Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-96-0000 - Supplemental - 0069 Joy DriveIN el - oaf✓ �\ � \� 1 DJlbti SIT o.J GOJJTR)' cwa So BVB� K SCTB/�LK C 1 \ Ha U nIIV GQ 'Ty Gf JEi /�O•V� \ yI s ^ o o, wr / 1O* 1 A W BLDG - 6 UNITS FFE lo6.S 4I / rrq 0, INV (OVT) q L• q2. .oS b IDS. z S.Gp / J(N) 9i00 /(Nl 95.00 I(Duf) 14.15 .L /llOf�- 1f� ( I iTal.a � I i F►E ,ao ao EXISTING I IBUILDING 'B' O J ..+•-�-MYOCANT G.Z T.aPP141O '+1-EEVE �O T1+, "4VST r IIOa P I RI UV/IZ'1 ,2.00 IuvOT"u)9Lx INVCK�SI,I,1T AGE GARAGE I R 6bcLTlL Cd..1CG O`N at��r ��: aJu► oq�G�UwOLG_'A v !+'g wI�TM YCOu� QC�a- Ewtl� �. - � (X) "+eT .VfTPLL bTCrn h}�.V62 3f •�-_ lao u I �ppppl.pr I... i/R1 �`Y7PPUT yy�I ((�� f0 Ems✓- uaG rry Mu. GC E,Q E.. •+Lru Q�L. ��'?4 e.Tv PF.I, F F� l3 21 u9E I 7Arnv� e.o< R� `e- IT IS. THE USERS RESMMOILITY TO ENSURE TNESE DRAWINGS If /F I I I INCLUDE Il7'IE LATEST REWSIONS. / L 1 '�\ i I poD woQAUT, L�®eL ev.LO1Vb .,,.lo o+aleclv4 u I� � � �9! B �Y•SE ?sVTNCY, STOI.n�.ryTG4 VT,L,TIS .iV9 GQ�iD E� Nova �YORA� As. !E Y•SC La Va 7�0 Gn40J G�SA.V r'If!" waT![ SES vCl �. �i77 oTi. / I IIEro�a ! P+LvlaT i AOp ,JLcT � i.TIND UaLVaQT ,aaV I.j! LQiDr3CI IaC `."se. 4.ro�+.�. .L�pf/-TC ...+Tt! u A— -T— �•K tiL i. YUT�Ic• ® /•�� w!vlRT i MO'ra ou +^w.+Oli. -A. a � aLV.sE 44v.e+4 i o00 --Pau^ 1 0 6Lr V<,oVS, NOTE-. p NO. REVISIONS C ily Of BURLINGTON\ .� I SITE E�r LOCUS NOTES 1. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM PLAN ENTITLED "MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS - SITE PLAN' BY CS ARCHITECTS STAMP DATED DECEMBER 13. 1988. 2. EXISTING WATER MAIN LOCATION AND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LOCATION / ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM UNTITLED PHOTOCOPY PROVIDED BY CS ARCHITECTS. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES BY FITZPATRICK- LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED. 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ELEVEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI -FAMILY UNITS AND CARPORTS WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICES ON APPROXIMATELY 1 4 ACRES. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CORRECT EXISTING PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. S. EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWERS RESIDE WITHIN EXISTING 20• UTILITY EASEMENT (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY). 6. FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND EROSION CONTROL SEE SHEET 6 6 7 7. FOOTING DRAIN DESIGN BY ARCHITECT. 6. 6' SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.004 FT/FT 6' SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.006 FT/FT ® 9. REVISED BUILDING 6 GARAGE LAYOUT AS DIRECTED BY OWNER I AGENT. ALL APPROVED SET -BACKS MAINTAINED. LEGEND nt^^aTae I.lo.aeTY L,w �� � � ar�sT�•fS lOta o• vA.ra w.a NT RtorosEO eo4e or ►Ava�aNT m.GoN,-l'T euae LIN! � HeoopyaO LInIa aD4! o. Leo 01 Ca+.4T,Ny� . ��� tA4lM[NT oG t.0../ LIJ! r •—r—ram•.— a„IsT I..+r. Ri•+cC • S .toeoaa0 4+.T.aY 9aNt-^�!u.I..all ►eoloato eTetw 4a..ae /1(�L.. ��•��— �— � ar14T �'+4 W.Tfa Uua � L+a .a Myaaw{ � v ►—fp -O —Taa —C -Y—t ed wyp.r.rT O [a14TIN�. NlcaLa ro^IuwaNT p 4(iuUTQO INTal4aiTIGN $ ta�4T.Ny Ro...ae qaL! aQTMeK LIN! Tap w....y.aT . vtaT T• K aaTaar.waa op MLOoO'aE0 .00�E! GP.aV c'es VVG SCALE I • 20� to Io o to .o so to Ioo --- MEADOWBROOK sourw su.uwarow _ -- -----_------,,E.,, LTa.` SITE & UTILITIES LPLAN°---�-- LLE VVq IEI L L 11V 1f MARCEGG9o, r A �� o GI. es�' Z INCORPORATED -- cLaLle Aao rLAKMIea scovrc{ 4 2-90{ D 3323 11 I { ' DATE )� ••'�LISTON VERMONT it I So°I T 11 os Vf ..1 I * 11 — I I I IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS . '' . -1 r __j_ I I INCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. EXISTING BUILDING 'p, • NO REVISIONS C,ty OU L f A ING TON LOCUS C4R41F NOTES BUILD V H wf I. PERIMETE" PROPfRtV LINE D�IINTLI HATION TAKEN FPO" Pi;Am ENT I ILED ' MFA0IIW0PU0# C DOMiN111"S - SITE PLAN' I y Cq APCHI ItCTS %IAM11 LIATI V DECLfINER 1.1. 1QU? 64R4GE LxISTINr wArEn MAIN LtICATIUN AND LKIStING SANITAqy SLwC 4 Lo(ATjIO?4/LLr.Vt1Fl0t1�' TA�ft4 FROM UNTITLED PH�'TGCOF'v 3"r`U.IDED L* C5 I Mir.- MUST PC 1. ", I c'; ARCH, F I� Is. AL. m"J" IELCI I CON-1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES BY FITZPATRICK- It LLEWELLYN INCOAPORAICO. 'x 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ELEVEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI -FAMILY UNITS AND CARPORTS WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICES 0 APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CORRECT s EXISTING PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. 5. EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWERS RESIDE WITWIN, EXISTING 20' :t ` �— UTILITY EASEMENT (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY). 6. FOR LANDSCAPING. LIGHTING, AND EROGSICN CONTPOL SEE SWEET 6 L ?. 7. FOOTING DRAIN DESIGN BY ARCHITECT. H. D" SANITARY SEWE" MINIMUM SLOPE 0,001 FT/FT SANITARY SEWLH MINIMUM SLIJPL 0.066 FT./1 DIX- ILDING ----4f--CA RTS CE LEGEND UNI rso '_5 `�' rm le—T— %A lol— 'j, 01 90Ax .6—c f P7 r 0 I—T— ­Xt '7/ '.+:- _-. _ _ }_ >/�.a ...e _ t ..� SCALE 1" 20' c lo ao LY.e 17 If J r ..� �ti-1-Y _ .� ' ' /r, _____mEAD0WBR00K----- I I cw " (—I " r_ I-) PLAN 'v MOWN - vy H MAP INCOR-ORATEO EGG ve WILL RIIAONT 7 Dm 3 SGT9raGK II� 1 \�ib,\\ t / % Ir_ ^ I b rPn / 1O1 I BLDG — B URrrs FFE ros3 4 / I z A I I d /N, VS SPA 4\ °s o ItH WL LN .pt IO S 4, er o�u� Pf lol �•[ ,ai iaJ EXISTING I It BUILD/NG •B" r S P Io .b sib\\at I GARAGE I I / 1os �I17 4C.e5 IV V Lls"1 0� t . I - I i �EDGa d lxrvl,nlc, vA., t.ne,.rT (TYn .Yp(ONT C•2` Tri/PIA16 SLEEVE MID vnl-YE .�ITu TVILuwT .oGK ,00l ...rppqqu�F+.unrlcv w.l.+oas ...:. - 1 mbV�l>6 K.i.r ^• SRC LOwN./CG 'Or.. Ia y,o AT y,•OLC nT �C.DaC LL� "�. 6•.L[G Lp Eln1. WTI• �uC°VYnOJ� w1VI121 IIVIIS"N`Iko)Al�f 14VN1S••.I9w1S •Ngy_. µ.,me e.n .w,u°LAL •. o s.i y uiw c 5� cou�nc-c ) p0 ..oY' ylaw yptAUT wTll.. / f r — . —,. - « f IT IS' 7HF IISERS f1ESfriDFVSIBILITY TD £NSGWE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE'THE LArEST RCWSIDNS. I � I PRlh I _ FEB ? Epp w.DQnl„T, Lr ftvl 6V1L01,16 —'a NltK1U(• __ e M•[V•S! S.VTM[Y yTO4 n..w Mle VT,I•T,K &f GQAO E�wr , s WRAUT �_ � I.•.Sa vTLP.V° /•�° O/�.E.l t�YlUf,/IRYMTf4 Slf vCi S. Ia00 L,O�i, L tENVC • 6A//taT i .Op ,JI.tT � P.TG.IO CuwVVCtT �liV lSt c.vlp.Yj Ol.�+si Yjp....Lr ltwpi/.{t. ..,nTta _ . ApV •+Tian .'+[-,Lb., ' .J•yT •.s. ® .bb nntn.+ i..oTa Owl r.,Ml,blt. -A _-- m .Dp •r•wl CLGV/T'pUS, Nt9TCi 'tp NO. REVISIONS 01"- CITY Off BURLINGTON — I L1.014_0O LOCUS NOTES_ 1. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMA.FON TAKEN FROM PL-* ENTITLED 3{3} j -MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS - Sr M PUN' BY CS AROW511ECTS STAMP DATED DECEMBER Ih Y9W. hC$ 2. EXISTING WATER AWN LOCATION AND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LOCATION I ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM UNTITLED PHOTOCOPY WHI ROVIDED BY CS ARCTECTS. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES BY FITZPATRICK- LLEWELLYNINCORPORATED. M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ELEVEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI -FAMILY UNTTS AND CARPORTS WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICES ON , APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CORRECT EXISTING PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS -: PROJECT. '. S S. EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWERS RESIDE WfTHIN EXISTING 27 UTILITY EASEMENT (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY). 6,FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND EROSION CONTROL SEE SHEET 6 6 7. 7. FOOTING DRAIN DESIGN BY ARCHITECT ° 6. 6• SANITARY SEWER . MINMIUNM SLOPE O.00M FT/FT 6• SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.005 FT/FT ® 9. REVISED BUILDING a GARAGE LAYOUT AS DIRECTED BY OWNER I AGENT. ALL APPROVED SET -BACKS MAINTAINED. LEGEND i �� Pte•V TtC PtoratTY 4•tC - - — — — a,l,rn+� an.,a Pt• PA�t.wt.•r ►[ePo9aD ■OGl oP M CHIT __is_� _ t•,•aT,J1, -IT.. L,JI •� ►leroatD c-.J-. L,ra aDer■ M rMNiCa.vi"••4� .. S NtnMaO M"•T•tT 1lNa•'!�-V,Jwl4 t•.Yn+4 Witt U..t .,I•-I..c .. .Tlw-.T ,;: W � .. ro.a0 wTte uw •.11•..a «. rywrrT { 0 arl•MT.up nAtt..t .vw..c.rt y � GALLV4R\O "•iifNtT,b"i Y ttibwcc u..a � lap •..I,T.ay r VICT r. K PaTr..,,..lsa SCALE I" . 20' » a o to •° so ro eoo na MEA DOWBROOK---- ; SW1 WRL INa,ON ._ V[.MOw'• ,i. SITE Q UTILITIES PLAN--. [°.1Y eeHgs C2D I / 2 INCORPORATED , f--- EGG �M aNa1M[[NIM° ANO Pl.1MNl.t [zarlc[M 0_3323 V WILLISTON VERMONT 0 HE nrpapr; NO .sae. TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL '.ANT LIST Dtr grn=!!C_ slip __ le crn'us s. M«;(Hrt Dr.nn:n[nin '+] 6LE01+sin PIKI.r'n• IWnnis 1� IIMI.C«lA CHIYE.515 'Hn iA(CN' Ir nlCrn rlt4 «�Dit tr«.Is i, .or(«rllln . Ilcoln nnlroiisl'DDo :..L............... O r5 ✓ «.,.0 M1l ...al.j! /'..16 TO �FiT>l«/e '!f:4t1N REVISIONS LEGEND Pl OPaylD 6O4! ep .«v{w{MT PtOPOSlO Co+TPJa L�uE .-,"I_/'^1r,fl..�,i>✓.�n-V'� [D4! • moo OS !a.•�T•r„r� r ! S Wono 0 1«..•.!T 4awlC wrwuJne peo.oseD stpe�sl-.et �-C.� (� --Da•�—tea/--�C-.-- a.'1T'r<. w«T[t l�u! .uI•wCrl s[ TPar.T •• w � PloPD.aD wta[ I�u{ +h¢ra ..,. Tn��„vT e u�4J�«Tao utl esaare.x 'i!^.fx4C I wE OCOC«SlD •c.T �/ �MnTCM �,a�,T:u�l O• ................♦.' lOt..ru co-rT¢o� 9xaYiF4 <tT'nf «}fORULfI T.[+E.R. flNtito_.j �!C:�'V _W L..oSCMIW O,<n p iwW"IvrurP.r An«t v.rr.ix. .D M ^r0.KtC . a COS. +D u xC Awt wnrinlxD r0 r< Ww ". MD w �CCnrN<( o✓alr. w DW I tnu ..D •.I�r lr ,t�•C u.•mJ:h F L..-. nrK . ..D.CRD M."iiW IM IVIMw III' r.p S.l•Iw[ Ar.r 1•WSCM[iM i. ilt A w,l.p ,O M rr.r�..rD NI'., ir^:W •.+ rh( 0.wii.<. 5/.•:M to rn,(. x "oJ,w. an.lw sr.•a.twD esl(uMwrz(D. nl - _ «I.. .rt•I .ssoclnllw D u'sa nnsw ac: • e uw I ncII1 IM`. Jn wo c ,—, .I+.. Krv:ro ir.nr.,a• < w.w.rr..D-u rp. 1. KCCpiw{t K�.4 .rE l gnl"MD e5 0. Dnx•IW.. D SYtlrCr D r llCO ...'M.1C 2. r n.h1(D n,jM.am _ 'J"M M D,4 Kr.. fTr 1.4CV nlyna,w Y(DIW IX MSie..HD .MK a MSlrwnir0 ..r 5 ,e M :.t(MD. M[D .IS+J.S SNaI M }a a ,H( urrlW rpl,Me: u(D .'A r..r (MI.IM:Ir«�a MD rltClE A .rf sISNM.ix U, MD lel J �v.R,� vrrtr:vai. 1 � 0 lil.:� •.w.l .VOTE: DO MOT USE T«14 SHEET FM SITE COMS Mr 1r IT IS THE' USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. SCALE I" , 20' S r0 q 0 10 .O 10 .iq qC rIC ------- MEADOWBROOK..._,--- IouTM o0 L IITaT— ....._ _--vr..rnw.• Y:'- --------LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING -,- �z & EROSION CONTROL PLAN --� r ~ � 1 LL�(5�' �}�, �%(�j Vt?��� U UV INCOR^ORATED --- MARCH 1990LS SLG l r ' '�Tb9Dl `-" .1 i tMf r{Tta.«e •[[ ru««in< uwaan I._ D e" WILLISTON VERMONT a .. 7 Ki PLAIPLT LIST �( an.Ir .oTAINCAI IVNnE GORr10N NrAE iRIE 1N3 T-S G o—ocD Lfir W ID OT GEtltW 1RNGVlDgt N6Ai [IIAOYW1N 1YilTloOsr 11YS GL W I! } la M{ w. •[YSD Mr1Aai x OAN.OM to c n.rwEnuc trrtNw TEA GREEN [iA ORFF IAArEA Ir W +5 PA P AAt81YLYFORMS D,AAN Sr101EST iPRUCE 1•i1' W t 5 w PL PYAK 6THDaRI EAtreRMYAaI[ IARRC Or W lE R POTEMILAiRUIKOSA'ABAOIiiVA]00' AASOTTtR000 POTFAlL4A ]GALLON 1] PO POITNTWAfIMRGOW YiOID MOI OCID 0110P POlBOt1A IOALLON +E R RxAANAI{/MMLAA OO•AaB.Ni{i COI.II•EIAR RUCHna.. LW ]• M .PriIEA JAPWt VITIE PRPiEif IlTTE PNtLM LIMEw SOMlpi 4 « a srwr.AwlGARa COERIOM /IMEIAAL t. lT « VI VYIIYUAMT.._ ALREWG6M UTANREARYR•H N' f I f � S � \ � . a11A.ORNCa vA,cRCThSL01.1 4p. � / f I jp N CIA I�V�f� _l i � r'(5,1Lt) G 561M WA T r,4• /i I / •O INl•f Y��'Ll wL3 i•I 1 0 �• 1 1 / I ( (A) J� It,\ i GARAGE I '�1 tow Ta.0 UL Y r f )Y .p jAA S eoca er aRnT• . /�vrAIa A1'T Cl"Ik NaY 6sL.it ab��v COA,rTi'Cx. 6A•t,ECI�A,O rYIEY- r i \) >D rdli.- O► Iy.L6.6L .w�.1 •�'nGlitt0 .10+.Pf[. CayT •� t-/ /°lat I 41jA rAl or TNC rG •K PGL 611E :CCaARiiR •+1R1 ' I 1 l r I . nc^Aot - IIPf !. - .PML .r. rtv....1T10Ms 1. ALL I4ME'S TO YL ISAi OI DI{tY[, lxFCSTATIONB lYt pAMAG[, WED NJRItCT w YIAIOVLL OI LASOSCAIt AMCxiM ]. rAiL— OS LW►TIYALTOSF PW/TS TO [[ E[PLAC[D AT RO COOT TO SMl GIBER. I. A3.L PLASTI SO TO BE 1IR}OAuvD WAT- EPMIBO ARD — ➢LAMTING S[AAGAi OB, Y11Y YVROVLL Or DIEE. Olt S1BD{CJJ[ ARCYITCCT. •. ALL YOII[ M SE I■ ACCOAl]ARCC WITH A6IEAICM MEOCIATIOY Or .UIIticSTYCY STAOAEIO. TOR RATEItIALE, IIMTAL]ATIRRA SAID wIMTtM.CS. S. CONIY Ilt TO PROVIDE A lk,A)ATC WATERING TO wINThIY tlELLTY Or IL LLVVI TTIAtOtLOYOiR TY[ G— iLAROB MD Y DVAEAR}[ t. AEI. IIA.MI'f TO RE -,MAIN[. AT WE A .rrAREE O{utln AYD a6AAArL[[D POE ONi PULL Y[AA. Y. TRLL AAD SNRUS PLARITING DETAILS ARE ILWtTEATLVE, REI[1E TO 1SDIVIDYL —I- TOE SPACIAL PIIN - Saw. — - Lug 'J9 TL,J1 Lr Ji^L^� 1. PENT 9PACIRr ARID L.L••TICY TO .E AS IRON. OY ARYIRGi YID SARI-1 TO A,M Er iARD[UJE ASERETRCT. t. AEI. TREES MD .M.U.6. TO BE •.R r PP ARE RWIUJ.DRD O. EERY; W........ AVID I" AT NAVY DEPTH NA GRON. J..URSERL. —PILL, - 'wt., IS X., NA—, PRui. AM V—S TRLC{ ACCI q6.G TO ARSSl C/l AS.00 dATtOr OI IRH XV-1 {TMOLEADS. IL.II} TST. w SR K 13A/T 1] IRCIIEA a:D4 ASO E Lif]ECS DE.— TNRR ROVE YN.. A. .rtRt ILI— tat }A[CI MD 5%D,tDe TO BE �GRANUTA0. to-:&-30 I'D YILI--COR@a0 tl, MAN4YtL. taG'. Y[iCII:—OE6.. •. IL.AX TO BE R.OEY P Rills A R]x OI IJNE I— vtld OR xl'Rua RN 2Tq IMT{ ROIcl tiIGVATLG V.US TYL IIIT IP IT If .1 —D OUA'.IT. R[MAIRDEA Or 8AC{IELL Yl. TD BE rORR.D 1NTS, A tv-1, IRIZELUOR NIGH [AILEDASSL, RIDGE D,WIDR IWILD 01 PIT TC SSKxm1TASU D TO S. I ANb DIUPI■ Or Tw I MOOD CYIM Oa YM .asAl YtLD TO S. a1.1,P. p[PTfI Or T.D IKNtt. 1 ...I— DEPTH OF TOPSOIL IY E[[p[O LYY WIW TO Y [ J.MM[L! 1. SDOD[D AA[AS • SACXY. L. TO.SOIL - .L A UM[IDAM BARD, — PRE. I HLAVT 6 I,` ...SOIL. STOR[S, ROOTS, YRLOS ARD U DtSIRA.LE .RED. ICNSOIL .. _ -.. TO HAVE M_ACJD)TY RA.GC OT-Px C TO S. AMD MOT. LESS tYaN S TO 00A OROARAIC wT SR. SAMPI.CS BAT Y i[ODEAT'[D AT TIRE WIpACAP. ASCA1. OS AEgILIASS. I. LIVE TO BE ADDED AT THE RATE OF 100 W. ILA 11000 .0. IT. (] TORS PER AC IIE) URL[S{ SOIL T[ST INDICATED OALE:RS!".. STANDARD I[RTILILES (10-20-20) TO .E APPLIED AT THE M1•[ OI Y •' LSE. [PS ..000 $0. IT. (100 MS. PER ALA[). LIN[ ARD I[RT3LI E[A TO Y SASSO INTO TM SOIL TO A MINIBUS DIEM Or TID ISCALES. ALADLLIG I. .EED MIYTUR. TO Y Y IOl S. 1-w.rOl.Irts Sf EO1MG 1. 1 101 R.r... .ED GRASS I L.I. PCS 1, 000 PT. 101 CREEPING 0.00 PCSNL (11T IEEE Pa AGA[) I06 D[S[BIILL Ri[GRA.S ]. SEEDED MLM TO BE PLANTED PROM I/15 TO 6/15, E/15 TO T/15, OS YI" MPROVLL OI DYYY M LMD{WE ARCYITLCT. 5. All. MEVLY SE[DCD AREAS TO RC W—ED LMMEDIATCLY AITER SEEDIM: YI- A III INCH LAYER O1 YCLD-IREL .TRAY 11READ ..IYONMLI AT A RATE OI 15 TO 100 LAS. IS. !,000 SO. R. (2 TU.• ILu ACRE). 