinger'jGo1l Scientific Name Common Name Size S ec Remarks wholesale installed 3NIA arbutifolia'Brilliantissima' Brilliant Red Chokebe 5-6' Ht. B&B $ 45.00 $ 337.50 4HRA alnifolia'Rub Spice' Rub S ice Summersweet 3' Ht B&B $ 23.00 3THRA alnifolia'Com acts' Compact Summersweet 30"Ht. B&B $ 230.00 230.50 1RANGEA macro h IIa'Endless Summer' End'---- H dran ea 24" Ht. #5 Cont.62.50 2 RANGEA aniculata'Compacta' Com act P. G. H dran ea 3-4' Ht. B&B 8ENTILLA fruticosa'Goldfinger Goldfinger Polentilla 18" #3 Cont $ 65.00 $ 325.00 Elegans' White Elegant Rhododendron 36" B&B 01DODENDRON'Album 1 RER RHODODENDRON'Roseam elegans' Roseum Elegans Rhododendron 30" B&B $ 45.00 $ 112.50 2 RRE ROSA rugosa'Alba' White Rugosa Rose 18" #3 Cont. $ 38.00 $ 95.00 7 SJLP SPIRAEA japonica'Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea 24-36" Ht. #3 Cont. $ 12.00 $ 60.00 13 THE TAXUS x m. 'Evedow' Everlow Yew 18" B&B $ 16.75 16.75 $ 293.13 293.13 1 TOE THUJA occidentalis'Emerald' Emerald Arborvitae 8'Ht. B&B Smara d $ $ 92.00 $ 75 $ 230,00 r_.......a..,,........ a _____:_,_ sub -total $ 3.111.88 Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Remarks wholesale installed RIUM filix-femina Lady Fern 1 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 5.00 $ 237.50 YMOUS fortune!'Coloratus' Purpleleaf Wintercreeper #1 Cont. Cont. 8" O.C. $ 4.60 $ al FHMHOSTA, ROCALLIS' Daylily Mix 1 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 4.50 345.00 $ 438.751 paniculata'David' Hosts Mix David Garden Phlox gal. Cont. 24" OC $ 465 $ 88 terminalis Pachysandra 2 gal. 2" Cell Cont. 24"YSANDRA • Davlily mix to be equal m,antiti- „r uen,o.-in. •r_.ve., e�..»_. $ 0.45 $ 22.50 $ +Hosts mix to be equal quantities of Hosta'Undulata Variegate', 'Royal Standard', 'Gold Standard' suo-total 1,458,00 Grand Way Expansion Total: $ 12,203.63 GRAND WAY EXPANSION COURT YARD TRANSPLANTING SCHEDULE 7/9/2009 5 CAC CLETHRA alnifolia'Com acts' Com act Summersweet 5 al. Cont. $ 23.00 3 CAP COTONEASTER apiculata Cranberry Cotoneaster 18"-24" Ht. B&B $ 13.50 $ 287.50 7 HH HEMEROCALLIS' Daylily Mix 1 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 4.� $ 101.25 $ 27 HIM HOSTA+ Hosts Mix 1 gal. Cont. 24" O.C. $ 4.65 78.75 $ 313.88 5 JVES JUNIPERUS vi Inia'Emaerald Sentinel' Emerald Sentinel Juni er 5-6' Ht. B&B 8 PF PIERIS Floribunda Mountain Andromeda #5 Cont. #5 Cont. $ 70.00 $ 33.00 $ 875.00 $ 660.00 5 RA RHODODENDRON'Aglo' Aglo Rhododendron 18" Cont. 4 RBN RHODODENDRON'Boule de Neige" Soule de Neige Rhododendron 2.5.3" B&B $ 30.00 $ 375.00 12 TOS THUJA occidentalis'Emerald' Emerald Arborvitae 5' Ht. B&B ('Smaragd') $ 65.00 $ 42.00 $ 650.00 106 VM VINCA minor Myrtle #1 Cont. #1 Cont. $ 1,260.00 • DavIIIv mix to be eaual ouantitiee of tta..,a..,�au�. •r.ee., n..»_. •u___.. e_...___. __� .. _ __ _ _. _ $ 4.60 $ 1,219.00 + Hosta mix to be equal quantities of Hosta'Undulate Variegate', 'Royal Standard', 'Gold Standard' Court Yard Total: $ 5,820.38 Combined Total: $ 18,024.00 i Prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC July 9, 2009 Park Plan Cost Estimate ODELL PUD - COMMON LOTS: PLANTING PLAN Trees Qty. Code Common Name Size Sec Notes wholesale installed 2 PS I PINUS strobus White Pine 6' Ht. B&B $ 100.00 $ 500.00 sub -total $ 500.00 Shrubs Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes wholesale installed 2 AA ARONIA arbutifolia Red Chokeber 24-36" Ht. B&B $ 32.00 $ 160.00 12 JCS JUNIPERUS chinensis sargentii'Viridis' Green Sargent Juniper 24" Hit. B&B $ 23.00 $ 690.00 8 PM PINUS mugo Nmugho Pine 30" Hit. B&B $ 37.50 $ 750.00 15 SB SPIRAEA betulifolia'Tor' Tor Spirea 24" #3 Cont. 30" O.C. $ 16.75 $ 628.13 8 TMH TAXUS x m. 'Hicks' Hicks Yew 24" Cont. $ 31.00 $ 620.00 sub -total $ 2,848.13 Groundcovers. Perennials. & Grasses Qty. Code I Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes wholesale installed Bulb Allowance Locations as specified $800 $ 600.00 8 CAF ICALAMAGROSTIS x acutiflora'Karl Foerster' Karl Foerster Reed Grass Clump #2 Cont. $ 7.35 $ 147.00 2 CL CHASMANTHIUM latifolium Northern Sea Oats Clump #2 Cont. $ 7.35 $ 36. 55 42 HH HEMEROCALLIS'Hyperion' Hyperion Daylilies 15-181, #2 Cont. $ 6.00 $ 630.00 41 HIC HEMEROCALLIS'Ice Carnival' Ice Carnical Daylilies 15-18" #2 Cont. $ 6.00 $ 615. 00 42 HBM HEMEROCALLIS'Bama Music' Barra Music Daylilies 15-18" #2 Cont. $ 8.00 $ 630.00 42 HFL HEMEROCALLIS'Forsyth Lemon Drop' Forsyth Lemon Drop Daylilies 15-18" #2 Cont. $ 6.00 $ 830.00 ii afaum i .....y - Ue ieio, rvn tons/ 463.7665 sub -total $ 3,288.75 Planting Total] $ 6,636.88 F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 Memo To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Eric Farrell V tz— Date: 7/ 27/ 09 Re: Preliminary Plat Review - Lot 1 & 11/12 - O'Dell Parkway PUD As enumerated herein in more detail, we seek permission to construct an addition to the Grand Way Senior Housing building on Lot 11 (and new Lot 12); plus a final new residential building on Lot 1 in place of the existing car wash. In this connection, enclosed please find the following materials for your review: • Application For Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review • Application Fee in the amount of $511 • Owners of Record of contiguous properties The following drawings reflect our current request (one at 11xl7 and five at 24x36): • O'Dell parkway PUD - Grand Way 2 & Bacon Street Lofts (Cover Sheet) • Revised Final Plat - O Dell Parkway PUD - Pending (Sheet 1, dated 6/20/05, last revised 7/6/09) • Overall Site Plan - ODell ParkwayPUD (Drawing No. C-1, dated 5/ 15/09) • Site Plan - O'Dell Parkway PUD (Drawing C-2, dated 5/ 15/09) • Existing Conditions Plan - O'Dell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-3, dated 5/ 15/09) • Grading + Drainage Plan - ODell Parkwa PUD (Drawing No. C-4, dated 5/ 15/09) • _Utility Plan - O'Dell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-5, dated 5/ 15/09) • Erosion Control Plan - O'Dell. Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-6.0, dated 5/ 15/09) • Erosion Control Details - O'Dell Parkwa PUD (Drawing No. C-6.1, dated 5/20/09) • Site + Utility Details - ODell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-7, dated 5/20/09) • Specifications - ODell ParID ay PUD (Drawing No. C-8.0, dated 5/20/09) • Specifications - O'Dell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-8.1, dated 5/20/09) • Specifications - ODell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-8.2, dated 5/20/09) • Specifications - O'Dell Parkway PUD (Drawing No. C-8.3, dated 5/20/09) • O'Dell. Parkway PUD - North East Overall Planting Plan (Sheet No. N2, dated 6/ 17/05, last revised 7/9/09) • O'Dell Parkway PUD - Cathedral Square - Landscape Plan (Sheet No. N2.2, dated 6/ 17/05, last revised 7/9/09) • O'Dell Parkway PUD - Bacon Street Lofts - Landscape Plan (Sheet No. N2.3, dated 7/9/09, last revised 7/9/09) • ODell Parkway PUD - Landscape 8s Lighting; Details (Sheet No. N2.4, dated 7/9/09, last revised 7/9/09) • O'Dell Parkway PUD - Landscape 8a Lighting Details (Sheet No. N2.5, dated 7/9/09, last revised 7/9/09) • O'Dell. Parkway PUD - Lighting Plan and Summ ary (Sheet No. N4.1, dated 7/9/09, last revised 7/9/09) • Proposed Garage Plans - Grand Way-2 & Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing L-2, dated 3/27/09) The garage parking layout for both buildings, as depicted on the above "Proposed Garage Plans- Grand Way 2 8s Bacon Street Lofts", has not changed since our Sketch Plan Application, however other details on this drawing may have changed. Please refer to other drawings for any other design details. • Page 2 • O'Dell PUD - Common Lots - Park Revisions: Site and Planting Plan (Sheet No. S-1.1, dated 7/9/09) • Aerial Perspective Looking Southeast - Grand Way-2 Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing P-1, dated 7/8/09) • Street Pers ective Looking Southwest - Grand Way-2 Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing P-2, dated 7/8/09) • North Elevation - Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing E-1, dated 7/8/09) • East Elevation - Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing E-2, dated 7/8/09) • South Elevation - Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing E-3, dated 7/8/09) • West Elevation - Bacon Street Lofts (Drawing E-4, dated 7/8/09) • East Elevation - Grand Way 2 (Drawing E-1, dated 7/8/09) • West Elevation - Grand Way 2 (Drawing E-2, dated 7/8/09) • North Elevation - Grand Way 2 (Drawing E-3, dated 7/8/09) • Picture of (typical) Trash Enclosure Building • Traffic Impact Summary • Parking Summary • Lot Coverage Summary • Bacon Street Lofts - Planting Schedule (estimated costs - $26,878) • Grand Way Expansion - Planting Schedule (estimated costs - $18,024) • O'Dell Common Lots: Park Plan (estimated costs - $6,637) • C/R Berm: Supplemental Planting Schedule (estimated cost - $4,050) • Page 3 The following is a general overview of the changes to the plans since our Sketch Plan Review: • A reduction of the number of congregate housing units on Lot 11 / 12 from 30 to 28. • An increase in the number of residential units on Lot 1 from 41 to 43. The units mix has also changed, as follows: At Sketch Plan - 24 of 41 units were one-bedroom/efficiency units or 59%; at Preliminary Plat - 28 of 43 units are one-bedroom/efficiency units or 65%, further reducing the parking demand and supporting our willingness to eliminate 5 surface parking spaces in favor of additional green space. • A modification of the design of the roof at Bacon Street Lofts from a "butterfly" to a traditional flat roof resulting in a lowering of the overall height of the building by the equivalent of a half -story. The specifics of our Preliminary Plat Review are, as follows: PUD Subdivision Plat Changes • Today's request reflects the subdivision of Lot 1 (submitted under a separate application) into five lots, as follows: Lot 1 - 1.360 acres; Lot 12 - .526 acres; Lot 13 - .25 acres; Lot 14 - .739 acres and Lot 15 - .510 acres. The following is an outline of the proposed changes to the PUD on a per lot basis: Lot 1 - Bacon Street Lofts - 25 Bacon Street • Demolition of the existing car wash building. • Construction of a 48,500 sf, 5-story residential building to contain 43 units. • Construction of a 12' x 24' Trash/Recycling Storage building. Lot 2 - Eastwood Commons I • No change Lot 3 - O'Dell Apartments • No change Lot 4 - City's Edge • No change Lot 5, 6 & 7 - Common Land • No change in use. • Page 4 Lot 8 - Snorts & Fitness Edge • No change Lot 9 - Eastwood Commons II • No change Lot 10 - Common Land • No change Lot 11 & 12 - Grand Way Senior Housing Center - 412 Farrell Street Construction of a 26,150 sf, 4-story/ 1-story addition to the existing Congregate Housing and Resource Center to contain 28 congregate units and 3,000 sf of Social Services use. • Elimination of 3,000 sf of Social Services use within the existing building and its replacement with additional program space for the existing 63 senior housing units. Lot 13 - Tower • No change Lot 14 - Parking for Ben Franklin • No change Lot 15 Parking for Ben Franklin • Existing parking, plus 20 additional spaces Overall PUD Density The maximum allowable density in the PUD is 457 units (24.42 acres x 15 unit per acre x 1.25% affordable housing bonus. To date, 383 units have been approved and constructed, as follows: Lot 2 - 89 units; Lot 3 - 160 units; Lot 4 - 60 units; Lot 9 - 74 units. Therefore, 74 units of density remain of which 43 units are requested herein on Lot 1. The 63 existing senior housing units on Lot 11 are congregate housing units and do not count towards density. The same is true for the 28 additional congregate housing units requested herein on Lots 11 & 12. Traffic Impact Summary Per the Traffic Impact SUMMM provided under today's application, Total External Trip Ends are estimated to decrease from 279 to 239 (an increase of 1 trip end from Sketch Plan), representing a 14.3% reduction from the amount previously approved under #SD-06-35, which also represents an overall reduction of 62% from the 632 PM peak hour vehicle trips originally approved for our PUD back in 2001. 0 Page 5 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 9, 2009 \drb\sit\omnipoint\KJKWirelessFarrellStreet_siteplan_cu.doc Plans received: August 21, 2009 Agenda #5 and #6 Owner EF Farrell LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT Contact Bob Gashlin, KJK Wirelss 8 Providence Ave Falmouth, ME 04105 Location Map 466 FARRELL STREET CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-09-07 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-09-68 Meeting date: September 15, 2009 App= KJK Wirelss for US Cellular 8 Providence Ave Falmouth, ME 04105 Property lnformation Tax Parcel 1540-00520C C1-R15 District i 1 KJK Wireless, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking conditional use approval to relocate antennas on an existing tower from the 80 foot level to 119 foot level, 466 Farrell Street. KJK Wireless is also seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a telecommunications tower. The amendment consists of relocating antennas on the tower from the 80 foot level to 119 foot level, 466 Farrell Street. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on August 21, 2009 and have the following comments. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to re -locate telecommunications equipment on an existing telecommunications tower, from a height of 80 feet to the top of the tower, at 119 feet. Photos of the existing tower, as well as a plan depicting the changes, are enclosed for your reference. The equipment appears to be relatively small in size, but will be visible from the surrounding area. The Board should discuss this request. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. Pursuant to Section 5.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Commercial 1 District is formed to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Staff feels the proposed placement of equipment on the existing tower is in compliance with the stated purpose of the C1 District, as it is in an area that is densely developed with commercial uses. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities Staff believes that the proposal will not adversely affect municipal services. 2 (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. Staff believes that the proposal will not affect the ability to develop adjacent properties. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposal will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposal would require a height waiver. The existing tower is 119 feet tall. While the equipment would not be higher than the existing tower, a height waiver for the equipment is still necessary. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a height waiver of 84 feet for a mounted height of 119 feet. 1. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a height waiver of 84 feet, or 39 more feet than from the existing location, for a mounted height of 119 feet. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposal will not adversely affect renewable energy resources. (0 General public health and welfare. Staff does not believe that the proposal will have an adverse affect on general public welfare or the health of the surrounding public. The proposal is regulated and monitored by telecommunications authorities for related concerns. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following -eneral review standards for all site plan applications (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project will not have an impact on the transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Parking is not applicable to the proposed project. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. 3 The existing tower is 119 feet in height. The proposed antennas will be mounted approximately 119 feet high (see attached representation). Although the height of the tower already has a height waiver, separate height waivers are required for any additional equipment or structures above 35 feet. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. This is a very tall structure. Buffering and screening would be unlikely, if not impossible. As the surrounding area fills in with development it will likely become less obvious. Again, the Board should discuss adherence to this criterion. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Again, the Board should discuss adherence to this criterion. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel it is necessary to require any additional access to abutting properties as part of this application. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). There are no needs to revise the site plan with respect to this criterion. CI (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements Because no buildings are proposed, there are no requirements for additional landscaping. Access/Circulation Access and circulation on the property will remain unchanged through the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use application #CU-09-07 and Site Plan application #SP-09-68, conditional upon the numbered items in the "Comments" section of this document. Res tfully submitted, hya LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Bob Gashlin, for the applicant 5 EXISTI PARKING EXISTING PARKING AR NOTES: 1. NORTH SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE. `PARKING AREA- FARRELL STREET - 2. NOT ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED INFORMATION SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 3. SITE PLAN BASED ON PLANS BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., PROJECT O'DELL PARKWAY P.U.D., DATED 5-8-05. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-O" 0' 20' 40' HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE UR Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS LA1 12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 07/09 FOR SUBMffTAL 11/O8 FOR COMMENT Dewberry® Dewberry-Goorlkind, Inc. _t10 SUMMER ST. t OTH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02210 PHONE: 617.8953400 FAX: 617.895.3310 DRAWN BY: GMT REVIEWED BY: MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE DETAILED SITE PLAN & ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER C-1 EXISTING PLATFORM (TO BE REMOVED) ID TOP OF EXSITING PLATFORM _ ELEV. a 122'-0"t A.G.L. TOP OF EXISTING LATTICE TOWER ELEVF 0"t A.G.L. EXISTING U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNA (TO BE RELOCATED) (2/SECTOR)(TYP.-6) C.L. OF EXISTING US CELLULAR ANTENNAS 41-- ELEV80 0 t A.G.L. EXISTING 119' TALL A.G.L. LATTICE TOWER BUILDING (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING EXISTING PARTIAL ICE BRIDGE CMU WALL BASEMENT ACCESS EXISTING GRADE ELEV. = O'-0 t A.GA.G.L. NOSES: 1. SOME EXISTING & PROPOSED INFORMATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2. INSTALL ANTENNAS, ANTENNA MOUNT & COAX PER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS. 3. UTILITY DESIGN BY OTHERS. 4. ALL PROPOSED BUILDING DEMOLITION & FUTURE CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT OIGSAFE (1 888 DIG SAFE) FOR IDENTIFICATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. SITE PLAN & ELEVATION CREATED BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY DEWBERRY ON 11/04/08. EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNT (TYP,-3) (TO BE REUSED) ICE BRIDGE /-EXISTING / GPS ANTENNA EXISTING ELEVATION SCALE: 1"-10'-0" 0 0' 5' 10 20' 5 PROPOSED RELOCATED TOP OF PROPOSED U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNAS U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNA ELEV. � 12 0 f A.G.L. 7)0 c-a (2/SECTOR)(TYP.-6) TOP OF EXISTING LATTICE TOWER ELEV t A.G.L. C.L. O11 9 0F RELOCATED U.S. CELLULAR ANTENNAS ELEV. 11 0 t A.G.L. llh_ 40 o fs ?k9 0 eG z EXISTING 0� 119' TALL A.G.L. LATTICE TOWER EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ICE BRIDGE (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING EXISTING US CELLULAR EXISTING GPS ANTENNA EXISTING US CELLULAR EQUIPMENT ON 10'x10' STEEL PLATFORM ICE BRIDGE EXISTING PARTIAL EQUIPMENT ON 10''x10' STEEL PLATFORM CMU WALL EXISTING 6' TALL EXISTING 6' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING BASEMENT - -- - ACCESS EXISTING GRADE _VEM ELEV. O'-0 t A. GA.C.L. PROPOSED 4 GANG 1 UTILITY RACK C-4 PROPOSED ELEVATION SCALE: 1"-10'-0" 2 0' 5' 10 20' LEGEND A.G.L. - ABOVE GROUND LEVEL C.L. - CENTER LINE HALF SIZE PRINT THIS DRAWING IS SCALEABLE AT HALF THE NOTED SCALE UR Cellular We connect with you 288 ROUTE 101 BEDFORD, NH 03110 SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE NO.: 594322 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1 08 12 09 FOR SUBMITTAL 0 05 07 09 FOR SUBMITTAL All2/11/08 FOR COMMENT gi Dewberry® Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 280 SUMMER ST. I OTH FLOOR OSTON, MA 02210 PHONE 617.695.3400 FAX 617,695.331 O DRAWN.BY. GMT REVIEWED BY: MFT CHECKED BY: GHN PROJECT NUMBER: 50002714 JOB NUMBER: 50018035 SITE ADDRESS 530 SHELBURNE RD. BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET TITLE 7771 EXISTING ELEVATION & PROPOSED ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER C-3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: August 19, 2009 \drb\sub\f&m\prelim_baconstreetlofts.doc Plans received: July 27, 2009 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-09-35 CATHEDRAL SQUARE CORPORATION — O'DELL PARKWAY PUD Agenda # 8 Applicant F&M Development Corporation LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Date: September 1, 2009 Owners EF Farrell LLC D&B Morrissey LLC c/o PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Cathedral Square Corp 412 Farrell Street South Burlington, VT 05403 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING —_ \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts.doc F& M Development Co. LLC, herein referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven (7) buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash and television station, 2) constructing a 24,800 sq. ft. 2 and 4-story addition to contain 28 congregate housing units and 3,000 sq. ft. of social service use to existing 63 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) constructing a 48,500 sq. ft. 5-story multi -family dwelling to contain 43 dwelling units, Farrell Street and Bacon Street. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 27, 2009 and have the following comments: Setbacks: The proposed buildings do not meet the applicable front, rear, and side setback requirements for the subject PUD, as outlined in Table C-2 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Since this project is part of a larger PUD, the board may grant "relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots... in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area." The plan's adherence to this stipulation, to the extent it creates innovation in design in layout shall be discussed below in applicable areas of this report. In addition, the 28 unit addition is proposed to cross a property line which is prohibited under Section 15.02(A)(3) of the LDRs. This issue can be resolved by requiring the recording of a Notice of Conditions that the new five lots are to be considered one lot for zoning purposes. Density: The 24.42 acres generates 366 units at 15 units per acre. With the use of the density bonus for mixed rate housing, pursuant to article 13.14 of the SBLDR, the maximum allowable density on the site is 457 units. Congregate housing units are not subject to density review. To date, 383 (not including congregate housing) units have been approved and constructed. Therefore, 74 units of density remain. This application proposes 43 new market -rate units. Coverage: Staff has been in discussions with the applicant regarding the coverages for the property. The applicant has stated that the 514 Farrell Street property (Creative Habitat) has, is, and will continue to be counted towards building and overall overages for the PUD. The total building coverage for the site increases from 19.9% to 20.7% from approval dated 8/2/2006. The Overall lot coverage decreases from 61.5% to 58.7% from approval dated 8/2/2006. Staff finds the coverages to be acceptable and within the regulations for the zoning district. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc Building Height: The new Bacon Street Lofts building will represent an overall building height of 58 feet. The standard height limitation for the district is 35 feet for a flat roof. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a height wavier of 23 feet. The addition to the senior housing building will be 54.5 ft. in height, the same as the existing building, for a 19.5 ft. height waiver requested. The applicant has submitted a summary of heights in the surrounding area for consideration by way of neighborhood context (attached). The Board should review this request and render guidance. Staff supports the requested height waiver based on height analyses as well as a review of shadow impacts. 1. The Board grants a height waiver of 23 feet for the Bacon Street Lofts building and 19.5 feet for the senior housing addition. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. The Superintendent of the South Burlington Water Department, Jay Nadeau has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a letter dated August 10, 2009 (attached). 2. The applicant shall comply with the requests of the South Burlington Water Department per the letter dated August 10, 2009. The City of Burlington's Water and Wastewater Treatment, Distribution, and Collection Facilities will handle the wastewater disposal of this project. 3. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. 4. The applicant shall submit a site grading and erosion control plan as part of the final plat application. 5. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access is provided to the proposed addition and the proposed new building by the same private access which currently serves the Cathedral Square building and the rear of the Creative Habitat building. This access will also connect to the east side of the existing building, providing a full vehicular loop around the Cathedral Square building. Bacon Street is a public street. As proposed by the applicant, it would dead-end into a private parking lot. Staff is concerned about this private drive and recommends that the Board consider the merits of providing a public street connection to Bacon Street. Section 15.12(D)(2)(c) and (d) of the SBLDR states that The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (c) The Development Review Board determines that the proposed length of a roadway or the significance of the roadway within the City's street network warrants public ownership. (d) The proposed roadway serves one (1) or more lots occupied by and/or proposed for non-residential or mixed -use development. A public street connection will allow for greater safety and control over what will likely be a highly used access point. This new building will create an attractive access to Shelburne Road for many of the PUD's residents and likely also through traffic from the eastern portion of Farrell Street and Swift Street. This connection should not be through a residential parking lot but rather through the appropriate medium: a public street. Furthermore, the proposed design creates a building which is fronted on three sides by a parking lot. Should the adjacent property to the west be developed, the parking area there would also be adjacent to the building, creating a building surrounded on four sides by a sea of parking. The Farrell Street development has long been held in high regards for its pedestrian considerations, good urban form, and appropriate street presentations. The proposed plan is not in accordance with this model, nor does it adequately achieve the "innovative design" that Planned Unit Developments call for in exchange for waivers of dimensional standards. This is a significant concern of the staff and it should be thoroughly discussed at the hearing. Staff recommends discussion of the merits of a public street connection from Farrell Street to Bacon Street. The proposed building is not an insignificant one; a development of a similar size and with the potential for such important street connections anywhere else in the city would create similar concerns. This Planned Unit Development has been an urban project that has evolved with good planning and form over the past several years. As the project approach its final stages it is especially critical that the City ensure that good planning continues in this highly visible and dense neighborhood. Finally, the Board should consider the potential for additional redevelopment on Bacon Street as well as on the lot directly north of the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building. 6. The Board should address the access, circulation, and appropriate urban form of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc proposed project. According to the ITE, 8th Edition, the proposed building will generate 31.57 PM peak vehicle trip ends. This is estimated to bring the Planned Unit Development's total P.M. vehicle trip ends to 238 P.M. peak -hour vehicle trip ends. This is a decrease from the 632 vte's in the original PUD approval. 7. The applicant shall pay any applicable traffic impact fees for the additional vehicle trip ends the proposed amendment is estimated to create, prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the proposed building. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The subject property does not contain any wetlands, streams, or unique natural features. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. According to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large -lot retail uses, warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic movements, promote mixed -use developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and to provide a potential location for high - traffic generating commercial uses. Staff feels that the proposed development conforms to the purpose of the C1 District and that it is visually compatible with the area, which currently contains commercial uses and multi -family dwellings. The proposed uses will not interfere with the accessibility and continuity of the C1 District. Also, the proposed development is part of a PUD, which is encouraged in the C1 District. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The major open space area on this PUD is the land adjacent to the Interstate which comprises the IHO District. Staff feels this is an important open space area, as it provides a viable corridor along the Interstate and provides an aesthetic buffer between the Interstate and the PUD. However, as the overall PUD nears completion, staff would like to ensure that adequate public amenities are provided. The City fully supports infill development, particularly the higher densities achieved through this development. However, it is also important to ensure that there is a balance between the urban form and un-developed space. The plans submitted by the applicant include disjointed green spaces which are largely unusable. This is a serious concern which should be discussed. One potential remedy would be to combine the two proposed green CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&mlprelim baconstreetlofts doc spaces along the northern property line, creating a viable, usable, green open space. This would also serve to increase the buffer between the project and the adjacent neighborhood. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide for adequate useable green space in the vicinity of the newly proposed building. It shall be of substantial size for use and enjoyment of the residents. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Chief shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. 9. The South Burlington Fire Chief shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. A public road serves all lots in the PUD with private access drives to serve rear parking areas and provide additional circulation. A sidewalk exists on the northerly side of the roadway and a 10' wide bike path exists on the southerly side of the roadway. The recreation path flows from Farrell Street north along the easterly side of the Eastwood Commons II parking lot, along the westerly boundary of the Twin Oaks facility, and eventually connecting with Hadley Road. There are several existing connections with adjacent properties, either through direct connections or access easements and rights of way. Staff has already addressed the issue of a public street connection and associated pedestrian amenities through this area of the development. Furthermore, the applicant should address a pedestrian connection to Bacon Street Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. 10. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The applicant shall submitted exterior lighting details (cut -sheets) for the proposed street lights and pedestrian lights on the property. Both of the proposed lighting fixtures shall comply with Appendix A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 11. The applicant shall submit exterior lighting details (cut sheets) for any new building mounted lights, pole mounted lights, street lights and pedestrian lights on the property. The City Engineer shall review the plans and provide comments. 12. The City Engineer shall review the plans and provide comments prior to final plat approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff finds the proposed PUD to be consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: a. The plan is consistent with the stated purpose of the C1 District, as outlined in Section 5.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. b. The proposed PUD will produce infill development, which is promoted through the Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, with the exceptions noted above. Based on the Land Development Regulations, the overall PUD will now require 1022 parking spaces The applicant has provided and/or is proposing to provide 811 parking spaces. This shortfall is 211 spaces, or 20.6%. 20 spaces immediately south of Bacon Street Lofts are apparently designated for off premise use. The Board cannot approve these unless either (a) receiving property owner is applicant or (b) these parking spaces are designated for use in the PUD. 13. The Development Review Board should approve a 211-space or 20.6% parking waiver. According to Section 13.01(J) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, parking or storage facilities for recreational vehicles shall be provided in all multi -family residential developments of twenty-five (25) units or more. Recreational vehicles shall not be stored on any common open lands other than those specifically approved for such purpose by the DRB through the review process. The Development Review Board may waive this provision only upon a showing by the applicant that the storage and parking of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited within all private and common areas of the development. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable This proposal is in compliance with this criterion. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff has already addressed the height issues already in this report. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Staff feels this criterion is being met. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff feels this criterion is being met. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. This property poses an excellent opportunity to create access to abutting properties that will reduce private curb cuts, improve general access, and improve circulation. Again, staff recommends a discourse regarding a potential public street connection to Bacon Street. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim baconstreetlofts doc The site plan depicts screened waste storage facilities. The applicant is proposing construction of a 12'x24' trash and recycling storage building. This building is similar to ones that already exist on the property (see photo attachment). Landscaping and Screening Requirements 14. The applicant should submit, with the preliminary plat application, a landscape plan and landscape budget in compliance with Section 13.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. This shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage area must be specified and located in an area that will minimize the potential for run-off. 15. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any utility cabinets on the site shall be effectively screened to the approval of the Development Review Board. Based on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the City offices, staff does riot recommend approval at this time. It is important that the Board discuss the need for useable green open space on the property as well as the potential significant merits of a public road connection to Bacon Street. As such, staff recommends that the Board continue the application such that the applicant can further address these issues. Respectfully Submitted, C thyan LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, F&M Development LANDSCAPINGi_:GHTING LEGEND t[wsDNc TREE I I I PROPOSED SHADE TREE • I PROPOSED MULTI -STEM TREE PROPOSED FLOWERING TREE • PROPOSED O WFER TREE I � :. ;�. A ,= y • t , f — . r 5 — PROPOSED 94" I I Y'— - .. _ _ _. `- . - S• ? - _ - 1 (�-. D 1 _. r "v-YY fi �. PROPOSED PARKNO LOT ,: I .• t ••, ... -- . '. • s T s LIGHT FIXTURE I I _ ... .��. , Yam., 0 LIGHT FIXTURE PROPOSED PMES1PoAN t i� .. "` __...` I IPROPOSED PARK/ ,' � r � , ^.✓ _ , GREEN SPACE i APPROX. 185' x 50' 5 � '` � \ I. ADO °% .,� --- •�f... � r • 2 , I I � T fit• _ _. _ .. } I r 10 i , 11 .' ENTRANCE LEVEL , I - BACON STREET LOFTS FFE 217.17 5% 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL • - ; j`., 20 GARAGE SPACES GARAGE - 208.0 r' µ / r• r I 1ST FLOOR - 218.0 �—I 13 I f LOBBY - 212.5 5 J �\` v i • JI ' r ' GRAND WAY EXPANSION I , I 22 GARAGE SPACES I h'- ' ---- ' 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL) f / I - SENIOR RESOURCE ` , \ - -- — <,, / - - FFE 218.5 .. I i / `\ GAR 208.17 _ I •- ------ — ------ 24� Ifi� Ir oa , i - OO 0 r I I � l CREATIVE HABITAT AT I � - • �W I ,I IREI BEN FRANKLIN :• i I � EXISTING BUILDING ', i ,: ., ,' `'•>_ ..... �, , Boyle landscape architects • planning consultants © 1bo 8/2M O'Dell Parkway PUD F N 2 B 301 college street • oudington • vermont • 05401 802 •ss8 •3s5s nnG.,�w.,.Ijeoyb.�n a. e� r = 20' North East Overall Concept Plan C ELEV. 270.00' r�5TH FLOOR ROOF ELEV. 280.00' IT 2p 6p 5• ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' I SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) r-20' ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' I HADLEY ROAD I L SECTION A -A': HADLEY ROAD TO GRAND WAY EXPANSION (LOOKING EAST) 1•-20' SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1.-w. EXISTING TREES (BEYOND) CLOCK T WR. APT. EXISTING CLOCK TOWER APARTMENTS (BEYOND) EXISTING 20' ARBORVITAE BACON STREET 9 a ----- /- 195' SETBACK g --- -- — — — — — D A PARKING PROPOSED ARK EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM L 8 L BROOKS PROPERTY HADLEY ROAD ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.W ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.W ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' JELEV. 230,00' ELEV. 220.00 ELEV. 210.W Boyle 4.1. rram-. ero landscape architects. planning consulants Ijbo/mjb own 8/1 /2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD 301 college street • burlington • verrnont • 05401 802.658.3555 httpJ/cow gboyle.wm ,m a- jbo _ as noted ELEVATIONS EX-2ALT �x J x , (Sim IK- ..r . a l r . . ° ♦ •„ " �:" AMR AX ,► . a _ . .. 1 S F _,u.. P � � "mot m . a sery' r r . . w y r a e Y z ! !na r Sx k, rt e:. f spa r a� ` 4 T e e �y, « v yR v y, .. , „ is � � ..- ♦ b y. d` 't+4 b nY ^.. � .....ir a 8/24/2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD Farrell Street South Burlington, Vermont Lot Coverage Summary REVISED FOR BACON STREET LOFTS (LOT 1) + CONGREGATE HOUSING (LOT 12) Parcel Size - Square Feet (includes Ben Franklin) Building Building Overall Overall 1,082,20 Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage - --100.0%� ---- -- --- -- --------- ' (square feet) (p ecre ntage) , (square feet) ----- - --- Current Coverage Counts Per the Latest Findings of Fact & Decision -- -Dated 8/2/06 - #SD-06-35 215 665,775 61.5% � -- - - - - - ---- - -----0 -- Approved Use Proposed Changes Latest Findings of Fact & Decision Impacting Coverage Lot No. Existing Use Dated 8/2/06 - #SD-06-35 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Car Wash Parking demolish car wash building (3,600) 1 - New Residential (43 Units) --------- 11,100 (15,000) 2 Residential (89 Units) Residential (89 Units) No Change 3 4 Residential (160 Units) Residential (60 Units) Residential (160 Units) Residential (60 Units) No Change No Change 5 6 Common Land Common Land _ Common Land - - Common Land No Change-- No Change - -� -- 7 Common Land Common Land No Change 8 Sports &Fitness Edge Sports &Fitness Edge No Change j T 9 10 Residential Use (74 Units) Common Land Residential Use (74 Units) Common Land No Change No Change T --11 --add -- ------- I - - Congr-egate Housing (63 Units) Congregate ate Housing (63 Units) to congregate building footp-rint----� 11 Senior� Resource Center 11, 3030 0 sf Office) Senior ,-,� Resource Center 11, 300 sf Office) ( n/n - ---- - 12 - - -- former TV Station - -- - — General Office - -- demolish TV Station building (7,650) rt 12 -- -- --- new congregate building footprint T- -- -- ----- 6,700 ''i(15,090)1 --- - --� 13 Tower t Tower- No Change 14 Parking _ Parking ---�---- ---F _ -,-- -- _--� 15 Parking Parking - Coverage Totals 223,130 20.6% 635,685 58.7% 8/24/2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD Farrell Street South Burlington, Vermont Traffic Impact Summary RIVISED FOR BACON STREET LOFTS (LOT 1) + CONGREGATE HOUSING (LOT 12) Total Total Approved Uses Total External PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Total External Per Latest Findings of Fact & Decision Trip Ends Proposed Uses Trip Ends Lot No. Existing Use Dated 8/2/06 - #SD-06-35 For Approved Uses (today's request) Proposed Uses 1 2 3 _ 4 -- 5 6 7 8 -- - 9 10 i — 12 --� - 12 -- - 13 14 15 Car Wash -- Parking n/a Residential (43 Units) - - Units)Residentia (89 Residential (Units). 38 Residential (89 Units) ' -- - - Residential (160 Units) - --_ Residential _--_Res dentml( 60 Units) 68 -- - ---- -- -- -- -------- �- -- Residential (160 Units) Residential (60 Units) -- - - - --- -- - - - - Residential (60 Units) _. _ 26 - - - --- ---- ---- - Residential (60 Units) - - Common Land -- Common Land n/a --- ---- L - fi Common Land - — -- - - - Common Land - n/a -- - - ----Common Common Land and Common Land 'r--------- Common Land n/a Common L and ----- P g Sports &Fitness Ede - - P 9 � ----) - - --- - -- Sorts &Fitness Ede Addition - - 10 - -- --- p - Sorts &Fitness Edge (Addition) Residential Use (74 Units) _ Residential Use (74 Units) r 31 Residential Use (74 Units) Common Land - - --- Common Land n/a Common Land Congregate Housing + Common Areas (63 Units) --- Congregate Housing + Common Areas (63 Units) - -_- - 6 -_ ---- - - - - - Congregate Housing + Common Areas (63 Units) Social Services 3,000 sf) + Office 8,300 sf Social Services (3,000 sf + Office 8,300 sf 31 !' Additonal Common Area (3,000 sf) + Office (8,300 sf) former TV Station General Office sf ,700 10 ( ) r --_ - 69 ---- Congregate Housing (28 Units) Tower Parking Parking Tower Parking Parking Original PUD Approval Net Increase (Decrease) n/n Social Services (3,000 sf) - ----------------- n/a Tower Parking Parking -- 279 632 ' -- - -- Original PUD Approval i ---------- (353) 56% -- --- Net Increase (Decrease) 1 18 38 68 26 - n/a n/a n/a 10 31 n/a 6 --- -- 33 --- -- 8 n/a --- n/a n/a 239 (632) (N C C 8/24/2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD Farrell Street South Burlington, Vermont Parking Summary_ Lot REVISED FOR BACON STREET LOFTS (LOT 1) + CONGREGATE HOUSING (LOT 12) Parking Parking Parking Parking Number Required Provided Waiver Waiver - Amount Percentage Entire PUD 1 Per Latest Findings of Fact & Decision dated 8/2/06 #50-06-35 925 7. 6% - r- I Pro osed Changes 1 Mete 10,700 sf General Office Use 37)' 1 !Add 43 Residential Units 97 T 2 ;-- ----- r- - IN o Change --� _ ----, 3 No Change - -- --- 4 - - iNo Change 5 Common Land 6 7 !Common Land Common Land 8 INo Change - ---- 9 10 No Change Common Land �I 11 Delete 3,000 sf of Social Services Adult Day Care) new 12 Space to be converted to programs ace for the existing Congregate Housing Units ,Add 3,000 sf Social Services Adult Da Care ( Y ) 12 new 12 -- - n ew 13Tower � new 14 _ _ Add 28 Congregate -- Units z --- - - --- — - ----- -- - - -- - E st n ower - - - !sting T - - - - ----- - - -- ---- -- Existing Parking for Ben Franklin (not counted) - - -- - - -- - - 41 � n/n --- -- --- - -- -------- new 15 New Parking for Ben Franklin (not counted) - ----------- - -- �i- -- - - -- - -�- Revised---- Parking Totals (Per Today's Request) - PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW 1,026 811 215 21.0% 8/24/2009 O'Dell Park. ciy PUD Farrell Street South Burlington, Vermont Parking Summary Lot REVI5ED FOR BACON STREET LOFTS (LOT 1) + CONGREGATE HOUSING (LOT 12) Number --- Required Provided - — Waver Waiver — Amount Percentage ' Entire PUD IPer Latest Findings of Fact & Decision dated 8/2/06 (#SD-06-35) ---- 925� 8g ---- -- — 70�— 7.6% --- -T 1 Proposed Changes Delete 10,700 General Office Use (37)! V — 1 sf Add 43 Residential Units 97 j a 2 - No Change ! ' 34 No Change No _Change 5 ! Common land----- 6 Common Land 7 I i Common Land 8 INo Change 9 No Change r 10 11 I !Common Land Delete 3,000 sf of Social Services (Adult Day Care) (12) b —� —�— i Space to be converted to program space for the existing Congregate Housing Units new 12 !Add 3,000 sf Social Services (Adult Day Care) 12 - new 12 new 13 new 14 ! — l Add 28 Congregate Housing Units Existing Tower Existing Parking for Ben Franklin (not counted)+ _ 41 D k n/a— i — new 15 INew � Parking for Ben Franklin (not counted)- 1 l Revised Parking Totals (Per Today's Request) - PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW 1,026 811 ! 