9PN[AOI.G aY M[CI4AlIICAL SPMIMI.G DNIC[S S- SO A➢PROVED SL TIC LARAPPLIE ARCMITELT. El[O[D .o•ED TO Y POLLED AIT[B RRIILtl It APPLIED. AmEmU IPIED ASPHALT BAY .1 USED AS A M OH PING... -1. USED, IT SHALL i. APPLIED AT Tx[ BATE Or 150 DALLOY9 TO 100 GALLOY9 PER RESL, OR 19 p3PLCT}p 91 TML IAMO6CA➢C ARCxIT[LY. YHLN — MULL. If atR[A. RI A {LOY[P OP —1. [INILAR DN [C LI, tN{11JIII CO YPRALT SMALL BE IMJ[LT[D I— THL NUILH AT THE —1 RATE Aa ET LEAVES TH . 11. YH[R lRH.P TYPES Or NU3GY RTYWP9 AP[ D.cO —1 {RW1 BE APPLIED WINO TNS NtTNoa ArD uTu nA[nR•uA0[D .r tY[ NAwrArniw. JIYK .Crr3 Rc OR I MILAR —SO TO Y USED TO AMDIOIt .TBAM MU[LH cvR SI�I15 GREATER WAS 113, LLAIIIAOL SYALSS, OR MLAS R 17KMIT A •MtT1GH .IMDLLI• YM[R[ VIM M WATER wT ADO[ IS LT PLKLU SEED Am KII6JI. —1 RO SO i[ S—RELY HOR[D TO _ TIQ GROUND ALOWDI Mi TO YWTAL711SSLA `i RACOASaTDATI0 . K•a•1r s'WL✓ • - n.�—� �\�• I S� KTp CCU � � , e � � �� Jam'• .E EiU I e � IN, I \\ C�� + / �� YT � � f ♦ ' f 11 Tw.I.+e irTt ' ' 9p EXISTING I / I `N I fPL BUILDING 'B•Jr— `-J- ,i-at •I[o�.ni. ...`sae a+cA ✓+T• cu.+vw �c ..w•ew...c GaOIJP: cF- LRD..G L•F FSA-C. 'era-,K..�.. �+,T'6c.lc.Ty �Ai.AE RrYKRI.V vwlr{rTYiu noa .wo w►IK, PnA4c./� 44KItiL t �a �4RI[Gl. ..6X•6�AG 1!M/Nir` L.4+OGi1IG / LEI i NSy,y(�' l� (fy/.(XJIpi.I GGYf(jy 2BtA/1310f•-1S / C-IY Q1Td BUNLINGTON .J ] �'..,I• y ' SITE /f// --LOCJJS — �ia N I •w..x) TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING CIflTAIL _ TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ® f'wTT••••. YaQ s.t eaLA1'Kvl, i�.Y�E+1L- C'TYI► it w allu,A .) THIS DRAWW6 IS FOR L.00ATKWS OF LANDSCAPM, LIGHTING, AND EROS" CONTROL Q= MR ALL OTHER AF ORMATA N, SEE SHEETS 1 E 1. SCALE.' 1* R 10' Po Nl D 10 .0 EO M ATO MEAOOWBROOK SOUYH rUN11MG LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN — MARCH �F j Mlilt � ��G°�Q4G°�aG(M o .N69 - MARLyG SG + INCORBORATLO - ::-•oN1 11 9REI.69SI.. SAID ruRNua St—KIIII j _ D 1916 I WILLISTON VERMONT 6 pNR M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, South Burlington City Planner Re: March 26, 1996 Agenda Items Date: March 22, 1996 2) WRIGHT MORRISSEY, INC. - EXPAND OFFICE BUILDING - REVISED FINAL PLAT This item was continued from the March 12, 1996 meeting. Staff's March 12, 1996 memo is enclosed for your review. 3) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - PHASE V MEADOWBROOK CONDOS - REVISED FINAL PLAT This item was continued from the March 12, 1996 meeting. Staff's March 12, 1996 memo is enclosed for your review. The only issue of concern expressed by the Commission was that of landscaping. The Commission asked the applicant to submit a landscaping plan showing which of the existing mature trees the applicant would preserve on the site. The Commission also wanted to assure a significant landscape buffer along the perimeter in order to screen this development from the country club and high school. The applicant will be presenting a landscape plan at the meeting. 4) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - 92 UNIT PRD - FINAL PLAT This item was continued from the March 12, 1996 meeting. Staff's March 12, 1996 memo is enclosed for your review. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to make a recommendation regarding the construction of a sidewalk along Patchen Road in front of the four existing residences on Patchen Road. I have reviewed this issue with the City Engineer and Public Works Director and staff continues to strongly recommend construction of the sidewalk. The Comprehensive Plan encourages Zthe construction of sidewalks in both the Transportation and School Chapters. Patchen Road is a very busy street going through a residential district. 1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 22, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658- 7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S n er y, J e Weith, C ty Planner JW/mcp Encls ­v Lriwinnala V.4 No. 21 Louis- ville 81: The eighth -ranked Bearc, % 69, Auburn came Out quickly against No. 22 Louisville (20-1 1), hitting four of �d 19 points )-7) won its their first six 3-pointers, and downed the Cardinals in the Conference USA t game in 10 semifinals Friday night. i points and ACC (19-12). Maryland 82, Duke 69:With La - 74, George Ron Profit and Mario Lucas leading the way, Maryland's reserves out - straight time. Big 8 ■ No. 5 Kansas 88, Colorado 55: Raef LaFrentz had 22 points and eight rebounds for Kansas (25-3), which beat the Buffaloes (9-18) for the third time this year. Jacque Vaughn, the Big Eight player of the year, helped shut down Colorado star Chauncey Billups, who was 1- for-12 from the field. can't see the ga SEE us. Shelburne Shellburn E Y E W R KS Shelburne New Winter Office Hours: Mon. -Fri. 7:30 AM-6 PM, Sat. 8:30-12 Noon SMjEDAS ToqFr 1-800-427-3125 a Fax Number 802-862-5622 GAL ONTI S ct Clerk, Laurie Boy rtil 1:00 P.M. (Standar me-Daht Saving me) ylig Tuesday, April S 96, and then publicl ened and read aloud a imington Fire Station. Each BID must bi companied by a certi 4 check payable t( , OWNEr for five per nt (3%) of the tota ount of the BID. A BIC nd may be used in u of a certified eck. Bidders are re- �ded that "Federal ge Rates - Davis-Ba- Act" does not apply the WORK. The CONTRACT UMENTS may be ex - 'red at the following tions: Wilmington Fire ion, Harrington Engi- ing, Inc. in North Bret, Vermont; or F.W. go in Burlington, nont. Copies of the CON - CT DOCUMENTS be obtained at the of Harrington Engi- ing, Inc. located at itinued Next Column ,ri nont Dject na ng design/build ntractors to re- 1 in the Citv of ou are interest- 1(s) and would -ations, please 641 be submitted) ,d until March ie Barre Citv 1 LEGAL NOTICES 1 Box 248, North Pomfr( i VT upon payment r $100.00 for each set. BIDDERS on IN / WORK will be required t t comply wih the Pres dent's Executive Orde No. 11246 and amend Monts or supplements a that Executive Order Specific requirements fo BIDDERS and CONTRAC TORS under this orde are outlined in the "SUP PLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS" FmHA In struction 1942-A (Guide 18). A Performance BOND and a Payment BOND each in an amount equal to one hundred per- cent (100%) of the con- tract price, will be required. (40 CFR § 31.36 (h). Minimum wage rates and public work employ- ment laws are applicable. March 7, 1996 Raymond C. Lavoy, Chairman, Wilmington Water District March 9, 16, 23 & 30, 1996 REQUEST FOR BID Chittenden Community Action wishes to consider bids for exterior mainte- nance service at the Chit- tenden Emerggency Food Shelf at 228 No. Winooski Avenue in Burlington. The scope of the work would include snow removal and light landscaping. Inter- ested parties must have references and a certifi- cate of insurance. The specifications for the job can be picked up at Chit- tenden Community Action, 191 North St., Burlington, VT March 11-15 from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm. A walk through at the Food Shelf will occur on Wednesday, March 21, 1996 at 10:00 am. Minority and women contractors are encour- aged to bid. No calls r please. I March 9, 10 & 11, 1996 1 LEGAL NOTICES t, NOTICE OF BID if The Brattleboro Tow s School District Dummerston Tow School District, Putne r Town School Districi Brattleboro Union Higl School District and th Windham Southeast Supervisory Union are ac cepting School Bu: Transportation Bids for s three year period (1996 97 through 1998-9£ school years). The bids are for regular and special education transportation services. As an alternate bids for a five year period are also being requested. All bids shall be due on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 at 2:00 p.m, at the Office of the Superintendent of Schools, W.S.E.S.U., 15 Green Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 at which time they shall be publicly opened and read. The bidding process shall consist of two parts as follows: 1. Bid Qualifier 2. Actual Transportation Bid The Districts and the Su- pervisor reserve the right to reject any or all bids. March 8 & 9, 1996 ADVERTISING WITH STARS tr tz sY it IS LIKE PUTTING YOUR NAME IN LIGHTS LEGAL NOTICES PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTO PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlingtor / Planning Commission wi hold a public hearing LEGAL NOTICES N PUBLIC HEARING SO BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION e 1) Revised final plat appli- cation of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 re- maining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned resi- dential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive. 2) Revised final plat appli- cation of National Garden- ing Association to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 36,000 square foot general offi- ce/medical office building and a 12,432 square foot general office buildng on a 4.91 acre parcel of land, 60 Farrell Street. The amendment consists of constructing a 41,000 square foot general office building in place of the 36,000 square foot gener- al/medical office building. 3) Final plat application of South Burlington Realty Company for construction of a planned residential development consisting of 92 multi -family units in 23 b uildng on 27.76 acres of Zland, 201 Patchen Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess, Chair - March 9, 1996 man South Burlington Watch your business grow. Planning Commission Advertise in our daily "Ser- vices" Directory. Call SS& March 9, 1996 3321 or 1.900-427-3123. 1 I LEGAL NOTICES 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with th South Burlington Zonin Regulations and Chapte t 117, Title 24, V.S.A. th South Burlington Zonin, t Board of Adjustment wi hold a public hearing a the South Burlington Mu nicipal Offices, Confer ence Room, 575 Dorse Street, South Burlington Vermont on Monday March 25, 1996 at 7:0it P.M. to consider the following: #1 Appeal of William t Pamela Foley seeking a varianc( from Section 25.00 Di mensional requirements_ of the South Burlingtor Zoning Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to construct a 16'x19' deck with roof to within eigh- teen (18) feet of the re- quired front yard located at 36 Sherry road. #2 Appeal of Douglas ,sham seeking approval from Section 13.20 Condi- tional uses, sub -section 12.213 Convenience store & Section 26.65 Multiple uses of the South Burling- ton Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to convert approximately 175 square feet of exist- ing service station/car wash into a convenience store. Requesting appro- val from Section 12.215 Accessory uses, the stor- age and sales of land- scaping mulch, located at 1143 Williston Road. #3 Appeal of John and Kim Kane seeking appro- val from Section 26.65 Multiple uses sub section 26.651 multiple struc- tures, Section 26.00 Non- ^omplying structures of be South Burlington Zon- ng Regulations. Request s for permission to de- i nolish portions of exist- , rig single family dwelling I ind construct a new v Continued Next Column v LEGAL NOT dwelling, re square feet structure for residential u: containing fo, located at Street. #4 Appeal o Plastics, Mar agent seekir from Section tional uses < 26.056 extens South Burling Regulations. for permissic struct a 18,C foot addition t ing manufact house busine Shelburne Plas containing 2.5 cated at 8 H- Road. Plans are on f South Burlingtc. and Zoning r cated at City Dorset Street, lington, Vermon Richrd Ward, Zoning Adminiss ficer March 9, 1996 NOTICE Sailboard concec needed for S State Park in M quirements inch v i d i n g cer instructors, sa life jackets, back; and equipment Bids will be acre[ 2:00 p.m., Friday 22, 1996. For info write or call Def of Forests, Par Recreation, State Division, 103 Sol: Street, Waterbu 05671-0603; te! 802-241-3665 March 6, 7, 8, 9, 1 Sold the First D: ear this every d7 uccessful adve ree Press Cla, 'ork. Call us at 6S 's can help you Tur ad work. • • • (MAT LI "-Nv HTAf 1iwmmn1VQ a oc- x1 -T71r T ern r----- tJ /4-r ),A L I �-j -4- 000 � ,r���q. , -J No Text City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 8, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 12, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner JW/mcp Encls MAR— T—c-;'G THU C.? = 24 - P - 0 1 GMP Standard Lighti�quipment 94?,.-? ManufactgAv 70 watt General Electric 70 Wmt Gcncrpt Electric 100 watt Central Electric Crousc-Hinds General Electric 100/175 watt General Electric 150 wait GencraI Electric General Electric 115 watt American American Wesulzghouse 21;) watt General Electric 250 General Electric General Electric 250/440 General Electric IM General Electric Contemporary General Electric tov.,J) Ck'Shakespeare . ! Country:,/ l�ia�cr;Ia�.s Shakespeare Catalo No. Descrlytlon D25SO751M2GMC3DB Luminaire 70 w DIPS shoebox M2AC07SIM26MC32 Luminaire 70 w HPS Road Cutoff MZACIOSIM2GMC32 Luminatre 100 w HPS Road Cutoff OVS-105C-G30TP'Y' Lumina arre 100 wHPS Road Cutoff T10C I OCSN2LSS4BL c-Lurnina;e Town & Count.._ M7.A.C27CIN2GSC22 Lunitnaire 100/175 MV Dual Volt with 35-130583ROI refractor M2AC 1S31M2CMC32 Luminaire 150 watt HPS Road Cutoff C812GO03 Luminaire 150 watt HPS Shocbox 11-1615-6 LumLlairc 100 MV - Open type 11-1625-6 Luminaire 175 MV - Open type RMA-10 M2AC20S1M2GMC32 Luminaire 200 HPS Road Cutoff M2AC25SWGMC32 Luminaire 250 HP$ Road Cutoff M4AC25C8A2GSC32 Lulninaire 250 MV Streetlight PF4S24SOA46X6GR Floodlight 250/400 HPS Dua1 Voltage r M4AC40CSN2GSC22 Floodlight 400 MV Streetlight GEC6921161X 20 R. Aluminum Brome 13S16-01MAC08 16 Ft. Fiberglass - green BI-1-25-16-BE-17 22' 9" Fiberglass pole - gray IIM, 'CO 81-004 6 x 1 1/4" alumInurn if11 'C 0 81-0006 6' x 2" aluminum i` AL - 1428 8' x 2" alun-dnum $h ;kC5pcare OPAR-6 with mounting hardware OPHN-I for fiberglass poles 4/ 13192 aA4Mr�.Llc.!'k,s.�d1J�t Cw-.-J-4v z10h P sup4mm SI-040ab Past -it° Fax Note 7671 Q°1037rP6 0110 To Ova c' a O w From GA ;,1:✓ Co.lDopt. Go. i7 � v � PhonU R PI Who N F4ax N ��'� Ir�3�f S" Fnx 0 "^."' MAR— 7—SIG THU 1 Q : 07 P 02 NG I W p ) ip fit ORM�1i1 iV + rT DIMENSIONS t) tT 1 11�( d>, �, �• r r � �L.it � � 9 k " t • ,s s�Y� ��3) ���kb 3)t-v -# ... tF3 NV! J t �� •V i)d,.l A.' �. 4 , %' � ' t �i � ., t J �i Wall/ �.,.� Writ.r. DuRa,lW►. t1?7lb lat\Ia) VOilb _LPINi) TYOV Type On {° rti;I 7C100ACRYLICPANCLSAND M-VOLTYt,Ar060YACLQ+ � ;'w•1 Cl rAfl� 3A +) r i1t yvllSRa:u:fur INpf-),,s 1t r >o LUC uux ttv,trutal<Jr .i,s PMOTOMjE7'AIG 6hrA c r tN SiW t cJ 70W:01 i1a71CWr IN!'(-) V !1?0 12V Luc Una Roptttatar 33 Wall " 'tit:veieN .. _ y:151�5780 r�, $- i V2 , i J [ sJ tf'i�iii3jei Cr7)N;!i7„ 1?Q 17i Watt �AVtt1•)iV 31r it YtJ r T ILt.) 1IV Mv;ctir n IN tr7 ,JQ 17Q'l too t r etc Ytux-: y ' ti f 'h, " + p a EFI• y qN l A ! ) L•S•IY Zti r ; 1$Q Wutt Z UCt1(OX 'OtC oxt r, r Y , f + 1 ir, t Si rg I•t17o1)X;Sd•x' tRgaalprlNPl') ++ t r4 1 ti0 AUkt-Rt3'a. i1 1f ,- ,�'yn4� M 8 yI( Gr ) + tt� �. ••••••Ilu.'ao rt trr� �rYf{ {irrpt F'j i .'tl 1!Ct Lisa lNPF' Y t yt) 1i7 )tanvor(NPr) 20 ?: Y, rN I Rio 1 ill "I0WO-n+oI - _ Ault"lloy L S•iv 7ti �I 1 !' ;,±str tjTILIZIITIC+tir CURYE o '+" i Ei' 71 t 'e at ifr ' q 1$:? 11.110 MgrCUrY LAp INPF) 27 ti) J� I' .,�'! +r r• ,, r• ,, d N r r M1. 117,, ,i Yh Fi7'�u I +`N 1;40 111OODX:fO•M1 Film 1 r Nr'f% +� f ( r , +5 , • t r.' i p" �)� [ t J cat I PS a , ,, r ♦ A Sr1iIcF1�9ip ,rx"• , CUrre) &fPi[ 11 I r" t,•A1 120 Au10•l1np. ,. 28 } tlA r tt t ) a it 1 'tAr)1 tI1 9i PIES 1 :td Li0 (NItF) V 27 r ,.'..v:y lu ...... Itcuctvr(N ) _ pa " i,J;V _�yC•SWLfiXANTANULSAND120•VOLTYEt1CCGMACtE �•� ,:,I1J )it 1 "tt 1id•W:{iI u. l O� f10'IYN :tt 1O" •r try ' 1t F:)A _ l.t^CJIOx; )luicu)7!tl)r is Irby ). )yi) IUr1 Wall IfeavlofjN14 h.. _11 is irt� Zfl v i r . t'1'l 170 Lucatox napulalor Jtrt : rNrre: I'll to Watt- - fh)ndlar(NiJ PI v J1 �l 1y 141 lucnlox t7 r•quL',Ltr -• .. .r .... ,..-......x.w.....�.. ...x.x..x..........•..... ..:11t� J�i� rst -, 7 ' i.r ,+,1 q !:1rJ I•.V IZWrllt It,)tttur(NF4) �) Y f edit LVCq)ax"rJp'2A P ),tt lF� :. I NS,i)y ........ .....I %:NW;tI! - tiufp.�iop ... 31 y kvS ' 1 tj UtYi i.t0 MOrctrry Lap (NPT') L•:)•IY 23 a+d' 1- hilts 240 1t 17b1)Xslt•22 Roactor INPP) no v;));, yr 7 A ♦°r IV0 Litt INOFI Y PO \vil �,'0 ' r 0,i4r 9•tvt .�— xtex 4Nt1 "':: :a u" i 4 1 4 ) rp • Q z • t rr� r 6 yy t +'(,7MQfl1S I:IV IhO'W:ul Auto rto 00t 100 Me(Cury La IN L•FY•IV a ,J ctE' J) Ri,j�IQOF TR/INSVE);SE hl$YMtsrE i its y7 t3 , t p ! 17VhM(7UNTiNG'KeICHY ,? y i• '` M I ; r F i3i , ; r 1; Nli T)Q Fi I t)t)17X1t)-a ti{) sCtar INPt) 2G ti '"+ e••yn t Q:l3 ) id Aulu•fiaU. 20 tit,'. "' •- l t`�"5-�.i� t r0 i ti uta {N)'F) v 27 �' ILLUMINATION DATA t0 Yad RoattorINPO) ZS !A raenaotwxaruow«tart7Puurlroxwwtunac.nxJar .� v7CCf[tU1S1C17�CyL•._.w �.,• .. .r.VicJM.11 �^ t t�:t1t 1) r u u r )� « ,t, qa r �tc1Yt ,�etY,. 5t�d, J .. : ❑ Mm• ..•rw/ .p, ,r ,: h ..xry aMk, ,.«nn r, Nr ttA IV0 7jI'J•W 111 nWet SVr iNI'F) M'^1•Ifl J3 t�l Lt Mna, M,IN,w\.I• .wJIA �E , dl t)tS$ 170 Lucatox Ttuputalar _ 343" �; Y J{'�4a'¢>�f r"•t'V t'1 la ,M•• vn,•• mrr.t nin,r n, •,o vnry a -,en w, v 7 11 i�?11"• .»•tdf?•+Nitl RQ:i4I0r, INPr•) �33 0 A 52d LtiCnidx fiupulgl0r 34 , %)i nt •amNv .xa,w .ao.1. ,a 1 a,an .va,v •,aa avv {,d/, W.1tt FienCtOrtNhKI iiS '+J�; tiA �kr brfe . l.)! 120 lurrdox W R )►.'-rt•x.' •wrre .or,«e .w.w O .II/n0 Af,41 ,IAY, �. q r \�j[! ,} It, 1 ..'?I lV t' 41 ._ 1 AJ - t1 ..._.. o� a (NIA'....._. ..us0. xnr,. an, w. , uxu as „u • I , .,. '1 )1•i+ 1,t7}1�tt �,''t a �Whll Nu(iCtvr {Neil'! LUCi11t1x NI. t; 111 w'x, .x,,.x .,x,.r n.wn r.t•n a,,. •"_ ,: ra• I F 4�Ai ,?-'I N r )U two 1 r$•W9t1 nvto-lifie• $•IV•Ill Y 33 t° I T Vern .wor .w.,v .wun vr•a vny .vrvu `urrvr ) t t )�li L� \lots ire MArwry L:iq (NAI') 31 } r A gat1) {� r it) 740 M1751�X3'2.22 _nua0lor INPF) 28 r y 19 .v'•°• +an .vv.o .ruvv v,.ry vm•v _vre.n .,r.. tt�'!a�} 4r� "'Ii t;i'•21M1:1? 1;?n.��_.tt)(I-Wall Auto-Rop. :10 Al ,mta .vn,n .enr, .wr r. ntv virn tuw ••na \)!r`i!iJ r�4'�att ?33 120 Mercury Laq(NPR) 20 rf ir"( �'`-�.•. lyh "r l SAMfoOt)X311.4 F1A)aC1Qr(NIA'Ft wl I': A 1« wu, _.n•vn wn. wr,„ v a,.�'�'+an\,r�•v.,xa, a }ite>1•�7,�t•�". NCift.rt r•,t I'.. nr , � ... �. ......�.......-......�...,.... ....-. t+t vy )., rwrx, xx., N,.e xx.xra.r a•s,. .Nw,. ,., tq ��ci°��}[ Q '1a E: t V t Ut tt v:pattiv t• ��f� v 711a Tif1WR nsa MR000r AS30ftly In Caflony lV Provide h.`Y ap .w... .m,.•, .w,x,v .Y•)•1 wrr,x vv,m m+,n rt %leer t S roodw;ty ligliling t1inlritwtion patlern. L "For :ijv wir'p. t ,u a+rrvtuA=_µ«+rceq"v1, { �,W_rp, r {, µJ•. :,brtN • mrrtn w+, t.t�r v�ny . _Ir - 1st J]"'+b�( f}4p ACC l+ai : "r ".a.Fxupt.A� , ��h ? �r�p� 4Nnr, , .•,:: ::'..":i �i M'i;o •urn wwx ,t,x.rrn. u.nn 7�1 ...w, r:.,, .�„«....,.,. as rS we .r - ,.. ,•...\ d'Y t ?i.n.11;N(;)e•Iq,mtn)�xot)oluminun7. ftt of 4)raquuv3nutll of rystlny lot mounting, Cat. No. C2M1e000o t •• t b,rA,N UM1; ,P n r 1! i t t I ro• rn t i, r •„ i r.r') +I „r, rtY tY i f I 7 of e( t { 1 1 IJ t to In aid C:unt,oy (nt45 nutcrnc)1a qv noltl aa.omolov ro d 7 q,4> n 'M n rw r t •...a :1 � '�1 awl r« rt .r ,,�' a1:Uta''Arr17Y;•1Qp.1C-IQOR I1 h ..y +y_ " , • w . A>t 1'a 1 , r 1 vi tAry r.. tr'i"i nt M4. It), unlV: writ, Ilk rQCtip7aCI0. CzM1aCPla�-£ e r 1 al t7o h.r „r,7tn wiataat PC to t u it.wty, rr. ne cai I v r "T' A }M�t��,,•tI r3trr Sii1tJi1' I , t !{ r 1i1 Vie' T 1 J I 1• rj�/� �- . LI.XAN pnlyC.irIK1nI�1q p u1t71 IttrTGtt71)I4-Y01uid MOUNTING:KAT,,,I. .-.., n - - +J c..; i tr','i 7 E ltl ii f!-0•tij . r Ellnti.u'ACVIOt?9.t+laCtt ,iUh},dCCOrdt(va vlor's.Availablo ., ..,. „r Ei tt\7 n tY 4•I.IS'Vl It mix. (r Cr.1tX). 1C'.'IC)01+t a'.: (('rl�-A,>3,3a,4) ) 1 �.t tii ;•'�;; tr ,'i `.1,. , E.u1tr{.A,•,yr�S::•)11.(1C.�1th}M:tn:s7n).?C•trJU}1M:1nt:artl) r100175•N'attn)ftE'Ct1(YAbtOt�Oa(r1d(It0.Y0)tJdoSftotC)10wn:.-• re Qf1Yi F ttgEil t,Lt urt, : r munrn,)d:y1t••r .r1" 00 uulu tvu Sall cvnlipfaimi :) , I J , , ,y'�• , 7 . t - 7U 100 141t) watt LurnloJ( itoglJlotOr in onlorvglliloop not :hown:, rt" my. A, '�L"".UTGNE»(+C}CDPODS st Pu7iobnt notalttnp(NotavnlraplowAtt7PCratvplaltuj,Contuct11ger + tt + ; '`'' A 7+ 4' 1.1).) , tr 1R$"• `+ ,'I'tl __ _ „•, -• t71h(t Pfi.rttwt!Seelol east , )$1• � : r- .,rq.,.•--Itaf At,,,\,Pliant II,�µ1111 rt Ill :r•rr , ., t.t r,n,mt thiNn\tsl :rnAat"r } tit' ttnlat - ANSI LAMP DF$ICNATIONC • °i"j ,. t r. T.A i, it ir.,NItl l,ntt arn;hp, 17V11.r �.�....••.� '..-.-.• ...._._.. ..�.»....... CiaitnlpAX Alunutivni .. •t11 1, 1r. . rr-u• rAr, tutalop, onto , t(1� Mercury M3$ r a• \hrq,r.JA+f,flr•+k)r-,uw.l Np3tY i%')IVY L IaIJMp I X SICQI, Prima )+atP1Utl A i ,e r, s 17G MorCUry. K30 t . I., I-livi+•tnri wnntx ill) to :11 ra:I:a G r4Ola OZX Want Galvaidxat( � t t. - '.� IIaI� 1')60 LVCistq%:, Goo . ,r • ,, �;.. I"I Mt9,l .�...�' a +, '• i7 / rj y.,701.UC6tOX tr SdZr ', 'ir, � ..:, Aw ,. � •r LVICatoxi $Sa Luealox' 350 r !:.E.i7! ftAl liLECTRIC COMPANY (' ,varlinanl, 1`IonderSonvil;o. N. C. 20730 GENERAL" ELECTRIC, r,rn.tt7'.v5t0 I tt, f'' . _. .' MAP— 7—CRIG THU 10 --ols - 11 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 a ?­ 16 r# of t�ti.lC3<,Ft G0. It „rq / �l Mono # Fytx it _...�• - G .�-! S" Fax 11 P . 0 1 .:.:, CIA W033C nrar; �{1 ►10AD AY Coniri<crsciei uln�lr+i��it ti General Electric TC-100,1 C-1 OOR luminaires offer. t;nQryy-efficient high intensity discharge (HID) li+ilitin.1 in a distinctive, attractive shape. Available with roadway or area lighting distribution, theses handsorne luminaires offer architectural and application flexibility, plus rugged, durable design. rr-rr_ The TC-100, TC-100R ii i I Itiminrtire5 ;ire available,1 "+'�ii" 50-, 70-, 100-`and,l50-vial Lucalox high' piessur . �Fadiurn (FjF',S).ind,.,lOO.an 175 watt mercury Ngh kurC�5:, " TC-100 TC-100R I of Inslaliallon — Tho lum- moire is factory wired with extra lorl,)th pre-irtrippi:d btillalst loads �- Inr ,uStomorconnection. Tho cast afuntinu n sfiplitler has thrprt Sol 14(,l cWS to lacilitole Icw.finll and Sc- r;ttring 1110 luminaire to tho polo. TItR• c;ant,py is SF;cured with captive sCr e;:w(%) and hinges open for cusy limping access. the pholocontrol i evoptacic Is prcwired, Ease of iN;iintcnancv — The can. t I upy isscoured with G3ptivc scrcw(s) ;anc htnror,5 open. This irgavc5 both hands free for cleaning 4. Ghoico of Lioht Distributions — IT';S. typrt lV and V :xw av;cil aild rolamping. able for 100- and 175-watt ti(JUxc white 111117sCury, typrt lli 101 1. Long Life — Cast tiluminum hcuaing, acrylic or LEXAN•"poly- clear mercury, type ll. M or• V lot- 50-, 70-, 100- or 11.,,i0-well rrbonalo rouin lens, corrosion resiglant hardwaret and silicono Lueala:, lamps. Sce ordering wlor'n,alton for availaoility ilrotiilioo acrylic baked onam0l finish add up to many yoars of $. Automatic Control — A prcwirtui photoductric (1'4.7) oonti'c,; fum-lioruil. attractive lighting with littlo malritenanCG. rocepttacio Is owillable (Lip to :77 volts) '34'IDE FORM Sf CCIFICATIONS: Tho luminiirlt shall by a traditional, colonial desillned Genoral t'lir.•ctric'tC-100, TC-100R iuminaire, catalog number C721 NXXX t ar coulvaicnt, to operate one (50, 70, 100, 150 watt l.t,cailrrx 11ir)h fvessure iodium (Ht15), (1011, 176 watt morcury) limp tit>rn a nominal (120, 240) volt 00 Hertz power source. r This lun-tim;ire consists of rugged gist aluminum hoUSing ano is m,nm)y; canopy hint}od on one side and secured on opposite sidcx with Captive screw. gasketed canopy, inicijrally mounted lyrr,-wirr,�ci ballust. pre.-Wirod mootil socket wiltr linipi llrip , +lcryhc r,lv '.I, rud t+vucma+h nl Gur++u'ul @tcns+rC Co+nrm+%y or LEXAN polyaarbonate rusio (specify) loos, citst sliptitt.-r- ,u,l ably for 3 inch 01) t%inen, corrosion -in zislant hardware Pro. wil'od photocloctric (V ) Gonlrol rocol,tac•iv (artionni) lhkt baILrtsl shall brit r: ipoi to of alai tirirt ;ind upt1i,% irjc;i tare ,;pecifirld lamp wrutin the: iitnit5 spocilicil by the ioinip manu- facturer. The brillast must rrliably start and opxvjrta, he farmp in amount tompowturos down it) ?0`r for nx+rciav or -4C)" F lot' Llrr�dox HPS 6ENZIAL,o,', ELECTRIC PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Revised final plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive. 2) Revised final plat application of National Gardening Association to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 36,000 square foot general office/medical office building and a 12,432 square foot general office building on a 4.91 acre parcel of land, 60 Farrell Street. The amendment consists of constructing a 41,000 square foot general office building in place of the 36,000 square foot general/medical office building. 3) Final plat application of South Burlington Realty Company for construction of a planned residential development consisting of 92 multi -family units in 23 buildings on 27.76 acres of land, 201 Patchen Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission March 9, 1996 Preliminary Comments - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items February 8, 1996 --- provide total number of per person sleeping spaces (for sewer calculation). --- a portion of a parking space is located within the driveway to Zachary's property. --- applicant is encouraged to provide a connection with the Merchants Bank property to the east as described in the enclosed "Notice of Condition of Site Plan Approval". SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - PHASE V MEADOWBROOK CONDOS - REVISED FINAL PLAT --- buildings should be labeled and the number of units indicated for each building. --- provide building and overall coverage information. --- indicate the number of parking spaces in each of the carport structures. --- show screened dumpster location, if any. --- provide details (cut -sheets) and show locations of all exterior lighting. --- submit landscaping plan (plan submitted entitled "Landscape/Lighting & Erosion Control Plan" does not show the site of phase V nor does it show any landscaping or lighting for the site). --- submit overall site plan of development. --- plan should indicate zoning boundaries. SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - 92 UNIT PRD - FINAL PLAT --- proposed street trees along the north side of the new City street should be relocated further away from the sidewalk. --- additional filling is proposed at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 8 and 9. This encroachment may be permitted by the Planning Commission if the encroachment will not significantly adversely affect the attributes provided in Section 3.503(a) - (e) of the zoning regulations. --- submit 111'x 17" copy of sheet SP2. --- the lot for the mailbox cluster and the lot which will be developed with buildings should each be numbered. 3 South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 Mr. Raymond I Belair South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Meadowbrook Condominium Phase V Dear Ray: Our response to the preliminary comments is as follows: City Engineer Comments: - Drainage pipe for storm sewers will be plastic. Fire Chief Comments: - The proposed new hydrant, which was included in the approved 8/29/90 plan and which was inadvertently removed from the 2/8/96 plan, has been put back in. Prior to permitting, if recommended by Chief Possich, we would be pleased to conduct flow testing of the existing hydrant and make minor revisions as appropriate. Planning Comments: - The "G" and "1-P' buildings are now labelled on the plan, and the number of units in each has been indicated. - The coverage information is as follows: Residential Buildings Garages Total buildings Sidewalks & Parking TOTAL COVERAGE As approved 1990 10,141 s.f. 2,904 s.f. 13,045 s.f. 13,976 s.f. 27,021 s.f. Revised Feb. 1996 10,438 s.f. 4,444 s.f. 14,882 s.f. 10,699 s.f. 25,581 s.f. "Note: The coverage indicated for the latest plan includes the optional first floor deck. Based on the 1.4 acre section of the Meadowbrook site which is dedicated to this last Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting Mr. Raymond J. Belair February 21, 1996 2 phase, the coverage ratios as approved in 1990 were 21.4% and 44.3%. The proposed coverage ratios as revised in February, 1996 are 24.4% (including optional decks) and 41.9%. Please note that these ratios are based only on the 1.4 acre Phase V site and are for comparison with the plan which was approved in 1990. This comparison is intended to document that there is no significant increase in coverage over the earlier approved plans. - The number of parking spaces has been indicated on each of the garage structures. - There will not be a dumpster. Trash storage will be provided in each of the garage structures, consistent with current practice at Meadowbrook. - The location of the parking lot lighting has been indicated on the plan, sheet 6. As specified, the parking lot lighting will match the existing Meadowbrook lighting. In addition, there will be porch lights on each condominium unit. These will be the Kichler K-9317 or equal, for which a cut sheet has been included herewith. The complete Landscaping/Lighting & Erosion Control Plan, Sheet 6, is included herewith. - Included herewith is an approximate overall site plan of the development. This is a 20 year old development which has been constructed in several phases, and there is no overall, unified site plan which comes close to meeting the documentation standards which would be applicable today. To provide an overall picture, I have combined the "as -built" record drawing which shows the buildings and utilities for Phases I through IV, with a reduction of the current proposal for Phase V. - There are no zoning boundaries within this project., The project is within the R4 zone. I trust this will answer all of the remaining concerns. If more is needed, please let me know. South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (80 t) 863-9039 March 1, 1996 Mr. Ray Belair South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: MEADOWBROOK Dear Ray: The coverage ratios for Meadowbrook are as follows, based on the proposed buildout of Phase V and the total land size of 11.31 acres: Residential Buildings &Carports: Buildings A - F: 29,312 s.f. Garages (A-F): 9,702 s. f. Buildings G & H: 10,438 s.f. Garages (G & H) 4,444 s.f. TOTAL BLDGS A-H w/GARAGES: 53,896 s.f. = 10.9 % Other impervious areas: Tennis & Pool areas: 16,200 s.f. Walkways: 10,000 s.f. Roads & Parking: 53,565 s.f. TOTAL OTHER IMPERVIOUS AREAS: 79,765 s.f. = 16.2% TOTAL COVERAGE: 133,661 s.E = 27.1 % I trust this will suffice. Lots of open land on this project! Call if you need anything else. Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wallace Possich, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: Plans Reviewed for March 12, 1996 Agenda Date: February 5, 1996 I have reviewed the following site plans and my comments are as follows: 1. Merchants Bank White Street Acceptable Dated 1/18/96 Project No. 95318 2. National Gardening Dated 1/19/96 Farrell Street Project No. 94276 Acceptable 3. New Motel, Four Stories Dated 1/24/96 White Street Project No. 9604 I need to see water plans, hydrants, etc., and would also require access to north side of the building. 4. Ledge Knoll, Phase III Dated 1/23/96 Hinesburg Road Project No. 85083-5 Acceptable 5. Meadowbrook Joy Drive I would require a flow test from the existing hydrant to determine if a second hydrant is needed, and if so, the best location for a new hydrant. 6. Centennial Heights Patchen Road Acceptable Dated 2/5/96 Project No. 94049-41 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 9, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than Friday, March 1, 1996. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely Aym nd J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls Memorandum - City Engineer March 12, 1996 agenda items February 8, 1996 Page 2 2. There should be a direct access drive to the bank. 3. Sidewalk shall be continuous across the entrance drive. MEADOWBROOK - JOY DRIVE I. Drainage pipe for storm sewers should be plastic or concrete not metal as plans show. 2. Site plans prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc., dated March 1990 are acceptable. CENTENNIAL HEIGHTS - PATCHEN ROAD 1. The short section of sidewalk on Arbor Road shall have at least a 5 foot grassed strip. 2. One side of the private street shall be posted as no parking to allow for emergency equipment. 3. The mail box turnout area shall be maintained by the Association including snow removal. 4. Shop drawings of the sewage pumping station shall be reviewed and approved by the design engineer. This pumping station shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. 5. Sanitary sewer lines shall be bedded in crushed stone only. 6. Water flow tests were performed by City Water Department and Engineer and they found the flow for fire protection to be adequate. REVISED FINAL PLAT APPLICATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant South Burlington Realty Company 2) Name of Subdivision Meadowbrook Condominium 3) Indicate any change to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application Contact: John Jaeger, otherwise no changes to these items since previous Final Plat approval on 6/5/90. 4) Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, or developmental timetable, since prelimina 1 S ry p at application: i nce previous Final Plat approval, minor changes to building footprint and utility details, and. the garages have been shifted to be nearer the condominiums. 5) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (11 x 17) of a final plat plus engineering drawings and apntaining all information required under Section 202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under Section 204.1(a) for a major subdivision. 6) Submit two draft copies of all tAumi documents required E the subdivision id under Section 204.1(b) Date i CITY OF SOUTH WRLI NC ION Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant Randall G. Munson dba South Burlington Realty 2) Name of Subdivision Meadowbrook Condominium Phase V. 3) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, atborney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: i-io cna—,-.ge. 4) Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of Lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, or developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application: No changes other than final revisions to the erosion control, utilities and landscaping plans. S) Submit five copies of a final set of plans consisting of a final plat plus engineering drawings and containing all information required under section 202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(a) for a major subdivision. 6) Submit tfo draft copies of all legal documents required under section 202.1 (11)and (12) of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(b) for a major subdivision. See Meadowbrook Condominium Declaration of Condominium and Bylaws at Bk.123,Pg.15, and Amendments at 131:404 (7/6/77), 136:38 (9/29/77), 136:380 (2/17/78), 168:473 (6/15/81) and 176:114 (8/31/81). (Signature) `f'Z5.94 Da to South burlin n -. gto Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 Gz�`'C�' South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 March 29, 1990 Mr. Louis Borie District Environmental Commission #4 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Re: MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM #4CO1.54 Dear Mr. Borie: Enclosed is a letter from the South Burlington fire chief which should become an exhibit of the current application. Al Thank you Singe Jq.e eger cW e i t h t Hogan Paul Farrar Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting 1 3nut Nurlington +Rire +43epttrtment 573 Dorset *treet Knuth Nurlingtun, 7fermout 04113 h" UO.- (802) 658-7960 March 28,1990 So. Burlington Realty Mr. John Jaeger P.O. Box 2267 So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Jaeger, Plans have been reviewed by this office on the Addition to the Meadowbrook Development Project # 88169 drawing number D-3323 dated March 1990. At this time I am pleased to infrom you that all corrections have been made to enable the fire department to give emergency protection if needed. I would like to thank you for your cooperation in trying to make South Burlington a safe community to live in. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. S'ncerely r,) James W. Goddette Sr. Chief State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council Meadowbrook Condominium c/o Douglas Riley P.O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05401 RE: WW-4-0245 construct final 11 condo units (bldg G & H), municipal water and sewer Dear Applicant: AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Essex Junction Regional Office I I I West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 March 26, 1990 We received your completed application for the referenced permit on March 22, 1990, including a fee of $175. This application falls under the Water/Wastewater: Greater than 1000 GPD Program Area, and under the Performance Standards for this program area, we have a maximum of 45 days of 'in-house' time for our review of your application. Based upon the present workload, we anticipate review of your project within the next 3-4 weeks. If we need further information from you in order to reach a decision on your application, the time we wait for your submittal of that information does not count against the allowable in-house time specified in the performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the permitted time of 45 days in-house, please contact this office at 879-6563. Sincerely''' Csc � Q rz1911Z L�e_..J., I ce Larrabee Administrative Secretary cc: Fitzpatrick-Llewllyn SOUTH BURLINGTON Planning Commission Fee Paid by check # /ram South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 March 16, 1990 Mr. Joseph Weith South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: MEADOWBROOK Dear Joe: Enclosed is a SKETCH PLAN application for the final phase of Meadowbrook. We have applied for Act 250 approval for this project; approval is pending. We request that this project be considered at the Planning Commission's May 1 meeting, or earlier if that should become possible. Thanks for your help with this. Sincere/I, . Jaeger uth Burlington Realty Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting CITY OF SU711 MIP1,INGION SLJIAiVi:;ion Application - SKEIVIi III AN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of. record Randall G. Munson dba South Burlington._ Realty (Owner of development rights. Fee simple ownership of land rests with Meadowbrook Condominium owners pursuant to 27VSA ch.15. b. Applicant Randall G. Munson dba South Burlington Realty, 366 Dorset St., South Burlington,VT 05403 Tel 863-9039 c. Contact person Gregory A. Dicovitsky, South Burlington Realty, 366 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 863-9039 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). Amendment of previously approved plan for final phase of Meadowbrook Condominium. Plan is for Eleven 3-bedroom condo- minium units with related carports, surface parking and misc. site improvements. 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) Ownership of development rights. 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties S e e attached list. 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. Existing encumbrances include Aeadowbrook Declaration of Condominium. G.A.P. easement and others of record. No new encumbrances are proposed. 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or mod. ificat.iorr ()i' municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. This project does not include the extension, modification or relocation or municipal facilities. 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the 'Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: Various Planning Commission approvals, 1974 - 1979. 8) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8 1/2 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 14) of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. { (Signature) applicant or contact person date -2- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 March 12, 1990 Mr. John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 11 units, Meadowbroon Condominiums, Joy Drive Dear John: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The above referenced project requires a sewer allocation of 4,950 gpd. This project would be served by the City's Bartlett's Bay treatment plant which has sufficient capacity to handle this demand. The above referenced project conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ioei Weith, Cty Planner JW/mcp 11 e Ystems GrouP TEL No .8%1264953f1 )ti ;ti<>1. R ;F SYti'l'1 ,1i`, GWAW }',(,nw 5 jw,utl) it,. N't'11'Ih,nl 0 MX 802'(1 V) 5i71 1'Ir.,ttl,t�.I. Adh'; 15t•ntli, I, A11.;,clrw, •. 1* Dcremhc.r 1989 1\111• john Jaeger South Burlir p,!n Kcalty 1,0 Pt ix 2267 South Burlington, W 05403 l tear John; Dec.18,89 9:13 P.02 At your rcclue t, we havee reviewed the traffic imj�acl.s of Oicr proposed extensicin of construction completion date for the. meadov,•1•_irook Condominiums onjoy Dr. in South Burlington. This extension involves '1 I t.trtits out of the originally-planti ed 50 units for this project., In corldtic:ting this analysis, eve calculated the amount of traffic that would be added by the 11 new units and evaluated traffic conditions at roadway int.eric. w in the ilt-jme.<:liatc, vicinity r. f the prc_rjo.cl. Using 1111, Gott PT11 in raLC.G, the. 11 flew; uliite I&Tuld ac' 1 tIpprc}xlr,trately threr,. AM peak hour trips and five PAI peck hour trips. , 'WOUld increasc the total traffic at the Joy/Farrell intersection by Ii:SS I.harI one rcrcc•nt, The prrcent.age incrc isc -at other adjacent intet.5cction5 is even Ortial1Qr du; tr & per:sion of the Meadowbrook traffic and t.t> y;en(rally high traffic volumes at 11)ose other locations. Ao' of:t; to ;and from Mcado wbronk t ondominiumq benefits from :Farrc•i1 �, 's connection to sevc.ra.l City roads.'1'raffic froll, 1`,lr-•.;4i',.,,,.,l,A)lt ,,an ac_,,ccss Shelburne: Rd. northbound vita right turns from Hadley Rd. or Proctor Avc, soutli})oiind Shelbt.rne Rd. or 1-189 can he: accessed via the 5i�;n,ilircc9 Swift fit /S,,a „lrnC Rd. intersection, Qvelnill, the tr•affi. fact of the proposed additiemal 11 units will I)c ncglip-, ic, wltb no roc.: gable adverse effects. on safety or co",!�,,c"Jol). 1 hop -this is Suflivi--, f`>r your present. purposes. Pl :aw.. !i if yc>u yta�•c any , ''ons. Iic•gt ,'c•c?aril�:, hi scita ri.: c� ti'ti �. a- ~ras G'r'614 t" 4� Adler, l'Illlf lil7l '1 A/n1m STRpm-4 C. KNiOur, JR., PA ROOK% W. DORWART, P.R. RMY L, LANODIM4, P.T. Cat, DANWW, P.R. DONAt.O J. PARRRR, PX, MAMN W. HAIN, P.C. August 22, 1990 KNiOHT CONSULTINa ENOINHERS, INC. P.O. Box s9 WMLISTON, VERMONT 05495 RECEIVE' Mr. Vincent Koehler Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings C & H Dear Mr. Koehler AUG 2 3 W F I TZ P ATR ICK-L LEWELL" INCORPORATED Gonsuhwv Engineers Tm: 803-97"143 rAX1 802-R70376 We reviewed the Meadowbrook "Site and Utilities Plan" sheet 1 of 2, dated March 1990 last revised 6-19-90. Our findings are summarized below: 1. The proposed culvert at the northern driveway has 9" to 15" of cover, We suggest that at least 12" of cover be provided. 2. The cover over the Building G entrance walk culvert should be Increased. 3. The proposed north edge of the parking lot pavement is shown at elevation 103.25. It does not appear that this is high enough to drain properly. 4. As outlined in our last review (May 30, 1990), you should request pavement details, fill specifications and information on sub -drainage so that we can verify their adequacy. 