215 21.0% Parking � Parking � Parking ! —Parking CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD \drb\sub\f&m\sketch_baconstreetlofts.doc DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: September 11, 2009 Plans received: April 8, 2009 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-09-34 O'DELL PARKWAY PUD Agenda # 11 Meeting Date: September 15, 2009 Applicant Owners F&M Development Corporation LLC EF Farrell LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 D&B Morrissey LLC c/o PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Location No CITY OF SOUTH BURLINUTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim subdivisionLotl.doc • i •1 F& M Development Co. LLC, herein referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 383 residential units in seven (7) buildings, 2) a 63 unit congregate housing facility, 3) a 4430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility, and 4) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio and office building. The amendment consists of subdividing lot #1 into five (5) lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 1.347 acres, 345-514 Farrell Street. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 27, 2009 and have the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Several of the proposed lots do not meet the dimensional standards for the district as laid out in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR). Therefore, for the purposes of planning and zoning, these substandard lots will be considered as part of the larger Lot 1. 1. For purposes of planning and zoning, lots 1,12,13,14, and 15 in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Condition" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the followina standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim subdivisionLot1 doc Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed subdivision of lots does not affect any of the above criteria. As already stated, the lots will not be stand alone as their own lots for planning and zoning purposes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant address the issues raised herein before proceeding to the preliminary plat level. Respectfully Submitted, Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Eric Farrell, F&M Development 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 www.southburtingtonvt.govoffice2.com August 10, 2009 Civil EngineeringAssociates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: ®'Dell Parkway P.U.D. Bacon Street Bldgs. Dear Sirs: The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans for water infrastructure for the above referenced project. Please find my comments below. 1. The attached Application for Water Allocation must be completed and returned to the :South Burlington Water Department as soon as possible. As this project continues, the Application for Water Allocation will need final approval from this Department, which will be contingent upon available water storage capabilities within the City. ;2; Based upon the final water allocation request, water service fees shall be applied to the project based on the current Rate and Fee Schedule. It must be recognized by all developers that the Rate and Fee Schedule established by the South Burlington City Council may be modified by resolution at an open meeting of the City Council, and therefore subject to change prior to completion of the project. 3. The CWD Specifications are applicable to all new construction and reconstruction of water infrastructure. Variations from the CWD Specifications will not be permitted except as provided within the CWD Specifications. The appropriate CWD Supervisor as defined in the CWD Specifications shall determine the acceptability of any deviation from the those specifications. Private water lines and appurtenances shall be designed to the same standards as public water lines and appurtenances. All water installation work - and water distribution material must comply with the "CWD Specifications". Details for this project must be the same as those within the above referenced CWD Specifications. 4. Sheet specific comments: a. C-5: The water services to the car wash, WVNY building and thc:,,'rhoiYim building are currently connected to the Bacon Street water main that is ser ved- by the City of Burlington. Burlington must be advised that these services are being abandoned and the water main is being capped so that they can provide.- their requirements for this work b. C-5: Since the Thomas building will now be served by the City of South Burlington, a new water meter must be installed where the existing City of Burlington water meter exists. The customer will be charged for a new meter fee and water allocation fee, which must be paid before the meter can be provided. The new water demand from South Burlington for this building must be included in the Application for Water Allocation. c. C-5: The nearest fire hydrant under the current access road plan is served by the City of Burlington. The SBWD is not responsible for the maintenance and operation of this hydrant. The SBWD defers to the SBFD on the possible need for another hydrant supplied from the new water main from Farrell Street. d. C-5: The new service to the Thomas building shall be sized accordingly and be either copper or Ductile Iron pipe, depending on pipe size. e. The additional demand for the existing Senior Housing building may require the. upsizing of the existing meter. New water demands must be provided' to this department so that we can determine if a new meter will be required when the building addition is built. The project owner will be responsible for all costs, associated with a meter change. 5. The project shall be constructed, completed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the approved plans. No changes shall be made in the project without the written approval of the appropriate CWD supervisor. A copy of the final approved plans shall be submitted to the Department prior to construction of the water system improvements. 6. All domestic services and fire sprinkler systems that are connected to the public water system shall be protected with a backflow prevention assembly, and an appropriate thermal expansion system in compliance with the Ordinance For The Control Of Cross Connections Within The Water System Of the City Of South Burlin tgton, henceforth the "Backflow Ordinance." Please contact this department for more information on the installation and proper setting of backflow prevention devices. 7. The above referenced CWD Specifications state that no water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior approval of the Superintendent. The appropriate CWD Supervisor may restrict work before November 15 and after April 1 during adverse weather conditions. 8. Eight -inch and larger Ductile Iron (DI) water pipe shall have no less than three (3) brass wedges installed at each joint. Bury depth to the new mains shall be six feet (6') to the top of the pipe. DI water pipe shall be Class 52, cement lined. Soil corrosiveness testing is required for this DI water main installation or the pipe shall be poly wrapped. 9. Mechanical joint restraints with twist off nuts shall be EBAA or Sigma, or approved equal. 10. It is a violation to discharge chlorinated water into waters of the state. All water used during flushing and testing of the new main must be dechlorinated prior to entering any water of the state. 11. For this project, the water mains shall be considered private. 12. This project is at the end of a dead end line, and therefore subject to all conditions created during routine and emergency operations of fire hydrants on dead end lines, including but not limited to extreme pressure fluctuations, as well as water quality issues that might develop from low demands on non -looped lines. 13. No parallel underground utility shall be designed or installed within four feet (4') of the water main from either side, or above the water main from the bottom of the main to finish grade. The exceptions of storm sewer and sanitary sewer are only as allowed by the CWD Specifications and the VT Water Supply Rule. No building or structure shall be built above the water line or within the water line easement. Generally storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be designed to be installed with a five-foot (5') separation unless provisions have been included to allow for proper support of either the storm water or sewer structures or water lines in the event of a needed excavation of the water main. The gas line, telephone line, and electric service are not shown on these plans. No utility shall be placed within five feet of any gate valve or ten feet of any fire hydrant. Generally, trees and shrubs shall not be placed over any water main or service line, nor placed within 20' of any appurtenance, including fire hydrants. 14. Prior to any building construction, the building contractor must contact this Department to discuss City requirements for meter sizing, meter settings, and backflow protection. 15. At least 7 days before the start of actual construction the contractor shall notify the SBWD of his intent to proceed, and shall arrange a meeting to discuss the project if necessary. 16. The SBWD shall be notified in advance to inspect all mechanical joint fittings, main line taps, appurtenances, thrust blocks, water line crossings, and testing prior to occurrence or backfilling. 17. After final flushing and before the new water main is connected to the distribution system, two consecutive sets of acceptable samples, taken at least 24 hours apart, shall be collected from the new main, and submitted to the Vermont Health Department for analysis. At least one set of samples shall be collected from every 1,000 feet of the new water main, plus one set from the end of the line and at least one set from each branch. All sample reports must be submitted to the appropriate Department prior to opening any connection to an existing water line. 18. Upon completion of the construction project, "Record Drawings" shall be supplied to the appropriate CWD supervisor in the form of one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy in Auto -CAD Version 2003 Format (.DWG) or newer. All Record Drawings are to include valve ties, and manufacturer make and casting date for all gate valves. Location ties for all curb stops, and water shut offs (WSO's) shall also be provided on the Record Drawings. 19. Further review changes may be required as this project proceeds through the permit process. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincer ly, v Jay Nadeau Superintendent CC. Cathyann LaRose Bruce Hoar Doug Brent Enc. Plan Reviews: O'Dell -Bacon St 8-09 Is C C A 17i-i3 5000't PROPOSED 2W NOE. ���,,11 '�� SEE NOTE J i " REC. PATH EASEMENT { -lO (i 1t- t`T t 1 6' TO CITY OF S. E9UR.R4GTLLV p !73-t^.5 P 119 � i ,_...�-._..__-_.-.._._...-. r I �. i s � jj p 33 # 37 NA u� i 6'++6P IF p 75 i 1� ; 6P p'03 pin p 1,7 i p 26 1 L 8 L 6A00%5 I J. DUPrllAN I M. a• V 6 32t tiiP : 2 I L-KNPEAL dt E p 99 N/T N� N/TE I! 7 �1 H N�f VOL a6 P6_ 404 I TRUST ( '"NESSEY ( N P. A S KOCRkAN I ! I } bA $LANC} A� M. AB80T7 ! i M. NJF Y. 526 P. 397 NAF Y. 1T0 P. W ,T A 900C{!E V, DO P, 530 ° ( Y. 319 R ♦4 1 e "n4 +� v- 549 P. p75 1 N/F I V. 393 P,. 396 i Y. 897 P. 2" V-$. 8Ei1N5 tAERPoi,4. N.P. CERV.i. I I' C. MCEACfi�fN V. 557 P. 204 I { 10'-- r-- cavT ru f V, 5 P, 7P3 I V. 454 P. 634 > Psaser � i. V. 60t P. 676 r. KIE' R=S:DENTIAL q ! I 47Z44" ZONE: CC3adAd�R,1�?�i- •• - -r i ' ZONE: BSI`➢Ety7jAt.� �Nas ", W _ i urwn000 vn ` 4c' x 6S Td1'cca. Id UnuTY EASEMENT ' ZJNb: C7VQERCIA'_ 2� 533,39�� N/ Her AIM s E L:,L PEASE LOT 10 FBcM DEVELOPMENT TO ARZOM 1,_� uMEKeMPER:gs,LLG jsw atn tO"ZON yT4C4SD'W COMPANY, LLC sVOL x 479 PO 7w L v 551 i -> az 19' 0.833 ACRES i 2 _.._ ,;�"E sn : -. _. 74II 5' __"72 G_..._ c__ -?"_'_3a.3$_ - .' � BURLiNG70N INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. ,n tiz., wg h. � al., � 1o't�oE�sE. -u.r._.. 1o•urufir€;sEq"�-; _..�--, LOT $ , 1 IV UTILITY 49.99' I In` ' to O,M.P,cu tE (7'S1 VERIZON t `� ps g' EASEMENT To fs ? 1T t i v. ,tw v. sdl _ _ ✓ ^� P. 77� I YJL" 26c. PG. 112 �i a s!a SBSr:'sz�zcYJE RFs!cEiIAL a `�--48# 3oG' d(7L. ?87; PG: 63 { ---- --- --• '� � 4.082 ACRES z; LO�iA�{�N MAP a 13 BACL7M11 ST. ND3S3'iSE(T IF -- --- i t r ------ '� iN q 20' WOE SERER 5.a- ! T - -'� "{ ! 1 --___. r': N$11°S2"W NB.:'St"52"tw E YCR'ZOh EASEMENT E;T'' I.. I (. E E 4 Ta S9.e3' - 70.02' s n V. 602 P. ITS I j - NOTES - V. 260 P, 112 y. I I _. 4 _ _ 'j p t7 i 's w _EASEM ------ EASEMENT FOR LOT 12 a 'EASTWOOD -" --------------- _ © i N1F I 1 Fy I UniLTY LINES 0.r5.26 AC ( p- I I i p ; i { _- jj � t be PurPcsc c'fd, Plan is isG We aP eC inoi mmda e, at he 76ed Pa kaay'UO. Retire �a 6nedo (( n 9 I I COMMONS I I I -;! j J--: f Ra n, <$ PlarS AA, A, and 3. TN3 rn Wor raflebIll Lea dlNsion pl _ota 12 and '3 arid Paz '. A.,4 $ hom lot t. CHAMPLAM 00. tA�.. INC. t 2 �' VOt_. SO PG, a i ' 1 VOL 126 PCs. 1- t "9j-r S85' S'i0" g in I Vf 3 9Aca s ET w- B� iy'tD"E: t I -1.. a j I PRtPER'75 LLC I" L' LOT t LOT " a i i : (), 2. The ".Md ry a.rva; ym P r'c.. eC wah afeotra k Ir bd t t no f v ape: I Y. W9 P 766 9,p i ol^ { ooyy sG3 45'23 w �0 1.360t ` Ac. I j I 2.222 AG. { TENNIS > COURTS ;Ij fr (. 3. B.aov m raw.-d . _tr�,M c na T. teed � n •. a h y na r� menta on r«�yret W-9Ina e.Wf Y.Iudi f Lt� ACCESS CA ENT ro j o MI S,S, I LOT 13 ¢ j Farrell sheet omi soar oaaa+va'.bns tOilan aaoba 2G. 79g9 ar.0 patamber 21, t 994 Z sr OiAMPLAW 01L CO. _ -•VOL 1� 1 �': 5G.55' .025 AC. 627,4 1 i I m� i ( fln�v 4,Fanall S:reel hasa 60footwide d9tautway(ROM. Reference Ve1.21.,Pg.737. ROW deta^ninad trap PA,;jjr5 � i " I NO3'CS'C7"E ' 8 09" m LOT 15 5 94 k`� ++1504'Oa'SO'W i ;.. 1 I Imo._ f� ,4 rartunaMation and pions entitled'Ferr.11 Street' dm.tl Oac.mber a, 7962, Sh.els 2E, rrconfad in 4ni. 797, p?. 05.20.: 25.1 __-7•;�___� _----_ ___"^.,,________�'-' __ _ 2 ROW 9 P.'Ba'S5'1C'W + t i I L _ _ - - t' y y. Shetburre Road has a 99 font aide ROW deternitned b' osbtln monanentadi m and the treveled or3w 6t 1ilu mad. m _- _ _ _J A y 9 ......_ -. P ` 54 "25"4 w r I Retw•nce hmn of9a11ng1on Vei..2. Po,J#9. 739.67_. ..__. jN65'S5'i C"W. 4. ROW TO So3'4s•2s` - ' ytrt, Ljjc+ _. 18 L.._. 7.05' rA d'''�-i I 17 1 1 2. C i i i 9URLkiCTON INDOOR ( - I y¢£ 6. Road has a SO toot wide ROW d0lermMCA by..MrO m lanentatfan aid me ha n1tuf patlon bf Uta aka. i r.. h05M 4'37"W ,"(i. 24 ta' Pukirg w f ]�' , 1 { . I TEN" CEENTER, ING �a^ S$ "Er ,•-S6$• 3' _ � �/�jf, 6' may &1oc41n& nl P.IS S45'25'43"W , ) i 76.42' ; PROP^^wE0 tS ;bOT VaOE 444.6�9'�- yy5t I Ralero^na Vo6'7 /, pp. 15 aM 23p. �rt F-4+ , I G.25- e+, sam4nt .1 38.33" Je -14 t �I}EWALK FASEMEN7 "`o• (LL000'I 7.Mork]pai wafer aatiicc, skm sPwar. son y 1 I i I N17 e-5eW TO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ,., w e [(, f ( Mary sewer, tekptwna, ehsu4:tc aMe gas sarvhas are ay.'aMa at tt;e bt tines of ....... INN6'1i'_7W g I 3 'Tomat ty 0 to LQT 11 -�, yi I4159' . Ei f. t t1ti4:;utat Iran M:e PlNntd Mga: Ihf xjMl PebMc riph'.Nweyi tt racordaC aastaren z. z r I o j LOT 14 u.c b :y *w4c .t _ i y 8 I Q739 AC. `• ' Sp Pq. 46i zl-r w 'r<uy 1.293P AG, R J U t,.. T.....� a &'d t H NM b I^. WI'hin {hd ata„'+0 n:' 1.'te 547Yey, 61are h65 Mti bv^ dedak HOME p ` N o\ l 4 i; rs3'22' E ; 9 ,y aaVg2J3 'hAts�• with Mom: •n to u ROPOSED 20° VADE �,5.7'...... • c <' "EASTWOOD COMMONS" % wremar dw vo eryaMaatn irs. I j i r 314 9uad>7y ra 1 FARRE.L SifMET ', 13I 5< daaPniant Mrare of 1d m iAY.e;1Fa ..a wan;ccai cr S'a:. pamut5: 1 i'N RED. PAT4 EASEMENT Y•' N, a L. (� AVE. w7D �> o� i r r^wuw RDusTw 7«Iv ra err s o LOT 2 R 4 25s ^'• i 1 7" 1 i.',' 4 (t>P3 i;n r PARTNER9iP C . r' j h. 'st }7.92 0. SubjaU propordas he wP.Nn the Commartial i Ana 2, Cwser"a:h and Opel Spax 7ari•m� 3rx+r:s and .0 a y ? '3.:;LE_vL V ,-*_ O COMMON24'R.13M. � Nfa�22'4Dw �, ,*,. 2.2C3t ACRES 1 Itefliec�at4ZoomgDlama(wsVbx�d1.iw>teyRole). a In -4 i 1 V,. 739 P. 5,4 FOR LOT 9, LOT 11 & I; 71 i9924' K Yo 18IA i 3JRUNGTON W0077R ( ( R-22E5 i~ e n n aA SEE REF. PLAT B N754777 o.E,Iaa�rban 1 as .aMde,vJnxd LOT 14 1 �" TeaFxs CENTER, INC, ,�,y; I ttss.. i r/'- t c a by ,u,ow ewwt-,9 aMd m, g arc x ba mate by yr 56' rabars w ba sac. ( 3 (HATCHED) 3t . Z.7 / 21,9e' 4, Q S6'i i'27"Wh , 1 i I\ p m - 7, t_ U an e.- v M.rand and main am highway s�oa and arw•.ments in dra area. Re(— Voi. N, n n O NY5'S!'D.3"Ytr 5�_W _ N t N rw. 1 b 1 P 1�m'd .iota o!Varmonl t3 hw Prox..t Bud: !A 'A1tf' Sibe1t 41, _ a � "T�0� €S74'STS6'E tJ?259'IS"E ESA IC"a.. .",r.. ,.� r;. _...v: ,o �' -Saes' sr.z9' I s• ,yv �, R 152.5' R- 43.50' "' w J I' 12. 7na Thm+aa T,ua P rce! la ber.afia 17 aaerrrerN !p i•:q Asti and eyrass, parMng, wHMas, 6Wfa:Q ..bias and t�CAhIMUN LAND `� s7szz'#G-E piu FARRELL STREET 1 = Sha•I r W .!:Sato ., on h6 PV _floe ll,A,F,O ,bilge C1-,,a+damaP ,241959mbb a d uema IS.29b ' 74.4e' -B . 1' , t .e-Ja�.Yt wa C,,1 `TJ m � A R R E L L STREET R-191 a' � )! Q I 9MIM me sE set. eaulh 8 tp..glcn: V rax^, f .7<na. A E I,. axrrer'. doled (ki•:bar 24 1358 r.rXN,l.d m V.I. 4P G>g. 2R. O I� I6Gt AC. C,a'ri77 �3.� r/2'N/ N85'S5'IC'W N85'55'I C"W -� N£p 34 y�1Fi .7 U-- \ I f' @3 13 B.-SCaa,. biwit ok-ev 0. OPa .1O -I 0-W'heC yaS-9, 5.i ' P.3#972t7C2}: _T9655hi7`E 1 i4 14 7A . as n xOW sm>ri ,g lots 72 5 12 aver ta`0 aM1O lal ,.1- 1 oDEU PnR IWAY LOT 8 Wp .S�Cq r, IN c °'io' x 'r - 15fi(1}�- a COMMON LAND PIj V. 676 A. 7 � CO Fr 4. � i$ ib 24 i!a attvas R.O.W, se i� nis 11, 12 & 73 - L 14; ((j t 0.392± Ac. �D• -NEW FAZREu STREET a J i i NSS_4'i8'w _ ROW - 7 & 11124 roue acueas R.O, W, se. Mg as H.11113 u+rtr La 12. v%i f ll p If `t { I 298,39'It 1 N/F ACADIA HEATHCOTE, LLG 1 R.O.W. THROUGH G LOT ally FAVOR OF R 166 ♦ iH 1&. Reghla-Ot way lvndabie wSdth )o ..Lott aisp serve. tots 7. ;t. 1Zf NlMing, fj ,/cam, (/ i I I LOT 3. LOT 4 & LOT 3 L 73 7 / i I N, 5'24 14"W I \ti + ;y" J)� sas 54 to E r t i t ea.ao (J 35--'e, 1 I I ! I SEE REF, PLAT A R-237 > x� 7j 19 19Eaaemerla er Pon or of nt m, apt a ft"I Wi n, I I 16 37' I I \ ���111 1 `j' O a. P^arnsBK :'(^ wl b. nUNly ra ame.,; Mver Ln_4 1 a. d 1 J (n eene Titurrras truf::ilny. Ra3:.s` x a o'DELL HouslNc ;/l / - PLAN REFERENCES -- { r 1 AA FINAL FIAT - O'Da _L PARKyVAY FUG" , pmbared by CiAi f! i7 adng A. apcates rc. (CAA) fisted July 200O3 1 j LOT. 3 II / ' I tau .r ued wM1vzoo¢ Recorceal 'm.m C.+rib+gIon Land Rr-rd IS3ue7. 1 SHOPPING CENTER /j I RO.w,'NRLUGH 4.449i ACHES I) /� //��� A. FINALPLAT; CYVELL PARKWAYPUD'` by kA dated kily 2000.laet mveed9 W2002 BLR- LOT 3 IN FAVOR OF i i - L, / W !r . I - �• , I i 21.v6 .OT 4 & LOT 5 I I ( B, IIoLn ly Adko?••re J Sarimw Lot I anv LW 2 O00 A ,R yWD by CEA d ted 4,234004 5 24 < 1 I C. -,af o.' 5mvaY' .Saawa 3+Pt -rg (aroma• ca. Craton a.m ?P,orrus A. Farah t- �. i I j i I E rfj �-,y''�\ 6r4rB Rm rev(sM 1C2z'ei VON. ,e 1Ta. page �. seLR �e�'d °Y'Mt'r 4'ars,. aatad 1 t i -y E"-5' LOT 5 EASEMENT {' I'. I I I TO LOT 5 : ,� O. aC2p OLRtal Canter- Sae Su I 1 i � I1 7 ^MY Snt:itwrre Rr;.d', p•4>;1r•d by P C. tt,a,ne••, dai•d A_yuM. i9M . Yi LEGEND - (I jit f�•O W4 rt 7 aye St. SBLR. - - PROPERTY LINE -•irrac'srR•a.,PrW,+snw.F'lar. ortarsd ro ae-aoau.Y.Cr-6aNanaaY'ncysede p-eGere•; b,t P. G.1Cm1rne:, I 1 TIE LINE dale. Nrweryt. 13SS, Vdame 200, C-'19e 18, s9LR, ---- it 1: - ----' I i. -- - - Q' � ^ g a .._ , ...:. _ _ __ �f. I 1 ----- --- ------EASEMENTI( - it5'i5i !i� ry l qtP� F. •tarrcts or rtaaFAda!6 Asaotrates-Pre.^•s.^.YPkx'•P-rad by lrnrv:*aax, Sl.ar,.ctea.:;, aaaas.?.•"ems. a 10 33L ° ! _ - _ RIGHT ('' WAY , pJ 3iiAiNAGE 3`.6.44' .� r j) Q jFfR4R ys+y ((( 1 ///���� N04�� 44•E. 26" q 1t n,/ I rP y �,'\ td. S:afa ed Vi.4.ghwzy P'ajacfGYn',L,4fm MiSAxt.1 ', pta:vs by'dT Mom`* 01` nt Y ^aPxtatk=7. da.n , M1. ,:spT+2. SBI rT- j - ZONING DISTRICT LINE ° EASEVEN FENCE ❑ Raw, 1�1.ROU I / ��v LOT 4 IN cAwR Dv i "�"' / t i .� C C. ...-j �• 5' SIDEWALK fASEMFNT .. n +,d''vti e IRON PIPE EBAR FOUND i w TNROUC4 LOTS 3 & # LOT 3 & LOT 3 j Tr 6.4 MP91 rf m xrOwie^' . 8 oaV ; ;nis fiat pwpt.:N ri N j TO LOT s S N ry� g1COMMON LAND j -' y 9 1- a j ie' tine --talon t of in If.y cOnda ted a :Oar my 1 fl MONUMENT PG,JNO : � o f ar 9. t.1 tr.. b , nor o MONUMENT TO BE SET j t 1 I"GITY'S EDGE" 1.786± Ac. a ly.1 r-eeo SAP yawleid n era.! Eas e / 0"OEtt PAR'�CWAY. 1 r PJC ASSfJCATiCN, INC +l /'J ,y. bnumi as snnpn brie i orwr m11v REPAR REBAR Wf SURVEY MARKER I t-..-. I. t J LOT 4 r V. 679 P. sn / / / ` d "ttia gJ47 �vbstantiaty vxlbn.wrh 27 VOA'iO3 TO BE SET` -..... .__-.; t 1.601f ACRES w POWER POLE 1 �'L "" ELECTRIW CASEMENT ,nn 1 Ly TV TRANSMITTING TOWER i Timothy R. Cowin VT. t S. 597 i �`' ; 1 1 •! r:. ,: Ci At• x - EN :r'A•,u.�„c y;t� �i i4 SEE ENUMERATED NOTES RE: EASEMENTS CM,]rt +?,,.� y. & 01'' ' 1 l �'I'{0' FONs.',L ti•RV P^jC F-e-aa. sysm aarnEq'r l!at Tn ims ,�l7,'3ale : A WATER & NATURAL REVISED FINAL PLAT ( GOiSS-_M ~ -�' W'•.•.•' fi CAS EASEMENT i-a6-aA IX: JGDAIF A�;'tFR° E" S=V, LOB 14 k 15 FR(M LOT 14E't.:E MEA5 i i N7$ dG'49`E -'��,.�^"�'.'- 3-11Ob`Al,. i 1 (//\) { (/ jj PARKWAY %/''"{; j({Jj��(/{Aj. \}�'/ p�+}/ j( jj (�'°'�/ Pto / _ Q3'r�•L`•'(^.'cu 7 -Cfl AM V ELL I : ! 1 /. [ i \ ® 6O : 6 1 7 :: Rw/ R"d 1-29-aB AQ AMM R.O.W.tM LOT a AtO LOT 11 GRAPHIC SCALE soaD7i7"w .I -:.: +imp', PRRPMP 0FARRELL. STREET Date Ch'k'd Re Askin cr :. b p b u r auR 7NGTaN v 4Molir 50' CONSERVARON': e . "'N }-E-- I , --" SIP ' T13N PR PGS, A29 &' 00 : or.- by _ Dote �.30. 2DD5 &OPEN SPACE D1S;PoCT N 72435 ...._,L *" ! I -'4;:3 r•-'T t,)tyl,!•lTl 4b.:598 SHEET. 7 CIVIL xN INcFiII`IC j 1�1 E� i1'I�, 7.65' Utz V01-- j94, pG5 Checked by � Orlgnci Scone 1" r 6D' _ r '+r 1 - ht c' S'k a ry•Ct qp i ncIN h rPeO ��'1v-�4.b3 .� Approoad. by _T' Prujoct Ntb Ar.r}• . ° ' 1 Y i August 3, 2009 Mr. Frank B. Haddleton Attorney at Law 270 College Street P.O. Box 64649 Burlington, Vermont 05406-4649 Dear Mr. Haddleton, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts concerning the application from F & M Development Co. LLC. As you may know, the applicant has recently submitted a Preliminary Plat application to the City; the public hearing to begin the review of this proposal is scheduled for Tuesday, September 2rid , 7:30 pm at the South Burlington City Offices. We welcome you to attend and share these or additional feedback at that meeting if you so choose. Please also feel free to stop by our offices, weekdays from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm to review the application. I have attempted to reply to your questions, below. I have limited my responses, however, to questions related to process and information requests. Our staff notes are our recommendations regarding interpretation, with the only authority to make decisions resting with the Development Review Board. I encourage you to get a copy of these notes once they are complete and/or to share the remainder of questions with the DRB. Question: "Perhaps we should start by circulating for discussion a copy of the existing agreement relating to the maintenance of the berm. Please send me one." Response: Maintenance requirements for the landscaping of the property are upheld by the standards of Land Development Regulations. See Section 13.06. Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, for details. 2. Question: "1.0 I'd like to know how, exactly, the proposed buildings fail to meet the applicable front, rear, and side setback requirements." Response: You are welcome to review the application at our offices or request a copy of the staff notes for the preliminary plat upon their completion. 3. Question: "1.1 By what specific authority can the DRB grant dimensional waivers (i.e., waivers to the setbacks requirements?" Response: Section 15.02, Authority and Required Review, states: 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, V7 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com A. Authority (3) In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of these Regulations. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary. In no case shall the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where pre-existing conditions exceeds the applicable limit. 4. Question: "2.0 Where do the SBLDR provide that congregate housing units are not subject to density review?" Response: Table C-1: Uses and Dimensional Standards, treats congregate care under the "public and quasi -public uses" category, not the "residential uses" category. 5. Question: "2.1 What exactly is the `density bonus' for mixed rate housing, and exactly how have the developers qualified for this bonus?" Response: Please refer to section 13.14 Affordahle Housing of the Land Development Regulations. There are, however, no requests for any new density bonuses with the current application. 6. Question: "3.0 What are the coverage limits for this development" Response: Excerpt from Table C-2, Dimensional Standards by Zoning District: The maximum site coverage (buildings only) in the Cl district is 40% The maximum site coverage (buildings, parking, and all other impervious surfaces) in the C 1 district is 70% 7. Question: "3.1 What is the distinction between "building coverages" and "overall coverages" Response: Table C-2 Dimensional Standards by Zoning District: Site coverage (buildings only) Site coverage (buildings, parking, and all other impervious surfaces) Question: "3.2 Do the coverage provisions provide limitations on impermeable surfaces (e.g. paved parking areas)" Response: Overall site coverage includes all parking and impervious surfaces 9. Question: "3.2 Please provide the calculation used to support the stated `building coverage' and `overall coverage' for the property." Response: The calculations are prepared by the applicant's engineers. This question is best posed to the applicant. 10. Question: "4.1. The developer is requesting a height waiver of 25 feet (allowing for `unseen site conditions'), not the 24 feet indicated in the comments by South Burlington staff. Response: The staff notes for the Preliminary Plat application will include updated review of all height waiver requests. 11. Question: "5.0 I hereby request copies of the reviews called for here [Sufficiency of water supply and wastewater disposal capacity]" Response: Water supply review is completed independently by the Champlain Water District. Please feel free to contact them. Wastewater disposal, in this particular instance, is under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlington. Please feel free to contact them. 12. Question: "7.0 Where is the `traffic management strategy' called for in the SBLDR? Response: A traffic study was completed with the initial application for development of the entire property. This study is available in the Municipal Offices for your review. Circulation and traffic issues specific to this application will be addressed in the staff notes and by the Development Review Board during the hearing. 13. Question: "How is the developer addressing the issue raised by Staff of the `jog' in the access drive" Response: I encourage you to review the Preliminary Plat application and/or pose the question to the DRB. 14. Question: "11.0 I request a copy of the review called for here [Fire Chief Review]" Response: The Fire Chiefs review generally takes place at the Final Plat stage of the application process. You are welcome to read a copy of that review once it is prepared. 15. Question: "19.0 How does Staff feel that this criterion has been met? Merely stating that conclusion is inadequate, particularly when the conclusion has no apparent basis [Materials, characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions]" Response: Please see the staff notes of the Preliminary Plat application when they are completed. 16. Question: "21.0 I request a copy of the required landscape plan and landscape budget" Response: The landscaping plan and budget are available for you review at the Municipal Offices. One final note: As you know, the Development Review Board's authority is limited to what is written in the Land Development Regulations. In your letter you share some concerns that relate to overall city long range planning policy and the contents of the Regulations, which is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is in the process of revising the city-wide Comprehensive Plan; please feel free to attend and participate in the working meetings or to provide feedback as we begin our public outreach this fall. Sincerely, ;V41,6_ Paul Conner Director of Planning & Zoning cc: John Dinklage, Ray Belair, Eric Farrell, Amy Wright Eastwood Commons Shared Parking Study Developed in Accordance with Section 13.01 of South Burlington Land Development Reg,-,Iati .,-i6 ai,J Urbar, i,.-:ind �nstiti..:':; - SPartxi lf-�V Weekday i 5;i;jrday Use Size Peak Parking 6 am 10 am .12 prr. 13 purl pm a"T: 11pM Existing 1,000 sf or DU Ratio Spaces Req'd % Present ;i Cars % Present 0.68 # Cars 587 rc�ent 0 # Cars % Present 0 -afz 7,13 Pres, It 1.00 Car 862 Present # Cars % Present # Cars Residential 383 2.25 862 1.00 862 i'00 862 0.98 845 Residential 63 1.45 92 1.00 z' 0.68 C 56 io 3f 0;1: '.00 92 0.98 91 (congregate) Office 11.3 3.5 40 0.03 2 1.00 40 0.90 316 0.23 1 G I Uc- i 0.03 2 0.00 0 Social Services 3 4 12 0.03 1 1.00 12 0.Y0 11 �0.2'� 3 C 0C 0 0.03 1 0.00 0 (VNA) (office) Proposed 0.68 65 10.60 1 57 0.8 81 .06 9L Residential 42 2.25 95 1.00 95 1.00 95 0.98 94 Residential 28 1.45 41 1.00 41 0.68 28 0.1510 25 10.85 36 11.00 41 1.00 41 0.98 41 (congregate) Retail* 20 0.00 0 0.68 14 10.97 20 0.95 19 '3 0 0.13 3 (Creative Habitat) Totals: 1162 1093 809 723 Totals w/ 25% Waiver 872 820 607 L 54 * 20 additional spaces will be provided at the existing Creative Habitat store. Total Parking Spaces Provided: 828 Spaces 9 66 1093 1093 1071 820 820 804 Prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. - 10/2009 —APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0/- PUNU / 'I I I \ \ \ \ OUTLET STRUCTURE. LOCATION AND EXISTING ALDER, BIRCH, OOGWEEO, AND MLLOW 7 ELEVA TIQAI MUST BE .VERIFIED IN \f -------- I \ \ \ .FIELD TO CONSTRUCTION .------.--- --� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I. CITY of BURLINGTON J WILLOW 1----r'- / / 1 / 1 i / 1 / / / / I/ 1 1 1 1 I rl ril it lily O m CITY of SOUTH - BURLINGTON 4XINUS LANCELATA NEW6ORT ?-J" CAL. "GREET! A!iW I / 1 I / 1'I III III I I �'/! III IIII 7"----j I I IIII EXISTINGil I IILI _— PARKING LINES NOT TO BE PAINTED IN REAR AISLE 20 ONE WAY jjjj ---- LOADING AREA 11 FUEL STORAGE TANK 1000 GAL - a .>cu yr vr. CONTROLCONCEPT" BY SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CORPORA77ON DATED -MAY 4, 1990. THIS /NFORM�i"'N HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THIS .OFFICE. (\ I 2 WILLOW VII �`\ I \\ \ \ \ EXISTING BIRCH HEDCEAOW I ♦ \\�� \\\ \�♦ \\ \\ NOR THERN RENT -A -CAR TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL I EMM" TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLAN77NG DETAIL MR PLANT . UST I ACER RUBRUM OCT08E'R GLORY 2 1/2-3" CAL. 'RED MAPLE" OTY. SCIEN77FIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE/ROOT . TREES . 1 ACER RUBRUM OCTOBER GLORY OCTOBER CLORY RED MAPLE 2\'- J" CAL., B&B UNIFORM 9 FRAXINUS LANCELATA NEWPORT NEWPORT GREEN ASH 2\ �J' CAL., B&B UNIFORM B P/NUS NIGRA AU57RIAN PINE . 4'-5' HT., B&B 5 SALIX ALBA 7RIS77S NIOBE GOLDEN WILLOW 2" CAC., B&B 1 MOUNTAIN ASH 2\'-J' CAL. I - _ - SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST 2\'-J' CAL. SHRUBS CB 5 VIBURNUM T. COMPACTI/M COMP. AMER. CRANBERRY BUSH 2"-2\' CAL., B&B BB 11 BLUEBERRY BRUNSW7CK 2 CAL 1 INV'297.5 PROVDE LT 4 LILAC 17NKERKLL 3 GAL \ FLARED END SECTION SG 18 JUNIPER SEAGREEN 2 GAL WC 7 W£/GELA CAPPUC/NO 2 GAL WFL 4 NE/GELA FRENCH LACE 2 CAL \\ WVD 5 WE/GELA WR/ELATED DWARF 3 GAL /� \ \ LDK B LILAC DWARF KOREAN 3 GAL I WM B NINEBAWEIGELA DARTS GOLD 3 GAL �✓n�`/ \\ WM 5 WE/GELA MINUET 3 CAC ' \ I \ REMOVE EXIS77NG 12" STORM SEWER \ REPLACE WITH RELOCATED 12" STORM ®y I I III SEWER /L.i• J� I REMOVE AND REGRADE EXISTING COVERAGE CALCULATIONS I ` PAVED ENTRANCE TOTAL SITE: 3.18 ACRES BUILDING I I I IIkl1.-. .------- - 11SERVCE.-•-•-' •-.-.-.-._.------------ ��.-.--DOMES77C WATER -• 9" I B' I�-T_5 1�--8 _5-...... ------------- 41- - �N \ 1 \ ���® `t.. BUILDINGS: i4,840 SF 1 III I I I I I SLOPE 1/4%FT (MIN) SERVICE 24 I \ �\ \ / C1 - 1 PAVEMENT,• 34,625 SF 1�f vW FRONT YARD - It \, \ S° I 1 I I '1 + II _► 4 PINE \\\\ \ \ II // o, eu TOTAL:18,390 SF II II II III - - - - - - - _ - 1 y 1 ♦ I / r%f/�ryt PAVEMENT.• 5,410 SF Q I III APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 1" WATER SERVICE LINE TO NORTHERN I n I i I III /} 1 / / RENT -A -CAR. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION A t TYPE I i PINE \ / // CONSTRUC770N. s'c sc 'm so sc sc �+ I �c ♦ �\ / CONNECT TO EXISTING 1 " WATER 'SERVICE ,IIII III I Joo O gar - FREE STANDING SIGN 1`' ♦ / / / 'Site Plan taken from Dubois, and Kin drawing D-4184. revision 6. Llewell h V } / l 9. 9 Yn- ti 40 S.F., 14' HIGH, \ � X / added/revised Information based on information provided by owner/agent. No I \ 11 I\ 7�nAc/x£Es + LPY _ 'I �� EXTERNALLY LIGHTED\ // \ ' I / /X l information, research or field Investigations have been performed by this office + a \_ k K \ 1 /SHRu9s e ox 2"W 2"W 2„W 2"W —f--- l SITE PLAN TAKEN FROM FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN, INC. PROJECT 91098, DRAWING CONNECT NEW 12" l REVISION 5 AND ABOVE WORK PERFORMED 8Y DUBOIS & KING, INC. ON THIS SITE -es- - -es- - - -a- -p--- es- - - -es- - -/rs- �.L - STORM SEWER AT / NO AS -BUILT INFORMA710N HAS BEEN COLLECTED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTED PROJEI \ \ I MOUNTAIN ASH 2 I/2"-3" CAL. _ _ �z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / _ , / I I EXIS77NG INVERT 296.851 -- - 1 HONEKOCUST EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM PLANS REFERENCED ON I NOTES 5&6 AND FROM LIMITED FIELD WORK. SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES WERE F0 - - - - - - - - - - - - BETWEEN THESE SOURCES AND CERTAIN ASSUMPT70NS WERE MADE TO COMPLETE 2�� ALL TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMA7TON IS APPROXIMAIE ASSUMED LOCATION OF EXISTING INSULATE SEWER SERVICES. PROPOSED EXIS77NG 15' U77LITY EASEMENT-1TEMPORARY 2" WATER I IF COVER BECOMES LESS h CURB STOP SERVICE LINE I SCALE: 1�� VERIFY ELEVATION OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN. LOCATION 1 rFUTURE SERVICE CONNfC770N / I = THAN 4. SEE DETAIL. - EXIS77NG SANITARY MUST BE VERIFIED IN HELD PRIOR MAINTAIN CONSTANT GRADE (/YO C 10 I SEWER TO DETERMINE TO CONSTRUCTION. I ON SIDEWALK ACROSS DRIVEWAY / \ I I 4I eB POTEN77AL SLOPE OF ASSUMED LOCATION OF I W I T1, L I S T O N R O A D PROPOSED BUILDING s� EXISTING WATER LINE. - SERVICE. MUST BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION I ( PROVIDE CONTINUOUS CURB ACROSS PROPOSED ENTRANCE - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 � s T - I --------W---------»--- ----W----- -- W-- -- - - -l' -- - - - - - ---- - --- --- --- --- - - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --`- I 19 if VAN TED SANITARY — —PROPOSED 2" \\\\\\\ \ \\ \\\\ \ 5CB \.\\\\ \\ \♦ \\\\\\ 4b, A 2 PINE \ ® \ \ E RACK �\ \ LEGEND NO TES: ? Relocate fuel tank, label wet/and buffer 12/07/O6 I Update Site Plon - px 0w 11/14/OB - PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE THE TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE LINE SHOWN HEREON, AND LOCA77ON OF THE REVISE LANDSCAPE&FILL-L/M/T, SHADE PARKING, ADD CO DIST. BNDY, ADD NOTES rz/15/97 --- R.OW. / EASEMENT LINE — - - - —BUILDING SETBACK LIMITS WATER SERVICE LINE SERVING NORTHERN RENT A -CAR AVIS" WAS BASED ON INFORMA77ON PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. PERMISSION FOR THIS TAPPING REVISE / AND.SCAPF&REAR FOR REMOVE GUARD RAIL.ADD O&K LOGO & FU N07E 1114197 - - - - - - - - - - - _ - FY1C77NR CnAiTni /R - ARRANGEMENT WAS AUTHORIZED IN A LETTER FROM 774E SOUTH BURLINGTON IT IS THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS THE LATEST REVISIONS. SKETCH PLAN FINAL DESIGN . SITE PLAN ._CONSTRUCTION MUNSON PROPERT Y- 1860 WILLIS'TON ROAD SOUTH SURLINGTON SITE PLAN LLEWELLYN - HOWLEY PRPIECT NUMBER FL1- IR D7 ,DLENCO RPO R•T6D SEPT. 1991 F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 July 7, 2009 John Dinklage Chair, Development Review Board South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 and Ray Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Open Letter to South Burlington Development Review Board From the "Eastwoods Residents" Gentlemen: I recently received a copy of the above referenced letter from one of the Eastwoods Residents and/ thought it would be appropriate to respond to the comments and observations made in the letter. Per our prior agreement with them, as representatives of the greater Hadley Road neighborhood, I mailed a copy of our "Sketch Plan' application, in advance of the meeting, to Elise Guyette, David Shiman and Tim Barritt. Background First of all, I would like to comment on "the neighborhood". The folks who live in our development (including myself) consider themselves just as much a part of the "Eastwoods Neighborhood" as the folks who live between Hadley Road and Proctor Avenue. The housing types (single-family vs. multi -family) may be different, but the people occupying them certainly are not. The owners and renters on both sides of Farrell Street are made up of single persons (some just starting out in life, some not), couples of all ages, young families with small children, single parents and retired folks. They work and recreate in our community along with everyone else. Many of our residents are from the local area, even South Burlington, while some have relocated to our community from other cities and states. I expect they have chosen to live here in large part because it is convenient, care -free and affordable. I doubt any of them feel the homes they live in are inferior. Quite to the contrary, the many that I have had the pleasure of meeting express sincere appreciation for the opportunity to live in modern, well-built homes, in close proximity to services and transportation links. The 8 multi -family buildings that have been constructed to -date along Farrell Street offer some 446 homes. While these homes are not for everyone, neither is living in a single-family home. Many folks value the diversity of housing types and appreciate the opportunity to choose a living environment that suits their lifestyle. The final buildings that we now propose will add approximately 70 homes to the neighborhood, all of which will be in high demand upon completion for all the reasons stated above. As we all know, several years ago, when the Planning Commission and City Council voted to amend the zoning for this district. They did so recognizing that our site offered a textbook opportunity for dense "infill development`' in an otherwise built -environment, served by existing utility infrastructure. The development model they chose to encourage, expanded the affordable housing opportunities within the City, while preserving other open areas. Among other changes, the residential density was increased from 7 to 15 units per acre, with a bonus for affordable housing. This allowed us to amend our original permits, eliminating several thousand square feet of office and hotel space in favor of more residential units. Alternatively, this site could very well have been built out with a variety of retail and commercial uses, also permitted within this district, and in closer proximity to our northern boundary line, which would have resulted in a more abrupt transition to the abutting single-family neighborhood. A significant side benefit for the greater Eastwoods Neighborhood has been the reduction of cut -through traffic as a direct result of the reduction of PM Peak Hour trip ends from over 600 to less than 250. These are many of the reasons why our "O'Dell Parkway PUD" project received the 2006 Smart Growth Award from the Vermont Forum of Sprawl. Now to the matters referenced in the letter: Environmental Concern It is true that the two buildings to be demolished were constructed prior to 1978, meaning they likely contain lead -based paint. We also believe them to contain asbestos. The Hadley Road neighbors have every right to expect that proper protocols will be strictly followed during the demolition process, as do the residents in the immediately adjacent buildings. 0 Page 2 J The State Health Department and the EPA exercise jurisdiction over these activities and the neighbors, as well as the City, can fully expect us to be vigilant in our adherence to all applicable rules and regulations. Although I do not believe this comes under the jurisdiction of the DRB, as a courtesy, we certainly are willing to submit any environmental reports we obtain on the buildings to be demolished to a proper authority within the City. Building Height The "average pre -construction grade' of a particular site and the height of the building proposed thereon has always been expressed in terms of the benchmark "height -above -sea -level", per the City's requirements. Obviously, the difference between the two measurements is the actual height of the building, except in cases where the grade of the site has been modified and the first floor of a new building is at an elevation different than the average pre -construction grade of the site. On a fairly level site, such as is the case at O'Dell, the only practical way to measure the cumulative impact of a stand of buildings is to express their height in terms of "height -above -sea - level", as we have done. As proposed, the addition to Grand Way Senior Housing would be at the same height as the existing building. We are in the process of reducing the overall height of the Bacon Street Lofts building, lowering the roof by the equivalent of about a half -story. As revised, the main roof section (not counting elevator shafts and stairwells) of the Bacon Street Lofts building will be within a foot or so (higher and lower) of the roofs of Grand Way Senior Housing, Eastwood Commons I and Eastwood Commons II. Height Waivers In high density zoning districts, it is necessary to build taller buildings, in order to achieve the desired density, as expressed in the Land Use Regulations. Recognizing this reality, the DRB has granted waivers to all 8 of the buildings constructed in the O'Dell Parkway PUD since 2001. By its actions in the early stages of this development, the DRB set a clear community standard, which we relied heavily upon when we committed to the substantial investment necessary to fund a new public road, utility infrastructure improvements and a state-of-the-art storm water management system. It is imperative that such clear guidelines be established at the outset of any multi -year, multi- million dollar development for the benefit and protection of both the City and the developer. To even consider changing the rules of the game in the final development stage of this particular project would be an unreasonable and indefensible action by the City. 0 Page 3 Building Setback In this zoning district, buildings are required to be set back 65 feet from abutting residential properties. In order to mitigate the impact of the buildings we construct, we intentionally increase the building setbacks from the minimum requirement along our north property line. • Eastwood Commons H is set back about 140 feet. • As proposed, the addition to the Grand Way Senior Housing building will be set back about 180 feet. • As proposed, the Bacon Street Lofts building will be set back about 190 feet. In comparison, a 3-story building set back the minimum required 65 feet from our north line, would have a significantly greater visual impact on the abutting properties, than will the taller buildings we propose in their sited locations. A very good example of how the combination of building height and building setback affect visual impacts is the 4-story building being constructed on the north side of Bacon Street This building is well -designed and appropriate in the context of its neighborhood, however, its close proximity to its northern boundary line makes it much more visible from Hadley Road than any of the 4 buildings we have constructed or propose to construct on the north side of Farrell Street. The Landscape Berm The landscape berm we constructed along our north property line (the south line of the abutting Hadley Road neighbors), lies within a 60 foot -wide parcel of common land to be owned and maintained by the O'Dell Parkway PUD Landowners Association. It contains approximately 280 trees of varying species, which our Landscape Architect advised, at the time, was too many to promote healthy long-term growth. The dense plantings also make it impossible to mow, so we weed whack both sides of the berm in the spring and fall to keep the grass under control. At the time of its original construction there were more trees planted at the easterly end of the berm in response to the specific demands of a particular neighbor in that vicinity. We have therefore asked our Landscape Architect to specify supplemental plantings at the westerly end of the berm to balance out the growth. Also, a site visit would reveal that there is an existing row of mature cedar, as well as other trees, along our northern boundary line, some reaching a height in excess of 20 feet. These existing trees provide an effective screen of our site for most of the abutting Hadley Road homes. By the way, this spring, I did notice that three of our neighbors are dumping their lawn waste and other debris over their rear property line onto the north side of the berm, which is counter- productive to our maintenance efforts. 0 Page 4 Neighborhood Quality, Skvline & Lieht Pollution We agree the Eastwoods Neighborhood is a "quiet and peaceful family neighborhood with a wide diversity of residents". The residents who live along Farrell Street consider themselves a part of the Eastwoods Neighborhood and they also "cherish" the atmosphere in which they live. Contrary to the fears expressed by the Hadley Road neighbors, the buildings we propose will not "visibly project above the existing skyline", which we will clearly demonstrate with illustrative modeling at our next hearing, per the request of the DRB. As we did when we constructed Eastwood Commons II, at the request of the immediate neighbors, light emanating from any north -facing common hallways will be screened at night. This condition only occurs in the Grand Way Senior Housing addition. Hadley Road Property Values I hesitate to even comment on this assertion, so I will be brief: The claim that our project somehow diminishes the property values of the homes on Hadley Road is a common assertion by abutting neighbors. It cannot be substantiated, because it is simply not true, as I suspect most of the Hadley Road neighbors already understand. We have all experienced a reduction in the value of our property, as a result of the current economic downturn. Green Space/ Lot Coverage Vermont, for all its beauty, must sustain its share of necessary economic growth, particularly in its urban areas, which is not contrary to the core beliefs of the residents who grew up here or those who chose to relocate here from more urban areas. In order to preserve open space in the outlying and other designated areas of the City, for the benefit of all its residents, more dense development is allowed and encouraged within higher density zoning districts, where buildings are necessarily larger and housing types typically more uniform. The O'Dell Parkway PUD project is in one of those high density Districts (C-1, R-15), where overall lot coverage is allowed up to 70%. The Hadley Road - Proctor Avenue neighborhood is in a different zoning district (R-4), where overall lot coverage is allowed up to 40 %. Not surprisingly, there is more green space in the Hadley Road - Proctor Avenue neighborhood. As proposed, our overall lot coverage is 58.7% or about 16% less than what is allowed under the Land Use Regulations. I do not believe it to be "un-Vermont" to enjoy the benefits of living in one of these higher density districts, where clean, decent and conveniently -located multifamily housing is available for rent and to own. 0 Page 5 E Air -Conditioning_ Equipment The units at Bacon Street Lofts will have central air-conditioning, which is typically provided by a ground -mounted common chiller (Eastwood Commons I) or cooling -tower (Eastwood Commons II). In the case of Bacon Street Lofts, we are looking at two possible systems. A "split system', which would have individual (residential -scale) condensing units on the roof of the building (typically 3 feet wide, 3 feet high and 15 inches deep) or a modified heat -pump system with a dry cooler on the roof. In either event, the equipment will be located in the central area of the roof and not be visible from the ground. We will provide noise -level specifications at the hearing to support our representation that the equipment will not adversely affect the Hadley Road neighbors or any of our more immediate neighbors. Construction Hours Construction activities are a necessary part of economic development. I do not believe it reasonable to restrict the hours, especially when the good -weather season is so short, which would only serve to increase the cost of the housing we are developing. On Being a Good Neighbor We have always strived to be responsible developers and good neighbors. We certainly understand the type and style of housing we have developed at O'Dell does not appeal to everyone. However, we do not subscribe to the notion that multi -family housing degrades the quality of life in the adjacent single-family neighborhood nor do we believe it negatively impacts the values there. We appreciate the participation of our neighbors and believe their involvement contributes to a healthy debate, making the process more collaborative and the end result more successful. Respectfully submitted, Eric F. Farrell Cc: Elise Guyette & David Shiman - 22 Orchard Road Tim & Katie Barritt - 71 Meadow Road De]mott & Jane Neroni - 66 Hadley Road 0 Page 6 F&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC P.O. Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-7400 fax 802-860-3594 Memo To: Ray Belair, .c� Administrative Officer (l From: Eric Farrell Date: 8/25/09 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review - O'Dell Parkway PUD Enclosed please find the following materials in connection with our Preliminary Plat Subdivision Review application for your review: • O'Dell Parkway PUD - Shadow Study (Sheet EX-1, dated 8/ 18/09) • O'Dell Parkway PUD - Elevations (Sheet EX-2, dated 8/ 18/09) • Photo Illustrations Sheet EX-1 depicts the following: Demonstrates that the proposed addition to Grand Way Senior Housing and the proposed Bacon Street Lifts building will not cast a shadow over the butting houses on the South side Hadley Road. Sheet EX-2 depicts the following: • The relative heights (main roof elevations) of the three existing buildings along the north side of Farrell Street, namely, Eastwood Commons I (267.00), Eastwood Commons II (264.25) and Grand Way Senior Housing (261.75); plus the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building (265.5). • A site section through a typical Hadley Road house and the proposed addition to Grand Way Senior Housing demonstrating that the new addition will not project up into the sky line, as viewed from Hadley Road. A site section through a typical Hadley Road house and the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building demonstrating that the new Bacon Street Lofts building will not project up into the sky line, as viewed from Hadley Road. • The site sections also demonstrate that a 35 foot high building set back 65 feet (the minimum) from our north property line would have a greater visual impact, as viewed from Hadley Road than our proposed taller buildings set back 185 feet - 195 feet respectively. The Photo Illustrations depict the following: • The two photos taken from the west present the Bacon Street Lofts building as it will appear in the context of the existing Shelburne Road neighborhood. • The one photo taken from the south presents the Bacon Street Lofts building as it will appear in the context of the existing Farrell Street neighborhood. • The six photos taken from Hadley Road are intended to be used in conjunction with the site sections and further demonstrate that the proposed addition to Grand Way Senior Housing and the proposed Bacon Street Lofts building will not project up into the sky line, as viewed from Hadley Road. Please let me know if you require any additional information prior to the DRB meeting on September lst. Enclosures 0 Page 2 WAR T. I ELEV. 270.00' r�ELE FLOOR ROOF ELEV. 265.6 ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.001 ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00. SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1' = 20' ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.09 ELEV. 230.09 ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' HADLEY ROAD SECTION A -A': HADLEY ROAD TO GRAND WAY EXPANSION (LOOKING EAST) SECTION A -A': BACON STREET LOFTS TO HADLEY ROAD (LOOKING WEST) 1 .40' GRAND WAY EXPANSION I ELEV. 270.00' ELEV. 260.00' ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ]ELEV, 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210,00' ELEV. 270.00' ELEV.260.W ELEV. 250.00' ELEV. 240.00' ELEV. 230.00' ELEV. 220.00' ELEV. 210.00' Boyle �•mrw�e agile m lom a•ce landscape architects .planning consultants jbo/mjb ..ee a..m8/ 8/2009 O'Dell Parkway PUD e ate 301 college street • Burlington • vermont • 05401 802 .658 .3555 nelpVnww.gboyle.com �j ebo � as noted ELEVATIONS r ... e w ,..vow - �;-/«sssnM ea .e a . Rl '�,j� •'9 �' i wr - �. +„�_ - • � � - ^� � i-ft'!kkRiY+? .."M 7,W tit e i, , "" tea.. ,,#: ,� +... -� .» �,:•,.,� � ..� * � a P i �rr.0 1 TOPr rr^, .,.� A i ,.. �s«arr long wom - .' rx �4tt1111/© ,Yt a e war a?' � , - i"9YQy� M1!6 i�J to a u ' . t , I INCOI N BROWN it I USTRATION M ' A n �R e � � p'. `"pt�; �,'� .�-� j3 .�:*ems �.. � ... Vic, '�.� ;+r., g& "i . , .. W .: r � t ��' •. � .; i '� � • , 4 � � � <� y e �" .R r, �` � ' � r .. f 1� # � :> tl y�. 3Er d i t � iF' ,. � - Mrs +'.p�_. !N' - r } a . r • • . � IYf"" "� 1 .e , �� ;�.� - ,, - _ .,,r b M ..' e � ,�: - A w�kw,. .n. 1 r e i\'r . s �1. +... .; c � .gg f s ., .....-: ..:, ..: ...: y � �.. > ,. � �I ,,•� � ...���r,M l,bv t ",. �r� _. N .... 'yr �. '°"�.`� 1yy� ,4.t . .n, � � u.-.,.ter+ k 1�� iyy xw ; "� u �� � +� • ,� • `yp � ip � t � .. � �` �.s th R �: 9y 44 "e4 3r r lit w K W i r , M ,. • 1% �% W W q� w,. • ' A w t > � • • • .. s r,IL E ' r ' W n o• ," ik F _ p� r R,4i'IVmid6�±i m u A e � � t "i µ�. 11,46. • ".v ,a • � .ae r • I e ZN < • , �� � • Atari , � I���., ,a 77 -1 7�� " LINCOIN BROWN ILLUSTRATION yam, • �1 y 41 I t � INV m yy �A ',yewn. e s' .A R ifi � � k siw I a a •n, r .I � � - �. .-.. ;�+c`+ f`rl3'i ' r' ,.,,i1'+J� �"` � . � t d4. , � `¢-..-'fa� • `i�4� q�a�x ` ,_Y � t f` + ar f ��,e'& # V k °a, .tiy- y1f/ s i,[s? t i. i p' r y' •r"'r _ "L. 1'�� • AL or 1 ,."$ ..* + K �Y _ ., ' : �t - • r �' ~+1F'� 'a r rt7i r •• a; ��r" •`'tii T. ' . a +I • ' .. ..•" .••- .. -. _ • ry • • . � � ea, Stu • g` 1.i1 r F � 7. �' • � : ' � " .k� ' S I�" - y �.. v _ ,... - , �` ! 1 "" y,,.'tia • r .• �w,..��t .� ,ter„ ;i- '~ y'� • � y ` NO: -"+ '� y r* r �• - As : W , VAR .. ' 4,4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emma 4;.7 ,..... _ bs t . � , V* �.L _:,, ^iz"<.�""�' ....ss'Y�ie++ irr.m: P._`"aa Mi�"'"...,�a•:h« ,..� :p°"%�1.—..._._._ �� �'�5']' � i �� • a % � F 4 • 4t y � W • +.� r - M• a 'r '�. ! low- t p� r n w n ,. III I II I I II 1 I I SCARFF k== _ AV�N E i -- J I II I I �- II II 6 I I IIi------------ -L BACON STREET Fr I CJNAMN4 INC. N i OLL CM.INc I I I IEl I I I 11 nccnK i .�om ana R. RerE r ,II I I ICI el. -- III I I II loam I I � L1L IL W W L BYt0 1 I M. W,d P. I I M.a,d ,L WANNEN I I I y�.,,, K. ,pKHSDn 1 Kae I , I IL eARNEY I HENNESSEY F d I I I I I E PEDpNCTON I I A -ACK I I N. OSBGRNE I I G A INNNfM I a KAMM I I I .a, J. KOCIMANI ( M. STACKMAN I I L P. WK=3 I I I I A MEN.-d MNI L a and L SCIENDER I I G UNK I j EA ITW D II LIM -�--- OF CONSTRUCT- -ION W. ROUE DAJ ACRES I I I I .JOY I _ .'.'.�� ` • i I f SITE ENGINEER: ITN - cm OCIATM W- STdELWRNE. VERMONT TEL e02-963-2323 FAX E02-9ES-2271 mww ACL `p OF, CUCUD SAV 1 I xwnuo I pa0 N OAKS HEALTH AND FITNES I i i L SAV LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1 2000 foot PROJECT: `T I I NEW ADdTI0Np]].2°'N26609Fq NEW I I O'DELL PARKWAY s--------------- - - ,I�r-EXISTING ENTRANCE -- uRADDITION seosFl --- I I P.U.D. I TENNIS coTs (EASTWOOD II) —J T l i i EXISTING PARKING I L \i I FARRELL STREET O I I I I I I I I I i'� �� s s t' , �.rN1 UI SOUTH BURLINGTON -- - - - - _� I I ( I VERMONT .N my ... .I.......l.....r I I 2 Aca �?� ,I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 ( 1 - .I.IL__-_1 LU11 11 LU.11 LU--J I 1 u 8 o O i COMING CONT&A - « 53.— PRPG=OMM CONUNE (AR — PRaPOEn UNE (APPROIOMAn IOiII 1TRA<�! UNITS A OFFICES PARKING UNDERN ATH FFE 219.50 I-1 D.W.T 1 III ,�u. w mesmenum unn w/ 33 Parking Under v� AccEe y H OM:AP PSSARUM I EX. 40 Rseldential Unit 1 w/ 33 Parking Under ale' -NY BASEMENT F.F. 20•'-Ir I � 1>,r • aA� I 1 ` t '103 s um lroaR A i O Residential Unit 33 Parkina Under i V I 1 1 it I .;I I I I I A! oMAE reNce m srE6 rom cA ADr sr.NDAro r.,. °° wT `«�� eweeR m. rtNcc ro ciw.nw Mr I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EAgTNOTr UN[ i U a IRON Pw ' a CONC. MDIL -SS--- aUMTY KINIA UNE - WATMILINIE (r OE- -- DK111KA0 nACTRIC ST- - - STORM DRAM I / I UE- - - INIDaIaIDUND EMINC J - T - - - TEUPHOK UNE G - - - ws urc / I r m MANHOLE I1 r•__..) IT HYDRANT PONN Paz I 1 REf IMIq TrAi - _ 'm aAWET I EDIx OF eRuaN/wma ' L J CS VIEF D DEaDUOue Tw DO TREE R_ IT POLE MIT 0900E am I'm m PAM AUG �nAND cl as AAiCK `Jr of SO Zama DISTRICT I I 11Q PATH _rlin9 1 _ I wPe Dean TsaeoaN 1-12-0 v EASIRGm E - DIAD RIT N WN PAVDW(T EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SITES SHOWN WERE PREVIOULY APPROVED UNDER ACT 250 IN A000 ANNZ w. N•oR. l 1 V E 1 TIC an' 0 A " e1AT a TD *1NN >m11dDIT Pao • AMcmato. Minnaoff "t Aw rmAcuft MAY 12 2006 GRAPHICChy OfSO.Burling ( DE RiT I I-h - RO TL OVERALL SITE PLAN aw DRA.eIe NOIOLO * -- w I C-3A PRer. Ra Win March 1, 2011 Re: #SP-10-76 & #CU-10-09 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board concerning your recent application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincer, , Y R ymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL -Return Receipt Requested # 7010 0290 0000 2215 3583 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846,4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbtirl.com Page 1 of 1 ray From: Allen Hinkley [ahinkley@catskill.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:19 PM To: ray Cc: 'Ron Eberz' Subject: VT-BURS004 Clear Wireless Installation at 466 Farrell st. Ray, Per our conversation, I understand that you should be finalizing the approval for the above site by either Monday or Tuesday of next week when the PB chairman returns. As we discussed please send the decision directly to me at the address below instead of sending it to our corporate office in MD. If it is possible to also either fax or email it to me it would also be greatly appreciated. Thank You, Allen Hinkley NETWORK BUILDING & CONSULTING, LLC 223 Henry Williams RD., PO Box 265 Roxbury, NY 12474 P 607.326.2915 1 F 607.326.3712 ( C 607.287.8729 1 networkbuilding.com Over 25 years experience 2/23/2011 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Ron Eberz [reberz@nbcllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:01 PM To: Allen Hinkley; ray Subject: RE: VT-BURS004 Clear Wireless Installation at 466 Farrell st. As well please copy me on all fax and emails for this decision as all my contact information is below in the signature line. Thanks Ron Eberz Site Acquisition Manager NETWORK BUILDING & CONSULTING, LLC 436 Norristown Road, Horsham PA 19044 P 215.441.5899 1 F 215.701.9184 0 C 215.527.0199 1 networkbuilding.com Over 25 years experience From: Allen Hinkley [mailto:ahinkley@catskill.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:19 PM To: 'ray' Cc: Ron Eberz Subject: VT-BURS004 Clear Wireless Installation at 466 Farrell st. Ray, Per our conversation, I understand that you should be finalizing the approval for the above site by either Monday or Tuesday of next week when the PB chairman returns. As we discussed please send the decision directly to me at the address below instead of sending it to our corporate office in MD. If it is possible to also either fax or email it to me it would also be greatly appreciated. Thank You, NETWORK BUILDING & CONSULTING, LLC 223 Henry Williams RD., PO Box 265 Roxbury, NY 12474 P 607,326.2915 O F 607,326.3712 I C 607.287.8729 f networkbuilding.com Over 25 years experience 2/23/2011 01/18/2011 RECEIVED To: South Burlington Development Review Board JAN 18 2011 From: Delmont P. Neroni Cft of 6�0. Burlington 6 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt. 05043 Subject: Clearwire Corp. Application To Place Antennas On Farrell Street Tower I represent myself, my wife, and many neighbors on Hadley Road who signed our petition to disapprove the expansion of the Farrell Street cell phone tower. We believe such expansion should be disapproved and the tower ordered torn down for the following reasons: 1. Aesthetic The South Burlington Zoning Regulations state the following: "14.oi General Purpose "It is the purpose of this Article to regulate site development plans in order that adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, and other danger may be secured; that congestion in the public streets may be lessened or avoided; that the public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience, and general public welfare may be promoted; and that the preservation of historic landmarks, sites, districts, and buildings be promoted. The site plan review process and the conditional use review process will allow the City of South Burlington to review the arrangement, layout, use interrelationships and neighborhood impacts of sites intended for development or redevelopment and to ensure the aesthetic quality of such design to conform to the character of the neighborhood and the goals of the comprehensive plan." We maintain that the existing tower, and the proposed addition, violate the aesthetics of our dwellings on Hadley road. This tower projects far above the berm and the trees planted in the berm to separate our residential neighborhood from the neighborhood of Farrell Street. It is unsightly and will become even more so if more antennas are added to it. Attached are photographs of the tower from our front porch and bedroom window, plus additional neighborhood photos. The tower dominates the horizon for most of the dwellings on Hadley Road, and perhaps beyond as well. 2. Real Estate Value It has been studied and confirmed that proximity to a cell tower adversely affects the value of real estate, especially residential real estate (houses). Because of the poor aesthetics and other concerns about the safety of such towers, many buyers will not consider purchasing a home that is close to (within a few hundred feet or even more) a cell tower or antenna. Thus, the existence of this tower definitely adversely affects the financial welfare of the families on Hadley road and perhaps beyond as well. Please see the attached article "A Pushback Against Cell Towers" from the New York Times. Also see the internet link httn: //www.thebradentontimes.com/clientui)loads/County% 2ofiles/DOCo�o. PDF in which the judge agreed that the defense proved that cell towers reduce real estate values. 1 3. Cell Tower Safety/Hazards J The Farrell Street tower is inappropriately located and constitutes a potential danger to the residents of the Senior Center and the users of the adjacent parking lot. The tower is only a few yards from the Senior Center buildings, and is immediately next to the parking lot (see attached photos). If anything were to happen to the tower, it could potentially affect the senior center buildings and residents, the cars in the parking lot and anybody who happens to be nearby. The South Burlington Zoning Regulations contain the following statement: "B. Hazardous Conditions Prohibited. No land or structure in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist or to in any way endanger users of the site or the surrounding area. Such hazardous or objectionable conditions include but are not limited to dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable biohazard, fire, explosive, or other hazard; or to create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or radioactive radiation, glare, toxicity or other hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area." When this tower was first constructed in 1958, there were no residences in the immediate vicinity. The buildings currently surrounding the tower have all been erected since the year 2000. The tower now poses a safety hazard to the property and people who live and work in the vicinity. It should have been taken down when the new buildings went up. The types of hazard are many, the following being only an incomplete list: a. Tower Collapse — Many of these towers have collapsed for one reason or another, some of them being: inadequate construction, metal fatigue, fire, vandalism, improper maintenance, accidents, severe weather, ice storms, and so forth. This tower is now over fifty years old and could be subject to any of the above. The owner will no doubt say that it is impossible for the tower to collapse, but that is what the owners probably said of the towers we know have collapsed. That is also what was said of many of the bridges that have collapsed. See attached articles about cell tower collapse. For dramatic images and videos of cell towers burning and/or collapsing, see the following web page: http://www.janecelltower.com/gpage35.html The area immediately around a tower is called the "fall zone". Towers are normally situated in areas where they will not strike anything when they fall. That may have been the case when this tower was first built, but it is no longer the case as it is now within a few yardseer;idential buildings and a few feet of the adjacent parking lot. If it were to fall, for whatever reason, it could do quite a bit of damage and possibl?'cause serious injury and/or death to residents andbystanders. That is why the town of Hardwick, Vermont, has a regulation stating that a tower MUST be further from any nearby residence or building than it is high. As you can see from the attached photographs, the Farrell Street tower would fail that regulation. The town of South Burlington has no such regulation, however they do have a regulation, quoted above, about hazardous conditions. b. Tower Fires — Quite a few cell towers have caught on fire, sometimes leading to the collapse of the tower, sometimes not. See attached articles. Cell towers use high powered electrical lines that can and do catch fire under the right conditions, sometimes as a result of a maintenance accident, sometimes of a power surge possibly due to a lightening strike. Refer to the above mentioned web page for images and videos. c. Lightening Strikes — This tower is the highest structure in the vicinity and will therefore attract more lightening strikes than would have been the case if it were not there. I would have to believe this tower is grounded against lightening strikes, however, there still remains a danger of a strike starting a fire, or of affecting nearby buildings or people. Lightening behavior is nearly always unpredictable, but one thing that is certain is that it is attracted to tall structures and increases the amount of lightening strikes in the vicinity. See the web page http://www.janecelltower.com/2page24.html. d. Falling Objects — During high wind storms or tower maintenance, a danger exists from objects falling from towers. This is especially true of the Farrell Street tower since it is in the middle of a densely settled residential and office area. Additionally, ice may accumulate on a tower during ice storms and fall later possibly injuring people or property. e. Cell Tower Batteries — I have been told that this tower has a battery backup unit. I don't know that for sure, but many of them do, and the FCC requires that a site remain on line for at least 8 hours in case of a grid failure: http://www. datacenterknowledge. com/archives/2007/12/10/fcc-ru ling - may -spur -generator -demand/. If so, this can add to the hazards of the site for batteries are known to release combustible gasses and possibly even harmful acids. These can and have caused fires and other types of damage. The location of the Farrell Street tower makes this a particularly dangerous possibility. f. Vandalism — Whaher it is Eco-activists, theives or juveniles out for a lark, this tower would be quite susceptible to vandalism. The fence that was recently added to the tower would not stop anyone determined to get into it. Instead, it would probably hide the fact that someone was in there. Vandals can cause damage and also cause some of the hazards mentioned above. See the following links: ` http://www.naperville.il.us/dynamic content.aspx?id=18582 http://www.chron.com/disp/stor-y.mpl/metropolitan/2860622.html http: //www.p-* star. com/news/x2078132795/W i res-cut-at-cell-tower-in- Sparland For all of the above reasons, I believe the current application to add additional antennas to this tower should be denied, and, indeed, that the town should require that the tower be safely removed from its present location due to the plethora of potential hazards that it poses to the surrounding community. Cell Phone Tower Collapses Ar Fire -Print This Story News Story - «TCVB Boston Page 1 of 1 1 TheBostonChannelxom Cell Phone Tower Collapses After Fire No Injuries Reported In Wellesley Incident �PD/ E L',`J r" ..an; 31y'Z3 50 i.., BOSTON -- A cell phone tower caught on fire and collapsed in Wellesley on Friday afternoon. Viewer Captures Tower Collapse I Images Of Fire The tower off of Route 9 caught on fire shortly after 1 p.m. A spark from a welder's torch ignited a fire on the tower. Images: Cell Phone Tower Catches Fire The flames slowly weakened the structure, which eventually crashed to the ground. There were no injuries, but the fire cut power to about Zoo homes in the area. NewsCenter 5 and TheBostonChannel.com will have more information when it becomes available. Copyright 2009 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be \ published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/print/18549832/detail.html 1/18/2011 Mendham cell tower opponent, T g in - Recorder Community Newspapp): News Page 1 of 2 Mendham cell tower opponents dig in r - Friday, February 13, 2009 12:00 am Updated: 11:54 am, Fri Oct 23, 2009. By PHIL GARBER, Managing Editor MENDxAM - A cell tower collapsed on top of a fire truck five years ago during a storm in upstate New York and Frank Lupo is worried a proposed cell tower could pose similar dangers in the borough. Lupo and other opponents to the proposed tower that would be erected at the entrance to town have ratcheted up their campaign with a website and professional engineers. "Things are starting to get bigger and bigger," said Lupo. His Dean Road home would be nearly in the shadow of the proposed tower to be built in the rear of the parking lot of the King's shopping center off Route 24. Verizon Wireless and Omni Point Communications Inc. are asking the zoning board for approval to erect a 120-foot tall monopole in order to eliminate dead zones and to provide for future cellular coverage. If approved, it would be the third Verizon cell tower in the area, with towers currently on Conifer Drive in the township and in a bell tower off Route 24 in the borough. About 25 residents attended the Mendham Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Feb. 3. Lupo took up most of the night with a two and a l) half hour presentation on concerns ranging from aesthetics to safety. The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 3 when opponents plan to present testimony from engineers and planners. Opponents have set up a website at htn .: • -, �:- The incident in New York involved a 165-foot tall steel monopole tower that collapsed on Oct. 19, 2003, amid high winds in Oswego, N.Y. The tower was owned by Oswego County which leased space on the tower to Verizon and Cingular. The 50,000 pound pole fell onto the firehouse parking lot, crushing a fire truck, according to a letter from Edward Geers, who was then fire chief in Oswego. The Feb. 22, 2007, letter was addressed to Steven Bellone, Babylon (N.Y.)Town Supervisor. The town was considering a cell tower application at the time. "By the grace of God no one was injured," Geers wrote. "If that tower had fallen south it would have crashed through our administrative wing injuring or killing seven people." The tower was four -years old when it fell. "The experts said, towers don't come down. This statement is obviously not true. We witnessed it first hand," Geers wrote. "To put people in harm's way when there are other options could be a fatal error." Geers said many of the bolts holding the tower could be turned by hand and that the weld for the base was small and that large areas of rust were also visible in the base. Geers also wrote that before the tower fell, there was the recurring problem of ice forming on the tower. "Sheets of ice would fall damaging many of our vehicles. If this ice hit someone it would no doubt be fatal," he wrote. Kim Anison, a spokeswoman for Verizon, said she was not aware of the tower collapse in Oswego. http://newj erseyhills.comJobserver-tribune/newslarticle_cf6l ead5-979e-5fl c-bOdb-d42651... 1 /18/2011 Mendham cell tower opponent,, dig in - Recorder Community Newspapers: News Page 2 of 2 "I've never heard of a cell site falling down," Anison said. Ominipoint has said the towers are designed with a weak link at the mid -point so that if it falls, it buckles on top of itself rather than toppling like a tree. But Lupo said the towers still represent safety concerns. He said that ice is known to form and fall from towers. "It is common sense that ice will form on cellular towers and the wind gusts blow the ice sliding down the tower on to the passing cars, parked cars and people below," Lupo said. "My car hood was dented by falling ice from overhead wires just this past ice storm. I am sure everyone noticed all the ice formed on the trees around our area around Jan 6. Ice is a safety issue." Lupo said Mendham should follow the lead of other towns that have successfully rejected cell tower applications, including Cranford, Hempstead, N.Y. and Andover, Mass. In Cranford, the Zoning Board of Adjustment turned down Verizon's tower application last Dec. 8. Officials decided Verizon had not proven that there was a gap in coverage and that the tower would have had a negative affect on the surrounding parkland and residences. Verizon sought height and setback variances to erect the 120-foot tall pole in a residential area, near a county park and historic district. Residents in Franklin Square, Hempstead, N.Y., also were successful in defeating an Omnipoint tower plan last October. Omnipoint sought to build a 65-foot-tall cell tower in front of a shopping plaza. Omnipoint lost its bid to build a tower in Andover, Mass., last November. A building inspector refused to issue a building permit because Omnipoint had not provided detailed designs of the tower and its foundation. Anson, the Verizon spokeswoman, said the proposed Mendham tower will cost about $1 million to build and that the tower would improve reception. "We take a great deal of pride in the way we build out our network," said Anson. "Both applicants are working diligently with the borough to meet their guidelines. Because of the cost, Verizon is not going to put up a tower unless it's needed." Verizon also has said it has reviewed other potential locations for the cell tower and decided the Kings mall site as the best. Borough officials also have said there is no public land appropriate for a tower. Mayor Neil Henry declined to comment because of the potential for litigation from either side. Public Need The Federal Communications Commission considers cellular communication towers to be a critical public need and it is difficult for municipalities to reject a proposal, if the need is demonstrated. But Lupo said Verizon has failed to make its case in two important areas. "They totally failed to prove a gap in service and there's been minimal or no visual analysis," Lupo said. Lupo said the opponents are concerned with the impact on the borough in addition to the impact on their individual properties. He said the cell tower would be the first thing visitors see upon coming to Mendham. "When you come down the hill, you'll see the tower," Lupo said. "This is not a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) issue. We're objecting on the town's behalf" Lupo said Verizon should consider installing small, multiple antennae rather than the one large tower. If the tower is built, it should be better camouflaged and could be located further to the rear of the lot, Lupo said. © Copyright 2011, Recorder Community Newspapers, Bernardsville, NJ. Powered by Blox CMS from TownNews.com. http://newjerseyhills.com/observer-tribune/news/article—cf6 I ead5-979e-5fl c-bOdb-d42651... 1 / 18/2011 Celled -Out: Hempstead Town 1:1 r d Adopts Strict Regulations on New' Wireless Equipm... Page 1 of 2 L Merrick GOVERNMENT Celled -Out: Hempstead Town Board Adopts Strict Requlations on New Wireless Equipment New ordinance seeks to keep cellular equipment away from homes and schools, questions remain about existing antennas. By Ryan Bonner >�>,�' �?_'➢ The Hempstead Town Board unanimously signed off on legislation Tuesday morning that bans any new cell towers or antennas within 1,500 feet of homes or schools. During a public hearing on the new ordinance, speakers on both sides of the debate —wireless companies arguing that the ordinance was too restrictive and residents saying it needed to address further issues —urged the board to delay a vote on the new regulations. Town Supervisor Kate Murray said, however, that the time to act was now. "The bottom line is we know that this is a very tough piece of legislation, a great piece of protection for our residents," Murray said, later adding that although the law could be amended down the road, "the feeling of the board was that we had to pass legislation today because it is entirely too important to let it continue on." d ncStt City ?Pz ( 1e�cE 4 The ordinance also states that no new cell towers or antennas can be placed within 1,5oo feet of daycare centers or houses of worship it That distance restriction will not apply, though, to the three pending applications before the town's board of zoning appeals, according to Hempstead Town Attorney Joe Ra. Those applications include one proposal for cell antennas atop the Farmingdale-Wantagh Jewish Center and a cell tower proposal for the North Bellmore Fire District's maintenance facility. The wireless companies in those cases will be "complying with the spirit of the law," but requiring them to now adhere to the 1,50o distance would violate federal law, Ra said. "You would be defeating your own purposes," Ra told one Wantagh resident when asked why the town couldn't force T-Mobile to propose a site away from the Jewish center. "You'd get immediate satisfaction today and two weeks from now, you would lose in federal court." The new ordinance will also put the burden on wireless companies to prove to the board of zoning appeals and the town's new telecommunications consultant Richard Comi that there is an "absolute need" for any proposed equipment. Representatives from Verizon Wireless and NextG, as well as the president of the New York State Wireless Association, spoke before the board Tuesday asking the town to hold off on the legislation. Alfred Amato, an attorney representing Verizon, cited a Nassau County Planning Commission study that stated that under the town's ordinance, new wireless facilities would be prohibited in nearly the entire town. "This ordinance puts tremendous barriers in front of the carrier," Amato said, adding that 5o percent of all 911 calls are made on cell phones. "The safety of the public will be at stake by passing this type of ordinance." As for wireless equipment already installed near homes and schools, namely antennas put up by NextG Networks over the past year, County Legislator Dave Denenberg (http://merricl(.patch.c,c)m/local_facts/legislator-david-denenber;g), D-Merrick, pressed the board to require those antennas to either be removed or legalized. "There should not be a grandfather clause," Denenberg said. "If you never complied with town code, you should be made to comply with town code by January 1, 2012." The ordinance does give the town some legal avenues to address equipment already in place, but Charles Kovit, the town's senior deputy attorney, said that adding a blanket provision to the law that requires those antennas to be removed by a certain date would essentially mean the town "was shooting ourselves in the foot." Kovit said the town has had meetings with NextG recently to define which antennas are most objectionable to residents and to come up with a plan to move them to more palatable locations. "The best thing to do is to reach a negotiated settlement with them rather than use the ordinance," Kovit said of NextG after Tuesday's board meeting. Wireless companies will likely challenge the town's new regulations in court. The town specifically did not address health concerns in its legislation as the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow state or local governments to deny a proposed facilitybased on the health -risk issue. http://merrick.patch.comlarticleslcelled-out-hempstead-town-board-adopts-strict-regulation... 1 /18/2011 Celled -Out: Hempstead Town r'gard Adopts Strict Regulations on New Wireless Equipm... Page 2 of 2 The act, however, also prohibits any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of wireless equipment in a particular area. Those legal battles are for another day, though, as Tuesday morning was undoubtedly a victory for residents who have fought relentlessly against cell towers. "I'm very thankful for the ordinance you are about to pass;" Joe Baker, president of the South Merrick Comrnunity Civic Association (h#tp:;-?merr cicpatch.coma'listingsJsouth-mcrrick-comrnurai#y-ci�nc association), told the board. "It's a good example of town government working with residents:' Denenberg, while disappointed that the town didn't take a stronger stance on existing equipment, was still pleased with the overall progress. "It's about time that technology in the zest century isn't deal with code from 1954,° he said. Interested in a follow-up to this article? Nassau Looks to Raise Field Fees for Private Leagues COMMENTS (3) Howard Kudler Way to go No folks! This Ban breaks new ground for the nation. Be proud! Now we have to have to get the Town to redress the existing towers! Great work. Ryan Bonner Concerned citizen, You posted your comments earlier today on Mr. Rossi's letter to the editor. They are still there. This is a different story. Ryan Gary Barnotsky Mr. Kudler, Specifically, what do you mean by having the Town redress the existing towers? Are you suggesting that the town cripple cell service even more than this new code will? http://merrick.patch.comlarticles/celled-out-hempstead-town-board-adopts-strict-regulation... 1 /18/2011 In the Region - Long Island - p �ushback Against Cell Towers - NYTii--s.com Page 1 of 3 i':1J ' �ew 1ork �� i�t.� .`" Reprints 0,1.V order paoof, re:, d y to You.r col e here or us� t� ��r��r�ts"fool IP � . ,,; �w,� . y .�e xt to any arty. vvww.nytreprints.com samples, a, mformation.. Order a reprint of this article now. August 27, 2010 A Pushback Against Cell Towers MARCELLE S. FISCHLER Wantagh TINA CANARIS, an associate broker and a co-owner of RE/MAX Hearthstone in Merrick, has a $999,000 listing for a high ranch on the water in South Merrick, one of a handful of homes on the block on the market. But her listing has what some consider a disadvantage: a cell antenna poking from the top of a telephone pole at the front of the 65-by-loo-foot lot. "Even houses where there are transformers in front" make "people shy away," Ms. Canaris said. "If they have the opportunity to buy another home, they do." She said cell antennas and towers near homes affected property values, adding, "You can see a buyer's dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don't say anything." By blocking, or seeking to block, cell towers and antennas over the course of the last year, Island homeowners have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may not be just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to property values. Many also perceive health risks in proximity to radio frequency radiation emissions, despite industry assertions and other evidence disputing that such emissions pose a hazard. Emotions are running so high in areas like Wantagh, where an application for six cell antennas on the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center is pending, that the Town of Hempstead imposed a moratorium on applications until Sept. 21. That is the date for a public hearing on a new town ordinance stiffening requirements. At a community meeting on Aug. 16 at Wantagh High School, Dave Denenberg, the Nassau http://www.nytimes. com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?pagewanted=print 1 /18/2011 In the Region - Long Island - P 'ushback Against Cell Towers - NYTip--s com Page 2 of 3 county legislator for Bellmore, Wantagh and Merrick, told more than Zoo residents that 160 cell antennas had been placed on telephone poles in the area in the last year by NextG, a wireless network provider. "Everyone has a cellphone," Mr. Denenberg said, "but that doesn't mean you have to have cell installations right across the street from your house." Under the old town code, installations over 30 feet high required an exemption or a variance. But in New York, wireless providers have public utility status, like LIPA and Cablevision, and they can bypass zoning boards. Earlier this month in South Huntington, T-Mobile was ordered to take down a new loo-foot monotower erected on property deemed environmentally sensitive (and thus requiring a variance). Andrew J. Campanelli, a civil rights lawyer in Garden City, said a group of residents had hired him to oppose the cellular company's application. "They were worried about the property values," Mr. Campanelli said. "If your home is near a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down 10 percent." In January, in an effort to dismantle 50 cell antennas on a water tower across from a school in the village of Bayville, Mr. Campanelli filed a federal lawsuit that cited health risks and private property rights. In a statement, Dr. Anna F. Hunderfund, the Locust Valley superintendent, said that in February 2009 the district had engaged a firm to study the cellphone installations near the Bayville schools, finding that the tower "posed no significant health risks," and she noted that the emission levels fell well below amounts deemed unsafe by the Federal Communications Commission. In June 2009, Sharon Curry, a psychologist in Merrick, woke up to find a cell antenna abutting her backyard, level to her 8-year-old son's bedroom window. Puzzled by its presence, particularly because she lives next to an elementary school, she did research to see if there was cause for concern. What she learned about possible health impacts, she said, led her to seek help from civic associations and to form a group, Moms of Merrick Speak Out, to keep new cell towers out. She said she was seeking the "responsible" placement of http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?pagewanted=print 1/18/2011 In the Region - Long Island - ? )ushback Against Cell Towers - NYTimP`.com Page 3 of 3 cell antennas, away from homes and schools. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. Frank Schilero, an associate broker with RE/MAX Innovations in Wantagh, has a listing on a $629,00o home down the street from the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center, where the application is pending to put six cell antennas on the roof. "People don't like living next to cell towers, for medical reasons or aesthetics," Mr. Schilero said. "Or they don't want that eyesore sticking up in their backyards." There is an offer on his listing, he added, but since the buyer heard about the possible cell antennas she has sought more information from the wireless companies about their size and impact. Charles Kovit, the Hempstead deputy town attorney, said that under the proposed code change any new towers or antennas would have to be 1,500 feet from residences, schools, houses of worship and libraries. The town recently hired a consultant, Richard A. Comi of the Center for Municipal Solutions in Glenmont, to review antenna applications. Under the new ordinance, applications for wireless facilities would require technical evidence that they had a "gap" in coverage necessitating a new tower. "If not, they will get denied," Mr. Kovit said. The wireless companies would also have to prove that the selected location had "the least negative impact on area character and property values." If another location farther away from homes can solve the gap problem, "they are going to have to move." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?pagewanted=print 1/18/2011 No Text �,w�^` s �.. � ,�� ,,, 4,: �� s,� � k A>' r ui' .... F .v�l-... . rd"•, a. . . �� \�.a .>y § . . �: y-/,* �. � <«�� <°«,c«. ... � . � \>�>y . .. . . . »m. . : y a: ,< § > >,� . .. .. . ®xw ? . . . . : ....<. 2\� 2� <�: � �»� �2\ \ ,_v». � / «� ^ : d:� � � � \%<y� }� m� < No Text mw"1�1.5, r cm No Text No Text No Text i/i/fb *save fft•i// ■ii•f f #/• •1 •#lifilwii/••i• ••���. !f•f•Mff!!!!f•,'f!/fi!!1 /f!!/•�•f!!!�lfs./Rl��t� *a a / i• i•i• ii• • •111/ •• iii�•/iiRl� f/ff •r'. //f!f!f!� //�//� f I ICE VI'MIL Imo\ 1 `� v r FA V, 4 No Text m q clear Fullerton wireless broadband 1 Engineering Consultants These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. 2 S HOL7 H �T,�. E Vi - PROCTOR.AVE�_ Uj Schoolscrod anonr Hqh RU 3( Y ___WHITE P-L- -- Y i `PHOTO 1 71 HADLEY RD f _HAD_ LEY R_p"_�__' ��— SCARF.F_AVE r -- I BACON_ST ---- VT-8UF S0 bTara PHOTO 3 EASTWOOD COMMONS f 1 6T0 2 5w4W5 PARK, NG IOTA �^' CMIdMen Reyonal _ Past O"'Ce Chittendan Re ( g� f Carrechonal� J // F2C:IRy � x Site Map TM Scale 1 6.400 MI(N 6'W, mmo— 1" = 533,3 ft Data Zoom 15-0 VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, VT 05401 Clear Fullerton fli Enq1tiverim) Lomoiltatit-, These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. AX5 1, 4 Before [Photo #1 71 Hadley Rd] I Proposed Clearwire Antennas i 1 4 4A, 11 W1,11 After [Photo #1 71 Hadley Rd] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, \/T 05401 clear vvlreie�'s brou-, IIFullerton Engineering Consultants These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. Before [Photo #2 Shaws Parking Lot] After [Hrioto #2 Snaws rarKing Lot] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, VT 05401 clear , � Fullerton H 41 a Of Oa dbai i,. FoluirlepriF14 Lormliltdills These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. ill 101 1 ;1 [if ;;;I 111 1111 11 ill Inn ;;I Hil 1 19- 1 -.11" Ill I-LI: 1111 fill Before [Photo #3 Eastwood Commons] After [Photo #3 Eastwood Commons] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, \/T 05401 Page 2 of 2 This Electronic Mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which are CONFIDENTIAL and legally PRIVILEGED. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission was addressed, as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender at 802-660-2555 or the above address and delete this message and all attachments from your storage files. Thank you. 12/6/2010 Page 1 of 2 F� Ecopy ray From: Joseph McLean [JMcLean@firmspf.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:08 AM To: ray Subject: RE: FCC Rule Ray: The language of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement of wireless service equipment based on concerns about the environmental effects of RF emmissions is set forth in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). See attached link. https_j ,we_b2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositionty_pe=T&docname=47USCAS33.2&rp=% 2ffrnd%2fdefault wl&sv=_SD-lit&r_s__=WLW10.10&db=1000546&tf 1 &..f OndtV De-= L&fn top&mt.