5. Drainage Calculations verifying the adequacy of the receiving stormdrain system for the project should be requested. Page 2 August 22, 1990 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H These comments were communicated to John Jaeger and e request of Joe Weith Lance Llewellyn in June. This letter was written at the ,City planner for South PIease call if you have any questions. inFerely, Gill ,Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld CC: Greg Dicovitaky Lance Llewellyn Joe Weith File: 82175E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 5 Mr. O'Brien said total lot coverage would be 44% with building coverage at 8%. They will provide more parking than required. 264 spaces are required and they propose 286. The building will have 3 floors. Landscaping will be brought up to standard. Screening is a problem as they can't berm on the side. It was suggested that screening be accomplished with plantings. They will also ask for credit for the wooded area on the lot. The building will be 45 ft. high and there will be additional setback to compensate for the height. Mr. O'Brien said they have agreed to take out the curb cuts from the original road and put in regular curbs across the curb cut areas. The water system will be looped to meet the Fire Chief's request. There will be 3 hydrants. The building will be sprinklered. INS anticipates 218 employees. They will use 56,000 sq. ft. of the building. The rest would be leased to other tenants. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the rema units (Phase V) of a 50 unit Tanned residential develo me as Meadowhrnnk (`nnrinm; 4 ,,-- t___ Mr. Craig stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Dicovitsky said the original plan did not have a loop road. It has been put in at the request of the Fire Chief. One unit has been moved to leave more space between the older and the new buildings. Carports have been relocated. Regarding drainage, there is a commitment that no new construction adversely affect what is already on the site. Older drainage problems have existed since before 1980. There is a court directed award in this matter and all drainage probelms will be able to be taken care of the the condominium association. Mr. Llewellyn said they have agreed to bring a storm sewer with 2 drop inlets and a berm so all storm water will be directed away from the older development (Cluster B) where there is a problem. Mrs. Maher asked if the Commission can be concerned with an old drainage problem. Mr. Weith said they can but he didn't know what this developer could do about it. They don't have control PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 6 over the older units. The Court has ordered them to pay an amount to the condo association to alleviate the problem. Mr. Weith added that the City Engineer says the current plan is OK. Ms. Pritchard of East Woods noted that the East Woods residents oppose any additional development because of traffic problems in the area. They beleive any new traffic is a detriment to what is already an unbearable problem. She noted there are over 450 cars in their neighborhood in peak hours. Mrs. Maher explained that the Commission cannot deny the present application on that basis as they can't review off -site traffic. Mr. Dicovitsky said they had had Tom Adler review the traffic situation. He read a letter from Mr. Adler saying the planned units would add 3 cars in the peak hour. Mr. Schultz said he had learned last night of a letter regarding drainage. He said that Gil Barlow has said nothing about being completely satisfied with what is proposed by the developer. Mr. Weith said he had spoken with Mr. Barlow and that Mr. Barlow agrees in concept with what is proposed. He wants to see it on paper. Mr. Dicovitsky said they would agree to stipulations that these concerns are met. Mr. Dicovitsky said they feel that the amount being asked for landscaping is too high. Mr. Weith said there is no precedent on how to deal with this. Mr. Llewellyn said the landscape plan will be revised to reflect the new drainage plan. There will be a berm on the south side. AFter a brief discussion, members agreed that $8,000.00 in landscaping would be acceptable. Ms. Peacock moved that the Plannin Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington rEalty company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums as de acted on a 7 pdye set of lans Paqe one entitled "Meadow - brook, Site & Utilities Plan," pre ared by Fitzpatrick Llewellyn, Inc, and dated March, 1990, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall pay the $200per unit recreation fee prior to permit. 2-The applicant shall post an $8,000 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 3. The drainage plan shall be revised prior to permit to address the concerns raised in the letter dated 5/3/90 from Gill Barlow of Knight Consulting Engineers. The revised drainage plan shall be PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 7 approved by the City Engineer prior to permit 4. The Revised Final Plat shall be recorded in the office of the City Clerk within 90 days or this approval is null Mr. Belter seconded the motion which then assed unanimous) . As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm. Clerk .J cur vlil BURLINGTON Rm U^IIVEehI�`I CP �/rJc.. ,•9 �-- ,na j 1 .l D4 "T— i _ _ _�_ a� 1 - LOc us � L wr on J/v � lot '•ar GualwgTo.•1 \ _� los •� �o+,a4 It10 GOJ,.ITQ•( GWa `\` S INV Io,ITI'A.jD • ,1-2 g21 ,oi it.. S.QD, ,NV CNG INV IN 19 T•00 ,o) ^ n _ Y INv<our>4wlS S.0 2 �/ /I� ,oi.r �•fMs L / rrr xW3 64 10� BVILDIN4 SRTBA[ K lo, \y fray o.rw� N/F III C. C.w /Aa//�OaIAL. I I JIf�M SG`loe L. f' Iv=.» EXISTING BUILDING •Ba I FF-L Ice lDGI er eKI�sTI'•14 Fo�..�awrT ctYP1 NYORGr.IT .i j` ThPPING lEVE MIO V/>LVE � TM 'M1MC�IST a. w K I S I illy. FEB 9 1996 City of So. Burlington +.T41av ..V.ti✓.�. "� r e- �vc� e.crlou ocov2,oa.. °..saaren I-�-: 1. O � - a.¢.x: of w•� µ azTS Cd•,Lat+t RI uvnY1 �z.00 wvos•'u>4Lx IINVIn'sltLts a � _ _N WaI �Ipvn core+-. V�u ^ ✓Tl l+, �o� Jf2 I I Do .+vf I.0 •sp•�L ,.TDt1.aT u.-TINE. �v•+Dv [o BY c+olC.-. rr++w•-�P.¢ '.-+-.uee. ^•r¢ucruw� I�+TEG„7Y -fflJVn• aw,.awo -�v�LL I v o•..es PIOI•C E+.e Iw w NOTES 1. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM PLAN ENTITLED TAEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS- SITE PLAN' BY CS ARCHITECTS STAMP DATED DECEMBER M 1955. 2. EMSTRq WATER MAIN LOCATION AND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LOCATION / ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM UNTITLED PHOTOCOPY PROVIDED BY CS ARCHITECTS. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES BY FITZPATRICK- LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED. 4. PROJECT DESCRII IOIt ELEVEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI -FAMILY UNITS AND CARPORTS WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICES ON APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CORRECT EXISTING PROBLELU TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. S. EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWERS RESIDE WITHIN EXISTING 20' UTIUTY EASEMENT (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY} ' S. FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND EROSION CONTROL SEE SHEET S i 7. 1. FOOTING DRAIN DESIGN BY ARCHITECT. S. r SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.004 FTIFT S' SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.005 FTIFT © 9. REVISED BUILDING & GARAGE LAYOUT AS DIRECTED BY OWNER / AGENT. ALL APPROVED SET -BACKS MAINTAINED. LEGEND �� Pac�cRc PeoPacTY u.y �� � � � l.l'MT^��. tOGt M Mvlrt.•rT PlOPolaD aDfrl rr ►AV{MINT -��- cY,sT,wp _T_ LIJa _ftM ao aDga �� raeN lc•vII.aS� --- aAsa�"WT al t.Qw L,Ja •�v�.��� aM,1T ,NS PaNGa --� S Pw►•sao sAw,taaY aawac •��ww.wLa �Q� �� carsT,M•. sTeaw sawn •./�. 1•`S -r rr�� .eer.osao emav�savu .y'�L,'7 �. _ � v Y � iaNTry wtca UMt mil/ Lea as N7oa�'rT Parroaa0 •VATmY 9-44M w70ar+'f O a—&-p-A N1t a,% M°.wnar lT e—L—l4Tao '-T-e T-a 9 [t,aT,.15 bwaa rota .cT3rAca u,+a fD PROPo9lO fooTEr OQ�I,.1 G�Qa IJNE SCALE : l• • 20' 20 l0 o to •o a0 so wo ,so F,..,. MEADOWBROOK IURL INaTON VfAI117NT i I PRINTE F® 09 199E l 1T IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS SITE Q UTILITIES PLAN 1NCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. I® e"-sa ?►,JTnRY, STORIn,nTGR VTILITIK MYomq .T •a•N .RRII(1 40D .Nall[ tlPub aVT,.olu6 M.D ONNOGL�b�ImfR`f, v4TlR YRVCl�, uo TSi, I•il•9♦ hMo I � BB,691011 R.h, MARCH I990 r•1aEw..ra 1o.I.rmT I two I.GLtT, a.TEwa�•.va¢T,Lavba 4ve.D..W a s�4. Li � uV 1 90 I * ' Z,� eu•R I e19 INCORPORATED I // ® ..no Iuva..[r <..N:rrc ou .nuu..oLR,•'A. EGG —ss •,o P�. K eTY ¢fi0..a. G°ADILw � oDD �21DPN� t O-1-t . p. ��.�,• �i. OIRaN{ Iltlata m ADo s4r,G. CLGVdc(ION4, NOTG� 1•[30 lI•� [Na1N[[RINa ANO •LANNINa 3[aVlt[[ D•3323 m N0.1 REVISIONS DATE J WILLISTON VERMONT / uul PLANT LIST t �\ \l�L>• Qrrlm• aOTANrLL IN11t CO.t11N4E Na H O! ODNIUliW1'AN�+�pw1w wt/aATm NODrwO DDOrw00 aas W I! = S m SMnaLItaLCN/aoINSaM mono marM IOEILOCINT 111341 dIL w IS M Iemmocc L W. t®D.I{A!a L GALLON S ; AS AECMAMa C W mammANSSI IrW a PA AOAASprpCNLT DIMIr Mcww[PIUCN 1a.a1.0441 w m revs ONO" Ga1NN1IM1ttE M aY H A PUTNTS1APPRI CONA AIaO NNI W AMOrTS-K )POT —fa{ 10ALLON H M PDIe11NtAArN/rrtlL oaLnas acmuc)~ rSTntA aG LLaN rI A A[YLNaIa AaNI01AA00lNaNIM OmLmm^ItUCRI1DS1 lam IN M SPSNNAAVONIA l....INNIMI IDTLL NNI®IiRA lOKLCI S IN SM-AUADAAM CC PHNIIrLEAD 1N • tl w IASMagg T%L MaA NNIMAY CwWO1TSIM T+ HAY CI►.LL tiALa41oL-T GO�T{ITaL. bLtLEtiIt- TWICA .I rOw+r- Jr ISd.I.ES wITN S'�dG.4iary JGI.rI•. C4T FAq. a! <ylk,I YO rACO 4A�SIVJa1.1 . SLCURA. wtfla aJ(A[_ewy a+In SPI��+ Pet 66.tt:. IBUILDING 'B' r „D ,CN anti G.nEVr I \� i GARAGE G 04i Or NM.-rT��, rsv N InS w17 l-rYA7 1. ALL RAMN TO M Ia0 w DLSTANE. 3rfLT1fT[00 ON OaIIIIQ, AM SIYaR TD AItICYY. w LLag—,a AS>tITLLT. a, rALlza a tiamiarwrNT R."m N AN AOIACm " M mom TD Vast 0 . S- ALL —r- TD M [WON® watts ant- AM'ALL rtANrIM 7fLfW M NI" Ar/aOYAL. O1 oI ON LaNI .-•.• `=111tect. a. ALL NOM TO M in ACCOaMad Rw LNRIW ASSOCIATIOa r NQlaRSINtN STAMLADS raa NIHL[ALS, IMTALJR20N AM NLINTLMNw. S. C0NTL1I-ION TO IMYLM ADEQIIIIT[ NATLIIM A rAINTAIN NEALW w LyRI TM NINNINR TAa I I- SNANONI AM N 'A"AR[m. .. ALL [LAMS TOM NLINTLIaga M AN ACCZp A QINLLTT AM GUANAfRM .a Qa PtaJ. TaAA. T. TAIa AM NI ING RARLM IWf- N AN ILJIN[aATIV[I AEI[A w 1MITIDIA4 DROLL.! 'CIS sI=IIIC t1ANTIM ALQwNg— ,,v. T. AAR •Ng,N 2-.Pits 1. 'KAM SPACION AM fOGTIQN N M N SIDYN ON OIDIYINGI AM 5LUj LT TO ArPMYAL w � AAO Iwr. L. ALL TUU AND Malin TO M MIiM AM YANAP[m ON COR►I1atai Sm. AM SR AT SAM DtrTN AN GIUNIN IN IIUaSAAT. Sh,,"ILL. rE-ILI[E• YUICIN, WATTS, PNUM AM NTAN I•IIEEN ACMMIM A AIMIIW A.'10OCIATIw OF KINNLAT[RN STAADAA 9. PLANT Zits TO M AT ILL" a IN[IRS tltl[E AM a INC-a Mum TNAN II00r Wl.. ). raaTILISM rOa Tams AID SLUM TO M QAANINJIa IS-I0-10 AM "mim ACCOIDIM w MANINACTIIaEA'! NMCI1ICA120M. t. [WTN TOM aLCSIILLAN NI" A ■II w OM PAR I w maNat AM — rAAT! MIL tX—IATZD — INZ It? IT IT IS w moo QYALLTT. Am11INDa w NACIIILL NIE TO M I%-gtD INN A Tana IND ELM SAtICa1-LIQ C ALDQ ANND OIITlIw w PIT w r�C1LITAR Y-SKING AM C11•TAIN SEASDNIm WOa —M ON NAM Nlaa aPAU1a TO • .WILY MPTO w INC) INOQS. I. RR[Eal DER! w "N""IL IN SEND" LAM AMAN TO M a INL$!I is scaDaD "ARM L IN[aN. I. 1VSOIL TTI M A DRrOM NAtOr LOAN It[N rNM NEAT► CLAN SlaaolL, STO ICS, 900T1. NUIXI AM uNDMINaDi S®. Ip M l0 IIIt[N_I Q.WaIc Mrraa. if olya_ a TO a17 AM AOP IiAN TNam S TO lot OaOANLC IYTTM. SAYT.• MT M A�PKTTm at 1! LANDO J AACNITTR w SNOIMAa. 1. L1M TO M ADDM AT Ia NATO ON 106 LOS. Is 1.000 SO. R. (a 1TSS PEA ACAS) UNI.tM MIL TMI IMICATTO OT ffz. RASIAm ra ,-.R (la-SN-SO) TD M AP'Llm AT TM am w I IJS. Oa 1.000 SQ. R. (IN W. b ACM). LIM AM rRTILINR N M aAaM INtO is MIL TD A MNILNI DarO w 701) INCNEN. [®I0 1. N® NISSTSE A M AS POLLM41 2 I811clai'm Oi@S!l�YII LOS EENIUCN[T ALIM omAM L. L M. Pm 1,000 R. AO[ CARIIM Rm /ESLTA[ III$ I". PNa ACM) INN —IN AT[aIILTO [. SNaam AUAS TO M ILAwITD rACI 4/13 TO ails, a/Is TO tits, ON NITN APPAO[AL w wNM M •'�^S ANCIIIT[Cr. i. ALL NNNLT NEm[O AAENS TO NL.CI® IL®IATILT NTti $tmIM 111111 A 1/4 101311 LATNII w NaaD-IME TTIUN SPasN IN[INOLII.T AT A MTN w IN TO 100 LSI. Its 1,00N M. R. (S T(AS PNA ACM). S[atADIM at NECIIANTCN .1-AGSM —ICNS NAT M U!m it NIIIOPR aT TM IANONCArE A XTKM. N®m AMAN TO M MLLm AITTa INNaA IN APPLIR. N AN NILSIrtm ASINALT NAT M ILm AN A NINE SIMOR. MY MM. IT MM Artt.iR AT TM RATE ON 130 GALLONS IT) 200 GAtLOM rR Icam, m AN DtAKRm aT tm LAIMCArt AACNITtCT. N-11 INS warm I! aPASAD at • SaNts m OrIO StNIW OSYTCR, —IPIm NINALT SNALL R INOELTm INN TIN! MASON R TM AAOYa MT! N tT IAAYaN THE SLOYaN. N!M O'TNIN TTPEN or N,fiXK NINMM AM UNm an SHALL !N ArRIm USINN TM Nnfla0I AM IUITEN aACCMaNHN by TM MArwACtUMa. Alva M!PIIM 0A NINTtAa SITU= TO U Um TO LNCMa ITNAN MECY ON SLOPES GIHIItR T 1.1. —1-06 NVALES. OR Al1aAN NltNdrr A 'LaCN or-- -am YIm a rATtN )DI1 IIODt MINI.} !LACED Sam AND NUIO. NNTTLND TO M SKUAD.T TO TM QaDIINa ACCamtM TO NANU[ACMIm•s ANL•CaS[DATLaM. •wovoc ..c.. e" ►vc� .IccTlou a •+.•A o ee� v, a. ri u,. IuTZL,i rY FEB 9 1996 City of So. Burlington PRINTEr FEB 09 10 124�riii '•PG/L,IGMfIµCT 4i EACGeiIOtil GOLrr12.O1. ¢g v(al o t•••tS TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL Pr,wl.► rT,Y1 .r+L.,N.r.+r• ryf TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ... ♦ LII;uYWG ~ 12)r (,.Y'w" TtO DIRAWWG IS FOR LOCAIMW OF LAADSCAPING, LIGHTING,. AND EROSXW CONTROL QI= FOR ALL OTHER IMFQRNATXW SEE SHEETS / a 2. SCALE : I' • 10' I0 10 0 10 •0 AO b /00 MEA DO WBROOK LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING bt EROSION CONTROL PLAN I{�p�jQUG°�QnC�x- 8N169 I MARCH 1990 I. N LE SLG INCORPORATED /Gaut Nrw 9N61N19aINO AMO IIAMMINC S[NYIC[S O. 2981 WILLISTON VERMONT i � 8 1„t1 T ACT 250 SCHOOL IHPACT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Applicant to Complete: Applicant Name _.)oo I tA J Municipality S oy Number of Lots or Units Estimated Number of Students School Superintendent or Equivalent to Complete: a. What schools under your supervision will provide educational se*vices for families who will live in this project? elementary school Orchard School middle school South Burlington Middle School high school ., South Burlington High School / b. Do these schools have the capacity to accept the addition?Yes ,' students listed above? (assume equal grade distribution) or _No? c. If "no", what is the deficiency? d. What plans are in place to correct the problem? e. If plans exist, how could this applicant help achieve those plans beyond adding new homes to the grand list? _ f. Do you have other comments? I certify the above information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. .z0J'1eueW X413 Za�3�H saTs�u� ame 6 •J Superintendent of Schools Position 'pa44Twgns QTnj4oadsaZ1 December 21, 1989 Date _ •�uT�aaW TzounoD oq so -rid •iu•d OO: L -4,e $ur-4aaw XgTjoigqnd TTAID Jo p.zvou A 1 bl ft ff' it t' t swe uestions related to re you avaz .a e, a er su zcen no Zc�., o an r It _ -- the above statements at an Act 250 hearing? X Yes or _No? �s N 3/89 : SCHQUES.DOC� No Text pimal IPhsoe so. Burlington, Vermont Robson Bilgen Architects p_c_ Plim nsol® Build err, 3o, Burlington m Develoyero Hancock, Vermont Townhouse A — Front Elevation ❑ F= V II a 92 II II � OPTIONAL DECK II II � 14'-0' X 8'-0' p c0 I � I I I I � OPT. FAM. RM. �> - ' 23'-4' X 15' O' �^ BEDROOM LIVING / DININGQM 14'-6' X 15'-0' 23'-4'X 15'-0' 0 OPT. LAUNDRY p RS _ -_____ ____ x UP it ii i'A"i UP 14'-8' X 5'-0' JDN UNDRY DN Q I it I V II II I I ___-- ----- N o - - KITCHEN p ENTRY 10' 6' X 15' O' BEDROOMOPT.BATH 10'-6' X 9'-6' BKFST -JF 0 G� i c: ® 0 LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL O � TOWNHOUSE A OPTIONS V) SKYLIGHTS 3 BEDROOMS CUSTOM BOOKSHELVES moo Q 2 1/2 BATH DECK BREAKFAST AREA BAY WINDOW °d ENTRY/MUD ROOM FIREPLACE E MANTEL 0 PANTRY/STORAGE FAMILY ROOM �19 2-CA12 GARAGE LAUNDRY ROOM 4 I b ADD'L BAT} -ROOM TOTAL FINISI-ED LIVING AREA - 1680 SQ.FT. 0 5' 15' IT51 O Iil mom ; CD man ■ ■ M ADOWBROOM GONDOMMIUMB pingl Phsoe SO. 3UrH3OLgtOM. VerMont ]FAMnSCIO 31MIldere, 00, Burlington v D9791G)p®r'O Townhouse B — Front Elevation ❑❑ Robson Bilgen Architects p.c. Hancock, Vermont Ij II 4 OPTIONAL DECK I it 14'-0' X 8'-0' I, n li I OPT. FAM. RM. 23'-4' X 15'-0' LIVING / DINING RM e l 23'-4'X 15'-0' -J OPT. LAUNDRY UP I I I I r11 UP �I II LLWJI 14'-8' X 5'-0' I I =,, n II DN -- Elf II II I 1 it it I i I I I i C =__�--- --C-- KITCHEN p� 10'-6' X 15'-0' OPT. BATH Y BKFST LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL TOWNHOUSE B OPTIONS SKYLIGHTS 3 BEDROOMS CUSTOM BOOKSHELVES 2 1/2 BATH DECK BREAKFAST AREA BAY WINDOW ENTRY/MUD ROOM REPL MANTEL PANTRY/STORAGE FAMILY ROOM 2-CAR GARAGE LAUNDRY ROOM ADD'L BATHROOM TOTAL FINISHED LIVING AREA - 1652 SQ.FT. UPPER LEVEL O 5' 15' U a TIM&I IPlhaae 00, Burlington. Vermont Robson Bilgen Architects p.c. Hancock, Vermont iPAmi�SOIl® lB�n$Ildt®�re, 0®9 Burlington- �®�®Il®gyp®n�a Townhouse C — Front Elevation ❑ HIMADOWBB00IE: CCOMDOMMUMB 0 ❑ Final Phase 00o Burlington. Vermont Robson Bilgen Architects p.c. ]P'$ffi���Il® Il$BnflIldl®R�9 �o, l��nn'fl$�g►to� - �®®®Ilo�®u'� Hancock, Vermont Townhouse C — Front Elevation F OPT. LAUNDRY Ij II a, OPT. BATH Ii OPTIONAL DECK Ii rn I 11'-0* X 8'-0' � U li II � ll � �--all I I I I D W,; o L_� - jl II LL1 rr((J�� y it l� La ' LIVING RM 15'-4' X 14'-O' - BEDROOM, 13'-0' X I6'-3' �pa EI 0 0 UP UP U � A G - 0 � xx DINING RM I I'-10' X 10'-0' - - - e e 0 C OPT, FAM. RM. DN DN 15'-4' X 26'-6' 7u �J © KITCHEN © 10'-6' X 13'-0' BEDROOM 15'-4' X 9'-10' 0 BKFST 0 �o ® O LOWER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL a TOWNHOUSE C MAIN LEVEL OPTIONS 2BE BROOMS SKYLIGHTS CUSTOM BOOKSHELVES & 1 DECK BREAKFAST AREA BAY WINDOW FIREPLACE E MANTEL — ENTRY/MUD ROOM W PANTRY/STORAGE FAMILY ROOM O I -CAR GARAGE LAUNDRY ROOM ADD L BATHROOM (�1 I�1 TOTAL FINISHED LIVING AREA - 1338 SOFT, O 5' 15 lO L=1 Q LL- 6 ACT 250 SCHOOL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Applicant to Complete: Applicant Name J Municipality _S,oJTK- Number of Lots or Units Estimated Number of Students School Superintendent or Equivalent to Complete: a. What schools under your supervision wilt provide educational safvices for families who will live in this project? elementary school Orchard School middle school South Burlington Middle School high school T South Burlington High School b. Do these schools have the capacity to accept the additiona , .? students listed above? (assume equal grade distribution) Yes or _No? c. If "no", what is the deficiency? d. What plans are in place to correct the problem? e. If plans exist, how could this applicant help achieve those plans beyond adding new homes to the grand list? _ f. Do you have other comments? I certify the above information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. sa,"4'euiew sa�3nA saTsT?uD ame Superintendent of Schools Position `p-)44Twgns ATTn.i4aadsaZ1 December 21, 1989 F-� Date • JIJuT4a40W Ttounoo oq .zoTsd -w-d pp: L -41P S3z.zoq-}nd TTnT7 Jo pa-eog Are you available, after sufficient notico, to answer questions 'related to the above statements at an Act 250 hearing? X Yes or �No? Z�ON 3/89 : SCHQUES.DOC �_� No Text Final IpILSO® 00. BM71iffig$®ffi9 V8rMOn'& Robson Bilgen Architects p.c. iPIlmtffi��Il® IBanIlIldl®R�9®, 18Bn�IlIl��$®� a IlD®®®Il®]p�®�� Hancock, Vermont Townhouse A — Front Elevation F—I IF= U GL it II UJ II II � li OPTIONAL DECK ii U II II � II 14'-0" X 8'-0' II Fr �0 s. I � d I � I y � OPT. PAM. RM. �> 23'-4' X 15' O' BEDROOM LIVING / DINING RM 14'-6' X 15'-0" U o 23'-4'X 15'-0' _� ❑ C 0 OPT. LAUNDRY �1 A � ------ up i IN, LIP 14' 8' X 5'-0' LL r ilI C LAUNDRY Ln II DN 0 DN u - _rr , ` O II I I I I II I I J J KITCHEN © IN a Q) ENTRY 10'-6' BEDROOM BEDROOM OPT. BATH 10'-0' X 17-10' 10'-6' X 9'-6' SKFST to O ®� O LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL O � TOWNHOUSE A OPTIONS U) SKYLIGHTS p p 3 BEDROOMS CUSTOM BOOKSHELVES ® Q 2 1/2 BATH DECK BREAKFAST AREA BAY WINDOW °a ENTRY/MUD ROOM FIREPLACE � MANTEL PANTRY/STORAGE FAMILY ROOM 0 2-CAR GARAGE LAUNDRY ROOM Q m ADD'L BATI ROOM A cl TOTAL FINISI-ED LIVING AREA - 1680 SO.FT. 0 O HBADOWBROOT COMDOMMUMB ❑❑ Wmal Phase 00. Burlington, Vermont Robson Bilgen Architects p.c. IFAIM&SCIO ]BUIldera, 00, Burlington v Developers Hancock, Vermont Townhouse B — Front Elevation 1:1 Ij II OPTIONAL DECK II I l 14'-0X 8'-0' I, n II II OPT. FAM. RM. 23'-4' X 15'-O' r'7 LIVING / DINING QM e J 23'-4'X 15'-0' -IJ OPT. LAUNDRY I I r11 UP ii LWJI UP 14'-8' X 5'-0' I I n II II -- DIN I I 4 II II I �`l LL _ C=_ ©p C ------- - KITCHEN p' 10'-6' X 15'-0* OPT. BATHd� Y BKFST LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL TOWNHOUSE B OPTIONS SKYLIGHTS 3 BEDROOMS CUSTOM BOOKSHELVES 2 1/2 BATH DECK BREAKFAST AREA BAY WINDOW ENTRY/MUD ROOM FIREPLACE E MANTEL PANTRY/STORAGE FAMILY ROOM 2-CAR GARAGE LAUNDRY ROOM ADD'L BATHROOM TOTAL FINISHED LIVING AREA - 1652 SO.FT. UPPER LEVEL O 5' 15' U a F 1 (`f'HfRll_K-LLEWELLYN 4EL:1-802-873-3846 Mar 11'915 14:26 N o . 0 0 1 P.02 SALEAfim L 111VINA1Rr Residential roadways, Walkways, shOPPing cent(jrs, malls G" Ut+572 Lhled SUrtAKE FOR WET LOCATIONS when paty�orbonatp rwtroctor Is t)Wd and "U" 0pfion Is chosen C C.SA rains rvndirtg-Contact roctory tJyw Cul0ft OPtics Ovolloble-TRCR D*-Cmf Numinum housing LJ HlnQsd canopy 0 Acrylic Or WYCarbUnafe (esn retractors Q Integroi botiosi lrtogul boss Mkot TRIC--Verttcar; TRIR ^ (�•RCR +halzonta ( 5 1) toslept ln*1 latch to socure canopy - - Q Termlrtial eo3rd slondara �- O Rug-tn slarline aitl Q No-lpol PE r"COpt(xi9 TR I i o L T LIGHT WATTAGE SOURCE VOLTAGE %xxX xx x X Sae Ballast and Photometric 05.50 _ P$ 1-120 — Se40 Tabl M=MH 2=208 TRIC=Salem i0a40Q = etc 3=240 to 111101re 15= Standard: 4=277 TRIR Zan) t55V) Lamp not 5-480 Lum?nairs 17=175 Included. 7 -1?pX240 With Road. -- way Optic 8-240V NOTE: (Ut tilted 104 when poly. 1�y PE oarbonote teceptoclt retrt ox is Not tecon• wod, See .v, nectoble, tlon. 0=347 TRCR=Salem F =129X347 tuminolrs NOTE: Dual with WON voltage Optics connected to 1. lower voltage N 2 BALLAST PE TYPE FUNCTION x x See 50110st 1= None and Photo- metric Selec• 2 a PE Re - Lion Table CeploCle A=Autareg NOTE: Receptacle C-Mere-Reg connected H=HPf borne voltage Reoctor ab unit excep or Lag Us noted. M-Mo4-Reg Oder PE Control N =NPt bepototely. Reoctor or Log 0.10 S-WKI rn ch.Nq _,h,., rw,kv Trb.^+rh of o,...,w lhct,k cvw•' a_y Page 2 rJ' QQ� Dec. 1991 0 IES DISTRIBUTION TYPE REFRAjonly) COLOR XX X X X A=Ac( { l G=Cle+ at Block Flat Gf (Standard) (TRCRe Bailast Ond D5=Dcj t =Pol.Photometric B`anzs cartxlection Table GR�Groy t { { S =Short { { M=Medlum { { r C Cuto � m -Cutoff J 2=1Y Ype V $ =V Type I OPTIONS _ xxx_ F = Fusing (Nol avollable with duct votfoAe) U -UL LIsle d (Avo0oblo with Polycar- bonate only. Not avail- able with TRCR) J FITZPATRICK—LLEWELLYN TEL:1-802-879-3846 Mar 11 '96 1Q:�)7 Nn 001 P Ft? l MjEN. M I Ufiq#A1flr TR I C TRIR A D TRCR L�L 26.500 in. NOTE. NO SIDE (g73mm) %NELS ON TRCR t 2.500 in. (64rnm) 3-000i MAX POLE I71A 16 750 in. (425mm) All light sources are cooled Unless othenvtse tndic- m --- -- -- — —_ Ballast Type Light Wattage 50 So 120 206 240 277 70. 100, MPS N,N NIA WA N7A 15D(SSYj .7 HPS N,M,N mmm H,M,N H,M,N Photometric Curv0 Numb(;, 7MK1 480 12X40 120X347 PER20 J— MC2 2M55 M-52 867N/A N/A WA 750N/A 777735 7G76M N/A ' S MN _ NIA 7505 NIA N/A 7678 7579 N!A 7J35 7736 (Cootectl A q q q -- — -- _ 100 MOIC A q A A /A 1507LInLNIALNIA 17684TNIAIWA % Merc C C j WA C N/A 7507 7506 WA NiA 7684 WA N!A (Coaled) CA C C, HA C C C Note: NIA ,Not Avallobie WA C N!A 7507 7.506 NIA NIA 168a WA WA Approximate Net Welght t2181bs R d Kos) ERedh+e PrDl Cted Alga 64001*d klcunttng NeIpM ,ata Fr t ( M) maximum wr..,,ea.n ro en.,,p..vnnevr nark. See Page 5900 for start of Accessories See Page 5980 for Distribution Type Classification SeQ Page 8000 for Pole Selection iITZPA R ILK-LLEWLLLYN 1EL:1-802-8T9-3846 Mar 11'96 14:27 No.001 P.04 PHOiQIVlETRIC DATA SALEM` L(/MI NA1RR Grnrral EI�ctrjc SA FM LVm1nt {re R[hvCior Ne. 35Q32112.pp r4cry0C nplr.rtpr Np 3a.1327sa-OI LAMP-a0 TO 15 WATT ANHIGH /AE65UAt SOb1UM $u,I3 TV" - FFM1 CVT(Nr �nVNTNp NrIGNT FAVM TV.E N --' Mwx CANDELA �Sf � C OWC p15 Max vtwnCal RUNG.. TJ Ntvr 5 RAx CANDEU AT 10' _ sT NAx CANDCU aT p• ,.. Tp I —� aDrRrD'DfGNDIti ppyb uD" UMD[lA . '{MOUN7IN0 rMHE16HT COAAECTIOH FACTORSJF PFq •p;; wntl OR OTHER THAN 15 FEET ►NDTOM[TRIC DATA � D7 AND E urtvp. J5'17707p•01 09n00-111 El Itlric SALE04 LumlAAdr� RAAK IOr NO. 35432T 12Ap AtrynC Rp rActor No, 35 2327t4 at LAMP-50 TO 1a00 ATN O 17 %100f., a x Nsa.I611 r) PRESSuRE Sontr.o RF tit M•WT( •MDyw nNO r, r' MEAVM rYRI Max CA" 11A MAx •ON[ rG MAx t'f AfrCAI RANf r1 },IA MaX CANDELA ar NRD�R rpDICANIrI[8 W M•DrR C1NDFlA tM w>ylt Lg 7C All aw N ahDr F CA4Dt( TGNDa[ ralVt[ pr rN tv �o Rwhp . aClval a lVM[Np . pp0 wM --•Lr / J »? 2J 7 1E J3 TOTAL of !I -A 'MOUNTING HFIQHT COARECTION FACTORS FOR Or PWA TOO_ L PAOV,A V pIAIM11_ps, / HEA THAN it FElT /�t1aJ TQ 14 if is 20 _ t.2a 1OB t.15 1,00 0.811 o" 3S-177864-01 G#na*l El*clrlC SALEM Luminalrn w[w,r Aellwot NO, 35-232112 I Ism ACr71k Ra7raclor No. 3523275"1 LAMP-1(IO TO r S&Ckol Pvp�11Dn A A43�nfe TtRF 73 WATT MfRCUAT OR I It WATT MULTIVA►OR Sf-KV'urr i •MQErNTINC. N[rDNT N'� TTP( R� I XYX CANOFIA rEtrT 4 uAA LONE MAx VLRfICA J MAx CAHDIIA Ai � Nx AR FQDTC.L4Dlfl 0111EX Y i NADIA CANp1U. .JTF i 1 avl nrL. LL MtN. C.Not ( ::urcroTc.Na`er.lue. rrma i 1'O 4T,p � ACrWlp lAai — � LUME NALUME � rppp `_ � J 7A7 24 i 2, 2 A 277 Jr X aWru4pu •,nn �w p• T_ TAI ]LIA N.1 'MOUNTING HGONT COREFS"O F Ptcq X t? LAMP A(/pXFN>G N FOR OrN[A TNAH s IAaur.Hsly H��j,FHi '10 6 F[t;'T F;p,1EIr 12 14 2.23 1.50 / 15 1f 29 o.S6 ,'40.55 [q wfHltsl 10 110p rrpnD'vt nonplr - TA +4prk Or Q.t+ryrRl Voett c company ,k"�w. ,%ifTyr k'k�m�. `.±,kw �' is i t�<'.. Ax . f � • 14 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BA-I'TERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (TEUSTACE@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) April 1, 1999 William Burgess, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Condemnation of Meadowbrook Condominium Common Area Dear Mr. Burgess: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Meadowbrook Common Area. The City of South Burlington proposes to acquire a portion of this property by condemnation. This notice is being provided to the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §709. If you have any questions regarding this acquisition, please feel free to call me. Thank you. Sincerely, Timothy M. Eustace THE/bjl Enclosure cc: Charles Hafter, City Manager Joe Weith, Director of Planning & Zoning Son3977.cor NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing on May 3, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the South Burlington City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont for the purpose of hearing those persons who are interested in the lands of Meadowbrook Condominium Association, consisting of approximately 0.08 acres adjacent to the northerly sideline of the Interstate 189 right-of-way, in the City of South Burlington. This land is shown and depicted on a plan entitled "South Burlington Transportation Path, STP BIKE (6) South Burlington, Vermont, Sheet 7 of 15," prepared by Pinkham Engineering Associates, Inc., dated August 18, 1997, last revised April 1, 1998 and recorded in Map Volume 430 at Page 36 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. The City of South Burlington proposes to acquire said land and all improvements owned by Meadowbrook Condominium Association on said land by condemnation. The purpose of this hearing shall be to determine the damages due the persons interested in said lands. The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives further notice that it will inspect the site to examine the premises it proposes to condemn on May 3, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. The plans and specifications of the proposed improvements, including a survey of the affected property is on file for inspection in the office of the City Manager, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont, and may be reviewed during normal business hours. Anyone having questions regarding these proceedings may contact Charles Hafter, City Manager, at the City Offices (846-4107) during normal business hours. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this r� day of March, 1999. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: �)--- Charles H fter City Manager Son544.ord TAX MAP #: FILE #: LOCATION: DATE 3-13-73 3-26-74 4-1-74 6-25-74 9-9-75 4-19-76 5-11-76 5-10-77 11-8-77 6-22-81 4-10-90 6-5-90 35-4-0 MEADOWBROOK GRAND LIST #: 0940- APPLICATION PURPOSE FP 3 LOT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ? RECIND 3-26-74 APPROVAL AMEND 3-26-74 MOTION FP PHASE I-11 UNITS V TENNIS COURTS APPROVAL PHASE I-POOL/TENNIS SP PHASE III-14 UNITS SP PHASE IV-14 UNITS V DECK SK PHASE V-11 UNITS RFP if 11 if of FILE NAME: URBAN WHEELOCK HAAS,WILLIAM(MEADOWBROOK if if of to of if HAAS, WILLIAM SO. BURLINGTON REALTY HAAS,WILLIAM(MEADOWBROOK 11 11 if if DAVIDSON, DICK HAAS,MEADOWBROOK(1990) City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 27, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the April 10, 1990 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. 