=105&vr=2.0&reference_positio_n = SP%o 3_b.451b_0.00054,623_&_pbc=2FF49C41&tc_ 1&o.rdoc=_2.021509883 I have also pasted below language from a 2010 federal court decision (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) discussing this issue, stating that this prohibition extends to concerns about the perceived (as opposed to actual) risks of RF: The Federal Communications Commission has interpreted Section 332 to mean that "State and local governments are broadly preempted from regulating the operation of personal wireless service facilities based on RF emissions considerations." In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(b)(V) of Communications Act of 1934, 2000 WL 1715846, 15 F_C._C.R. 22,821 (November 17 2000). The Plaintiffs claim that Section_ 332 and its regulations do not squarely address the issue of whether a state or local government may consider the perceived risks of RF emissions in regulating the location of wireless service equipment. Not surprisingly, the Second Circuit*63 does not share the Plaintiffs' narrow reading of Section 332. In Cellular Phone Taskforce v._F.C..C., 205 F.3d 82,88_(.2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit found that it was reasonable for the FCC to interpret Section 332 to prohibit "state and local governments from regulating any personal wireless service facilities based upon perceived health risks posed by RF emissions as long as the facilities conformed to the FCC Guidelines regarding such emissions." (emphasis added). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, JSM From: ray [mailto:rbelair@sburl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:11 AM To: Joseph McLean Subject: FCC Rule Hi Joe, Paul asked if you could send me an email to the effect that the DRB does not have jurisdiction over the radio emissions if in compliance with FCC regulations. Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer 12/6/2010 TO: The City of South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Thomas Macias, 38 Hadley Rd., South Burlington RE: Clearwire Corp. Application to Place Antennas on Farrell Street Tower DATE: January 2, 2011 I live on Hadley Rd., approximately 600 feet from the base of the Farrell St. cell phone tower. Now that the leaves have fallen from our front yard tree, I can see the tower directly from my bedroom window. When my wife, Marielle and I purchased our home in summer 2009 the cell phone tower was completely obscured from our vision. As have many people over the past year, we both became aware of the threat of microwave and radio frequency radiation emitted by the growing number of wireless technologies that surround us. There were two popular articles in Harper's magazine and the New York Times that first drew our attention to this topic, as well as an informative segment on NPR's This American Life. Peer -reviewed research available on PubMed online also informed us about this topic. We have become all the more concerned with the birth of our daughter, Leila, who is now a year old. As is the case with lead, benzene and dioxins, environmental health threats such as microwave radiation have their most egregious impact on infants and small children. In fact, mainly because of our concern for her health, we have removed wireless internet from the house and are reverting to a ground line for our sole source of at-home telecommunication. We were thus disturbed to find out that the unsightly tower across the street which only makes its presence known to us after the end of fall foliage is in fact a microwave -emitting cell phone tower. We realize that the telecommunications industry was clever and influential enough in 1996 to insert in the Telecommunications Act a clause which prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement of wireless service equipment based on concerns about the environmental and health effects of radio frequency emissions. We, however ask you as public servants working in the interest of South Burlington citizens to not allow the placement of additional panels on the Farrell St. Tower. If you, however, feel hogtied by the federal prohibition of considering ours and our children's health in your decision, then consider this: Awareness of the adverse impacts of microwave and radio frequency emissions is growing. The information I cited above is widely available online and in reputable publications. It is quite likely that people considering moving to the Eastwood Commons or communities adjacent to the Farrell St. tower will include both aesthetic and health considerations in their calculation to purchase a property or condominium in that area. Property values will likely be affected as will tax revenue for the Town of South Burlington. The FCC may prevent your consideration of health concerns in this matter, but it does nothing to prevent potential homebuyers from looking out for their own well-being and, in doing so, undermining the local real estate market. Please do not turn our community into an electromagnetic sacrifice zone. 01 Fullerton Engineering Consultants These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. Before [Photo #3 Eastwood Commons] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, VT 05401 clear,". broandband Fullefton 4 Engineering Consultants These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. Before [Photo #2 Shaws Parking Lot] After [Photo #2 Shaws Parking Lot] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, VT 05401 clear Wirl?"I'less brwiclband Fullerton A Engineering Consultants These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. Before [Photo #1 71 Hadley Rd] After [Photo #1 71 Hadley Rd] VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, VT 05401 Fullerton Engineering Consultants clear, These depictions are for demonstrative purposes only. They are to be used in addition to the engineering drawings for an accurate representation of site. 1 533.3 ft Data VT-BURS004 I Burlington 1 466 Farrell Street I Burlington, \/T 05401 Staff does not feel it is necessary to require any additional access to abutting properties as part of this application. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). There are no needs to revise the site plan with respect to this criterion. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements Because no buildings are proposed, there are no requirements for additional landscaping. Access/Circulation Access and circulation on the property will remain unchanged through the proposed project. Other The plans should be revised to correct the notations that this property is located in Burlington. The plans should be revised to state that the ground mounted unit is enclosed by a vinyl fence and not a chain link fence, as noted. 9. The plans should be revised to correct the notations that this property is located in Burlington. 2. The plans should be revised to state that the ground mounted unit is enclosed by a vinyl fence and not a chain link fence, as noted. Res ctfully submitted, Cathyann LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Allen Hinkley, for the applicant Staff feels the proposed project will not have an impact on the transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, as the tower is pre-existing. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Parking is not applicable to the proposed project (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The existing tower is 119 feet in height. The proposed antennas will be mounted approximately 110 feet high (see attached representation). Although the height of the tower already has a height waiver, separate height waivers are required for any additional equipment or structures above 35 feet. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The proposed antennae are proposed to be located on an existing 119 foot high tower. This is a very tall structure. Buffering and screening would not be feasible. However, there is already a white vinyl stockade fence surrounding the tower, which obstructs all of the ground -mounted equipment. The DRB should confirm the color of the antenna to ensure maximum compatibility of the additional equipment to the existing tower. (t) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The antenna are proposed to be affixed to an existing 119 foot tall structure. The applicant has provided visual renderings from Hadley Road, Farrell Street, and the parking areas of the most adjacent multi -family buildings. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. M 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. Staff believes that the proposal will not adversely affect municipal services or educational facilities. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. Staff believes that the proposal will not affect the ability to develop adjacent properties, nor that the addition of the equipment will unduly and adversely affect the planned character of the area as a dense commercial core within the city. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposal will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposal would require a height waiver. The existing tower is 119 feet tall. While the equipment would not be higher than the existing tower, a height waiver for the equipment is still necessary. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a height waiver of 75 feet for a mounted height of 110 feet. Section 3.07 G states that rooftop apparatus, such as solar collectors, television antennas, satellite dishes, chimneys, and air conditioning equipment shall be included in the height measurement. Chimneys (as defined in these Regulations) for residential structures shall be exempt from the height limitations. Any other rooftop structures or apparatus regulated under this section that are taller than normal height limitations established in Section 3.07(B) above may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of Section 3.07(E) and (F) above. Therefore, the standards for height waivers for telecommunication towers and equipment lie entirely within the conditional use criteria and no further. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposal will not adversely affect the use of renewable energy resources. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. i PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearwire US LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking conditional use approval to: 1) install three (3) panel antennas on an existing tower at the 110 foot level, and 2) install a ground mounted equipment platform, 466 Farrell Street. Clearwire US LLC is also seeking site plan approval to allow the installation of: 1) three (3) panel antennas on an existing tower at the 110 foot level, and 2) a ground mounted equipment platform, 466 Farrell Street. This application was heard on December 7, 2010 meeting and continued to enable the applicant to provide digital visualizations of the existing tower and the proposal of additional equipment, as well as to allow the board to seek clarifications from legal counsel in relation to the development review standards. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to install telecommunications equipment on an existing telecommunications tower which reaches a height of 119 feet. The applicant has submitted elevations showing the tower as it currently exists and with the proposed additions, as well as a site plan depicting the changes. The equipment appears to be relatively small in size, but will be visible from the surrounding area as it is proposed to be located at a height of 110 feet. The Comprehensive Plan states that Commercial Areas, which generally "follow the Shelburne Road and Williston Road Corridors" are "intended to consist predominantly of commercial uses, however, residential and industrial can be mixed throughout the area" and that "growth will occur primarily as infill or conversion development." 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. Pursuant to Section 5.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Commercial 1 District is formed to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Staff feels the proposed placement of equipment on the existing tower is consistent with the stated purpose of the C1 District, as it is in an area that is densely developed with commercial uses. There are no changes proposed to the use of the properties. 2 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: January 14, 2011 \drb\sit\dearwire_CU1009_SP1076_memo Plans received: October 27, 2010 466 FARRELL STREET CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-10-09 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-10-76 Agenda #9 and #10 Meeting date: Jan ary 14, 2011 Owner Applicant EF Farrell LLC Clearwire US LLC PO Box 1335 C/o Network Building and Consulting Burlington, VT 05402 7380 Coca Cola Drive Suite 106 Hanover, MD 21076 Contact Property Information Allen Hinkley, NB&C Tax Parcel 1540-00520C PO Box 265 C1-R15 District Roxbury NY 12474 Location Map 1 Page 1 of 1 ray From: vermontgang@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:11 AM To: ray Subject: DRB meeting re: Eric Farrell's cell phone tower Dear Mr Belair: I live at 119 Hadley Road, and had signed the neighborhood petition against Eric Farrell's proposal to add more cell phone antennas to the existing tower on Farrell Drive. At the time, I was literally on my way out & it was cold & windy & I signed it hurriedly, without realizing it was to add more antennae to the existing tower, not build new towers. I wish to rescind my name from said petition. I agree the questions we all have about the ultimate health risks which cell towers & cell phones may cause have serious implications. On the other hand, as reported in Mr Neroni's measurements, there are already alarmingly high RFs emitted from the tower at Farrell Drive & on Joy Drive, which is even closer to my house. Since I don't I go around in a plastic bubble, I feel the problem is much much larger than more antennas on an existing tower. To me, these towers are not aesthetically pleasing, but they are everywhere.... and I don't even own a cell phone! Sincerely, Nancy Osborne 1/18/2011 Page 1 of 1 ray From: Arthur Demarais [artdemarais@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:44 AM To: ray Subject: Cell Phone tower application Mr. Belair, I'm contacting you in the matter of the application to add on to the cell phone tower that is before the DRB. I signed the petion against it in haste, under the impression I was opposing a new tower. This is not the case. Although the existing tower is undeniably ugly, its there. That horse is out of the barn. It was allready there when I moved to Hadley Road. Although I believe the quality of life in this neighborhood is under threat by the escalating pace of commercial development right around the corner; a small addition to the tower seems benign. I'm aware of the health and safety arguments against this application; they may have some merit;but in the context of what we are all exposed to in the course of our days, I'm sensing it's a small worry. Then, of course, I use and depend on my wireless phone. I'm probably not the only one.... Please delete my name from the petition opposing this application. Respectfully, Art Demarais 119 Hadley Rd 1/18/2011 To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Delmont P. Neroni 66 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt. 05043 Subject: Clearwire Corp. Application To Place Antennas On Farrell Street Tower I would like to summarize our objections to the further development of this tower. Towns may regulate placement of antennas based on a number of factors: While it is true that local government may not refuse placement of antennas based on health or environmental concerns, nevertheless towns do have the right and responsibility to regulate the placement of telecommunications antennas, and may do so based on many factors, including the following: a. Aesthetic impact b. Impact on property value (Please see New York Times article, "A Pushback Against Cell Towers", attached) c. Appropriateness of location d. Conformity to town regulations, such as height limitations, minimum distance from residences, or availability of another more appropriate location. The South Burlington town plan contains the following statement: "Siting of telecommunications towers should consider issues of aesthetics, safety and health as well as efficiency." However, I was unable to find any regulation of towers and antennas in the zoning regulations. So it appears that, perhaps except for the height regulation to which variances are routinely given, there are no South Burlington regulations controlling the siting of towers and antennas. Some communities do regulate the placement of these devices I have attached excerpts from the telecommunications section of the town plan of Hardwick, Vt. for an example of the ways a town can regulate the siting of cell towers and antennas. I believe this document is a model of how towns should control the proliferation of these devices. The Farrell street tower would fail many of those regulations. We have spent a great deal of time researching the subject of cell phone and cell tower health concerns. We are not fanatics or alarmists, but we are residents who live very close to this tower, and we, like most other residents, are concerned about potential health risks. We are not against the use of cell phones in a safe manner or the placement of antennas in locations at least a quarter mile or more from residences. We are particularly upset about the Farrell street tower because it is now directly in the middle of a dense residential area containing populations of seniors and children, both of whom have been identified in many studies as especially vulnerable to this type of constant, low level emission over time. Disagreement is ongoing over the longterm health effects of cell towers on citizens who live in close proximity (about 400 meters or approximately one quarter mile) to cell phone towers. The argument is over the effects of low-level, non -ionizing radiation over a multi -year period (at least ten or twenty). I have attached an article that presents a very lucid summary of both sides ("What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers?").. From the available literature, it is clear that there is ample cause for concern. The public is increasingly aware of this. That is why people are now very reluctant to purchase real estate in the vicinity of a cell phone tower and why we say it is unquestionable that adding more antennas to the Farrell street tower will adversely affect our real estate values. People do not want to live next to a cell tower. And the more antennas it carries, the more potential buyers will avoid it. Even cell phones now carry warnings about the potential dangers of use (See attached: "New Warnings about the Hazards of Cell Phones"). 4. Eric Farrell says we should trust the FCC, but citizens have learned not to trust industry or government due to past fiascoes with DDT, asbestos, cigarette smoking, and many others, all of which were declared safe by government agencies. Numerous people had to suffer and/or die before the government admitted they were wrong in these cases. Government and industry credibility are at an all time low. Even the FCC DOES NOT SAY THAT CELL TOWER RADIATION POSES NO HEALTH RISKS to the general public. What they do say is that more study is needed. In effect, they are performing the study on us by enforcing a proliferation of these devices over the objections of local residents. The current FCC exposure limits that cell antennas must conform to are very high These limits were established for the protection of maintenance personnel who must occasionally work directly on a tower or antenna, not for the general public that is exposed to low-level cell tower radiation on a continuous basis. 6. The device we have been using to measure the strength of RF emissions does NOT measure ambient radiation (radio and TV signals etc.) at all, as was claimed by one gentleman at the previous meeting. It is highly directional and only measures what we point it at. So we can measure exactly what emissions we are getting from a particular source. At the meeting someone mentioned that the strength of signal declines with the square of the distance. This is true, and that is the reason these facilities are safe IF THEY ARE FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM WHERE PEOPLE LIVE (a quarter mile is considered safe by most studies). Someone also mentioned that the antennas have been on this tower for years with no reported ill effects. This is true because the current antenna array is not at this point emitting extremely high-powered emissions. We believe we may be able to shield from the current level of emissions. However, if more antennas are added to the tower, the strength of RF emissions will grow accordingly until it quickly reaches the danger zone, at which point even shielding becomes ineffective. In fact, we believe that the Clear Wire antennas alone may push total emissions to a much more dangerous level, since Wl•FI emissions appear to be more intense than just cell phone emissions (See "Wi-Fi Radiation Killing Trees", attached) 8. If the application for these antennas is approved, then there will be no grounds on which to refuse future such applications for this tower. Eric Farrell has stated that he intends to put as many antennas on the tower as possible. That tower, which already dominates our horizon, will be festooned with antennas like the one on Joy Drive or worse. The South Burlington DRB must ask itself, "Where do we call a halt and say enough is enough?" (See attached photograph of the tower from our front door). 9. If this application is approved, you will be forcing us out of our home. We will not stay while a forest of antennas is added to that tower, and that is whatwe believe will happen if this one is approved. We will have to put our home up for sale. Other homeowners here feel the same way. However, we will have to disclose to potential buyers the reason we are leaving, and it is very clear that many buyers, ifnot all, will not consider purchasing a house situated next to a cell phone tower. 10. We are quite certain that Clear Wire can find another location for their antennas that is not in the middle of a densely populated neighborhood (Joy Drive or the silo onDorsett Street??), and Eric Farrell will certainly thrive even without this particular income stream. We, however, believe we will suffer significant financial harm if this tower is further developed, and we also suspect it would have long term health im flications. (See the NY Times Article "A Pushback Against Cell Towers", attached.) If South Burlington had more prudent regulations about the placement of telecommunications transmitters, this tower would have been removed when the original radio stationwas demolished (see the attached Hardwick Town Plan, for example) and the senior center expanded. We all hope that the development of this tower will be frozen where it now is, and that it will eventually be taken down because of the visual and psychological blight that it has already cast on our neighborhood. 1n the Region - Long Island - A Pushba-'-Against Cell Towers - NYTimes.com ! Page I of 3 D)c',eittIJork( tr tca' Reprints rei v C:.K ,, 61f s here next e. , ar„ a{ e.' s;;t www.nytreprints.com for n_ Order a reprint of this article now. August 27, 2010 A Pushback Against Cell Towers MARCELLE S. FISCHLER Wantagh TINA CANARIS, an associate broker and a co-owner of RE/MAX Hearthstone in Merrick, has a $999,000 listing for a high ranch on the water in South Merrick, one of a handful of homes on the block on the market. But her listing has what some consider a disadvantage: a cell antenna poking from the top of a telephone pole at the front of the 65-by-ioo-foot lot. "Even houses where there are transformers in front" make "people shy away," Ms. Canaris said. "If they have the opportunity to buy another home, they do." She said cell antennas and towers near homes affected property values, adding, "You can see a buyer's dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don't say anything." By blocking, or seeking to block, cell towers and antennas over the course of the last year, Island homeowners have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may not be just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to property values. Many also perceive health risks in proximity to radio frequency radiation emissions, despite industry assertions and other evidence disputing that such emissions pose a hazard. Emotions are running so high in areas like Wantagh, where an application for six cell antennas on the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center is pending, that the Town of Hempstead imposed a moratorium on applications until Sept. 21. That is the date for a public hearing on a new town ordinance stiffening requirements. At a community meeting on Aug. 16 at Wantagh High School, Dave Denenberg, the Nassau county legislator for Bellmore, Wantagh and Merrick, told more than zoo residents that 16o cell antennas had been placed on telephone poles in the area in the last year by NextG, a wireless network provider. "Everyone has a celephone," Mr. Denenberg said, "but that doesn't mean you have to have cell installations right across the street from your house." Under the old town code, installations over 30 feet high required an exemption or a variance. But in New York, wireless providers have public utility status, like LIPA and Cablevision, and they can bypass zoning boards. Earlier this month in South Huntington, T-Mobile was ordered to take down a new too -foot monotower erected on property littp:Hhv�v�v.nvtimes.com/2010/O8/29/realestate/291,izo.html?pagewanted=print 12/28/2010 In the Region - Long Island - A Pushba^' gainst Cell Towers - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 3 deemed environmentally sensitive (and thus requiring a variance). Andrew J. Campanelli, a civil rights lawyer in Garden City, said a group of residents had hired him to oppose the cellular company's application. "They were worried about the property values," Mr. Campanelli said. "If your home is near a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down io percent." In January, in an effort to dismantle 50 cell antennas on a water tower across from a school in the village of Bayville, Mr. Campanelli filed a federal lawsuit that cited health risks and private property rights. In a statement, Dr. Anna F. Hunderfund, the Locust Valley superintendent, said that in February 2009 the district had engaged a firm to study the cellphone installations near the Bayville schools, finding that the tower "posed no significant health risks," and she noted that the emission levels fell well below amounts deemed unsafe by the Federal Communications Commission. In June 2009, Sharon Curry, a psychologist in Merrick, woke up to find a cell antenna abutting her backyard, level to her 8- year-old son's bedroom window. Puzzled by its presence, particularly because she lives next to an elementary school, she did research to see if there was cause for concern. What she learned about possible health impacts, she said, led her to seek help from civic associations and to form a group, Moms of Merrick Speak Out, to keep new cell towers out. She said she was seeking the "responsible" placement of cell antennas, away from homes and schools. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. Frank Schilero, an associate broker with RE/MAX Innovations in Wantagh, has a listing on a $629,000 home down the street from the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center, where the application is pending to put six cell antennas on the roof. "People don't like living next to cell towers, for medical reasons or aesthetics," Mr. Schilero said. "Or they don't want that eyesore sticking up in their backyards." There is an offer on his listing, he added, but since the buyer heard about the possible cell antennas she has sought more information from the wireless companies about their size and impact. Charles Kovit, the Hempstead deputy town attorney, said that under the proposed code change any new towers or antennas would have to be 1,500 feet from residences, schools, houses of worship and libraries. The town recently hired a consultant, Richard A. Comi of the Center for Municipal Solutions in Glenmont, to review antenna applications. Under the new ordinance, applications for wireless facilities would require technical evidence that they had a "gap" in coverage necessitating a new tower. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?pagewanted=print 12/28/2010 In the Region - Long Island - A Pushbp ^u.,Against Cell Towers - NYTimes.com Page 3 of 3 "If not, they will get denied," Mr. Kovit said. The wireless companies would also have to prove that the selected location had "the least negative impact on area character and property values." If another location farther away from homes can solve the gap problem, "they are going to have to move." http:ll\vww.nvtimes.com/2010/O8/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?pagewanted=print 12/28/2010 Quotes from South Burlington Planning Document "Telecommunications, including traditional phone service, cell phone and wireless service, cable television and Internet access are playing an increasingly central role in the city's economic and recreational life. Private utilities that provide these services should provide state -of -art technologies. Siting of telecommunications towers should consider issues of aesthetics, safety and health as well as efficiency." "8. The City should guide the placement of telecommunications utilities to encourage inclusive designs instead of sporadic and poorly planned installations." Quotes From City of Hardwicke, Vt Planning Document Section 4.15 Telecommunications Facility (A) Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety, general welfare and scenic character of the Town of Hardwick, while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses. The intent of these regulations is to: (1) preserve the character and appearance of the town while allowing adequate services and coverage to be developed;. (2) protect the scenic, historic, environmental and natural resources of the town; (3) provide standards as requirements for the siting, design, appearance, construction, operation, and removal of telecommunications facilities; (4) minimize tower and antenna proliferation by requiring the co -location and sharing of existing telecommunications facilities wherever feasible and appropriate; and (5) facilitate the provision of telecommunications services to residents and businesses in town. (H) Criteria for Approval and Conditions An application for a Telecommunication Facility permit shall be approved after a hearing when the Board of Adjustment finds all the following criteria have been met: (1) The Facility will not be built on speculation. If the applicant is not a Telecommunication Service Provider, the Board of Adjustment may require the applicant to provide a copy of a contract or letter of intent showing that a Wireless Telecommunication Service Provider is legally obligated to locate a Telecommunication Facility on lands owned or leased by the applicant. (2) The Facility will not project more than 20 feet above the average elevation of the tree line measured within 50 feet of the highest vertical element of the Telecommunication Facility, unless the proposed elevation is reasonably necessary to provide adequate Wireless Telecommunication Service capacity or coverage or to facilitate collocation of facilities. (3) No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within 500 feet of an existing residence. (4) The minimum distance from the base of any tower to any property line is not less than 100% of the total elevation of the tower, including antenna or equipment, unless otherwise permitted by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with one of the following: (a) if tower design and construction guarantees that, if it collapses, it will collapse inwardly upon itself, and that no liability or risk to adjoining private or public property shall be assumed by the municipality; or (b) to allow for the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard, utility pole, or similar structure, to the extent that no hazard to public health, safety or welfare results. (5) The tower including attached antennas does not exceed a height of 180 feet. (6) The Facility will not be illuminated by artificial means and will not display any lights or signs except for such lights and signs as required by Federal Aviation Administration, federal or state law, this bylaw, or as needed for the safe operation of the facility. (7) The applicant will remove the Facility, should the Facility be abandoned or cease to operate. The Board of Adjustment may require the applicant to provide a bond, or other form of financial guarantee acceptable to the Board of Adjustment to cover the cost of removal of the Facility, should the Facility be abandoned or cease to operate. (8) The applicant demonstrates that the facility will be in compliance with all FCC standards and requirements regarding radio frequency radiation. (9) The applicant will maintain adequate insurance on the Facility. (10) The Facility will be properly identified with appropriate warnings indicating the presence of radio frequency radiation. The Board of Adjustment may condition a permit on the provision of appropriate fencing. (11) The proposed equipment cannot be reasonably collocated at an existing Telecommunication Facility. In determining whether the proposed equipment cannot be reasonably collocated at an existing facility, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the following factors: (a) The proposed equipment would exceed the structural or spatial capacity of the existing facility and the existing facility cannot be reinforced, modified or replaced to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost. (b) The proposed equipment would materially impact the usefulness of other equipment at the existing facility and such impact cannot be mitigated or prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) The proposed equipment, alone or together with existing equipment, would create radio frequency interference and/or radio frequency radiation in violation of federal standards. (d) Existing towers and structures cannot accommodate the proposed equipment at an elevation necessary to function reasonably or are too far from the area of needed coverage to function adequately. (e) Collocation of the equipment upon existing tower would cause an undue aesthetic impact. (12) The Facility provides reasonable opportunity for collocation of other equipment. (13) The Facility will not unreasonably interfere with the view from any public park, natural scenic vista, historic building or district, or major view corridor. (14) The Facility will not have an undue adverse aesthetic impact. In determining whether a facility has an undue adverse aesthetic impact, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the following factors: (a) The results of the balloon test, if conducted. (b) The extent to which the proposed towers and equipment have been designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of screening, camouflage, architectural design, and/or imitation of natural features. (c) The extent to which access roads have been designed to follow the contour of the land and will be constructed within forest or forest fringe areas and not open fields. (d) The duration and frequency with which the Facility will be viewed on a public highway or from public property. (e) The degree to which the Facility will be screened by existing vegetation, topography, or existing structures. (0 Background features in the line of sight to the Facility that obscure or make the Facility more conspicuous. (g) The distance of the Facility from the point of view and the proportion of the facility that is above the skyline. (h) The sensitivity or unique value of a particular view affected by the Facility. (i) Any significant disruption of a viewshed that provides context to an important historic or scenic resource. (15) The Facility will not destroy or significantly imperil necessary wildlife habitat or that all reasonable means of minimizing the destruction or imperilment of such habitat or species will be utilized. (16) The Facility will not generate undue noise. (17) The extent to which utility lines (e.g. power) serving telecommunications facilities follow access roads and does not involve extensive clearing; the Board of Adjustment may require that such utilities be buried where they are likely to otherwise have an adverse visual impact. (I) Small Scale and Temporary Facilities. Notwithstanding the requirements of Article 2, the following may be permitted in any zoning district by the Administrative Officer without conditional use approval: (1) Small scale wireless telecommunications equipment, including antennas, microcells or repeaters, which are to be installed on existing towers, utility poles, or other structures; or the installation of ground facilities less than 20 feet in height, provided that: (a) no such device is located within 50 feet of an existing residence; (b) no changes are made to the height or appearance of such structure except as required for mounting; (c) the height of the facility as mounted does not extend the total height of the structure by more than 10 feet; (d) no panel antenna shall exceed 72 inches in height or 24 inches in width; (e) no dish antenna shall exceed 3 feet in diameter; and (f) any accompanying equipment shall be screened from view. (2) Wireless communications facilities designed for temporary use, provided that: (a) the temporary facility is permitted for the duration of the intended use or event, as specified in the permit, which shall not exceed 60 days, and is removed immediately upon the expiration of the permit, (b) the height of the facility does not exceed 50 feet from grade, and (c) the facility complies with all other applicable provisions of these regulations. (J) Continuing Obligations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities The owner of a Telecommunication Facility shall, at such times as requested by the Board of Adjustment, file a certificate showing that it is in compliance with all FCC standards and requirements regarding radio frequency radiation, and that adequate insurance has been obtained for the Facility. Failure to file a certificate within the timeframe requested by the Board of Adjustment, shall mean that the Facility has been abandoned. (K) Removal of Abandoned or Unused Facilities Unless otherwise approved by the Board of Adjustment, an abandoned or unused Telecommunication Facility shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment or cessation of use. If the Facility is not removed within 90 days of abandonment or cessation of use, the Board of Adjustment may cause the Facility to be removed. The costs of removal shall be assessed against the Facility owner. Unused portions of a Telecommunication Facility shall be removed within 180 days of the time that such portion is no longer used. Replacement of portions of a Facility previously removed shall require a new permit. What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers? Page 1 of 3 What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers? by www.SixWise.com Over 190 million cell phones are in use in the United States, with users often scrambling to another room, building or street to get better reception. As consumers, it is frustrating when your cell phone reception gets dropped or is too garbled to hear. But beyond "Can you hear me now?" is another considerably more important question: Are the cell towers and antennas popping up all over the country - -the very ones that we depend on for clear reception and a wide coverage area -- safe? This may have been a moot issue in the past when the towers were sparse and limited to obscure cornfields and hilltops. But the number of these cell "sites," as they're called, has increased tenfold since 1994. Among the more than 175,000 cell sites in the United States are antennas on schools, churches, firehouses, cemeteries and national parks. There's even a cell tower near Old Faithful in Yellowstone. "Don't Put That Tower Here" "Our companies are always running into this conundrum, which is, 'We want cell phone service, but don't put that tower here.' When you're dealing with communications through the air, you have to have antennas and towers," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, the industry's trade group. Aesthetics aside, the primary reason most people don't want cell sites near their homes and communities is because they're afraid of the potential health effects. Already, more than 500 cases have sprung up across the country in which people have tried to stop cell phone sites from being constructed, according to Washington attorney Ed Donohue, who represents several cell phone companies. Health, not aesthetics, is the primary reason why residents oppose cell phone towers in their towns. Most of the time, the cell phone companies win because, as it stands, federal law does not allow rejection of a tower based on health risks. Cell Phone Towers: Risky or Not? If you ask the government, no studies have shown conclusive evidence that radio - frequency emissions, a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), from cell towers are harmful. According to the Food and Drug Administration: "RF [Radio frequency] exposure on the ground is much less than exposure very close to the antenna and in the path of the transmitted radio signal. In fact, ground -level exposure from such antennas is typically thousands of times less than the exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations. So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins." Cell phone companies also maintain that no risks exist from the towers. "There are no health risks posed by the towers. Independent scientific panels around the world have http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what are_the_dangers_of_living_near cell_phone_towers.htm 12/28/2010 What are the Dangers of Living Near C- 11) hone Towers? Page 2 of 3 reached this conclusion," said Russ Stromberg, senior manager of development at T- Mobile. But other studies seem to tell a different story, with findings such as: ---- - --- --- --- • A study by Dr. Bruce Hocking in Australia"' found that children living near three TV and FM broadcast towers (similar to cell towers) in Sydney had more than twice the rate of leukemia than children living more than seven miles away. .„ • Says Dr. Neil Cherry, a biophysicist at Lincoln University in New Zealand: ' k 14 "Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell site base stations should be being carried out now, and The government and cell phone continue progressively over the next two companies maintain cell towers decades. This is because prompt effects (and phones) are safe. such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythmic type, and cancers, especially brain tumor and leukemia, are probable." • Biomedical engineer Mariana Alves -Pereira says exposure to cell phone towers can lead to vibroacoustic disease. "From what I understand, some of the complaints are similar in what is seen in vibroacoustic disease patients, which are people who develop a disease caused by low frequency noise exposure," she said. Symptoms can include mood swings, indigestion, ulcers and joint pain. • Dr. Gerard Hyland, a physicist who was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize in medicine, says, "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate ... Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests." • According to the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, "Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses." • According to Dr. W. Loscher of the Institute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy of the Veterinary School of Hannover in Germany, dairy cows that were kept in close proximity to a TV and cell phone tower for two years had a reduction in milk production along with increased health problems and behavioral abnormalities. In an experiment, one cow with abnormal behavior was taken away from the antenna and the behavior subsided within five days. When the cow was brought back near the antenna, the symptoms returned. Incentives for Cell Phone Towers Why would a church, school or other private property allow a cell phone antenna to be placed on the grounds? Cell phone companies pay "rent" for their placement that can range anywhere from $800 to $2,000 a month. This can mean all the difference for an under -funded school district or church. Still, many people are wary that the incentives do not come close to matching the potential risk involved. This includes the International Association of Fire Fighters who, in 2004, came out against the use of firehouses for cell antennas "until a study with the highest scientific merit" can prove they are safe. These sentiments are echoed by residents of St. Louis where T-Mobile plans to put a cell site on an 89-year-old church. "That revenue is in exchange for our potential well-being, http:i/www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what are the dangers of living near cell_phone_towers.htm 121/28/2010 What are the Dangers of Living Near C-5hone Towers? Page 3 of 3 our peace of mind and our property values," said resident David O'Brien. "None of us are willing to take that risk." Recommended Reading Noise Pollution: How Bad is it. How Bad Could it Get. What are the Effects? Bottled Water: Which City's Tap Water System is Making a Flood of Cash off of You? Sources Food and Drug Administration: Cell Phone Facts Health Effects Associated With Mobile Base Stations in Communities Are Cell Phone Towers Making You Sick? Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Wired News: Cell Phone Tower Debate Grows Extraordinary Behaviors in Cows in Proximity to Transmission Towers Sharp 52 Cj -I'nad to a tttt lid �%� -'!'ildC 11'1a http:Hwww.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what_are the_dangers_Of living_near_eell_phone_towers.htm 12/28/2010 New Warnings about the Hazards of Cell Phones Posted by: Dr. Mercola I November 29 2010 140,257 views Holding a cell phone against your ear, or putting it in your pocket, may be hazardous to your health — or so says the fine print on a little slip that you probably tossed aside when unpacking your phone. Apple says your Phone should come no closer than 5/8 of an inch; BlackBerry recommends about an inch. Statistics show that, over all, there has not been a general increase in the incidence of brain cancer since cell phones arrived — but the average hides the fact that brain cancer has increased in the 20-to-29 age group while dropping for the older population. According to the New York Times: "The largest study of cell phone use and brain cancer has been the Interphone International Case Control Study ... The authors included some disturbing data in an appendix available only online. These showed that subjects who used a cell phone 10 or more years doubled the risk of developing brain gliomas, a type of tumor. " Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal investigates various methods of cutting down the radiation your cell phone produces. However, they say the most effective one may be the simplest -- keep the phone away from your head and body. New York Times November 13, 20`10 'Hall Street Journal, October 5, 20,10 L,--i Vie V-ln-..r+Le French landmark ruling on cellphone tower February 6, 2009 Denise Young! 2 Comments 1-j u ,`s`" In a first ever for France, telephone operator 13c>uy_gt«s._,'I e1ec��tti was ordered on February 4 by a Versailles appeals court court to dismantle cellphone basetowers in the Lyons area on the basis of the precautionary principle and the potential health risk for nearby residents. The .r.�z.r:i.i.n(, is significant because it draws on the latest research such as the Bioin,i_t::iative. R post, as well as recent European court rulings in Salzburg (Austria), Freiburg and Bamberg (Cc;rnrariy) and Helsinki. The day after the ruling, Nathalie Kosiusko Morizet called for a " Grenelle des _Ante ?nes" (a roundtable grouping all stakeholders to brainstorm policy, modelled on the ?09.7 Gx.enclle. on. the Environment) to respond to growing fears among the public about public health risks ;associated with electro-magnetic fields. «I am proposing a round table, a Grenelle des antennes, to bring together viewpoints of deputies, elected officials, telephone operators, scientists... and to respond to growing fears of citizens. Kosciusko-Moriret, formerly Junior Environment Minister who became Secretary, of State for the Digital Fconomy in a cabinet re 11.u.t'tle last month, is known as an ardent supporter of the precautionary principle. Printed from Wi-Fi radiation killing trees IANS, Nov 24, 2010, 03.12pm IST LONDON: Radiation from Wi-Fi networks which enable our burgeoning online communications may be killing off magnificent trees. Trees planted close to a wireless router had bleeding bark and dying leaves, says a Dutch study. The revelation will raise fears that Wi-Fi radiation may also be having an effect on the human body and supports parents who have campaigned to stop wireless routers being installed in schools, the Daily Mail reports. The city of Alphen aan den Rijn in the Netherlands ordered the study after officials found unexplained abnormalities on trees. Researchers took 20 ash trees and for three months exposed them to six sources of radiation. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi source developed a 'lead -like shine' on their leaves which was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis -- the leaf s skin. The Wageningen University scientists behind the research, also discovered that Wi-Fi radiation could slow the growth of corn cobs. In the Netherlands, 70 per cent of all trees in urban areas show the same symptoms, compared with 10 per cent five years ago, the study found. Trees in densely forested areas are not affected, according to a Wageningen University statement. The Dutch health agency issued a statement, stressing that "these are initial results and they have not been confirmed in a repeat survey." In 2007, a BBC Panorama documentary found that radiation levels from Wi-Fi in one school were up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation. However, the readings were 600 times below government safety limits. Read more: Wi-Fi radiation killing trees - The 'Times of India htip://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/personal-tech/computing/Wi-Fi-radiation killiii,iz trees/articleshow/6981')89.cros#ixzz18xIlunFp I Frank B. Haddleton P.O. Box 64649 Burlington, VT 05406-4649 (37 Hadley Road, South Burlington) (802) 363-9352 eastrunner@aol.com January 11, 2011 Dear South Burlington Neighbors, including Development Review Board Members: At the next meeting of the Development Review Board on January 18, 2011, the DRB will once again consider the application of Clearwire, LLC, to install additional panel antennas on the Farrell Street cellular communications tower. The DRB has the authority to reject the application (i.e., deny the waiver request) for any number of reasons, particularly including the undue adverse visual impact and the negative impact on property values that additional antennas would have. When interviewed by Channel 3, Eric Farrell, the tower owner, suggested that property owners near the tower had no basis to complain at this point because the tower, with antennas, has been in its current location for some time without complaints. This argument is entirely without merit bec^use c4IIlular t lecommunications technology is very new and the public is only now becoming aware of the hazards of long-term exposure to the RF radiation that is emitted from cellular antennas. A prior lack of awareness of the hazardous nature of a commercial enterprise in no way justifies the continuation of that hazardous enterprise in a densely populated residential area. If the DRB does the right thing and determines that no additional antennas will be permitted on the Farrell Street tower, citing the arguments legally available, the DRB will be in very good company. In only the last several months, authorities in several communities across the country have responded properly to the information now available by denying permits for cellular communications antennas in residential areas. (For a partial list, along with news articles, see item VI on the evidence page at www.waub.org.) As indicated on the enclosed additional petitions, residents on all sides of the tower are now calling for a halt to further development of the tower. I am hopeful that the DRB will give careful consideration to the very serious issues involved in the matter at hand, and that they will recognize the extreme costs and dangers that-,will result from additional antennas on the Farrell Street tower. Yours .5incerely, `;,, Frank B. Haddleton fbh:ms / enclosure To: The South Burlington Development Review Board From: Svetlana Kelley. My name is Svetlana Kelley. I live at 351 Farrell Street and all o: apartment look out directly at the Farrell Street cell phone tower. now, I have a ten -year -old son, and I am concerned about my gro� am very aware of the problems concerning cell towers. In the Eu was born and grew up, the law prohibits cell towers from being bi where a lot of people live. They see the tower as a health hazard careful of where the towers and antennas are placed. If more cell equipment is added to the Farrell Street tower my fan to move since I cannot allow a growing baby, or my son, to be ex radiation that I know is so harmful to them. I hope that you will consider my concerns when you are making cause great hardship for us to be forced to move. Most sincerely yours, Svetlana Kelley J-e 1&2,e�Ze Z �' Vl - rr - i/ TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signat Printed ame - Street Address,- .V C4 1ATb lei 0\ C yY . i C ,,, (n 4- D After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address 44 tj Lj,--�a Bcnol(cu ord-lard M 11A le After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.or-R. TO THE CITY OF SOUTh JURLINGTON AND THE DEVE- )PMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address /l�clsavo� /Co�J<�tSQvt /5 IN41le14lreccC S--9vr1ln9A41 After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.orQ. T'O THE CITY OF SOUTH JURLINGTON AND THE DEVEi JPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the hazards of radio -frequency (RF) radiation, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to safer locations. The reasons for our position include the following: 1) Numerous independent studies indicate that there is a link between the radiation emitted by cell phone antennas and various major health risks. The full impact of long-term exposure to such radiation is unknowable at this time, and we, our children, and our neighbors should not be made into involuntary participants in what amounts to an uncontrolled, unsupervised experiment. 2) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive (including its outdoor tennis courts), the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School (with all of its playing fields). Farrell Street is perhaps the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. 3) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will only increase. 4) Additional antennas will make the existing towers more noticeable and more visually offensive than they already are. Signature Printed Name Street Address 4 AZ - A, J-� -3 L�-X/ (-Ilee4 After signing, please mail this petition immediately to Waubanakee Neighbors Coalition, P.O. Box 64649, Burlington, VT 05406, or contact us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address dl't, ' `'"1 13 mil. A$ 711 -7 W- i After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development. Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signatur Printed Name Street Address ze Ty-,t- 11.1 c{;Ike 144 /J] J / � 1 IMF 'L--" l e'�''1., r � %�� � � �.�v After signing, please call us ati521k-18'00 for it to be pi ked up his petition can at www.waub.org, be downloaded TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address (k U� � � � e M at; e l) e V1 'k u s AkYlq, Rd . M After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org, TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address all 61, AA� 6A" Of t i ki 6l L % 0S After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.ori!. 6, qe.� J3 TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature �7 Printed Name Street Address �CV0 MG,OeI6, WQAwc-S 71g- 511�ec13 t, " LZ/1- i L4 �Jr 2-3 I J6' fi lru e Ho I (-I After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org, TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address (aa,21 ii Scye, -r Cam, h ) r3l tr- After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. k .V- ) TO: The City of South Burlington Developm t Board er'/ FROM: Frank B. Haddleton, Attorney at Law�✓t�--- RE: Application of Clearwire US, LLC to install additional cell phone panel antennas at 466 Farrell Street RECEIVED DATE: December 7. 2010 DEC 0 7 2010 City of So. Bwiington 1. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VALUES A. Reports from Residents. Several neighbors in the vicinity of the tower at 466 Farrell Street have reported that had they known about the towers, they would not have purchased their homes. Now that they know about these towers, they no longer wish to live here. However, the majority, if not the entirety, of their life savings is tied up in these homes, and if we were all to list our homes for sale at this point, the sales would take an extremely long time and we would realize even larger losses resulting from the notice of the problem that multiple "for sale" signs would generate. When two specific properties in our neighborhood were purchased, the purchasers had been led to believe that the former television station facility, including the tower, were to be demolished. (I may provide the specific addresses if so requested.) B. Attachments regarding property value impacts for discussion and review 1. Statement of Jackie Marino, REALTOR 2. Phone masts blight house sales", The Observer (Guardian. co.uk), May 25, 2003. [15 to 25% drop in value according to study group] 3. "A Pushback Against Cell Towers", The New York Times, August 27, 2010 [4 to 10% drop in property value reported by real estate professional] 4. "Opposition by 150 Residents and Evidence of Potential Property Value Diminution Constitute Substantial Evidence" (Telecommunications Land Management Law Report, April, 2010 reporting on decision of U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan) [expert appraisers indicate 10% to 40% drop in value] C. Potential Liability to the City of South Burlington for the impact on property values 1. Property tax abatements Residents whose home values are impacted by the addition of cell phone antennas will have the right to secure property tax abatements for the loss in value. This will result in a substantial reduction in real estate tax revenue for the City. Memo to City of South Burlington DRB, 12/7/10 page 2 2. Liability for the taking of property There is evidence that the placement of cell phone antennas in close proximity to residential properties reduce the value of those homes by as much as 20%. As the public's awareness of the hazards of this technology grows, and this growth in awareness is occurring, this devaluation will be even larger. As a very rough estimate of the potential liability, if the City of South Burlington allows the installation of additional cell phone antennas at 466 Farrell Street, and if these additional panels reduce property values by only 10%, and if there is fifty million dollars worth of residential property within the affected area (a conservative estimate considering all of the nearby homes, condos, office buildings, and apartments), then the City of South Burlington may be facing a liability of five million dollars for allowing the additional panels. This is in addition to legal costs and lost property taxes. Il. UNDUE ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACT A. What informed citizens see in every cell phone antenna Undue adverse visual impact is a subjective standard that must take into consideration the impact on the observer subjected to the visual offense. Many of us who have studied the effects of the radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones see suffering and death in every cell phone antenna. Others are visually offended by cell phone antennas for other reasons, including the fact that they interrupt the skyline. B. Why I see what I see in the antennas 1. Effects of radiofrequency radiation I will explain some of the reasons why the visual impact of the antennas is so offensive for many — why a cell phone antenna appears to us like something even worse than a swastika, a confederate flag, or the most offensive or obscene graffiti you could think of. Numerous independent studies have indicated that RF emissions from cell phone towers are linked to various health problems for those living and working in close proximity to them, including fatigue, headache, sleep disruption, loss of memory, cancers, immune system suppression, and birth defects, among others. Links to some of these studies can be found at www.waub.org. 2. The value of industry assurances When we consider the assurances of the wireless communications industry that its technologies are safe, we must remember what happens when people trust industry to evaluate and report on the safety of its own products and technologies. Consider what the respective industries told us about DDT, thalidomide, dioxin, benzene, agent orange, lead, asbestos, and, of course, tobacco. We were once told by their purveyors that all of these products and the Memo to City of South Burlington DRB, 12/7/10 page 3 technologies into which they were incorporated were perfectly safe. "You can trust us on this", we were told. And yet all of these products are now known to be quite deadly, and many of them will go on killing people for decades beyond the dates on which they were finally banned. 3. The value of assurances from Federal government, and what the FCC actually says When we consider the assurances of the Federal government that it is regulating and monitoring the safety of products and technologies for us, we must remember what happens when people trust federal agencies to do this for us. We must remember what happens when we let them take away our rights to be involved in the process of protecting our own safety. Consider what happened to the city of New Orleans when the levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers to protect that city failed. Consider what happened in Tennessee two years ago when the Tennessee Valley Authority's facility for the containment of byproducts from a coal plant failed, releasing 500 million gallons of toxic sludge across an area larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill (which itself is something else to think about now). Consider the catastrophe that unfolded just this summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and that continues to unfold, after federal regulators assured us that it was properly regulating deep -water oil drilling and that this technology was safe. In the examples above, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Minerals Management Service all told us that the technologies that they were regulating and monitoring were safe. And in all cases this was false. Are we any safer in the case of wireless communications technology? In the examples above, we were assured of safety. Here is what the Federal Communications Commission' actually says about the safety of the emissions from wireless communications technology: "In general, while the possibility of "non -thermal" biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health." Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, August, 1999. So, unlike the other agencies who told us that what they were monitoring was safe and then proceeded to allow unprecedented disasters to occur, the FCC admits that it really doesn't know whether what it is monitoring is safe, but that it will continue to monitor it and let us know if they find a problem. What they are saying is, in effect, "Just trust us". In light of all of the studies showing that RF radiation is hazardous (see www.waub.org for a partial list), and in light of the fact that many countries have set standards for RF radiation that are many times more stringent than those set by the FCC (e.g., Russia's standards are 100 I Memo to City of South Burlington DRB, 12/7/10 page 4 times more stringent), and in light of the fact that some countries are now ordering the removal of cell phone towers that are in close proximity to residences (as a Court in France did just last year), trusting the FCC to protect the residents of South Burlington from the hazards of wireless communications technology is the height of insanity. And this state of affairs explains why those of us who are educated about the facts are so adversely impacted by the sight of the antennas. I11. THE WORST PLACE FOR CELL TOWERS IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF VERMONT Given the negative impacts on property values and the undue adverse visual impacts of the proposed antennas, we have to ask whether this is an appropriate place to be adding cell phone antennas. Clearly it is not. With either the greatest density of people, or something very near to the greatest density, the highest possible number of people will be impacted negatively by the proposed new antennas. If there is actually a need for these antennas, and this need has been clearly established, an alternative location must be found, one in which the total impacts on neighbors will be substantially less. The fact that the tower already exists in this location changes nothing. More antennas mean greater adverse impacts. IV. THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 A. Preemption of the right to consider safety According to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, localities cannot regulate placement of cell phone towers and antennas based upon environmental effects of electromagnetic fields, provided that FCC requirements relating to emissions are being met. This provision should outrage and infuriate all of us. However, at a minimum, the City of South Burlington has an obligation to make sure that FCC requirements relating to emissions are being met, and based upon the track record of the our federal government to enforce its own regulations, the City of South Burlington has an obligation to measure, on its own, the radiation being emitted by the existing cell phone antennas before even contemplating the addition of more cell phone antennas. B. The city retains plena of grounds on which to reject cellular technologies Federal law does not place any limitation on the ability of localities to regulate placement based upon any considerations other than the environmental effects of the radiation from the equipment. Permissible considerations include the effects of the facilities on property values, the visual impacts of the facilities, and the safety of the infrastructure supporting the facilities (e.g., batteries at the base station). Memo to City of South Burlington DRB, 12/7/10 page 5 C. The city faces zero liability for rejecting Clearwire's application In Rancho Palos Verdes vs. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113-2005, The United States Supreme Court ruled that if a city refuses a permit for cellular communications towers, the disappointed applicant may challenge that decision but may not seek monetary damages from the city even if officials wrongly denied the permit. In other words there can be no liability to the City of South Burlington from denying the application of Clearwire US, LLC. Compare this to the potential liability which will result from allowing the application, discussed above. V. CONCLUSION A. The approval of Clearwire's application will result in a substantial reduction of the values of residential properties in proximity to the towers, anywhere between 4% and 40% according to various reports. This impact will increase as awareness of the hazards of wireless technology grows. B. The approval of Clearwire's application will result in undue adverse visual impacts for the residents in proximity to the tower. The visual impact of additional antennas is subjective and, it is the magnitude and character of the impact to those subjected to the views that must be considered. For those who understand the hazards of wireless communication technologies, the impact is dramatic. We see suffering and death on every cell phone antenna. C. The 466 Farrell Street location is perhaps the worst possible location for additional cell phone antennas. Because of the very high population density, the greatest possible number of people will be adversely affected by additional antennas at this location. The fact that the tower already exists does not change the equation: adding more antennas will exacerbate the adverse impacts on the neighbors. D. The City of South Burlington has no legal or moral right to approve Clearwire's application and thereby take away the value of the neighboring properties from the citizens. The City of South Burlington has no legal or moral right to subject its citizens to the undue adverse visual impact of the additional antennas, which impact is subjective and dramatic. E. The additional antennas will cause additional suffering, illnesses, and deaths for the neighbors of the cell tower. Although Federal law may prohibit the City from stating this as a reason for the denial of Clearwire's application, the City and its officials are morally obligated to consider this fact. The City's authority to reject the installation of additional cell phone antennas is absolute, provided that legally accepted justifications are cited and documented (as by this memorandum and its attachments), including diminution of property values and undue adverse visual impacts. The City of South Burlington is morally and legally obligated to exercise its authority to reject Clearwire's application. Memo to City of South Burlington DRB, 12/7/10 page 6 F. The City of South Burlington, if it approves the application, must expect to face lawsuits seeking damages potentially in the millions of dollars for the taking of a substantial portion of the value of the neighboring properties. If it approves the application, the City must also expect to face a lawsuits for the emotional trauma inflicted in the form of the undue visual impacts of the additional "death panels", which is how they appear to those who have researched the true nature of this technology. Finally, if the City approves the application, it must expect to face lawsuits for illness and death caused by the City's action, when it becomes clear — and it will become clear here as it has become clear elsewhere — that people living and working in close proximity to the cell phone tower are becoming ill and very likely dying as a result of the radiofrequency radiation emitted by the cell phone antennas. G. According to the United States Supreme Court, the City cannot face any monetary damages from denying Clearwire's application, if such denial is, somehow, astoundingly, found at a higher tribunal to have been incorrect. V. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. Petition signed by 56 residents of the impacted neighborhood. (We would have had more had there been more notice — nearly everybody we approached is very strongly opposed to the additional antennas. We also would have had more signatures if notices posted by residents of Eastwood Commons on their community bulletin boards had not been abruptly torn down.) B. Statement of Jackie Marino, Realtor, as to impact on property values. C. "Phone masts blight house sales", The Observer (Guardian.co.uk), May 25, 2003 D. "A Pushback Against Cell Towers", The New York Times, August 27, 2010 E. "Opposition by 150 Residents and Evidence of Potential Property Value Diminution Constitute Substantial Evidence" (Telecommunications Land Management Law Report, April, 2010 reporting on decision of U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan) F. "The Radiation Poisoning of America". Amy Worthington, Global Research / Idaho Observer, 10/7/2007 VI. DISCLAIMER I do not represent any individuals or entities in this matter and this material consists only of my interpretations and opinions. No legal advice is being offered in this material. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signat ,re- ,. r _ Printed Name - - ---7- UUT5 Street Adores s intull G � r' � V-� j r After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address ;,. It � ��• ��-..� � %~.�jC �,�-- LA--�:A Buto cu HI or c1 1(tal M . I� v� It, k. 1 2cA G P , k�, s t-v l:- �,-, V After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.orp,. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature 1 n Printed Flame Street Address eck 'KU C, Y,-,, C- 6,.- C �kAe I (c I l After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org, TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address n i I 0 no-1�0 id-- 0 E H�captj vr ,✓vrr� ` 1 � t ?�r�.-- 5 t rt a ► -e i Adlel-lu. S . 1�6i 6 C ps After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. c, q 4 TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address CkCk- va n � � (`� ar, e �� e vi ci a s Akylgllf 3$ u CA d ),e,,v R d —V�-C�i'�L (/�� Lr✓qG"/5(l� �� /' � � Z�/ �lt k-<'�c,'C.�J,�c-(/l�— VW tj Z1141-1:11 ��(I 1l\ + U After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.orp. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Sign, tur Printed Name Street Address --;z Gv 40 OIL 1,1L nAo�\ / �r �0 (j lip% �1�� \�V J` lv (AkV,'�,\%A.1,A AAAt,- S CZz 7 - C � 3 �i- � � ��'r� G-' /��' ti � �� L` .S r% f'!f ,CJO� /rt� •P After s4rung, please call us at 652- 800 for it to be piked up. at www.waub.or . This petition can be downloaded TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address �C'�G'�L d2 L� u. � • � Gr ! J <tn c� `if l t`' (, %�� l� `�' .F� c;.r�. p 1 After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOx A4ENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the hazards of radio-frequencyphone towers and antennas fromt consideration the most densely given to the removal or relocation of existing cell populated areas of the city to safer locations. The reasons for our position include the following: 1) Numerous independent studies indicate that there is a link between the radiation emitted by cell phone antennas and various major health risks. The full impact of long-term exposure to such radiation is unknowable at this time, and we, our children, and our neighbors should not be made into involuntary participants in what amountseet sin one of the most densely populated areas in the entire 2) The cell tower on Farrell state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive (including its outdoor tennis courts), the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School (with all of its playing fields). Farrell Street is perhaps the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. 3) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will only increase. 4) Additional antennas will make the existing towers more noticeable and more visually offensive than they already are. After signing, please mail this petition immediately to Waubanakee Neighbors Coalition, P.O. Box 64649, Burlington, VT 05406, or contact us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.org. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one of the most densely populated areas in the entire state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. Signature Printed Name Street Address After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at www.waub.or. TO THE CITY OF SOUTH Bu�LINGTON AND THE DEVELC- iTVMNT REVIEW BOARD: We, the undersigned residents of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby state our opposition to the petition of Clearwire US, LLC, to add additional antennas to the cell phone tower located at 466 Farrell Street in South Burlington. We also oppose the permitting of any additional cell towers or antennas in proximity to Farrell Street and the neighboring communities. Further, we request that the officials of the City of South Burlington, including the members of the Development Review Board, review the growing literature regarding the problems created by cell phone towers, and that consideration be given to the removal or relocation of existing cell phone towers and antennas from the most densely populated areas of the city to more appropriate locations. The reasons for our position, in their order of importance, are as follows: 1) Cell phone towers have been shown to decrease the values of properties in close proximity to them. Additional antennas on existing towers obviously have the same effect. As the public becomes more aware of the hazards and potential hazards of RF radiation, this negative effect on property values will increase dramatically. 2) Increasing the number of antennas on the tower will create an undue adverse visual impact. Compare the tower as it exists now to the tower on Joy Drive, which is what this tower will look more like if more antennas are permitted. f the most densely populated areas in the entire 3) The cell tower on Farrell Street is in one o state of Vermont, if not the most densely populated area. Immediately beneath or in very close proximity to this tower are the condominiums at Eastwood Commons, the Grand Way Senior Housing complex, the O'Dell apartments, the Clock Tower Square apartments, the Farrell Gardens apartments, the soon -to -be completed Bacon Street Lofts apartments, the health club on Eastwoods Drive, the children's day care center on Joy Drive, and Rice High School. Farrell Street is probably the worst possible location for a cell phone tower in the entire state of Vermont, given the number of people who are impacted. After signing, please call us at 652-4800 for it to be picked up. This petition can be downloaded at t4x December 6, 2010 To Whom It May Concern: I have been a member of the National and Northwest Board of Realtors and MLS since 1989. The focus of my real estate business has been Chittenden County, and I have been involved in the evaluation, purchase, and sale of countless properties in Chittenden County, including South Burlington. I have found that potential purchasers of residential properties in this area do take into consideration certain neighboring facilities and structures when considering a particular property. In particular, transformer stations and high tension transmission lines are of great concern (both for purely aesthetic considerations as well as concerns about potential health effects), such that some purchasers won't even consider a property adjacent to or nearby such facilities. It is my professional opinion that a cell tower in close proximity to a residential property, just as with transformer stations and transmission lines, would tend to make that property more difficult to sell, and would reduce the value of that property. I believe that a cell tower with a large number of antennas would have a significantly greater effect on value than a less imposing tower with a very limited number of antennas. Sincerely, CP..c CJac 'e Marino, Realtor REMAX North Professionals JM/jw Jacqueline Marino REALTOR® RE/MAX North Professionals 463 Mountain View Dr., Suite 200, Colchester, Vermont 05446 Office: (802) 655-3333 ext 23, Toll Free: (800) 639-4520 ext 23 Fax: (802) 655-0400, E-mail: Jackie@together.net #_J:WJP_4]. Each RE/MAX® Office Independently Owned and Operated lone masts blight house sales I Money I The Obse guardfan.co.uk 11,teftsover http://www.guardian.co -'lmoney/2uu3/may/ z31nousepr►ces.u►v►ews/N1 C Phone masts blight house sales Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles Paul Harris The Observer, Sunday 25 May 2003 A i­­­ Once it was the nightmare of a new motorway being built on their doorsteps that haunted homeowners anxious to preserve the value of their houses. But now a new threat is wiping tens of thousands of pounds off the value of properties across Britain: mobile phone masts. They are scores of feet tall and criticssay they are a health risk to anyone who lives near them. They are being built in every corner of Britain. Over the past decade Britain has embraced mobile phone technology with almost religious fervour. There are now more than 50 million mobiles in use, and to cope with the demand a network of 35,000 masts has been erected. By 2007 there will be 48,000. Anti -mast campaigners have warned that radiation emitted by them is potentially dangerous to humans, especially children. Though phone companies and government experts insist the technology is safe, fear of the masts has become a real issue in buying and selling houses. It mirrors the health fears - and the resultant impact on property prices - that surrounded Britain's network of electricity pylons when they were built. 'It can be a bit like dealing with negative equity. Some houses just become very, very difficult to sell and if you need to move quickly for your job or family reasons, then you are going to have a real problem; said Alasdair Philips, founder of Powerwatch, an anti -phone mast lobby group. The consequence of having a phone mast near you can be tragic. Nancy Watts suffers from multiple sclerosis and has been forced to retire from her job as an international business consultant. Her husband is now working part-time to be able to help care for her. With such restricted employment, the value of their bungalow in the Shropshire countryside was a vital part of their retirement plans. But now that value has been almost halved by the phone mast outside their home. 'We tried to sell and everyone who came around would see what a lovely home we had and then see the mast so close to us and just leave; Mrs Watts said. Their estate agent told them the mast would prevent them from selling their house at anything like the £189,000 it had been valued at. 'She said that if we wanted a quick sale, we would have to take our asking price down by £70,000-£Sg000. That was just heartbreaking; Mrs Watts said. With their reduced earnings and Mrs Watts's condition worsening and confining her to a wheelchair, such a loss was unacceptable. She also believes the radiation from the mast has led to a sudden deterioration in her health. 'I feel we are trapped here next to this mast. We can't move away from it because no one will buy our house; she said. It is a problem replicated across the country as more masts are built and awareness of 12/4/2010 3:01 PV I of2 hone coasts blight house sales ( Money I I'he ObF^)er nnp:iiwww.guarutan.Cit uev nlV�lGy,Ll/IlJ, L1Yty,tJ, titJtuc�lt ��cJ.ILLU iGWJ/lJ��ln the health warnings from anti -mast campaigners becomes more widespread. We are getting a lot of inquiries about this from people asking us if they should buy a house or not. It is something that people are becoming very concerned about; said Lisa Oldham, spokeswoman for campaign group Mast Sanity. Estimates of the effect on property prices vary and no academic research has been carried out. However, Mast Sanity believes anecdotal evidence from its hotline indicates a mast will knock between 15 and 25 per cent off the value of a house, depending on how close it is and the size of the structure. Melfyn Williams, chairman of the National Association of Estate Agents, said in some cases a mast could see a home reduce in value by between 5 and io per cent. 'It is not scaremongering. It is more about a growing fear of the unknown of what the health risks are, especially among those with young children; he said. Campaigners are considering legal action to seek compensation for the loss in value of their properties or to get the masts removed. Last week, seven householders in Swindon won sums of between £to,000 and £2o,000 each from their local council after it mistakenly allowed a mast to be erected in the middle of their residential street, causing their properties to crash in value. Campaigners have hailed this as a landmark judgment: it was the first time a government ombudsman had accepted masts could hurt house prices. A flood of similar claims is expected. 'It was a huge decision and we will see many more claims like this; said Frankie Evans, spokeswoman for Mast Action UK. Several other cases are being pre pared. One home owner in Gloucestershire, who wished to remain anonymous as legal proceedings had already begun, said building a mast had wiped E25o,000 from the value of his house. 'Losing that amount through something beyond our control does leave one feeling more than a little browned off; he said. However, phone companies insist the masts have not been shown to bring house prices down. 'The reasons why people buy or don't buy houses are very diverse and it is impossible to identify one factor as having such an effect; said a spokeswoman for the Mobile Operators Association, the industry body representing British mobile phone firms. That does not convince Nancy Watts. She said many of the people who came to view her house blamed the mast as the reason for not making an offer. Some did not even view it once they saw the mast. 'It was terrible to see some people drive up, take one look at the mast and then drive off again without even stopping; she said. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010 of 2 12/4/2010 3:01 PM the Region - Long Island - A Pushback Against r '� Towers - NY'I iM .. http:iiwww.nYLHlles.cO'• Zv I VIVO/ ,Y Subscribe to The Times Login RegisterNow TimesPeople HOME PAGE TODAYS PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR TINESTOPICS '. - Search All NYrtmes.com IN6 J1i, D1QECr Lhr`etu0orkamcs Real Estate Go WORLD U.S. N.Y. / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE 'TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS Property Search For Sale For Rent elan. Price (S) Max Price (fl eedroons ProPsm Type More In Real Estate An Any ao Great Homesm Comercial Enter a country, city, neighborhood a US ZIP Arty Any Y g Destinations Real Estate Help I FAQ Advanced Search . Show Only: [_1 Open Hanes i 1 New Developments IN THE REGION I LONG ISLAND A Pushback Against Cell Towers By MARCELLE S. FISCHLER Published: August 27, 2010 Wantagh Enlarge This Image TINA CANARIS, an associate broker and a co owner of RE/MAX Hearthstone in Merrick, has a $999,000 listing for a high ranch on the water in South Merrick, one of a handful of homes on the block on the market. But her listing has what some consider a disadvantage: a cell antenna poking from the top of a telephone pole at the front of the 65-by-too-foot lot. Phil Marino for The New York Times Jodi Turk Goldberg and her husband, Michael, with their son Charlie, near a school in Merrick, are among those concerned about cell antennas (center rear). Log in to see what yorr friends Log In With Facebook are sharing on nytimes.com. — privacy Policy I What's This? What's Popular Now RECOMMEND From WikiChina Arizona Strikes TWTWITTERII� fjBack in SIGN IN TO E-MAIL �, y- �"- PRINT REPRINTS Get DealBook by E-Mail SHARE Sign W for the lateslfinancial news delivered before the naot opening bell and after the market Close IKI B;&.. 04`. See Sample I Pnvacy Policy "Even houses where there are transformers in front" make "people shy away," Ms. Canaris said. "If they have the opportunity to buy another home, they do." She said cell antennas and towers near homes affected property values, adding, "You can see a buyer's dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don't say anything." By blocking, or seeking to block, cell towers and antennas over the course of the last year, island homeowners have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may not be just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to property values. Many also perceive health risks in proximity to radio frequency radiation emissions, despite industry assertions and other evidence disputing that such emissions pose a hazard. Emotions are running so high in areas like Wantagh, where an application for six cell antennas on the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center is pending, that the Town of Hempstead imposed a moratorium on applications until Sept. 21. That is the date for a public hearing on a new town ordinance stiffening requirements. At a community meeting on Aug. 16 at Wantagh High School, Dave Denenberg, the Nassau county legislator for Bellmore, Wantagh and Merrick, told more than 200 residents that t6o cell antennas had been placed on telephone poles in the area in the last year by NexLG, a wireless network provider. MOST POPULAR E-MAILED BLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED t. Weight Watchers Upends Its Points System 2. Teacher Ratings Get New Look, Pushed by a Rich Watcher 3. Paul Krugman: Freezing that Hope q. Gail Collins: Arizona Strikes Again 5. App Smart: Top to Android Apps 6. Frazzled Moms Push Back Against Volunteering 7. Elaine Kaufman, Who Fed the Famous, Dies at 81 8. Your Money: Why Savings Account Rates Are So Pathetic 9. A Book L.over's San Francisco to. Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers "Everyone has a celephone," Mr. Denenberg said, "but that doesn't mean you have to have Go to Complete List . cell installations right across the street from your house." Under the old town code, installations over 30 feet high required an exemption or a variance. But in New York, wireless providers have public utility status, like I1PA and Cablevision, and they can 1 of 3 12/4/2010 2:39 W 1 the Region - Long Island - A Pushback Against ^ll Towers - NYTim.. http://www.nyuffies.coTwzUIU/u5/zv/reaiestate/LyLizu.iiuin t_r=t mrvl... bypass zoning boards. Earlier this month in South Huntington, T-Mobile was ordered to take down a new ioo-foot monotower erected on property deemed environmentally sensitive (and thus requiring a variance). Andrew J. Campanelli, a civil rights lawyer in Garden City, said a group of residents had hired him to oppose the cellular company's application. "They were worried about the property values," Mr. Campanelli said. "If your home is near / a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on j/ the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down to percent." In January, in an effort to dismantle 5o cell antennas on a water tower across from a school in the village of Bayville, Mr. Campanelli filed a federal lawsuit that cited health risks and private property rights. In a statement, Dr. Anna F. Hunderfund, the Locust Valley superintendent, said that in February 2009 the district had engaged a firm to study the cellphone installations near the Bayville schools, finding that the tower "posed no significant health risks," and she noted that the emission levels fell well below amounts deemed unsafe by the BQ&rW Communications Commission. In June 2oo9, Sharon Curry, a psychologist in Merrick, woke up to find a cell antenna abutting her backyard, level to her 8-year-old son's bedroom window. Puzzled by its presence, particularly because she fives next to an elementary school, she did research to see if there was cause for concern. What she learned about possible health impacts, she said, led her to seek help from civic associations and to form a group, Moms of Merrick Speak Out, to keep new cell towers out. She said she was seeking the "responsible" placement of cell antennas, away from homes and schools. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. Frank Schilero, an associate broker with RE/MAX Innovations in Wantagh, has a listing on a $629,000 home down the street from the Farmingdale Wantagh Jewish Center, where the application is pending to put six cell antennas on the roof. "People don't like living next to cell towers, for medical reasons or aesthetics," Mr. Schilero said. "Or they don't want that eyesore sticking up in their backyards." There is an offer on his listing, he added, but since the buyer heard about the possible cell antennas she has sought more information from the wireless companies about their size and impact. Charles Kovit, the Hempstead deputy town attorney, said that under the proposed code change any new towers or antennas would have to be 1,500 feet from residences, schools, houses of worship and libraries. The town recently hired a consultant, Richard A. Comi of the Center for Municipal Solutions in Glenmont, to review antenna applications. Under the new ordinance, applications for wireless facilities would require technical evidence that they had a "gap" in coverage necessitating a new tower. "If not, they will get denied," Mr. Kovit said. The wireless companies would also have to prove that the selected location had "the least negative impact on area character and property values." If another location farther away from homes can solve the gap problem, "they are going to have to move." A version of this article appeared in print on August 29, 2010, on page RE9 of the New York edition. Click here to get 50% off Home Delivery of The New York Times. SIGN INTO E-AM%. PRINT i Travel Gifts from $10 to $60 ALSO IN TRAVEL a Dodging those pesky airline fees Searching for authentic Thai cuisine nytimes.com TRAVEL ADVERTISEMENTS Weichert.com inr bkW oorkm aes Realtors, Real Estate listings, Homes ;7M WNIawdM�, for Sale, and Mortgages. Follow The New York Times on Twitter Watch today's top videos See the news in the making. Watch TimesCast, a daily news video. EFREE,7om, er2.0 2 WEEKS.' , Ads by Google Cell Tower Attorney Cell Tower Litigation and Leasing Law Office of Jarnes J. Corbett www.celltowerlawyers.com what's this? 2 of 3 12/4/2010 2:39 PN Opposition by 150 Residents and Evidence of Potential Property Value Diminution Constitute Substantial Evidence The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held April 30 that a town's denial of a service provider's permit application was based on substantial evidence where 150 residents signed a petition opposing it, and objective evidence indicated that the facility could adversely affect residential property values. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. sought a special use permit from the Charter Township of West Bloomfield, Michigan, to construct a telecom tower at the rear of the Robin's Nest Shopping Center, a site that was not within the Township's overlay zone. The Township's planning commission recommended approving the application, subject to certain conditions, and the Township Board held a public meeting to consider the application and the commission's recommendation. At the meeting, several community residents orally expressed opposition, and a petition signed by 150 area residents was presented, along with a formal opposition paper citing various articles that indicated that in other communities where cell towers had been built, expert appraisers had gauged the diminution of property values as being between 10 and 40 percent. Evidence that had been presented to the planning commission was also included in the record -in particular, photos by a resident that showed that a balloon (raised by Sprint at the proposed site to indi- cate the height of the proposed tower) was visible from neighboring homes and would block the view of a mead- ow. The Township Board denied Sprint's application on the grounds that: (1) the tower was inappropriate for the area; (2) Sprint did not demonstrate that a location in the over- lay zone would not reasonably satisfy its coverage and capacity needs; (3) technical questions were not answered; and (4) other alternatives were not submitted. Sprint filed suit in the district court on the grounds that the Township's denial of the permit failed to comply with the substantial evidence requirement of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In its motion for sum- mary judgment, the carrier argued that the record evidence showed that the proposed tower would be in harmony with the commercial surroundings; that opposition from residents amounted to no more than unsupported, general- ized concerns regarding aesthetics and property values; and that there were no viable alternative locations. The district court held for West Bloomfield, finding that substantial evidence supported at least one of the Township's reasons for denial, which was all that was required for affirmance. The court held that the test was satisfied by the Township's first stated ground -that the tower would be inappropriate for the area, a conclusion based on residents' concerns about aesthetics and proper- ty values. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan cited AT&T The Radiation Poisoning Of America By Amy Worthington Global Research, October 9, 2007 Idaho Observer - 2007-10-07 Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers even if they pose threats to public health and the environment. Since the decision to enter the age of wireless convenience was politically determined for us, we have forgotten well -documented safety and environmental concerns and, with a devil-may-care zeal that is lethally short-sighted, we have incorporated into our lives every wireless toy that comes on the market. We behave as if we are addicted to radiation. Our addiction to cell phones has led to harder "drugs" like wireless Internet. And now we are bathing in the radiation that our wireless enthusiasm has unleashed. Those who are addicted, uninformed, corporately biased and politically -influenced may dismiss our scientifically -sound concerns about the apocalyptic hazards of wireless radiation. But we must not. Instead, we must sound the alarm. Illa Garcia wore jewelry the first day she went back to work as a fire lookout for the state of California in the summer of 2002. The intense radiation from dozens of RF/microwave antennas surrounding the lookout heated the metals on her body enough to burn her skin. "I still have those scars," she says. "I never wore jewelry to work after that." Likely Mountain Lookout, on U.S. Forest Service land with a spectacular view of Mount Shasta, is one of thousands of RF/microwave "hot spots" across the nation. A newly -erected cellular communications tower was only 30 feet from the lookout. "One antenna on that tower was even with our heads," recalls Garcia. "We could hear high-pitched buzzing. There were also three state communications antennas mounted on the lookout, only 6 feet from where we walked. We climbed past them every day." Motorola company manuals for management of communications sites confirm that high frequency radiation from these antennas is nasty stuff. Safety regulations mandate warning signs, EMF awareness training, protective gear, even transmitter deactivation for personnel working that close to antennas. Garcia and co- worker Mary Jasso were never warned about the hazards. This, they say, demonstrates extreme malfeasance on the part of agencies and commercial companies responsible for their exposure. By the end of fire season, Garcia and Jasso were so ill they were forced to retire and the lookout was closed to state personnel. Garcia, 52, is now severely disabled with fibromyalgia, auto -immune thyroiditis and acute nerve degeneration. Medical tests confirmed broken DNA strands in her blood and abnormal tissue death in her brain. Dr. Gunner Heuser, a medical specialist in neurotoxicity, states that Garcia's disorders are a result of chronic electromagnetic field exposure in the microwave range and that "she has become totally disabled as a result." Dr. Heuser wrote, "In my experience patients develop multisystem complaints after EMF exposure just as they do after toxic chemical exposure." Jasso, who worked the lookout for 11 seasons, is also disabled with brain and lung damage, partial left side paralysis, muscle tremors, bone pain and DNA damage. Jasso discovered that all lookouts who worked Likely Mountain since 1989 are disabled. At only 61 years of age, she has lost so much memory that she cannot remember back to when her first three children were born. She fears that communications radiation may be a major factor in the nation's phenomenal epidemics of dementia and autism. Both women say they have been unjustly denied worker's comp and medical benefits. Their pleas for help to state and federal agencies have been fruitless. Between them they have racked up over $150,000 in medical bills, although there is no effective treatment for radiation sickness. Twenty-two other members of Garcia and Jasso's two families received Likely Mountain radiation exposure. All now suffer serious and expensive illnesses, including tumors, blood abnormalities, stomach problems, lung damage, bone pain, muscle spasms, extreme fatigue, tremors, numbness, impaired motor skills, cataracts, memory loss, spine degeneration, sleep problems, low immunity to infection, hearing and vision problems, hair loss and allergies. Jasso's husband, who often stayed at the lookout, has a rare soft tissue sarcoma known to be radiation related. Garcia's husband, who spent little time at the lookout, has systemic cancer that started with sarcoma of the colon. Garcia's daughter Teresa was at the lookout for a total of two hours during her first pregnancy. Her daughter was born with slight brain damage and immunity problems. "That baby was always sick," says Garcia. Teresa spent only three days at the lookout during her second pregnancy. Her son was born with autism. Garcia and Jasso have a terminal condition known as "toxic encephalopathy," involving brain damage to frontal and temporal lobes. This was confirmed by SPECT brain scans. Twelve others in the two-family group who also had the scans were diagnosed with the affliction. "All of us with this condition have been told that we,re dying," says Garcia. "Our mutated cells will reproduce new mutated cells until the body finally shuts down." Nuclear bombs on a pole Painful conditions endured by the families of Garcia and Jasso are identical to those suffered by Japanese victims of gamma wave radiation after nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Five decades of studies confirm that non -ionizing communications radiation in the RF/microwave spectrum has the same effect on human health as ionizing gamma wave radiation from nuclear reactions. Leading German radiation expert Dr. Heyo Eckel, an official of the German Medical Association, states, "The injuries that result from radioactive radiation are identical with the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damages are so similar that they are hard to differentiate."1 Understanding what happened at Likely Mountain is critical to understanding the public health threat posed by RF/microwave radiation in the United States. The families of Garcia and Jasso, plus previous lookout workers and multitudes of tourists who visited Likely Mountain for camping and sightseeing, were beamed by the same kind of high frequency radiation that blasts from tens of thousands of neighborhood cell towers and rooftop antennas erected across America for wireless communications. The city of San Francisco, with an area of only seven square miles, has over 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas positioned at 530 locations throughout the city. In practical terms, this city, like thousands of others, is being wave -nuked 24 hours a day. The identical damage resulting from both radioactive gamma waves and high frequency microwaves involves a pathological condition in which the nuclei of irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei. Micronuclei are a definitive pre -cursor of cancer. During the 1986 nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl in Russia, the ionizing radiation released was equivalent to 400 atomic bombs, with an estimated ultimate human toll of 10,000 deaths. Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei, leaving them at high risk for cancer. What they wouldn't tell us RF/microwaves from cell phones and cell tower transmitters also cause micronuclei damage in blood cells. This was reported a decade ago by Drs. Henry Lai and Narendrah Singh, biomedical researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Singh is famous for refining comet assay techniques used to identify DNA damage. Lai and Singh demonstrated in numerous animal studies that mobile phone radiation quickly causes DNA single and double strand breaks at levels well below the current federal "safe" exposure standards.2 The telecommunications industry knows this thanks to its own six -year, wireless technology research (WTR) study program mandated by Congress and completed in 1999. Gathering a team of over 200 doctors, scientists and experts in the field, WTR research showed that human blood exposed to cell phone radiation had a 300- percent increase in genetic damage in the form of micronuclei.3 Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the WTR studies, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is "potentially the biggest health insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos. In 2000, European communications giant T-Mobile commissioned the German ECOLOG Institute to review all available scientific evidence in regard to health risks for wireless telecommunications. ECOLOG found over 220 peer -reviewed, published papers documenting the cancer -initiating and cancer -promoting effects of the high frequency radiation employed by wireless technology.4 Many corroborating studies have been published since. By 2004,12 research groups from seven European countries cooperating in the REFLEX study project confirmed that microwaves from wireless communications devices cause significant single and double strand DNA breaks in both human and animal cells under laboratory conditions.5 In 2005, a Chinese medical study confirmed statistically significant DNA damage from pulsed microwaves at cell phone levels.6 That same year, University of Chicago researchers described how pulsed communications microwaves alter gene expression in human cells at non -thermal exposure levels.? Because gamma waves and RF/microwave radiation are identically carcinogenic and genotoxic to the cellular roots of life, the safe dose of either kind of radiation is zero. No study has proven that any level of exposure from cell -damaging radiation is safe for humans. Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level, no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms.8 Officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health closely reviewed the damning results of WTR studies, which also revealed microwave damage to the blood brain barrier. But these officials have chosen to downplay, obfuscate and even deny the irrepressible science of the day. Raking in $billions from selling spectrum licenses, the feds have allowed the telecom industry to unleash demonstrably dangerous technology which induces millions of people to become brain -intimate with improperly tested wireless devices9 and which saturates the nation with carcinogenic waves to service those devices. Dr. Carlo says that even the American Cancer Society is in bed with the communications industry, which infuses the Society with substantial contributions.10 Two ways to die Medical science illustrates that there are two ways to die from radiation poisoning: Fast burn and slow burn. Nuclear flash -burned Japanese had parts of their flesh melt off before they died in agony within hours or days. People have also quickly died after walking through powerful radar beams, which can microwave -cook internal organs within seconds of exposure. Slow -burn radiation mechanisms are cumulative, progressive, ongoing and continual. Thousands of Japanese nuke bomb victims died painfully years after exposure. The slow burn process of RF/microwave exposure is manifested by cancer clusters commonly found in communities irradiated by cell tower transmitters. Recent Swedish epidemiological studies confirm that, after 2,000 hours of cellular phone exposure, or a latency period of about 10 years, brain cancer risk rises by 240 percent.I 1 Communications antennas now blast the human habitat with many different electromagnetic frequencies simultaneously. Human DNA hears this energetic cacophony loud and clear, reacting like the human ear would to high volume country music, R&B plus rock and roll screaming from the same speaker. Irradiated cells struggle to protect themselves against this destructive dissonance by hardening their membranes. They cease to receive nourishment, stop releasing toxins, die prematurely and spill micronuclei fragments into a sort of "tumor bank account." This is precisely how microwave radiation prematurely ages living tissues. Nuking the crew The constant roaming pain is intense for 32-year-old Kenneth Hurtado of Southern California. He's been to hell and back, starting with a seven -pound tumor on a kidney, diagnosed in 2002. The cancer spread to his brain. His first brain tumor was removed by craniotomy, the second by the cyber knife. In 2005, cancer nodes were found in his lungs. By 2006, the cancer had metastasized to his legs. This year he is battling three excruciating tumors on his spinal cord. Hurtado hates his seizures. His last one came on while he was driving. "It's like the devil taking over your body," he says. Now unable to work, Hurtado says he was relatively healthy in 1998 when he began a career as an installer for a large international corporation manufacturing electronics equipment for wireless providers. At the base of cell towers there is an equipment "hut" where installers assemble the radios, amplifiers and filters which generate man-made microwave frequencies and route them up to transmitter antennas through huge cables. Mounted on sector supports aptly named alpha, beta and gamma, the antennas send and receive these carcinogenic radio waves and their pulsed data packets at the speed of light. Posted on locked fences around the huts are "danger" warning signs. Hurtado says, "You look around these sites and you find many dead birds on the gravel. They can't take the radiation and they,ll just die. You don't have to ponder that too long to figure it's bad." Hurtado doesn't know how much radiation he got on the job. He says there are at least four connection spots inside the but where radiation can leak. He could not avoid the "heat" when he turned the radios on for testing and he wonders if his cancer is the result. "When I first got hired, we had safety meetings, but they pretty much minimized the hazards," he remembers. He was issued no electromagnetic safety clothing and it was not until 2002 that he got a radiation meter to wear. "The meter is supposed to warn you if you are getting too much radiation," he says, "but I put mine on a stick and placed it next to antennas and the alarm never went off." A medical report in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health confirms that workers exposed to high levels of RF/microwave radiation routinely have astronomical cancer rates.12 The report notes that, for these workers, the latency period between high radiation exposure and illness is short compared to less exposed populations. Hurtado says there are many industry workers who are dangerously over -exposed. "I've talked to guys on power crews who have to climb around the antennas and they,ve told me that before a work day is half over, they start feeling really sick." He adds, "In my mind they are getting cooked." Hurtado suspects that, since the early days of the wireless buildout, there has been illegal activity related to public exposure from transmission sites. "I'm pretty sure," he says, "that some of the carriers are exceeding FCC exposure limits. They can turn the radios and amplifiers up to get a bigger footprint and they don't care if the alarms go on once the installers are gone." Regulatory inspectors could identify violators because channels can be spectrum analyzed. "But," he says, "there is just no one to check and I believe that the public is getting way too much. radiation now." Regulators asleep at the wheel The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the single agency with authority to regulate the broadcast/communications industry, has neither money, manpower nor motive to properly monitor radiation output from hundreds of thousands of commercial wireless installations spewing carcinogenic waves across the nation. The FCC admits that physical testing to verify compliance with emissions guidelines is relatively rare. Critics say that FCC appointees, with virtually no medical or public health expertise, represent an old -boy network and a cheering squad for the telecommunications and broadcast industries. The Center for Public Integrity found that FCC officials have been bribed by the industries with such perks as expensive trips to Las Vegas.13 Dr. Carlo confirms that there is no regulatory accountability. He says, "You have to go to those base stations and independently measure what is coming out of them because we have had many instances where you have an antenna that is allowed by law to transmit at 100 watts and we have seen up to 900 to 1000 watts. You can turn things up when nobody is looking." 14 Neighborhood groups monitoring the broadcast/communications antenna farm on Lookout Mountain near Denver, Colorado, have consistently found that, despite protests to the FCC over nine years, radiation on the mountain has been measured at up to 125 percent of exposure levels permitted by federal law.15 Lethal exposure guidelines Even if there were reliable compliance monitoring, many experts say that FCC public exposure guidelines for RF/microwave radiation are deadly because they are based on the obsolete and unfounded theory that only power density hot enough to flash -cook tissues is harmful. This puts FCC at odds with current scientific knowledge regarding the minimum exposure level at which harm to living cells begins. Myriad symptoms of radiation poisoning can be induced at exposure levels hundreds, even thousands of times lower than current standards permit. Russia's public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than ours because Russian scientists have consistently shown that, at U.S. exposure levels, humans develop pathological changes in heart, kidney, liver and brain tissues, plus cancers of all types.16 Norbert Hankin, chief of the EPA's Radiation Protection Division, has stated that the FCC's exposure guidelines are protective only against effects arising from a thermal (flash burn) mechanism. He concedes that, "the generalization by many, that these guidelines protect human beings from harm by any and all mechanisms, is not justified."17 Thus, public microwave exposure levels tolerated by the FCC and its industry -loaded advisory committees are a national health disaster. Yet, for pragmatic and lucrative reasons, federal exposure limits have been deliberately set so high that no matter how much additional wireless radiation is added to the national burden, it will always be "within standards." The FCC regulatory mess comes into focus with the Likely Mountain case. Jasso says that when she and Garcia contacted the FCC regarding their radiation injuries, they were met with an appalling lack of expertise and concern. "FCC has no answers," Jasso says. "Their exposure guidelines are convoluted and nonsensical. They refuse to address problems of multiple antennas, field expansion, human body coupling and blood reversal because they want to avoid regulatory problems at telecommunication sites." She adds, "FCC will fine a licensee thousands of dollars for not having a light installed on top of a telecommunications tower, but they have not issued even a warning letter to their licensees for the injuries that occurred on Likely Mountain. They say injury cannot occur because their licensees are regulated." Catch 22 When Garcia and Jasso filed suit against companies operating microwave transmitters on Likely Mountain, they could find no attorney who would take their case and they were forced to proceed pro se. In August, 2007, a California district court denied their claim, mainly on the grounds that they had not proven that the defendants had exceeded FCC exposure guidelines. Under federal law the shattered health of 24 people, plus medical testimony, is not sufficient proof of negligence and liability. Since FCC provides no enforcement monitoring at transmitter sites and since the radiation industry is not required to prove with consistent documentation that it is compliant, injured parties have little chance of proving non-compliance because the damage to their health often becomes obvious months or even years after their exposure. The court worried that the Garcia-Jasso case highlights "the conflict between the FCC's delegated authority to establish RF radiation guidelines and limits and plaintiffs, attempt to establish that wireless facilities like the one at Likely Mountain are ultrahazardous."So, while current science provides ample evidence that FCC's guidelines are ultrahazardous, the radiation industry hides behind FCC incompetence, simply because FCC retains exclusive authority to set the standards. The FCC's disastrous authority is calcified by the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The telecom industry is infamous for lavish "donations" which keep legislators on its leash. Anticipating a national radiation health crisis and the public backlash that would follow, the telecom lobby blatantly bought itself a provision in the law that prohibits state and local governments from considering environmental (health) effects when siting personal wireless service facilities so long as "...such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions." Many say the TCA insures that America's war on cancer will never be won, while protecting gross polluters from liability. On our own After passage of the TCA, a group of scientists and engineers, backed by the Communications Workers of America, filed suit in federal court. They hoped the Supreme Court would review both the FCC's outdated exposure guidelines and the legality of a federal law that severely impedes state and local authority in the siting of hazardous transmitters. In 2001, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The group's subsequent petition to the FCC asking the agency to bring its exposure guidelines current with the latest scientific data was denied.18 This is where we stand today. The public has no vote, no voice, no choice. Chronic exposure to scientifically indefensible levels of DNA -ravaging radiation is now compulsory for everyone in America. This is why Garcia and Jasso are ill today; this why the industry enjoys unchallenged power to place dangerous transmitters in residential and commercial areas with unsafe setbacks and this is why untold thousands of Americans in buildings with transmitters on the roof are given no safety warnings, though they work and dwell in carcinogenic electromagnetic fields. In the meantime, the radiation industry rakes in $billions in quarterly profits, none of which is set aside for to pay for the national health catastrophe at hand. Every citizen is now condemned to protect and defend himself against radiation assault as best he can. There have been a number of lawsuits against the radiation industry since cell towers began going up in backyards across the nation. In 2001, a group action lawsuit was filed in South Bend, Indiana, by families living in close proximity to towers. The complaint describes health effects suffered by the plaintiffs, including heart palpitations, interference with hearing, recurring headaches, short term memory loss, sleep disturbances, multiple tumors, glandular problems, chronic fatigue, allergies, weakened immune system, miscarriage and inability to learn.19 The South Bend suit was settled out of court on the basis of nuisance and decreased property values. Health claims don't hold water if emissions are within FCC exposure standards. This case is valuable for understanding the lunacy of FCC standards. The sick families enlisted the help of radiation consultant Bill Curry, who honed his expertise as an engineer for Argonne and Livermore labs. Dr. Curry found that one of the towers was irradiating homes at over 65 microwatts per square centimeter.20 This power density is well within federal exposure'standards, which allow any neighborhood to be zapped with at least 580 microwatts per square centimeter, or higher, depending on the frequencies. If the families were sick at 65 microwatts/cm2 what would they be at 580? Considering that the Soviets used furtive Cold War microwave bombardment to make US embassy personal radiation -sick at an average exposure level of only .01 microwatts/cm2, America's clear and present danger is obvious.21 How radiation sick is America? Since the wireless revolution began wave -nuking the U.S. in the 1990s, there have been no federally funded health studies to assess the cumulative effects of ever-increasing communications radiation on public health. There is no national database enabling citizens to study the location of transmitters in their areas. Local and state governments can offer no information on how much commercial wireless radiation is contaminating their populations. When trying to find out who owns a tower or which companies have transmitters on that tower, citizens usually hit a brick wall. Dr. Carlo. heads the only independent, post -market health surveillance registry in the nation where people can report radiation illness. 22 Dr. Carlo says the registry has heard from thousands of people who believe that their illnesses, including brain and eye cancers, are due to telecommunications radiation from both wireless phones and tower transmitters. In the last two years, the registry has seen an upsurge in reports as transmitters become ever more energetically dangerous in order to accommodate increased data flow for new, multi -media technologies. We can only guess how many Americans are in their graves today from microwave assault. Arthur Firstenberg, who founded the Cellular Phone Task Force, wrote that, on November 14, 1996, New York City's first digital cellular provider activated thousands of PCS antennae newly erected on the rooftops of apartment buildings. Health authorities reported that a severe and lingering flu hit the city that same week. In response to its classified newspaper ad advising that radiation sickness is similar to flu, the Task Force heard back from hundreds of people who reported sudden onset symptoms synchronous to microwave startup" symptoms similar to stroke, heart attack and nervous breakdown. Firstenberg then gathered statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and analyzed weekly mortality statistics published for 122 U.S. cities. Each of dozens of cities recorded a 10-25 percent increase in mortality, lasting two to three months, beginning in the week during which that city's first digital cell phone network began commercial service. Cities with no cellular system start up in the same time period showed no abnormal increases in mortality. 23 Studies abroad Recent health surveys in other nations confirm that people living close to wireless transmitters are in big trouble: In 2002, French medical specialists found that people living close to cell towers suffered extreme sleep disruption, chronic fatigue, nausea, skin problems, irritability, brain disturbances and cardiovascular problems.24 German researchers found that people living within 1,200 feet of a transmitter site in the German city of Naila had a high rate of cancer and developed their tumors on average eight years earlier than the national average. Breast cancer topped the list.25 Spanish researchers found that people living within 1,000 feet of cellular antennas had statistically significant illness at an average power density of 0.11 to 0.19 microwatts /cm2, which is thousands of times less than allowed by international exposure standards.26 An Egyptian medical study found that people living near mobile phone base stations were at high risk for developing nerve and psychiatric problems, plus debilitating changes in neurobehavioral function. Exposed persons had significantly lower performance on tests for attention, short term auditory memory and problem solving.27 Researchers in Israel studied people in the town of Netanya who had lived near a cell tower for 3-7 years. They had a cancer rate four times higher than the control population. Breast cancer was most prevalent. 28 Europe in an uproar A new European Union poll of more than 27,000 people across the continent reveals that 76 percent of respondents feel that they are being made ill by wireless transmitters.29 Seventy-one percent in the UK believe they suffer health effects from mast (cell tower) radiation. In April 2007, The London Times reported a startling number of cancer clusters in mast neighborhoods. One study in Warwickshire, found 31 cancers around a single street. 30 Some sick Brits send their blood to a lab in Germany, which uses state of the art methodology to confirm wireless radiation damage. Radiation sickness is now so prevalent in Germany that 175 doctors have signed the Bramberger Appeal, a document calling the situation a "medical disaster." It asks the German government to initiate a national public health investigation. This appeal closely follows the Freiburger Appeal, signed by thousands of German doctors who say they are dealing with an epidemic of severe and chronic diseases among both old and young patients exposed to wireless microwave radiation. The head of the cancer registry in Berlin found that one urban area with cellular antennas had a breast cancer rate seven times the national average.31 Sweden was one of the first nations to go wireless. Swedish neuroscientist, Dr. 011e Johansson, with hundreds of published papers to his credit, says that a national epidemic of illness and disability was unleashed by the wireless revolution. Long periods of sick leave, attempted suicides and industrial accidents all increased simultaneously with introduction of mobile phone radiation. Ninety-nine percent of the Swedish population is now under duress of powerful third generation masts. Johansson reports that people are plagued with sleep disorders, chronic fatigue that does not respond to rest, difficulties with cognitive function and serious blood problems. Recurrent headaches and migraines are a "substantial public health problem," he says.32 Rooftop transmitters, which readily pass microwave radiation into structures, can be a death sentence. Across the world there are reports of cancer clusters and extreme illness in office buildings and multi -tenant dwellings where antennas are placed on rooftops directly over workers and tenants. In 2006, the top floors of a Melbourne University office building were closed after a brain tumor cluster drew media attention to the risks of communications transmitters on top of the building.33 Likewise, ABC's Brisbane television complex, topped with satellite dishes and radio antennas, was the site of a well -publicized breast cancer cluster among workers.34 Deadlier death rays In the meantime, the radiation cowboys of America are having a good of time because they know there's no sheriff in town. The commercial wireless industry is relentless in its drive to construct thousands of new transmitter sites in neighborhoods and schoolyards everywhere, while adding more powerful antennas at its older sites. Countless WiFi systems, both indoors and out, accommodate wireless laptop computers, personal digital assistants, WiFi-enabled phones, gaming devices, video cameras, even parking and utility meters. Hundreds of cities already have or are planning to fund WiFi networks, each consisting of thousands of small microwave transmitters bolted to buildings, street lamps, park benches and bus stops. Some networks are being buried under sidewalks. These access points or "nodes" blast carcinogenic energy at 2.4 to 5 gigahertz with virtually no warning signs about radiation exposure. WiFi radiation is unregulated by the FCC. Sprint-Nextel and Clearwire are now rolling out in U.S. cities tower -mounted WiMAX transmitters providing wireless internet access "to die for." WiMAX is WiFi on steroids. Upon startup of WiMAX transmitters near the Swedish village of Gotene, the emergency room at the local hospital was flooded by calls from people overcome with pulmonary and cardiovascular symptoms.35 WiMAX radiation could one day be cranked up to a bone -incinerating 66 gigahertz.36 A single WiMAX tower could provide internet coverage for an area of 3,000 square miles, although coverage for 6-25 square miles is the norm now. Promoters say WiMAX may some day replace all cable and DSL broadband services and irradiate virtually all rural areas. Yet, not a single environmental or public health study has been required as the industry unleashes infrastructure for this savage new wireless technology from which no living flesh will escape. The commercial ray -peddlers are not alone in their quest to make the U.S. a radiation wasteland. In August, 2007, Congress approved new Homeland Security legislation which funds a program to "promote communications compatibility between local, state and federal officials." We catch a glimpse of what this portends as the state of New York gears up to erect hundreds of new wireless installations for a "Statewide Wireless Network (SWN)." This system will blanket 97 percent of the state, allowing agencies at various government levels to communicate instantly while greatly adding to the fog of commercial wireless pollution.37 The New York Office for Technology says that the radiation power densities of the system will be within FCC limits. That assurance should give us the shivers. Angela's story Angela Flynn, a 43-year-old caregiver, lives in Santa Cruz, California. Last spring she took classes at a local church where wireless antennas were concealed in a chimney on the building. She recalls, "Every muscle in my body felt sore. And my joints were feeling creaky. My instructor mentioned how people at the women's center on church property had similar symptoms. During my sixth day I had a severe reaction. My short term memory was gone and I was disoriented and confused. When the instructor asked a question, I could not recall anything from the lecture." At night, Angela could not sleep and she would lie awake, feeling her body buzz. She became hypersensitive to other sources of electromagnetic radiation. The symptoms became so bothersome that she canceled the rest of her course. Using a chart for calculating cumulative, non -ionizing, electromagnetic radiation exposure levels, she found that the classes "located only 100 feet from antennas in the building" had suffered the highest possible exposure during peak operation. "It took a month before I regained my health," she reports. When Angela wrote letters to the church inquiring whether it was monitoring the health of the people exposed to antenna radiation, church officials were "unresponsive and dismissive. So Angela saw the light. She helped organize a community group to put pressure on county officials for answers. After hearing community testimony, officials directed the zoning department to create a comprehensive map of county transmitter sites and to put together a report on emissions testing. Angela says, "We recently had a delay of an installation of a tower near a middle school. The superintendent has even come out against the tower and was instrumental in delaying the hearing on the site. He also arranged a school board meeting on the issue." Angela's efforts to share critical information with her community made a difference. Conclusion America must soon face its radiation cataclysm. The EMR Network says that millions of workers occupy worksites on a daily basis where operating antenna arrays are camouflaged and where no RF safety program is carried out. Thanks to shameless predatory advertising techniques, American youth are now literally addicted to "texting," watching TV and accessing the Internet on tiny wireless screens. These are the toys that keep cell towers and WiFi hot spots buzzing. A nation that requires compulsory mass irradiation to fuel its trivial entertainment needs is surely destined to have a sickly and short-lived population. Right now, 11.7 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer. Because humans can harbor cancer conditions for years before detection, additional millions of cancer victims are yet undiagnosed. The Journal of Oncology Practice predicts that, by 2020, there will be so many cancer cases in the U.S. that doctors may not be able to cope with their caseloads. The report concludes the nation could soon face a shortage of up to 4,000 cancer specialists.38 A recent CBS news series on the raging American cancer epidemic left viewers with the mindset that trainloads of federal cash must flow if we are to find the cancer answer. But a proven cancer initiator now inundates our cities, roadways, schools, offices and homes. Any environmental stressor that jackhammers human cells at millions to billions of cycles per second is a cancer factor. Any wave -pollution that breaks the DNA and causes pre -cancerous micronuclei in human blood is a cancer factor. Logic tells us that there will be no "answer to cancer" until we eliminate the cancer factors. Wireless communications radiation is to America today what DDT, thalidomide, dioxin, benzene, Agent Orange and asbestos were yesterday. Historically, the truth about the public health menace of extreme toxins is never told until thousands sicken and die. Dr. Robert Becker, noted for decades of research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, has warned: "Even if we survive the chemical and atomic threats to our existence, there is the strong possibility that increasing electropollution could set in motion irreversible changes leading to our extinction before we are even aware of them. All life pulsates in time to the earth and our artificial fields cause abnormal reactions in all organismsThese energies are too dangerous to entrust forever to politicians, military leaders and their lapdog researchers." 39 Our mission to save the nation's health and restore sanity in the wireless age seems daunting. The wireless juggernaut is an aggressive, mean machine. Federal regulators are clearly compromised and incompetent to protect the public health. Uninformed consumers dearly love their magic digital toys and don't yet understand the connection between those toys and a national raging cancer epidemic that may consume us all. Powerful economic interests have lied to us long enough. Americans deserve the facts. We need dialogue. Wireless radiation is a form of electronic trespass. America must decide whose rights are more important" idlers beaming death rays for piddling gibberish or the elderly with pacemakers who are made ill by cell phone and tower radiation wherever they go. Must we all prematurely perish so that wireless enthusiasts can capture cell phone photos and instantly send them for processing via carcinogen express? Must all neighborhoods become sick zones so that radiation addicts can receive recipes, ads and other frivolous text messages on their cell phone toys? Does a human being have the right to NOT be forcibly WiMAXED into a coffin, or do only wireless providers and their devotees have rights? What can we do? We can commit to join the growing radiation awareness movement and continue educating ourselves and others. We can employ digital and audio radiation detectors to help safeguard our personal health and to demonstrate the ceaseless brutality of ubiquitous wireless radiation which threatens the genetic integrity of future generations. We can promote emerging technologies that could make communications technologies safer. We can demand that federal radiation exposure standards and setback requirements be updated to reflect the realities of modern science. Federal communications law must be rewritten so that local jurisdictions can regain their right to consider health and environment when reviewing wireless siting applications. We can insist that wireless emissions from transmitters be drastically reduced as they are in Austria and Russia. We can demand routine compliance testing at all transmitter sites. We can see to it that people who have been living and working near powerful transmitters be given opportunity to report their resulting illnesses in national surveys. Proper epidemiological studies must be conducted and their results published and broadly disseminated. Each of us can break the seductive, but oppressive wireless habit ourselves. We can play no game, use no wireless Internet system, make no trivial phone call that necessitates enlarging America's dense forest of wireless transmitters. If no one buys WiMAX-enabled devices and related services, this dangerous system will fail. Whenever possible, we can go back to the old-fashioned, corded phones and message machines which made yesteryear a far more healthy time. Cordless household and office phones emit powerful megahertz or gigahertz microwave radiation, causing damage to hearing, eyesight and brain function. DECT cordless phones irradiate a huge area even when not in use. We can encourage others to contact us by conventional land line phones only. Can we enjoy a leisurely conversation knowing that an irradiated caller risks disease and disability for mindless chatter? What good is wireless convenience if it means being ultimately tethered to a hospital bed? We can teach our children that health is more important than passing convenience and instant gratification. According to OSHA, no environment should be deliberately made hazardous. Backed by current scientific knowledge, we can refuse to work or shop in an environment which endangers our health. We can demand that megahertz and gigahertz cordless phones, walkie talkie radios, WLAN and WiFi systems be removed from schools, offices, hospitals and any public place where people are grossly irradiated without their informed consent. Second hand smoke is bad; second hand radiation is worse. We wish to thank the courageous radiation victims interviewed for this report who have generously revealed the details of their personal suffering in order to warn others. Following their example, we must continue undaunted in the moral quest to protect the national health and restore the world to sanity before it is too late. Meters and resources The Electrosmog Detector allows you to HEAR the intensity of RF/microwave pollution in your environment. Developed by British radiation expert Alasdair Phillips, this battery -operated device will quickly allow you to identify dangerous RF/microwave hotspots, even where transmitters are concealed, and take action to protect yourself. This meter is $99 (price includes shipping) and can be obtained from HEARING IS BELIEVING, Box 64 Hayden, Idaho 83835. E-mail: gzz@icehouse.net. The Trifield Meter ($145), produced by Alpha Lab, is used mainly to measure the milligauss of electromagnetic fields coming from 60 hertz sources. Use this digital meter to make sure your living and working spaces are under 2 milligauss. Alpha Lab's Microwave Power Density Meter ($320) is a more sensitive digital microwave meter that will help you assess the kilohertz, megahertz and gigahertz radiation in our wireless environment. This easy -read meter measures microwave radiation in microwatts per cm2, allowing comparison of your readings to the power density used by the Russians to make our embassy staff sick. Remember, people inside the embassy reportedly received only about .01 microwatts per cm2. For more information, contact Alpha Lab Inc., 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; (800) 658-7030; www.trifield.com Alan Broadband produces radiation detection devices with models ranging in price from $159 to $2,800. The $159 model, while not giving detailed readings, is an extremely sensitive and sturdy instrument that gives an accurate dial read on whether or not radiation is present and its relative intensity. It lets you know when you are being irradiated and serves as an excellent tool to illustrate exposure levels to others. For more information, contact Alan Broadband 93 Arch St., Redwood City, California 94062; (888) 369-9627; www.zapchecker.com Books Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Kane, Vantage Press, 2001. Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire -Litchfield Environmental Council, Edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. Order from Barnes and Noble. Websites These websites provide excellent information on all aspects of health and other issues relating to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency/microwave radiation. www.buergerwelle.com This excellent German (but in English) site features RF/microwave radiation news from all over the world. The science keeps pouring in and this is where to find it, along with lots of human interest. www.cpmewsbureau.org This is an excellent source of up-to-date news on wireless issues. www.emrnetwork.org This site has superb resources organized by professionals with expertise in all facets of our RF/microwave radiation problem. www.safewireless.org This site features Dr. Carlo's Mobil Telephone Health Concerns Registry where people can report ill health effects from living near microwave transmitters or from the use of wireless devices. It also features great news reports. www.microwavenews.com This is home to Microwave News, an excellent monthly publication. It offers cutting edge science reports, plus a great archive. www.sageassociates.net This site provides valuable information on how to make homes and offices safer in the wireless age. CAUTION: There are many devices on the market claiming to protect wireless users from radiation. These include: air tube headsets, ferrite bead clip-ons and an array of paste-ons advertised to cut down on thermal effects or deflect negative energy. Energy testing, kinesiology and meter readings indicate that these mitigation devices DO NOT adequately protect against the brutal force of near field microwave radiation. You can investigate the effectiveness of these devices by metering radiation levels while using them. If radiation pours from your "safe" headset, don't bank your life on it. If practiced in the art of kinesiology, you can also "muscle test" the effectiveness of the radiation mitigation device. The human body becomes very weak when irradiated with any man-made frequency, especially microwaves. If a protective device is really working, you will not detect muscle weakness when the body is near a transmitting wireless phone or gadget. OUR BEST TIP: If you want a safe household phone, find an AT&T corded speaker phone 950, available at most large office supply stores. It emits no microwave radiation, holds up to heavy use, has a great digital display screen and allows hands -free conversation. NOTES 1. Interview with Dr. Eckel was published by Schwabischen Post 12-07-06. Find this interview at www.heseproject.org. See "The Cell Nucleus is Mutating." 2. "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation, a paper presented by Dr. Lai to the Mobile Phones and Health Symposium, October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna. Also "DNA Damage and Cell Phone Radiation," www.rfsafe.com, 11-02-05. 3. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001, p.151. 4. "Mobile Telecommunications and Health"Summary of the ECOLOG study for T-Mobile, 2000," Find this summary at www.hese-project.org. 5. "Cell Phone Radiation Harms DNA, Study Claims," (Reuters) MSNBC, 12-04-04. Also "Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA," R. Moss, CPR News Bureau, 10-16-06. 6. "RF-Induced DNA Breaks Reported in China," Microwave News, 09-29-05. This report comes from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine. 7. "2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression in cultured human cells," Lee S. et al, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, PubMed 16107253. 8. "Health Social Services and Housing Sub -Panel Telephone Mast Review," a public discussion by Dr. George Carlo, 2-26-07. Find this excellent dissertation at www. safewireless.org. 9. Few Americans know that cell phones have never been safety tested thanks to the FDA, which exempted cell phones from pre -market testing based on a "low power exclusion" rule. 10. "The American Cancer Society is Misleading the Public," Dr. George Carlo, 8-5-07. Find this statement at www.buergerwelle.com. 11. "Long -Term Mobile Phone Use Raises Brain Tumor Risk: Study," Reuters, 03-31-06. This research was conducted by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life whose scientists studied 905 people with malignant brain tumors to confirm a 240% increased risk of brain tumors after heavy mobile phone use. 12. "Cancer in Radar Technicians Exposed to RF/Microwave Radiation: Sentinel Episodes," Richter E. et al, Int. J. Occup Environ Health 6 (3):187-193, 2000. 13. "FCC Lives Large off Lobbyist Bribes," Capitol Hill Blue, 05-22-03, capitolhillblue.com. 14. "Health Social Services and Housing Sub -Panel Telephone Mast Review," public discussion by Dr. George Carlo, 2-26-07. Find this excellent dissertation at www. safewireless.org. 15. See <http://www.c-a-r-e.org/>www.c-a-r-e.org for information about groups affected by Lookout Mountain broadcast antennas. 16. For an excellent chart comparing biological effects at power density levels and a list of international exposure standards, go to: "Radio Wave Packet," Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Sept 2001; also find this power density list at: Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink WiFi Network, Magda Havas, Ph.D, Trent University, May 2007. 17. Quote from letter by Norbert Hankin, chief environmental scientist with EPA's Radiation Protection Division.'This letter was received by EMR Network 7-16-02 and can be found at www.emmetwork.org. 18. "Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge to U.S. Tower Policy," Microwave News, Jan./Feb 2001; also EMR Network Petition For Inquiry To Consider Amendment of Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC's Rules Concerning the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, September 25, 2001. See also FCC order to deny application for review filed by the EMR Network, adopted July 28, 2003. These documents found at www.emmetwork.org. 19. Hicks, Onnink, Barber, Pennington v. Horvath Communications, Cause No.71C01-0107-CP St. Joseph Circuit Court, St Joseph County, Indiana. 20. "Some Unexpected Health Hazards Associated with Cell Tower Siting," Bill P. Curry, PhD., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire -Litchfield Environmental Council, edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. See chapter 6. 21. Practical Guidelines to Protect Human Health Against Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted in Mobile Telephony, Summary June 2001, Miguel Muntane Condeminas, industrial engineer for Consulting Comunicacio i Disseny S.L, Barcelona, <mailto:m.co-di@eic.ictnet.es>m.co-di@eic.ictnet.es. See Section 4.3.1 "US Embassy in Moscow Study." 22. See www.health-concems.org and <http://www.safewireless.org/>www.safewireless.org. These sites provide a pathway to access Dr. Carlo's Mobil Telephone Health Concerns Registry where people can report ill health effects from living near microwave transmitters or from the use of wireless devices. 23. "Electromagnetic Fields, (EMF) Killing Fields," Arthur Firstenberg, The Ecologist, v. 34, n. 5, 6-10-2004. 24. "Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. influences of distance and sex," R. Santini et al, Institut National des Sciences Appliqu6es"laboratoire de biochimie-pharmacologie, 2002. 25. "Cancer Risks from Microwaves Confirmed," Dr. Mae -Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society press release, 5-24-07. 26. "The Microwave Syndrome"a preliminary study in Spain," Navarro E. et al, Biology and Medicine, 22 (2 &3) 161-169, 2003; also " The Microwave Syndrome Further Aspects of a Spanish Study," Oberfeld G et al 2004, International Conference Proceedings, Kos, Greece 2004. 27. "Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations," Abdel-Rassoul et al, Neurotoxicology, 8-01-2006. 28. "Increase of Cancer Near Cell -Phone Transmitter Station," Wolf D. and Wolf, International Journal of Cancer Prevention 1-2, April 2004. 29. "Two in Three Believe Radiation from Phones Damaged their Health," Geoffrey Lean, 7-8-07 Independent on Sunday, U.K. 30. "Cancer Cluster at Phone Masts, " Times On Line, The Sunday Times, UK 4-22-07. 31. Report by Roland Stabenow, 9-21-06, head of cancer registry in Berlin. 32. "How Shall We Cope With the Increasing Amounts of Airborne Radiation?" 011e Johansson, Journal of the Australasian College of Environmental Medicine, Dec. 2006. 33. 'Building Top Floors Closed After Brain Tumor Alert," Lisa Macnamara, The Australian, UK, 05-13-07. Read this report at www.rense.com. 34. "Cancer Strikes 12 Female Staffers," Tony Koch, Omega -News, 4-06-07. 35. "Swedes Hit Hard By WiMax, 6-12-06. This story says that the Swedish media reported that in the town of Gotene, the hospital emergency room was flooded with calls regarding headaches, difficulty breathing, blurry vision and heart problems upon WiMAX start-up. At least 5 people had to leave their homes. 36. "How WiMAX Works," E. Grabianowski and M. Brain, www.computer.howstuffworks.com. 37. "250-foot Tower Raises New Bellevue Fears, John Hopkins, Cheektowaga Times, 8-09-2007; See also "Congress Approves Homeland Security Bill," Spencer Hsu, Washington Post 08-07-07. 38. Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 2007: 79-86. 39. Robert Becker, The Body Electric, 1986. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross -post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: creditor@yahoo.com www. global research. c a contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Amy Worthington, Idaho Observer, 2007 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ci/PrintArticle.php?articleld=7025 © Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007 Presentation to South Burlington Development Review Board By Delmont P. Neroni RECEIVED 66 Hadley Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 DEC 0 7 2010 UY Of B®. Budington Topic: Conditional Use #CU-10-09 and Site Plan #SP-10-76. Clearwire US, LLC Add antennas to tower. 466 Farrell Street. There has been a lot of discussion lately, not only in the United States but around the world, about the health implications of the use of cell phones. Many studies have shown that a very high percentage of people who use cell phones for hours each day will eventually experience severe health problems. Fewer studies have been done on the effects of cell phone towers, but those that are available raise the same red flags. For instance, a study of a thousand people in Germany conducted over a ten year period found that cancer cases were three times higher among those who had lived within 400 meters of a cellular transmitter site than those who lived further away. Other studies have demonstrated similar concerns. This is very important, because, unlike cell phones which can be turned off and not used, cell phone towers emit radiation 24 hours a day, year in and out, so if you live near one you will be subjected to Radio Frequency or RF radiation all the time. Because of such studies, many reputable doctors, biologists, and other scientists (see references in article attached) are calling for "prudent avoidance" when siting antennas close to population and particularly near schools. Prudent avoidance means siting cell phone towers a safe distance from population centers. This is especially true where the elderly, infants, and young children are concerned, for it is known that these populations are especially at risk. Relative to children, Helen Caldicott, MD and co- founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility says, "Babies and children will be particularly sensitive to the mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of this radiofrequency radiation. It is therefore criminal to place one of these aerials on or near a school" When my wife Jane and I purchased our house at 66 Hadley Road in 2008, we were not aware that there were cell phone antennas on the radio and TV mast next to the Farrell street senior center. We could not see them at that time because they were lower on the mast then and the intervening trees blocked our vision. We did ask our real estate agent about the mast, and she believed that it was slated for removal when the radio station was demolished. We were shocked and dismayed when we learned that the mast would be retained as a cell phone tower and that the antennas would be moved to the top of the mast where they would directly target our residence. Once the antennas were moved, we were so concerned that we purchased a professional, German built RF meter to determine how much radiation we were receiving. We found that the RF radiation in front of the house was fairly strong, peak levels reaching to 200 microwatts per square meter and averaging about 150 mw. This level is within the zone that many studies have shown to cause adverse health effects. However, we were relieved to discover that, at least on the first floor of our house, the walls blocked most of this radiation, except for a couple of spots where windows allowed leakage. The second floor was a different story, as the radiation easily penetrated the relatively thin roof. On our second floor we measured peak levels above 100 mw and average levels between sixty and 100. We then decided to see what the levels were around the rest of the neighborhood. What we discovered was that the levels varied quite a bit depending on where you measured them. Some were at the same level as our residence while others were lower. However, we noticed that in some locations we seemed to be getting rather strong signals from the cell tower on Joy Drive. We finally drove up to Rice High School and measured the emissions from the Joy Drive tower at that location as between 500 to 1000 peak microwatts per square meter, squarely within what most independent studies have identified as the danger zone. When we drove past that tower on route 189, the emissions from that tower were off the scale of what our meter could measure, in excess of 1999 microwatts per square meter, even though we estimate that that location is at least as far from that tower as our house is from the Farrell street tower. The Joy Drive tower has more antennas than the Farrell street tower does currently, thus explaining why its emissions are so much stronger. However, if the requested expansion of the Farrell street tower is allowed, we have no doubt that it will eventually reach the level of the Joy Drive tower and bathe all of the surrounding neighborhoods in radiation that many studies have indicated can be lethal over the long term of ten years or more. However, talking about health concerns in connection with cell phone towers seems to fall on deaf ears in the United States. In other, more enlightened countries, like even Russia and China for instance, the literature indicates that there is far more governmental concern and more stringent regulation of the placement of cell towers. In the US, on the other hand, in an act of complete immorality, the telecommunications industry inserted, and congress passed, a clause in the telecommunications act stating that communities could not deny the siting of antennas based on health concerns. You have to remember that a lot of money was at stake, both for the industry and for the government that receives large payments for the use of the airways. Additionally, the telecommunications industry has paid many millions of dollars in lobbying congress to make sure that their agenda was passed in total while the concerns of average citizens like us were ignored. You have to ask yourself why they needed such a law if, in fact, the telecommunications technology posed no health risks. I personally believe that telecommunications companies knew very well that there were legitimate health concerns about RF radiation, because the early studies that they themselves conducted did show this. However, the companies involved, one of which was Motorola, suppressed those studies and forbade the people who conducted them to publish their results. In spite of industry persecution, some of them did anyway, which explains how we know this. Since then, nearly all the studies conducted by the industry itself say the technology is safe, while the majority of independent studies have demonstrated exactly the opposite. So far all the City representatives to whom we have spoken have replied to our concerns with something to the effect of, "Well, we can't do anything about this because the FCC regulations state that we can't deny or limit a site because of health concerns." We don't believe that is true. Communities do have the right to regulate the siting of towers and many communities have done so. A paper by telecommunications expert Blake Levitt states the following: "Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is erroneously thought to negate a municipality's ability to consider radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in its land -use decisions in any way. Yet nothing in the Telecom Act excuses a municipality from its statutory responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens— including for RF exposures— in its siting decisions. In fact, it can be argued that responsibility— and therefore liability —has never been clearer for a municipality because the language of the Telecom Act was so specific in keeping exclusive control over "the placement, construction, and modification" of such facilities with the host municipality." A search of available literature shows that other towns have successfully denied a request for a tower or antenna for a variety of reasons. I have attached a document that summarizes several of them. For instance, if an area already has adequate coverage, a further request for coverage in the same area may be denied (does anybody think that the city of South Burlington is lacking adequate coverage?). In another decision, a judge ruled that that a tower or antenna was "a visual intrusion " that would affect property values in a residential neighborhood. In that case the town board unanimously denied the application on the grounds that the tower would be "an attractive nuisance" because it was close to the schools, would adversely affect property values, and did not satisfy the requirement of "minimum visual impact". I believe we can easily say the same about the Farrell street tower. In other words, in spite of section 704 of the telecommunications act, towns have the power to deny such applications for a variety of reasons. However, none of the South Burlington city officials we have spoken to so far show any interest in exploring these possibilities. They have instead universally stated that they are powerless when it comes to limiting or interfering with the plans of telecommunications companies. It is also true that the South Burlington Development Review Board has been roundly criticized recently in the local weekly paper by citizens who accuse the board of always finding for developers and against the concerns of local residents. In my experience, the majority of locals that I speak to believe the board is biased in favor of developers, and that they are not interested in the concerns of the citizens who are adversely impacted by their decisions. This morning we met with Ray Belair, and he gave us a copy of an email from the town lawyer stating that the telecommunications act "prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement of wireless service equipment based on concerns about the effects of RF emissions." While true, this was not news to those of us at the meeting. What did interest me, however, was the question to which the lawyer was responding, which was also printed on the email, and I quote: "Hi, Joe: Paul (referring to Paul Connor) asked if you could send me an email to the effect that the DRB does not have jurisdiction over the radio emissions if in compliance with FCC regulations." My question to Ray and Paul is, why didn't you ask your attorney if there were grounds on which this application could be refused rather than looking for proof that you were powerless to prevent it? This is a graphic example of the reason so many in this town believe that the city administrators and the DRB are biased if favor of developers and have no interest in finding in favor of citizens who object to developer plans. We believe that this tower is inappropriately located within one of the most densely populated areas in the state of Vermont, a site that is immediately adjacent to senior housing and close to homes and businesses and schools where both adults and children live and work. We think this tower should never have been allowed to remain where it is, and we think that it should not be allowed to expand further given the number and types of people who are exposed to it. We believe that South Burlington already has more than adequate cell phone coverage and does not need or want more. We believe that the DRB and the town of South Burlington could easily find grounds on which this application could legally be refused if they really wanted to, rather than merely attempting to find reasons why it can't be refused. We know that the DRB grants many waivers to developers to pursue their interests, but in this case we think the DRB should for once grant a waiver in favor of local residents and refuse permission to further expand this cell phone tower. Guest Editorial/Opinion submitted by Janet Newton, co-founder of The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658 Tel: (802) 426-3035 www.EMRPolicy.org This has been published in the Hardwick Gazette, Hardwick VT, and the Caledonian Record, St. Johnsbury VT. September 4, 2001 COURTS UPHOLD LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DENY CELLULAR TOWERS Cities and towns across America are being presented with permit applications for mobile phone base stations and towers along the country's most -traveled routes and in residential communities. Tower developers argue that under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), towns must grant them zoning permits. Federal courts are handing down decisions that clearly uphold local authority to deny tower permits. The truth is in the details of these decisions. Local government control of land use, i.e., zoning, in the United State dates back to 1916. A 1926 Supreme Court decision, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., reinforced the principle that the single-family residential use is at the top of the hierarchy of land uses to be protected by zoning regulations. Zoning regulations are written to implement municipal planning priorities whose purpose is to mitigate negative externalities that one real estate owner's use could impose on other members of the community. While upholding local siting authority, the TCA requires that towns not prohibit personal wireless services (PWS). It requires that zoning permit applications be acted upon in a timely manner. It requires that local government not discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. It requires that local government base its decisions on "substantial evidence in a written record." It is important to note that a tower developer does not fit the TCA's definition of a personal wireless service provider. No municipality has to issue permits to towers built on speculation. Local government is not required to issue a permit unless an application for a PWS facility proposal demonstrates that a significant gap in coverage exists. The technical specifications of the antennas proposed for the site must be included so that local government can evaluate whether the proposed site is the only option available to fill the gap. Three recent Pennsylvania decisions from the U. S. Federal Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit define the TCA's requirement that a municipality provide wireless service. In the Newtown Township case, the wireless carrier, Omnipoint Ent., took to the U.S. Supreme Court the issue whether each potential provider is entitled to coverage in a given geographic area. On November 6, 2000, the high court denied Omnipoint's petition for certiorari, leaving in place the 3rd Circuit Court's conclusion that an applicant must show "that the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider." See decision at: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/991453.txt In the Penn Township decision available at: http://Iaws.findlaw.com/3rd/992317p.htmI the Court indicated that the term "significant gaps" embraces a de minimis principle. Where the holes in coverage are very limited in number or size (such as the interiors of buildings in a sparsely populated rural area, or confined to a limited number of houses or spots as the area covered by buildings increases) the lack of coverage likely will be de minimis so that denying applications to construct towers necessary to fill these holes will not amount to a prohibition of service. 2 In the Easttown Township decision (available at: http://laws.findlaw.com/3rd/991932.htmI ), the court stated: In Penn Township we established a two prong test to determine if the decision of a local zoning authority has 'the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. ' 47 U. S. C. S 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). It requires that the service provider first 'show that its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network.' Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480. If this burden is met, the provider must still prove 'that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significantgap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve.' The "least intrusive manner" takes into consideration the adverse impacts of the development on the character of the neighborhood in which the site is found, and the potential for property devaluation of the adjoining landowners. In a recent 1st Federal Circuit decision (found at: http://Iaws.findlaw.com/lst/001164.htmi), the judge determined that a cellular tower is a "visual intrusion" that will affect property values in a residential neighborhood. The plaintiff, Southwestern Bell, applied for a permit to build a 150-foot cellular phone tower in the center of a small town (Leicester, MA). Southwestern Bell claimed that it needed the tower to provide adequate coverage in the area. The town board unanimously denied the application after the public demonstrated significant opposition to it at the permit hearings. The board's written denial said that the tower would be an "attractive nuisance" because it was close to the schools, would adversely affect property values, and didn't satisfy the requirement of "minimum visual impact" because there were no trees to hide it. Southwestern Bell argued that the denial violated the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sect. 332(c)(7), because there wasn't "substantial evidence" in the record to support it. But the court said that: [ajlthough some of the evidence before the board did consist of general statements that the tower was an eyesore ...[t]he majority of the objections to the visual impact of the tower specifically addressed whether this I50-foot tower was appropriate for this particular location, on the top of a fifty -foot hill in the middle of a cleared field... "The location has no trees, was in the geographic center of town, would be visible at all seasons of the year, and would be seen daily by approximately 25916 of the town's population. It was also located in close proximity to three schools and two residential subdivisions...Indeed, the evidence supports a conclusion that the proposed tower was of a different magnitude than anything else in the vicinity. When combined with the other evidence demonstrating that the tower was out of keeping with the residential uses in close proximity to it, we conclude that reasonable minds would find adequate evidentiary support for the denial of.. [the] permit application. The court also denied Southern Bell's argument that it was the zoning board's responsibility to find alternative sites where there would be less visual impact. We see nothing in the [Act] that would support placing a burden upon the board to present evidence that there were other sites available to Southwestern Bell with a lesser minimal visual impact... The burden would be on Southwestern Bell. The citizen's role in this process is to remind local government, wireless service providers, and tower developers that the TCA upholds local zoning authority. Property owners in residential neighborhoods must remind local government that they rely heavily on the value of their property as part of their retirement savings. Zoning exists to protect their investments in their homes. It is their role to point out how PWS facilities proposals do not meet the definition of a residential use in its truest form. PWS facilities are commercial/industrial developments that to do not preserve the environment, but rather diminish the quality of both the natural environment and the residential nature of the man-made environment. One approval of a commercial/industrial use in a residential zone opens the door for more development down the road. Professional real estate appraisal literature and federal court decisions validate property devaluation arguments presented by citizens/landowners. MAI appraiser cites Appraiser Journal & Institute as a source for information that cell towers act as an "external obsolescence" which will devalue residential property. This site provides the minutes from the Vernon, NJ Township Board of Adjustment hearing of August 29, 2000. The record of the testimony includes facts and figures showing just how much devaluation can occur. The AT&T v. Virginia Beach decision from the 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals describes the judges' expectation that a municipality and its concerned citizens build "substantial evidence in a written record" in order to be able to deny a wireless permit application under the terms of the TCA of 1996. This denial was based on the argument that a PWS tower was out of character with the scenic value of the neighborhood of the proposed site. The decision is found at: http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/972389.htm1. In the Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ decision from the 3rd Federal Circuit Court, the judge upheld the property devaluation argument of the expert witness hired by the citizens group. This decision is available at: http://laws.findlaw.com/3rd/992322p.html Neither a responsible local government nor its civic -minded citizens need leave it up to tower site developers or PWS providers to interpret the requirements of the TCA. There is an ample record from the federal courts and from the real estate appraisal profession to justify denying permits for inappropriate site proposals. A tower developer is not a wireless service provider. Denying a specific permit does not equal denying wireless service. Local authority to preserve property values was not removed in the language of the TCA. Telecom Towers Tsunami By B. Blake Levitt There are medical and political ramifications to cell tower siting in our county Guest editorial published in The New Milford (CT) Times, March 3, 2000 B. Blake Levitt, a former New York Times science writer, is the author offlectromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (Harcourt Brace, 1995) for which she won an award from the American Medical Writers Association. She lives in Warren, CT Litchfield County —along with the rest of the country —is suffering a telecommunications tower blitzkrieg. The local press has done an excellent job of covering the subject with one exception —the medical implications of tower siting. At its core, this is a medical and an environmental issue. In emphasizing aesthetics, such as hiding antennas in church steeples, our premier planners are missing a critical opportunity to exercise prudent avoidance and precautionary principles —wise courses of action now recommended by doctors and public health officials all over the world. Here is a partial list of MD's who are calling for prudent avoidance when siting antennas close to the population, particularly near schools: Dr. David Ozonoff, Dept. of Environmental Health, Boston University; Dr. Kathleen Thurmond, Harvard Medical School; Dr. Joseph Brain, Harvard School of Public Health, State University of New York at Albany; Dr. Kathleen M. Fagan, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio; Dr. Cathey Falvo, International and General Public Health, New York Medical College; Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Children's Health and the Environment, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and many others. And from the ever -blunt Helen Caldicott, MD, co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, this e-mail statement: "Radiofrequencies emitted from mobile telephone towers will have deleterious medical effects to people within the near vicinity according to a large body of scientific literature. Babies and children will be particularly sensitive to the mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of this radiofrequency radiation. It is therefore criminal to place one of these aerials on or near a school..." So what's going on here? Could we really have another emerging public health problem? Like lead poisoning? DDT? Asbestos? Tobacco smoke? This time with ambient, low-level, non -ionizing radiation? Many now suspect so. What we are talking about is the buildout of a new technology in close proximity to the human population for the first time in our evolutionary history, with no clear understanding of the bioeffects. Despite what industry says, no safe level of radiofrequency radiation has ever been determined. The standards in place at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considered seriously flawed. Important questions raised over 50 years ago regarding radiofrequency (RF) radiation used in these and myriad other wireless technologies have never been resolved. Outside of industry spokesmen, few experts who take an in-depth (vs. a cursory) look at the science feel comfortable with this today. The FCC standards are based on models for acute, thermal exposures only, with downward extrapolations built in for presumptions of safety. But adverse non -thermal effects, far below the standards, have been noted time and again in the research. In other words, the standards can guarantee we won't cook —like in a microwave oven which uses frequencies very close to digital PCS cell -phone technology —but they cannot guarantee anything else. The studies used to reach these conclusions about safety are also suspect. Scientists, from the physics and engineering disciplines (the non -living sciences), have traditionally used test designs of high -power, short-term exposures then extrapolated to presumptions about long-term, low-level exposures such as those who live near RF installations experience. But are these comparable? Again, many think not. Scientists from the biology disciplines (the living sciences) point out that living systems are far more complex than inanimate physics models. They say that inappropriate research has consistently been used to reach inappropriate conclusions and it's been generated by the wrong professions. There is a federal RF Interagency Work Group comprised of division directors from the FCC, FDA, OSHA, EPA and NIOSH trying to address some of these problems. a In June 1999 the group issued an RF guidelines paper outlining the tasks at hand. In it they recognize that the current standards are based on acute exposures that are engineering dosimetry models, not on biological principles. They acknowledge that extrapolation of acute effects data to chronic exposure conditions is uncertain. The zoning preemptions for RF contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were not an accident. The telecom industry knew they could never develop a ground -based system (vs. a more expensive satellite system) without such preemptions because whenever the subject of RF health effects gets a serious airing at the local level, the industry loses. Individuals may want their cell phones, which are voluntary RF exposures, but no one wants a 24-hour involuntary exposure near an antenna array. Behind the scenes, this industry plays hardball. In 1994, they asked the FCC to preempt all local zoning. In 1997, they asked the FCC to forbid the discussion of RF health effects at local zoning. (Don't they know we have a First Amendment here?) Also in 1997, they asked the FCC to declare it illegal for communities to make them prove they are in compliance with the standards. (The FCC hasn't granted any of these requests.) The industry has repeatedly tried for interstate commerce status, which would override local zoning. John McCain heads the commerce committee. He is a pro -industry advocate. He has refused to allow citizens to testify at committee hearings; only industry reps are allowed. During the first six months of 1999 alone, telecommunications companies spent over $3,000,000 on lobbying legislators. Few vote against them. But most ominously for our churches and towns, this industry has consistently tried to shift all liability onto the site owners and away from themselves as providers of the service. Using third -party tower builders --vertical real estate companies like SBA currently trolling Litchfield County— is another way of shifting liability. The service providers get an extra layer in between themselves and the community. And the tower companies understand the RF risks only too well. They are set up as holding companies with their assets tied up in subsidiary companies, meaning most of their assets are untouchable in lawsuits. High -risk companies always do this. The Telecom Act only preempted for service providers, not for tower speculators. Tower companies hope local governments won't quite figure that one out. This entire industry has carefully crafted insulation around itself, but the question remains, against what? Here's a sampling of the non -thermal "contraband" science they don't want us to talk about at public hearings: • In the 80's and 90's, Dr. William Ross Adey, a neuroscientist, and Dr. Carl Blackman, a biophysicist at the U.S. EPA, found in several studies that the human anatomy has critical "windows" in which we respond to some frequencies, but not to others. At set intervals in the non -ionizing bands they observed a dramatic cellular effect called calcium ion dumping. The cells use calcium for a host of important functions. This work could indicate any number of adverse cellular effects. • In 1994, Drs. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh, at the University of Washington, Seattle, found both double and single -strand DNA breaks in test animals exposed to cellular and PCS-frequency pulsed microwaves. Double -strand DNA breaks are thought not to repair themselves and can lead to mutations. Dr. Lai recently published a study that found learning defects in test animals exposed to low-level pulsed microwaves. • In 1996, Dr. Michael Repacholi found a significant increase in B-cell lymphomas in test mice exposed to long-term, low-level pulsed microwave frequencies in the cellular and PCS range. Changes in B-cells in the immune system are implicated in roughly 85 percent of all cancers. • The work of Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski in Poland on microwave and radar personnel has found sharp increases in cancers --including lymphomas, melanomas, leukemias and brain tumors --as well as high blood pressure, headaches, memory loss, and brain damage. Also noted were immune system abnormalities. About 10 other studies have found immune -system suppression. • In 1984, Dr. William Arthur Guy, at the University of Washington, Seattle, found an increase in malignant endocrine gland tumors and in benign adrenal gland tumors in test animals. • In 1975, researcher Alan Frey reported for the first time increases in the permeability of the blood -brain barrier in test animals exposed to pulsed microwaves similar to what is used today in digital PCS systems. The blood -brain barrier protects the brain from access by viruses, bacteria and toxins. • In 1975, Dr. William Bise, using 10 human test subjects, found severe alterations in human electroencephalograms at microwave and RF power levels that are now common in most urban areas due to ambient RE The yearlong study documented a kind of entrainment phenomenon of the test subjects' brain waves with the external exposures, and radical changes in mood and behavior. • In 1992, Dr. Joseph Kirchvink, a geobiologist, discovered magnetite in human brain tissue in the blood -brain barrier and in the meninges which covers the brain. Magnetite interacts a million times more strongly with external magnetic fields than with any other biological material. Many species --bees, birds, butterflies, fish —manufacture magnetite and use it as a navigational tool. Any standards for RF exposure presume humans do not manufacture magnetite. • There are indications that some frequencies may be unsafe at any intensity. This is a crucial point when telecommunications reps talk about how low -power their installations are, likening them to 25- and 100-watt lightbulbs. (What they leave out is that it is 100 watts of effective radiated power per channel. There can be dozens of channels on one antenna, and dozens of antennas on one installation.) • The pulsing factor of RF alone —such as that used in the newer digital PCS and High Definition Television (HDTV) technologies —has been found to be a significant variable in adverse effects. Dr. Jerry Phillips has found in several studies that RF pulsing of turmrogenic cell cultures accelerated their already abnormal growth rates by 3000 percent. And recent research from China found that important portals on the cell's surface are fantastically sensitive to low -intensity pulsed RF signals. The presence of such signals alone was found to completely alter the information reaching the interior of the cell. This is critical information with implications for everything from cancer, to genetic mutations, to immune system dysfunction, among many other things. There is federal legislation to remedy this. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced Senate Bill 1538 that would restore all local siting control for RF. Representative Bernie Sanders (I -VT) has introduced similar legislation at the U.S. House of Representatives (HR 2834 and 2835). There are $10 million research appropriations attached to these bills, with funds directed to the National Institutes of Health. [Reader, please note as of 10102 the above bills were updated as separate bills: S.3102, S.3103 and HR. 5631, HR.5632. Sponsors were Senators Leahy(VT), Jeffords(VT), Murray(WA), and Dodd(CT), and Congressmen Sanders(VT), Tancredo(CO), Davis(IL), andShays(CT). These bills will be reintroduced in the new session.] There is currently no federal research effort into RE Industry, with its inherent bias and with decades of well -leveled accusations of research tampering, controls the show. Four independent bioelectromagnetic research labs have folded within the last five years due to absence of funding. It's imperative, in the face of this buildout, that an unbiased research program without industry influence be initiated. It's a no-brainer, actually... Is there contradictory science that would indicate we don't have reason for concern? Of course. Are there people of good faith on both sides of this issue? Of course. But as laymen, it is still our obligation to err on the side of caution, especially where our children are concerned. Hide antennas in church steeples? Near schools? Near homes? Our planners might want to rethink that recommendation. They can be held personally liable, too. Overview: Role of Zoning Boards of Appeal/Adjustment and Jurisdictional Issues By B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist , Editor of Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard, Safe Goods/New Century Press, 2000. ISBN: 1-884820-62-X Used by permission. There are legal/review remedies available for telecom providers at the local level even when they are in violation of local regulations and proposals are turned down. The role of Zoning Boards of Appeal/Adjustment (ZBA) is commonly misunderstood — even by some board members — as having jurisdiction to reverse any planning and zoning regulation that exists in a town with which they disagree. Often what drives that misunderstanding is fear of lawsuits if applicants do not get what they want. But in typical state statutes, ZBA's exist to provide relief in cases of legal hardship, strictly defined as some factor tied to the land parcel itself, not the circumstances of the landowner. As such, a local ZBA is an extension of the state more so than of the local municipality because it is a legal entity functioning under strict legal guidelines defined by state statute. Zoning variances must be granted when legal hardship exists, such as a prospective homeowner needing to vary a side -yard setback in order to build on a parcel of appropriate size but configured in such a way as to make compliance impossible. That is the classic example. Self-imposed hardships do not warrant variances. An example of a self-imposed hardship would be a chemical company purchasing a parcel zoned for residential use, then insisting on a variance to build a factory. Nothing in the Telecom Act warrants or requires the granting of unwarranted variances. If current telecommunications ordinances duly enacted by municipalities inadvertently or intentionally prohibit significant telecommunications service in major sectors of their jurisdiction, then one place to deal with that issue is at planning commissions and select boards to amend ordinances before seeking remedy in the variance process for a self-imposed hardship. In fact, ZBAs open themselves to legal action by numbers of interested parties should they grant unwarranted variances, but are on solid legal ground should they deny applications based on substantial evidence in a written record. The point is that telecom providers have recourse at the local level that does not require the granting of zoning variances. Many municipalities have made a good faith effort to provide planning and zoning regulation/guidance for the placement, construction and modification of telecommunications facilities to allow adequate service to their towns. The Telecom Act not withstanding, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with final jurisdiction for this buildout, recognizes that in hilly topography such as New York, less than 100% coverage is to be expected. Sometimes creative radiofrequency engineering, such as the use of low -powered repeaters, can offset shadow areas at the base of mountain lines, thereby negating the need for additional towers. Limited areas of dropped calls or poor cellular coverage do not automatically warrant a variance for reasons described below. 2 Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is erroneously thought to negate a municipality's ability to consider radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in its land -use decisions in any way. Yet nothing in the Telecom Act excuses a municipality from its statutory responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens — including for RF exposures — in its siting decisions. In fact, it can be argued that responsibility — and therefore liability — has never been clearer for a municipality because the language of the Telecom Act was so specific in keeping exclusive control over "the placement, construction, and modification" of such facilities with the host municipality. The Telecom Act was equally clear in its language prohibiting a community from stopping cellular coverage altogether or unreasonably discriminating among providers. It behooves all governing bodies today to create the best zoning regulations to simultaneouly allow the telecommunications industry to build its infrastructure (the intent of Congress), as well as protect its citizens from the poor siting of wireless infrastructure that can be unsafe, unsightly, and potentially damaging to property values. That statutory responsibility remains in place, as does the liability when a municipality fails to do so. Section 704 states that a municipality cannot turn down an installation based on the environmental effects of RFR if the installation is within the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) standards for emissions. However, courts have recognized that local governments still have considerable authority with regard to control over antenna installations. This is appropriate because there are numerous, long-standing, unresolved problems with the RF standards and municipalities that are unaware of the problems may end up liable for poor siting decisions, whether antenna installations are in compliance or not. Also, the telecom industry is now building out the "next generation" of services that require an great increase in bandwidth and therefore more ambient RF. The preemption in 1996 preceded these new technologies by a whole decade and the standards have not been updated to accommodate additional RF exposures to the population. Therefore, responsibility for intelligent siting rests even more firmly at the local level. In addition, many municipalities have been bullied by telecom representatives into thinking that federal law mandates 100% coverage for all providers. This is not factual. The FCC considers 75% coverage enough for providers to maintain their licenses. From the advent of the technology, the FCC — and the service providers — understood that in some areas 100% coverage would be impossible. This is particularly true in hilly regions. The Telecom Act was meant to foster wireless telephone service, primarily along highways. Communities are not required to roll over for every new wireless application that comes along. Legal precedent, upheld at the appellate level, backs up a community's right to determine what degree of coverage it wants as long as there is no prohibition of service. Cell Phone Towers: How Far; safe? - EMF-Health.com Page 1 of 3 i Concerned about cell phone radiation? Advanced EPMF Protection Solutions QaLnK Then you need to see these tests, to the Dangers of Electropollution Cliek here RT QLink Home > Pressroom Main > Articles > Pendants Bracelets USB Plug -ins Cell Phone Towers: How Far is Safe? Handcrafted Silver by Taraka Serrano Animal Pendants If you or people you know live within a quarter mile of a cell phone All Q-Link Products tower, this may be of concern. Two studies, one in Germany and the other in Israel, reveal that living in proximity of a cell phone tower or antenna could put your health at significant risk. L1 German study: 3 times increased cancer risk Several doctors living in Southern Germany city of Naila conducted a study to assess the risk of mobile phone radiation. Their researh Ci.-, examined whether population living close to two transmitter antennas installed in 1993 and 1997 in Naila had increased risk of cancer. IN Data was gathered from nearly 1,000 patients who had been residing at the same address during the entire observation period NKARE of 10 years. The social differences are small, with no ethnic diversity. There is no heavy industry, and in the inner area there are neither high voltage cable nor electric trains. The average ages lER E E N' of the residents are similar in both the inner and outer areas. What they found is quite telling: the proportion of newly developed cancer cases was three times higher among those who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400m (about 1300 feet) from the cellular transmitter site, compared to those living further away. They also revealed that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. Computer simulation and measurements used in the study both show that radiation in the inner area (within 400m) is 100 times higher compared to the outer area, mainly due to additional emissions coming from the secondary lobes of the transmitter. Looking at only the first 5 years, there was no significant increased risk of getting cancer in the inner area. However, for the period 1999 to 2004, the odds ratio for getting cancer was 3.38 in the Electromagnetic Radiation Protecton SOILItions Q-Link Pendant Home EMF Protection: EarthCalm Home Protection System Cell Phone E�pMF Protection BIOPRO Cell Phone Radiation Protection w/ Patented Technology inner area compared to the outer area. Breast cancer topped the list, with an average age of 50.8 year compared with 69.9 years in the outer area, but cancers of the prostate, pancreas, bowel, skin melanoma, lung and blood cancerwere all increased Israel study: fourfold cancer risk Another study, this one from Israel's Tel Aviv University, examined 622 people living near a cell - phone transmitter station for 3-7 years who were patients in one clinic in Netanya and compared them against 1,222 control patients from a nearby clinic. Participants were very closely matched in environment, workplace and occupational characteristics. The people in the first group live within a half circle of 350m (1148 feet) radius from the transmitter, which came into service in July 1996. The results were startling. Out of the 622 exposed patients, 8 cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of just one year (July 1997 to June 1998): 3 cases of breast cancer, one of ovarian cancer, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymphatic system), osteoid osteoma (bone tumour) and kidney cancer. This compares with 2 per 1 222 in the matched controls of the nearby clinic. The relative risk of cancer was 4.15 for those living near the cell - phone transmitter compared with the entire population of Israel. http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm 12/7/2010 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: December 2, 2010 \drb\sit\clearwire_CU1009_SP1076 memo Plans received: October 27, 2010 466 FARRELL STREET CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-10-09 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-10-76 Agenda #8 and #9 Meeting date: December 7, 2010 Owner Applicant EF Farrell LLC Clearwire US LLC PO Box 1335 C/o Network Building and Consulting Burlington, VT 05402 7380 Coca Cola Drive Suite 106 Hanover, MD 21076 Contact Property Information Allen Hinkley, NB&C Tax Parcel 1540-00520C PO Box 265 C1-R15 District Roxbury NY 12474 Location Ma 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearwire US LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking conditional use approval to: 1) install three (3) panel antennas on an existing tower at the 110 foot level, and 2) install a ground mounted equipment platform, 466 Farrell Street. Clearwire US LLC is also seeking site plan approval to allow the installation of: 1) three (3) panel antennas on an existing tower at the 110 foot level, and 2) a ground mounted equipment platform, 466 Farrell Street. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 27, 2010 and have the following comments. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to install telecommunications equipment on an existing telecommunications tower, at a height of 110 feet. The applicant has submitted elevations showing the existing and proposed tower, as well as a site plan depicting the changes.The equipment appears to be relatively small in size, but will be visible from the surrounding area. The Board should discuss this request. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. Pursuant to Section 5.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Commercial 1 District is formed to encourage the location of general retail and office uses in a manner that serves or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Staff feels the proposed placement of equipment on the existing tower is in compliance with the stated purpose of the C1 District, as it is in an area that is densely developed with commercial uses. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities 2 Staff believes that the proposal will not adversely affect municipal services. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. Staff believes that the proposal will not affect the ability to develop adjacent properties. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposal will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposal would require a height waiver. The existing tower is 119 feet tall. While the equipment would not be higher than the existing tower, a height waiver for the equipment is still necessary. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a height waiver of 75 feet for a mounted height of 110 feet. 1. The Board should discuss the applicant's request for a height waiver of 75 feet, for a mounted height of 110 feet. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposal will not adversely affect renewable energy resources. (t) General public health and welfare. Staff does not believe that the proposal will have an adverse affect on general public welfare or the health of the surrounding public. The proposal is regulated and monitored by telecommunications authorities (FCC) for related concerns leaving no authority to the local review body on this matter. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following_ general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project will not have an impact on the transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Parking is not applicable to the proposed project. 3 (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The existing tower is 119 feet in height. The proposed antennas will be mounted approximately 110 feet high (see attached representation). Although the height of the tower already has a height waiver, separate height waivers are required for any additional equipment or structures above 35 feet. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. This is a very tall structure. Buffering and screening would be unlikely, if not impossible. However, there is already a white vinyl stockade fence surrounding the tower, which obstructs all of the ground -mounted equipment. (t) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Again, the Board should discuss adherence to this criterion. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel it is necessary to require any additional access to abutting properties as part of this application. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly in screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). There are no needs to revise the site plan with respect to this criterion. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements Because no buildings are proposed, there are no requirements for additional landscaping. Access/Circulation Access and circulation on the property will remain unchanged through the proposed project. Other The plans should be revised to correct the notations that this property is located in Burlington. The plans should be revised to state that the ground mounted unit is enclosed by a vinyl fence and not a chain link fence, as noted. 1. The plans should be revised to correct the notations that this property is located in Burlington. 2. The plans should be revised to state that the ground mounted unit is enclosed by a vinyl fence and not a chain link fence, as noted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use application #CU-10-09 and Site Plan application #SP-10-76 conditional upon the numbered items in the "Comments" section of this document. Respectfully submitted, �-- CathyarY LaRose, AICP, Associate Planner Copy to: Allen Hinkley, for the applicant 5 } APPLICAN is ciearw re° ' ABBRE V I AT IONS A/C AIR CONDITIONER AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AGL ABOVE GRADE LEVEL -- - 4400 CARILLON POINT AMSL ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL KIRKLAND, WA 98033 APPROX APPROXIMATE AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE -� TEL: (866) 551-6118 PREPARED FOR. ERICSSON BLDG BUILDING BT5 BASE TRAN5MIS510N STATION CAB CABINET E FRI; GRA9ASSI �_- --�- j AREA d COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE I-------.-- CND CONDUIT DAP DIVERSE ACCESS POINT DWG DRAWING FT FOOT (FEET) EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING I I- „" -2 -_ I i T/� !//%i _ r f z EXISTING ASPHALT / _ "� �- '' . /;/ SEA PARK RESEARCH TRIANGLE , NORTH CAROLINA HrzEPaRED BY EEG5LEC EQQUIPMENT ROUND BAR r . _.- , AREA // - " PARKING EXISTING / I . AREA ELEV ELEVATION (( BUILDING / __- -- -� EMT ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING [E EQUIP EQUIPMENT NEW 1'xl' CLEARWIRE / / (E) EXISTING LEASE AREA - -- •'' I' EXISTING CONCRETE Fullerton Engineering Consultants END FOUNDATION GAL V GALVANIZED NEW GLEARWIRE NUWAY-- I -- -- / PAD 9600 W. BRYN MAWR. AVE. GAP GROUND ACCESS POINT (DAP) CABINET ON NEW (DAP) _ __ / -- SUITE 200 GAD GROUND STEEL PLATFORM EXISTING TEMPORARY ROSEMONT, IL 60018 GP5 GLOBAL P051TIONING SYSTEM CHAIN LINK FENCE TEL: l84 U 292-0200 IN INCH(ES) LB (") POUND(5) EXISTING U.S.CELLULAR EQUIPMENT CABINETS - J CTYP.J FAX: (8471) 292-0206 CHECKED BY: DS MAX MAXIMUM ON STEEL PLATFORM � - /i"� �� • SUPPORT TOWER MFR MANUFACTURER ( ,: I i ---. APPROVED BY: M� MGB MASTER GROUND BAR MIN MINIMUM (N) NEW (3) NEW GLEARWIRE 4G ANTENNAS W/DAP HEAP UNITS EXISTING LANDSCAPING / / , . EXISTING j = — _ $k DATE DESCRIPTION INT. IVA4/I9) W% REVIEW KG NEC NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE NOM NOMINAL NT5 NOT TO SCALE (TYP- I PER SECTOR) GRASS i/L EXISTING ARC /// BUILDING _. OEIOT OVERHEAD ELEGTRIC/TELCO POS POSITION STEEL`_� RGS RIGID GALVANIZED -- SF SQUARE FOOT BTL STEEL /� EXISTING %I ASPHALT - //jj� -- / T d B TOP 4 BOTTOM ---- i - PARKING T/ TOP TBD TO BE DETERMINED TYP TYPICAL UE/UT UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC/TELCO AREA / % -- / EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK • •••b , •• F •••• UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VIE VERIFY IN FIELD W/ WITH ,;/ -'-� / -� "" / `�� _-.__ � (TYP). • •. XFMR TRANSFORMER \ \ -_ �+I • ? SYMBOLS 4 CENTERLINE fe PLATE - -- - --- REVISION / 0 • lib WORK POINT UTILITY POLE�+ / / / / /i ; / / } •i �SSCri • •• TONAL •••• BRICK j/ / / ZEXISTING /' j L EXISTING BUILDING / SITE NAME COMPRE55ED STONE j CONCRETE % BUILDING 7 / ASPHAEXISTING LT ROAD / BUi7 zL INC�TON EARTH / l 7 ii �A C,�r UCi ^O �i:UO�O�C GRAVEL /i MASONRY STEEL 1 EXISTING u.L// / GRASS / YY /� �L Ali: SITE NO. VT - BURS004 - B -- CENTERLINE AREA EXISTING GRASS SITE ADDRESS — - - PROPERTY LINE ----- _ -._-.__------- -_-J AREA �- -. - - - - � EXISTING .. AREAS 466 FARRELL ST. - _ - LEASE LINE - _.__ ---.__ � 7 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 -- - EASEMENT LINE - --X X CHAIN LINK FENCE --- - ----- --_ ''/•, • pppp `"� r-14RREL L ST. - --_ -- \ -1--"------__ ----- SHEET NAME r—ir— WOOD FENCE / / p ^ SITE LAN UE BELOW GRADE I ELECTRIC BELOW GRADE�a SHEET NUMBER UT TELEPHONE ----OE/OT OVERHEAD ELECTRIC/TELEPHONE 61TE PLAN SCALE: I" � L Al L�nls SECTIONREFEIRENCE I iIn NEW CLEARWIRE NEM 1 7[ 24"x24"XS" TELCO BO NEW UTILITY H-FRAME SEE SHEET E-2 FOR D NEW l'xl' CLEARWIRE LEASE AREA NEW CLEARWIRE NUWA CABINET ON NEW 3'xb' PLATFORM SEE SHEET C-b FOR EXISTING TEMPORAR Lu LINK FENCE TO BE RE NEW b' HIGH WOOD FENCE SEE SHEET C-1 FOR EXISTING U.S.GELLULA RGS CONDUIT EXISTING U.5.CELLULA EQUIPMENT CABINETS ON STEEL PLATFORM O Qa EXISTING ICE BRIDGE (TYPJ N EXISTING TELCO BOX _ ~ ON EXISTING UTILITY H w EXISTING UTILITY H-FRAME NEW CLEARWIRE 100A AND DISCONNECT IN E MULTI -METER BANK EXISTING UTILITY H- SEE SHEET E-2 FOR D S SELF 5UPPOFRT TOWER ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE: I/E'=r-�" 1 DETAILS ON DETAILS A % I //,1 L EXIS INCs ' � � EXISTING 4 � • ' • . . EXISTING BUIL�ING GRASS AREA j 9 EXISTING CONCRETE ASPHALT Pq�q j • ZEXISTING I SIDEWALK 3R, X ON CONCRETE —-------- pAD i APPLICANT: 0 W clearw're° 4400 CARILLON POINT KIRKLAND, WA 98033 TEL (866) 551-6118 PREPARED FOR: � ERICSSON ♦ � ERIGSSON, INC. w RESEARCH TRIAN:sLE PARK, � NORTH GAROLINA W w LL ttcl CHEGGED BY: DS APPROVED BY: MB $$ DATE DESCRIPTION INT. w w IVA4W W% REVIEW KG 0 SITE NAME m BURL INCxTON SITE NO. � VT-BURS10O4-B � w SITE ADDRESS 466 FARRELL ST. � BURLINGTON, VT 05401 SHEET NAME � ENLARGED w SITE FLAN SHEET NUMBER s N_ NETWORK BUILDING & CONSULTING, LLC Over 25 years experience October 15, 2010 Mr. Raymond Belair Planning and Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Clearwire Wireless Broadband Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Application 466 Farrell St., South Burlington, VT 05407 Delivered VIA: FedEx Dear Mr. Belair: I am a site acquisition agent representing Clearwire US, LLC (Clearwire), a wireless internet provider. Clearwire proposing to install additional antennas to the existing communications tower listed above. Clearwire's installation -0 include the following equipment: • Mounting 3-panel antenna at an elevation of 110' feet on the existing tower • Installing a 3' by 6' equipment platform within the existing fenced tower compound Construction of this site, if approved, would take approximately one week to complete and would be operational later than January, 2011. Once the site is "on air" the site would be visited 6 to 12 times per year by a technician inspect and maintain the equipment. Enclosed for your review are: 1. Completed Site Plan Review Application 2. Completed Conditional Use Permit Application 3. An Application Fee Check in the amount of $326 4. 5 sets of 24" by 26" Drawings along with 1 set of I I" by 17" Drawings I am requesting that this application be placed on the Planning Board meeting agenda as soon as possible. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. I can be reached on my phone at 607-287-8729. Sincere , Allen Hinkley Site Acquisition Agent representing Clearwire US, LLC 73B0 COCA COLA DR., SUITE 1 06, HAN❑VER, MD 21 076 P 410.71 2.7092 0 F 41 0.71 2.4OS6 0 WWW.NETWORKBUILID ING.COM Permit # L—q-- to -� APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Type of application (check one): ( ) Appeal from decision of the Administrative Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation (X) Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( ) Other Pv OVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY): WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING ? 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone & fax #): Farrell LLC, PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 Rn2-R(;j -'innn 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (book & page #) Book 3) APPLICANT (name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Clearwire US, LLC c/o Network Building and Consulting 7380 Coca Cola Dr. Suite 106, Hanover, MD 21076 Phone: 607-287-8729 Fax: 607-326-3712 C. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % / Sq. Ft. Proposed % / Sq. Ft. D. Total area to be disturbed during construction: 4 9 Sq. Ft. * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9) COST ESTIMATES A. Building (including interior renovations): $ B. Landscaping $ C. Other site improvements (please list with cost): Total Project Cost $30,000 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC: A. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out) N/A B. A. M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): N/A C. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION N/A 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION N/A N/A 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 12/31/2010 14) LIST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS: (list names and address of all abutting property owners, including those across any street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet of paper if necessary): 4) CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive staff correspondence. Include name, mailing address, phone & fax # if different from above): Allen Hinkley, NB&C,PO Box 265 Roxbury NY 12474 Phene, 6N97 887 SW29, Fax 697 386 3718 5)PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 466 Farrell St., South Burlington, Vt 6) TAX PARCEL ID #: 1540-00100 Lot 13 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): Existing use is a communications Facility including a 120' Lattice tower B. Proposed Uses on Property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Existing use of the property is to remain the same. This is a proposal or the addition of 3 panel antennas -on the tower and one new ecru; pment cabinet to be 1placed inside of tl� existin tower com o nd. C. Total building square f otage on properrtyu(proposed buildings & existing building to remain): N/A Total Building Square footage will be unchanged D. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement & mezzanine): N/A Height of existing structures will be unchanged E. Number of residential Units (if applicable, new units & existing units to remain): N/A F. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing & proposed, note office vs. non -office employees): N/A G. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay districts are applicable: The purpose of this application is to col ocate antennas on the existi*g communications tower. and install I cabinet on a 31 by 61 pad 8)LOT COVERAGE N/A Lot Coverage to be unchanged A. Total parcel size: Sq. Ft. B. Buildings: Existing _ Proposed / Sq. Ft % / Sq. Ft. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. t Pit (l z 1 P�i�i�r SIG TURE OF APPLICANT ()"*t� SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER PRINT NAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: Ud7Lb REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: 1�1 Complete ❑ Incomplete ector of Planning & Zoning or Designee Oat! 5 Site Plan Application Permit Number SP-_J - APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): Farrell LLC, PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402 802-861-3000 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): Book am 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): Clearwire US, LLC c/o Network Building and Consulting, LLC 7380 Coca Cola Dr., Suite 106, Hanover, MD 21076 Phone: 607-287-8729 Fax: 607-326-3712 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): Allen Hinkley, Network Building and Consulting, LLC PO Box 265, Roxbury, NY 12474 Phone: 607-326-2915 fax: 607-326-3712 a. Contact e-mail address: ahinkley@catskill .net 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 466 Farrell St., South Burlington, Vt 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1540-00100 Lot 13 a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): Collocation of three panel antennas on an existing 120, communications tower at a height of 110, and the installation of 1 equipment cabinet attached drawings and specifications. Site Plan Application b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): A communications facility consisting of a 120' Lattice tower and related ground equipment located within a fpnced tower c-omnoi7nd c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): the proposed use will be unchanged d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): All existing and proposed buildings will remain unchanged e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Existing Height and buildings will be f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): N/A g. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): N/A h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): Please refer to attached drawings and specifications. 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. C. Front yard (along each street) Existing _% / sq. ft. Proposed % sq. ft. 2 d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) 49 sq ft Site Plan Application * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ b. Landscaping 4t c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): Total Project Cost $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): N/A b. A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): N/A c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: N/A 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: N/A N/A 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12/31/2010 14. ABUTTERS (please list all abutting landowner. Include mailing address. Also include those across a street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet if necessary) 3 Site Plan Application 15. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). Site Plan Application I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. W or SIG TUBE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board 11 Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: ZJ lete�� _❑ Com p Incomplete of Planning & Zoning or Designee 5 LEGALS[CONT.] 4.11-0396CA; 153 Main Street (1, Ward 6) Flynn Center Appeal of Administrative Denial to enclose existing loading dock and storm water improvements. 5.08-137PO; 451 Ethan Allen Parkway (I, Ward 6) Timothy Alles and William Ellis Remand of Superior Court Environmental Division Appeal for preliminary plat review of 9-unit planned residential development with 3 detached structures and associated roadway. Plans may be viewed in the Planning and Zoning Office, (City Hall,149 Church Street, Burlington), between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Participation in the ORB proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. This may not be the final order in which items will be heard. Please view final Agenda, at www.ci.burlington.vt.us/ planning/drb or office notice board, one week before the hearing for the order in which items will be heard. COMPREHENSIVE o DEVELOPMENT ur ORDINANCE — Emergency Demolition Exemption o #ZA 11-02 a 1st reading: 09127/10; w rules suspended and placed in all stages of passage Public Hearing:11/08/10 o Adopted:11/08/10 Published: 11/17/10 H Effective: 12/08/10 o That Appendix A, 1`- Comprehensive Development Ordinance, ofthe Code of Ordinances ofthe ut City of Burlington be a and hereby is amended m by amending Section w 3.1.2(c) thereof to read W as follows: Sec. 3.1.2 Zoning Permit Required Except for that development which is exempt from a permit n requirement under Sec. 3.1.2(c) below, no C development maybe n commenced within the city without a zoning n permit issued by the administrative officer including but not limited to the following types of exterior and interior work: (a) As written. (b) As written. (c) Exemptions: The following shall be exempt from the requirements ofthis Ordinance and shall not be required to obtain a zoning permit: I. through7. As written. 8. The temporary stabilization and secur- ing of any structure, site, or building feature required to address an unsafe or dangerous condition which poses an imminent threat to public safety pursuant to a eert'rRratien ten order of the same issued under the au thoHty oLby the city building inspector oriire1ner,n19r: 9. Where temporary stabilization is no reasonably available the e�lr ergency demolition ofanvstructure site orbuildingfea ire required to address an unsafe or daneerous condition which poses an imminent threat to public safety pursuant toaorder of the same issued under the written authority of the city building Inspector and with the written tone rr n of the tv engineer, This xemo- tion does not extend beyond the required ofdebris securmp or filling cellar hole and r lat d erosior control and stormy management (d) As written. ` Material stricken out deleted. "Material underlined added. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing in the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on December7, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Final plat application #SD-10-35 of Gardner Construction, Inc. to amend a previ- ously approved three (3) lot subdivision. The amendment consists of: 1) revising condition 8 of the December S, 2006 final plat approval decision to reduce the amount of translucent windows and surfaces oriented to the south, and 2) connecting two (2) of the lots to the City's sewer system in place of on -site septic systems, 22 & 30 Highland Terrace. 2. Conditional use application #CU-10-09 of Clearwire US, LLC to: 1) install three (3) Panel antennas on an existing tower at the 110 foot level, and 2) install a ground mounted equipment platform, 466 Farrell Street. 3. Conditional use application #CU-10-10 of Clearwire US, LLC to: 1) install three (3) panel antennas on an existing tower at the 70 foot level, and 2) install a ground mounted equipment platform, 2026 Williston Road. 4. Notice of Appeal #AO- 10-01 of -AM Golf, LLC appealing the decision ofthe Administrative Officer dated October 13, 2010 that the application for final plat approval of the Long Drive Subdivision filed on Septemberl0 and 13, 2010 was not complete, Golf Course Road. S. Variance application #VR-10-01 of Thomas E. Chase to allow a building to be used as a single family dwelling, 42 Airport Road. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies ofthe applica- tions are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. November 17.2010 STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Chittenden Unit CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. S393-09 Cnc HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset -Backed Pass - Through Certificates, Series 2007-PA3, Plaintiff V. Andrea L. Couture, Thomas F. Cline, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Citibank Federal Savings Bank and Occupants residing at 25 Vale Drive, South Burlington, Vermont, Defendants NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execu- tion of the Power of Sale contained in a certain mortgage given by HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset - Backed Pass -Through Certificates, Series 2007- PA3 to Andrea L. Couture dated April 11, 2007 and recorded in Volume 780, Page 240 ofthe Land Records of the Town of South Burlington, of which mortgage the undersigned is the pres- ent holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purposes of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auction at 9:45 A.M. on December 7, 2010, at 25 Vale Drive, South Burlington, Vermont all and singular the premises described in said mortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Andrea L. Couture and Thomas F. Cline by Warranty Deed of Robert C. Duncan and Linda J. Duncan dated September 15, 2005, of record in Volume 736, Pages 135-137 of the Land Records ofthe City of South Burlington. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash or cashiers check by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of South Burlington. The mortgagor is entitled to redeem the premises at any time prior to the sale by paying the full amount due under the mortgage, including the costs and expenses of the sale. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlingtonn, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. DATED at South Burlingtonn, Vermont this 4th day of November, 2010. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT OF CHITTENDEN, SS. IN RE THE ESTATE OF DON W. TOWERS LATE OF Shelburne, VT PROBATECOURT DOCKET NO. 33479 NOTICE TO CREDITORS To the creditors of the estate of DON W. TOWERS, late of Shelburne, Vermont. I have been appointed a personal representative of the above named estate. All creditors having claims against the estate must present their claims in writing within 4 month of the date of the first publication of this notice. The claim must be presented to me at the address listed below with a copy filed with the register of the Probate Court. The claim will be forever barred if it is not presented as described above within the four month deadline. Dated: November 8, 2010 /s/ Sheila Scanlan -Towers c/o David C. Buran, Esq. Anderson & Buran PC PO Box1624 Burlington, VT 05402-1624 (802)862-7070 Address of the Probate Court: Chittenden District Probate Court County Courthouse P.O. Box 511 Burlington, VT 05402-0511 First publication date: November17, 2010 Second publication date: November 24, 2010 The contents of storage unit(s) 01-03514 located at 28 Adams Dr, Williston, VT 05495, will be sold on the 25th of the month of November, 2010 to satisfy the debt of Clarence Lamore. Any person claiming a right to the goods may pay the amount claimed due and reasonable expenses before the sale, in which case the sale may not occur. Please note this in not a public auction. DON'T SEE A SUPPORT group. here that meets your needs? Call Vermont 2-1-1, a program of United Way of Vermont. Within Vermont, dial 2-1-1 or 866-652-4636(toll free) or from outside of Vermont, 802-652-4636, 24/7. CENTRAL VERMONT PROSTATECANCER SUPPORT GROUP MEETING November 17, 6-7:45 p.m. Central VT Medical Center, confer- ence room #2.Dr. Russell Sarver of Mountain View Urology will be speaking. For more information contact Paul Irons, MTM Coordinatorat 461-6222 or Jennifer Blacklock at 1-866-466-0626 (press 3 at greeting, ext. 6309). LGBTQ GRIEF AND LOSS GROUP Every Monday, 12pm, RU12? Community Center, Champlain Mill, 20 Winooski Falls Way, Winooski. A once -a -week group is forming at RU12? for those interested in giving voice to their experience(s) with loss and listening to others. Topics could include but are not limited to: grieving, letting go, resolution, moving on, self-image, rituals, and learnings. Contact thecenter0rul2.org for more information. TRANS GUY'S GROUP Every fourth Monday, RU12? Community Center, 20 Winooski Falls Way, Champlain Mill 1st Floor, Winooski, 6-7:30 p.m. This is a social and support group specifi- cally for trans men. This informal, peer -facilitated group welcomes male - identified people at any stage of transition. As this is currently a closed group, please contact the center to sign up: thecenter@rul2.org or 860-RU12. SOCIAL SUPPORT GROUP FOR LGBTQ PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Come together to talk, connect, and find support around a number of issues including: Coming Out, Socializing. Challenges around employment. Safe Sex. Self Advocacy. Choosing Partners. Discovering who you are. And anything else you want to talk about! The first meeting will be on Tuesday, October 26 at 4 p.m. at the RU12? Community Center at the Champlain Mill in Winooski. For more information contact Sheila (Sheila@ rul2.org) or David (Dave6262002@yahoo. com) GLAM CORE GROUP MEETING Wednesdays, 6-7:30 p.m., RU12? Community Center, Champlain Mill, 20 Winooski Falls Way, Winooski. We're looking for young gay and bi guys who are interested in putting together great events, meeting new people, and reaching out to other guys! Core Group runs our program, and we wantyour input! If you're a young gay or bisexual man who would like to get involved, email us at glam@rul2, org or check us out on Facebook (http://www. facebook.com/glamvt), TRANS SUPPORT GROUP Every first and third Wednesday, RU12? Community Center, 20 Winooski Falls Way, Champlain Mill 1st Floor, Winooski, 6:30-8 p.m. This peer -led, informal group is open to all trans people and to any discussion topics raised. It is a respectful and confidential space for socializing, support, and discussion. Contact thecenter@rul2.org for more information. LGBTQ SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE SafeSpace offers peer -led support groups for survivors of relationship violence, dating violence, emotional violence or hate violence. These groups give survivors a safe and supportive environment to tell their stories, share informa- tion, and offer and receive support. Please call Ann or Brenda at 863-0003 if you are interested enjoining one of these groups or for more information. MALE GBTQ SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE SafeSpace is offering a peer -led support group for male- identified survivors of relationship violence, dating violence, emotional violence or hate violence. This group will meet in Winooski at the RU12? Community Center and will be facilitated by Damian. Support groups give survivors a safe and supportive environment to tell their stories, share information, and offer and receive support. 802-863-0003. NAMI CONNECTION (National Alliance on Mental Illness) NAMI Connection Recovery Support Group for individuals living with mental illnesses. Call Tammy at 1-800-639- 6480 or email us at connections@na m ivt.org BENNINGTON:Every Tuesday, 1-2:30 p.m., United Couseling Service, 316 Dewey St., CTR Center (Community Rehabilitation and Treatment). BURLINGTON: Every Thursday, 4-5:30 p.m., St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, 2 Cherry Street. ESSEX JUNCTION: 2nd and 4th Saturday of the month, 2-3:30 p.m., Congregational Church, 39 Main Street. HARTFORO:2nd and 4th Friday 4-5:30 p.m., Hartford Library. Call Barbara Austin, 802-4S7- 1512. MONTPELIER: 1st and 3rd Thursdays, 6-7,30 p.m., Kellogg - Hubbard Library, East Montpelier Room (basement). NEWPORT: 2nd and 4th Tuesday, 6-7:30 p.m. Medical Arts Building (attached to North Country Hospital), 2nd Floor conference room. RANDOLPH: Every 2nd and 4th Wednesday, 5-6:30 p.m., United Church, 18 N. Main Street. BATTLEBORO: Call for details. EATING DISORDERS SUPPORT GROUP This is a therapist -facilitated, drop -in support group for women with eating disorders. Women over 18 only please. This group will be held every other Wednesday from 5:30-7 p.m. beginning Oct. 20. Free. Vermont Center for Yoga & Therapy, 364 Dorset St., Suite 204, So. Burlington. 802-658-9440. CAREGIVER SUPPORT GROUP This group offers support to those caring for loved ones with memory loss due to dementia. The group meets the second and fourth Thursday ofthe month from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at The Converse Home, 272 Church St, Burlington. For more info call: 802-862-0401. MAN-TO-MAN CHAMPLAIN VALLEY PROSTATE CANCER Support group meets 6-8 p.m., 2nd Tuesday of each month at the Hope Lodge at the UVM/FAHC campus. 1-800-ACS-2345. VEGGIE SUPPORT GROUP Want To Feel Supported On Your Vegetarian/ Vegan Journey? Want more info. on Healthy Veggy Diets? Want to share and socialize at Veggy Potlucks, and more, in the greater Burlington Area? This is your opportunity tojoin with other like-minded folks. veggy4l ife@gmail. com, 802-658-4991. EF Farrell LLC DB Morrissey LLC Lot 13 - O'Dell Parkway PUD 466 Farrell Street, South Burlington, Vermont Adjoiners List PARCEL ID OWNER OF RECORD LOCATION CITY 0670-00466-C F & M Dev. Co. LLC 466 Farrell Street S. Burlington c/o Eric Farrell P.Q. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05401 0670-00412.001 Farrell St. Senior Housing 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street Unit 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.002 United Way of 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.003 Homeshare Vermont 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington Incorporation 412 Farrell Street Unit 3 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00412.004 Visiting Nurse Association 412 Farrell Street S. Burlington of Chittenden County 412 Farrell Street Unit 4 South Burlington, VT 05403 1540-00510-C Champlain Oil Co., Inc. 510 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, VT 05407 0670-00514-C Point Five Development 514 Farrell Street S. Burlington South Burlington, LLC 7085 Manlius Center Road East Syracuse, NY 13057 1540-00490-C Deimer Properties, Inc. 490 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington P.O. Box 64678 Burlington, VT 05402 1 1540-00570-C Acadia Heathcote LLC 570 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington c/o Acadia Realty Trust 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue Suite 260 White Plains, NY 10605 0670-00075-C Burlington Indoor Tennis Center 75 Eastwood Drive S. Burlington c/o Twin Oaks Sports & Fitness 95 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00345 O'Dell Allocated Housing 345 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership c/o HV Marketplace Inc 123 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 0670-00349 O'Dell Bond Housing 349 Farrell Street S. Burlington Limited Partnership 220 Riverside Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 0090-00017-C Bacon Street Properties LLC 17 Bacon Street, S. Burlington c/o Champlain Oil Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, VT 05407 0090-00020-C EF Farrell, LLC 20 Bacon Street, S. Burlington DB Morrissey, LLC P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402-1335 0750-00029-R Alice Bouche 29 Hadley Road S. Burlington F.O. Box 5573 Essex Junction, VT 05452 0750-00033-R Louise P. Brooks 33 Hadley Road S. Burlington 33 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 2 0750-00037-R Frank Haddleton & 37 Hadley Road S. Burlington Brian Jaffarian 37 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00065-R Mike and Pam Hennessey 65 Hadley Road S. Burlington 65 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-67-69-R Victoria Brooks Bevins 67 Hadley Road S. Burlington 67-69 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-71-73-R Jason Lawson 71 Hadley Road S. Burlington 73 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00075-R Frank & Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Road S. Burlington 75 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00080-R Brendan & Monica Taylor 80 Hadley Road S. Burlington 80 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00086-R Nancy Cunha 86 Hadley Road S. Burlington 197 Mutton Hill Dr. Charlotte, VT 05445 0750-00089-R Lorna -Kay Peal 89 Hadley Road S. Burlington Michael Smolin 189 Poker Hill Road Underhill, VT 05489 0750-00099-R Nathaniel Merrill 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington 99 Hadley Road S. Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00103-R Denise A. Blanchard 103 Hadley Road S. Burlington 103 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00111-R Madeline P. Cervini ll l Hadley Road S. Burlington 111 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 3 0750-113-5-R Michael Abbott 60 Spitfire Drive Plattsburgh, NY 12901 0750-00117-R Catherine Mceahern 117 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0750-00119-R Nancy E. Osborne 119 Hadley Road South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00409 City's Edge c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, VT 05403 0670-00370 Eastwood Commons II c/o Park Place Management Company, Inc. 41 Commerce Avenue, Suite 4 South Burlington, VT 05403 O'Dell Parkway O'Dell Parkway PUD Association PUD Common P.O. Box 1335 Land Burlington, VT 05402 n 113 Hadley Rd S. Burlington 117 Hadley Road S. Burlington 119 Hadley Road S. Burlington 370 Farrell Street S. Burlington 409 Farrell Street S. Burlington 410 Farrell Street S. Burlington S. Burlington