7Sin erel , oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 1990 page 5 like the plan and wanted more protection for the residential neighborhood. All members wanted to see a traffic study. Mrs. -Maher -then moved to continue the hearin until the a licant comes in -with a flan that addresses the Commissions -concerns,. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch Plan application of South Burlin ton Realt -Com an to revise and construct the 11 remaining units of a 50-unit-planned residential develo ment known as MEadowbrook Condominiums, Jo Drive Mr. Craig stepped down during this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Dicovitsky showed a drawing of what has been built to date. He then showed a drawing with the added 11 units and a new configuration of carports. Changes were outlined as follows: Previously parking was all to the east of the carports. The Fire Chief asked that the road be reconfigured closer to the building and they have thus looped the road to the west of the carports. The Fire Chief is satisfied. This also resulted in the reconfig- uration of the carports. They have also rethought the buildings and have removed the southernmost unit from G Building and added it to H building. This provides more clearance. Mrs. Maher noted the City Engineer feels the drainage problems should be solved before any more building is done. Mr. Dicovitsky said everything in the drainage report will be addressed. There will drainage swales, culvert improvements, and a second culvert. Mrs. Maher asked that the City Engineer be satisfied that every- thing he wants is in the final motion. A neighbor raised the question of traffic. Mr. Burgess noted that traffic was already addressed in the original approval. 4. Site Plan application. of William and Lee -Bissonette-for -a 24 seat expansion within an existing.2,800 square foot-building,-A1's French Fries, Williston Rd. Mr. Burgess noted receipt of statement of concern from the City Council regarding traffic on Williston Rd. and asked that this be carefully considered by the Commission. Mr. Bissonette said they want to put in 20 more seats in a 14' x 20' space. The footprint of the building will not change. Mr. Burgess noted that according to ITE standards this doesn't Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05401 05403 May 7, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: You have said that the Planning Commission was interested in the question of drainage at Meadowbrook. This is a very serious problem here, and there is much material on the subject. I attach copies of a letter to me, March 23, 1990, from Gill Barlow of Kni8ht Consulting Engineers, and a letter to Remi Gratton, March 6, 1989, also from Gill Barlow. These are among the more important documents on the subject of drainage at Meadowbrook. I will send other material later, not wishing to deluge the Commission with a flood of paper at one time. Yours very truly, RM Robert S. Schultz President, MCA Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 29 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. MARTIN W. HAIN, P.E. March 23, 1990 Mr. Robert Schultz, President Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Review of Meadowbrook Condominium Expansion Dear Mr. Schultz: TEL: 802-879-6343 FAX: 802-879-6376 We have made a preliminary review of two drawings -- Sheet 1 of 7 entitled "Site and Utilities Plan" dated February 1989 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn and Sheet 1 of 1 entitled "Site Plan" dated March 1990 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn. We have the following comments: 1. The two drawings have different layouts. We assume that the 1990 layout is proposed. This drawing should be revisedshow the contours and drainage. 2. The assumption is made by the designer that the drainage for the proposed units will be handled by proposed drainage improvements to the south. It is not clear what these improvements are. The drainage improvements shown on the "Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan" dated 7-7-84, prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., were not designed to accommodate any additional development. It is necessary to evaluate their adequacy for additional development. My initial ju'gement is that additional drainage facilities would be necessary. The Meadowbrook Condominium Association should request that the designer of the drainage for the proposed expansion provide detailed calculations for the drainage design which should include an evaluation of all the receiving drainage ways as well as those within the project. 3. The proposed footing drain system does not have a specified outlet. It should be fully designed including size, inverts and cross-section. Cleanouts should be located in this system. Page 2 March 23, 1990 Re: Review of FitzPatrick-LLewellyn Site Plans 4. The February 1989 site plan does not show adequate drainage along the west side of the existing roadway. 5. Past investigations indicate the need for a swale along the north side of Building B. The proposed site plan should address this. 6. There is not an adequate swale along the north perimeter of the project. This completes our initial co=-er.ts. ThiS letter is not intended to be a comprehensive review. Please call if you have any questions. S�ncerely, Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld File: 82175-C43-1 KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. Box 29 WMLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. BONNIE L. CARPENTER, P.E. March 6, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Clermont 45403 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans Dear Mr. Gratton: TEL: 802-879-6343 We have evaluated an original site plan for Meadowbrook, an as -built working sheet and a site plan for an expansion of Meadowbrook and have the following comments: 1. The following drawings were reviewed: a) "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums" drawing no. 1, dated December 16, 1975, prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, stamped by James A. Lamphere, Registered Architect (referred to as Plan A in the following discussions). b) Worksheet prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 1984. This sheet indicates as -built locations and spot grades as -of July 1984 (referred to as Plan B in the following discussions). c) "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums", with the CS Architects title block, no date, no drawing #. This plan shows two proposed condominiu.�;a buildings, two carport buildings and new parking, all, to the north of existing unit B on Meadowbrook property (referred to as Plan C in the following discussions). 2. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have an adequate drainage system. The problems include undersized and non-existent drainage piping, inadequate ditches, inadequate underdrains, inadequate slopes on paved surfaces and poor siting of the buildings. This has caused wet basements, and failing pavements. 3. Plan A does show two "future" condominium buildings to the north of existing Unit B. It is clear that Plan A does not include the site design for these future units in that there are no design contours and the existing contours are at a 4' interval versus a 1' interval in other portions of the site. Furthermore, the proposed drainage on Plan A is not adequate to accommodate these future units. Page 2 March 6, 1989 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans 4. We assume that Plan C is a preliminary drawing in that it does not have any contour information and it has inaccurate and incomplete topo- graphic information. In addition it does not indicate any upgrade of the existing Meadowbrook drain system which would be necessary to accommodate the additional impervious area shown on Plan C. 5. The following issues should be addressed before any additional units and parking are constructed north of Unit B in the wooded area on Meadowbrook property: a. The existing Meadowbrook complex:. does not have adequate drainage to accommodate any additional impervious areas unless the runoff from that new area is piped through to the stream on the east and south side of the site. b. The high water table should be evaluated. C. The drainage area immediately northwest of Meadowbrook should be investigated to assess its impact on surface water runoff and the groundwater table in Meadowbrook and the appropriate steps should be taken. d. Adequate space should be left between existing Unit B and any new construction to the north to allow the construction of a proper diversion swale and underdrain. There should be no trees planted within 10' of this underdrain. e. The stormwater from the new area should be piped through the existing Meadowbrook complex to prevent further drainage problems. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. 6incerely Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB /kld File: 82175U-C28-1 Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont OW 1 05403 May 21, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: Here is some more material relating to the drainage problem at Meadowbrook. In addition to various letters, etc., I attach a single copy of three site plans mentioned at various points in the correspondne included here or in the Barlow correspondence sent you on May 7, 1990. Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan, Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., 7-7-84 Meadwobrook Site and Utilities Plan, Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc., February 1989 Meadowbrook Site Plan, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. March, 1990 Also a section of the Official Vermont Base Map, Sheet no. 096217, Series 1250, 1978 In addition, I enclose copies of the following correspondence: Letter from Bill Szymanski to Remi Gratton, September 4, 1989 Letter from Remi Gratton to Bill Szymanski, April 18, 1989 (This letter has a reference to the awxial photograph.) Letter from Hal Kemp to Bill Szymanski, Oct. 13, 1988 Also a "key" to the Knight Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Ilan. I hope this material may be useful to the Commission. Yo-urs very .s truly, Robert S. Schu t Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer y 49"A &4141f4' )9 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 658-7954 September 14, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Remi: In reference to your letter of April 18, 1989 and Hal Kemp's letter of October 13, 1988 and the site drainage improvement plan prepared by Knight Consulting Engineer's dated July 7, 1984, I am in agreement with the infor- mation provided to correct the site drainage with some minor exceptions and they are as follows: 1. Storm drainage pipe, I would recommend it be plastic or concrete and not metal,or aluminium. Our experience with metal pipe is that it deteriorates even if it is coated. We have no objections to using it for culverts, like under driveways but not for storm sewers. The underdrains should also be plastic. 2. The underdrain system should have a couple of cleanouts, so it can be cleaned and flushed 3. Storm drain outlet pipes should include headwall to control erosion. I agree that these improvements should be implemented prior to construction of any additional untis. Very truly yours; William nski City Engin e WJS/b Meadowbrook Concluininiuui Association . Joy Drivc . �t,Utll Burlington. VCnnunt 0540J April 18, 1989 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Bill: Many thanks for coming out here a couple of weeks ago and looking over the Meadowbrook drainage problem with Bob Schultz and me. With your experience, you will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, even though things right now are remarkable dry for this time of year. (You may remember the great amount of water shown in the aerial photograph done in the spring of 1978). As you have commented, the site plan dated December 16, 1975 originally submitted by South Burlington Realty Corporation - and approved - showed no site drainage Program, except for buildings A and B. Therefore, while it may be possible to "grandfather" the G and H buildings themselves in the appoved plan., there was no drainage design approved for the new buildings, and so it would seem necessary to study this problem before a permit is issued for construction. I attach a copy of a letter from Knight Consulting Engineers, dated March 6, 1989, which deals with this drainage problem, as well as a copy of a letter to you, dated October 13, 1988, from G. Hal Kemp, then President of Meadowbrook Condominium Association. page 2 Also, in line with your request, I am sending you two drawings prepared by Knight Engineers, dated July 7, 1984: one showing existing surface water drainage plans and the other a preliminary surface water drainage plan for corrective work. This drawing, it should be pointed out, deals with existing drainage problems, and has nothing to do with problems resulting from construction of G and H buildings. Very truly yours, Remi Grafton Vice President Copiesr Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl H. Li sman, Esq. Meadowbrook Board Members RGrjb Meadowbrook, Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 J October 13, 1988 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Meadowbrook Condominium Association has a severe drainage problem. Mr. Joseph Weith, a member of the South Burlington City Planning Board, was informed about this during a discussion with Mr. Remi Gratton, who is a member of our Association. Mr. Weith suggested that it be brought to your attention. The Meadowbrook drainage system, as it presently exists, was not adequately designed to handle drainage from the undeveloped section of the property. Presumably, the plans of the developer were to deal with the problem when the last two buildings and accompanying carports were built. The drainage across the undeveloped area includes heavy runoff from the Burlington Country Club and the UVM farm. Inasmuch as there now appears to be interest by some contractors to complete the last two buildings at Meadowbrook, we feel it appropriate to bring our concern to the City Planners and to you. It is recognized that two buildings, one with five units and the other with six units, have been approved on the site plan dated 12/16/75, showing footprint, size, and location of the buildings. That development would conform to layout as approved. This is mentioned because earlier this year a prospective developer was interested in Meadowbrook and chose to ignore the approved footprint, both regarding the size of individual units and location of carports. In this connection, I am attaching a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1988, to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, from Miles P. Weidner who was then president of Meadowbrook Association, regarding our concern of variances. We believe that that developer no longer desires to proceed. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to District Coordinator Louis Borie from our attorney, Carl H. Lisman, Esq., listing various problems which would be posed by further development of the Meadowbrook property. We offer, as Mr. Gratton has in the past, to meet with you at the site to show you the seriousness of the situation. 4Sinc re y, G. al Kemp, President Enclosure cc: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl Lisman, Attorney Key to: Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc. Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan 7-7-84 August 6, 1984 MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS BUDGET COST SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE UPGRADES Upgrade Description Cost (in order of $ priorities) 1. New 24-inch storm sewer outfall and catch 8200 basin 2. New stone lined swale and 15-inch diameter 1800 culvert 3. New 15-inch storm sewer, catch basin, 15-inch 4000 culvert and 8-inch underdrain 4. Seed existing swale along Rice High School 900 boundary and upgrade outlet 5. Install new catch basin and replace existing 3400 8-inch storm sewer with 15-inch storm sewer 6. New 8-inch underdrain along main entrance 9700 roadway w/catch basin 7. New swale along main entrance road 2500 8. New swale and outlet along west side of 2100 carports for A b B units 9. New swale and regrading along north side of 4700 B units 10. Improve swale north of B units 2600 11. Install 8-inch storm sewer with 3 catch basins 9100 along west side of A Units 12.. Improve swale northwest of E units 1400 13. Install swale and regrade along west side of 6600 C units _, , , ., - Meadowbrook Condomin_ams Preliminary Cost Summary Page 2 14. Install swale and regrade along north side of 4700 D units 15. Install swale and regrade along west side of 12600 E units 16. Install swale and regrade along north side of 1700 units F-5, F-6, and F-7 17. Construct swale along north end of C units 600 $76600 4 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENT BOARD RE: SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY ) COMPANY- ) Land Use Permit #4C0154-6-EB BRIEF OF MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Procedural History Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc., the appellant ("Meadowbrook"), brought this appeal by Notice of Appeal, dated July 27, 1990, pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 40. Meadowbrook appeals the action of the District No. 4 Environmental Commission (the "District Commission") in issuing Land Use Permit #4C0154-6, dated June 29, 1990. The Land Use Permit amendment in question was granted to the appellee herein, Randall G. Munson, d/b/a South Burlington Realty Company ("South Burlington Realty").' The permit pertains to an undeveloped portion of the 11.31-acre Meadowbrook Condominium property on Joy Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. The permit states that it authorizes South Burlington Realty to "modify the original building/site plan" in two areas, by changing an earlier carport and driveway design, and by moving one unit depicted on an earlier design from one building to the other. The permit also states 1 The Permittee was first known as South Burlington Realty Corporation, a Vermont corporation. Correspondence between this corporation and the District Commission indicates that Mr. Munson controlled the corporation. In 1986, the corporation was dissolved and Mr. Munson succeeded to its property and adopted the tradename South Burlington Realty Company. Because both entities were, and are, controlled by the same person, the term "South Burlington Realty", is used herein to refer to both. that it extends the construction completion date for the two remaining buildings comprising 11 condominium units from September 4, 1979 to October 15, 1992. South Burlington Realty's present application followed the decision of the Environmental Board (the "Board") in In Re South Burlington Realty Company, #4C0154-5-EB, decided on May 4, 1989. There, the Board voided Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0154-5, which had granted South Burlington Realty an extension of construction completion date. The Board held that the District Commission erred in granting the extension date without either requiring all owners of the subject land to be co -applicants or determining after a hearing that good cause exists to waive the co-applicancy requirement, under Board Rule 10(A). The Board remanded the matter to the District Commission for a hearing on the co-applicancy issue. The District Commission convened a hearing on this issue on September 20, 1989. At the hearing, the District Commission heard arguments from both of the parties to the present appeal on the issue of co-applicancy. By Memorandum of Decision dated November 7, 1989, the District Commission held that Meadowbrook was not a mandatory co -applicant, but granted Meadowbrook party status. At the September 20 hearing, the District Commission also determined that it needed to address a second threshold issue before re -considering South Burlington Realty's request for an extension of completion date. This second issue was I whether the completed portions of the project complied with the approved plans, and if not, whether a permit amendment was required for the existing changes to the project. By letter to the District Coordinator dated September 25, 1989, Meadowbrook described various discrepancies between the existing portion of the project as originally permitted and as actually constructed. This letter included various documentary exhibits supporting Meadowbrook's claim, and an offer of expert testimony, unit owner testimony and additional written material on these issues. South Burlington Realty responded by letter to the District Coordinator dated October 2, 1989. By advisory opinion dated November 6, 1989, the District Coordinator held that the discrepancies pointed out by Meadowbrook either were already approved by the District Commission or were violations of the permit rather than "substantial changes" requiring a permit amendment. Meadowbrook appealed the District Coordinator's opinion to the Board's Executive Officer on December 4, 1989 and is awaiting a decision on that appeal. South Burlington Realty filed a new application for extension of construction completion date on March 23, 1990. The application, designated #4C0154-6 by the District Commission, also sought approval for the changes to the carports, driveway and buildings. The District Commission's Notice of Application of the same date stated that the application would be treated as a minor application under 3 Board Rule 51. By letter to the Assistant District Coordinator dated April 16, 1990, Meadowbrook requested party status and a hearing on the new application. This letter also requested that the matter not be afforded simplified review, but instead be treated as a new application under Board Rule 34(B), because of the changes that had already been alleged in Meadowbrook's September 25, 1989 letter to the District Coordinator. By letter dated April 19, 1990, the District Commission denied Meadowbrook's request for a hearing, claiming that Meadowbrook had not raised "substantive issues requiring a hearing". The District Commission issued Land Use Permit #4C0154- 6 on June 29, 1990. Meadowbrook filed the present appeal in response. Factual Background The permit at issue pertains to the Meadowbrook Condominium, a residential condominium project in South Burlington. The Meadowbrook Condominium was established by a Declaration of Condominium dated October 13, 1975 and recorded in Volume 133, Page 194-213 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. The original Land Use Permit for this project was #4C0154, dated September 4, 1974 and reissued December 31, 1974. This Permit provided for the construction of 50 condominium units and associated improvements, with construction to be completed by September 4, 1977. 4 South Burlington Realty filed the first of four applications for extensions of completion date in 1977. The District Commission extended the completion date to September 4, 1979, by permit amendment #4C0154-2, dated May 4, 1977. On May 9, 1979, Meadowbrook's attorney wrote to the District Coordinator, requesting revocation of the permit on the grounds of substantial failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. Meadowbrook's formal petition to the Board for revocation followed this letter on May 22, 1979. By stipulation which the Board incorporated in its order of November 15, 1979, South Burlington Realty agreed to take certain steps in settlement of the revocation action. By application filed on September 6, 1979, South Burlington Realty applied to the District Commission for a second extension of completion date, this time to September 4, 1982. At the time, South Burlington Realty had built and sold all of the condominium units (39) that exist today. The District Commission gave Meadowbrook notice, dated September 10, 1979, of this application for extension. At the September 28, 1979 hearing on this second extension, South Burlington Realty objected to the admission of Meadowbrook as a party (hearing transcript, p. 2). The District Commission, however, granted Meadowbrook party status on the grounds that the amendment "may adversely affect the association's interest" (hearing transcript, p. 4). The District Commission further ruled that Meadowbrook could 5 introduce evidence in connection with the amendment on any of the Act 250 criteria that Meadowbrook felt would be "relevant and material" (hearing transcript, p. 21). The District Commission agreed to consider all of the criteria that were "relevant and applicable to the amendment that is being sought" (hearing transcript, p. 15). The application never proceeded to an evidentiary hearing, however, and the extension of time was never granted. Thus, the completion date remained September 4, 1979, under the -2 amendment. South Burlington Realty next applied for an extension of time in 1988. Meadowbrook received no notice of this application, although it had been granted party status in earlier proceedings. Despite Meadowbrook's written request for a hearing, the District Commission granted the requested extension of completion date as Land Use Permit #4C0154-5, dated September 19, 1988. Meadowbrook's revocation petition, and the voiding of this permit by the Board as described hereinabove under "Procedural History", followed. Under the Declaration of Condominium for the Meadowbrook Condominium, Meadowbrook exists . for the purpose of exercising the functions delegated and delegable to the "association of apartment owners" by [27 V.S.A., Chapter 15] including the exercise of jurisdiction over the Condominium Property and the ownership of the Common Area and facilities as herein described. Declaration, P. 1 Sections 9 and 2, and Schedule A, of the Declaration of Condominium (Pages 1, 9 and 19) provide that the common areas 6 and facilities of the Meadowbrook Condominium include the entire 11.31-acre tract shown on the original site plan for the project. The site plan shows that all buildings in the condominium are to be built inside the boundaries of this 11.31-acre parcel. Therefore, the buildings that South Burlington Realty proposes to construct would be located on a portion of the common areas of the condominium as they now exist. Issues 1. Whether, pursuant to Board Rule 10(A), this application may not proceed unless either Meadowbrook or the individual Meadowbrook Condominium unit owners are co - applicants. 2. Whether this application should be treated as a "minor application" under Board Rule 51(A). 3. Whether Meadowbrook should be provided a hearing and the opportunity to present evidence concerning significant impacts under Act 250 criteria 4 and 8 in this application. Arguments I. This Application Cannot be Heard Unless Meadowbrook is A Co -applicant under Board Rule 10(A). A. Meadowbrook is the legal representative of the condominium owners. Under the Declaration (see "Factual Background", Page 6 above), Meadowbrook is to exercise the function of the "association of apartment owners" of Meadowbrook Condominiums, under 27 V.S.A., Chapter 15, the Vermont Condominium Ownership Act. 27 V.S.A. §1302(4) of the Condominium Ownership Act 7 provides: "Association of apartment owners" means all of the apartment owners acting as a group in accordance with the By-laws and Declaration. Hence, under the Declaration and applicable Vermont law, the presence of Meadowbrook as a party is the legal equivalent of the presence of all of the unit owners acting in their own names. B. Meadowbrook was a legally indispensable party to the District Commission proceedings As the condominium unit owners' legal representative, Meadowbrook is a legally indispensable party to this application pursuant to both the Board Rules and the Board's recent decisions. The construction proposed by South Burlington Realty would take place on a portion of the common areas of the Meadowbrook Condominium (see "Factual Background" above). The Condominium Ownership Act provides: Each apartment owner shall be entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and the facilities in the percentage expressed in the declaration. . . . 27 V.S.A. §1306(a). Section 8 of the Declaration of Condominium contains substantially identical language (see Declaration, Page 8). Under this Section 8, the sum of each unit owner's interest in the common areas always equals 100%. Therefore, Meadowbrook's members, taken together, are 100% owners of the land on which South Burlington Realty proposes to build. The land owners must, under Act 250 procedure, participate as a co -applicant in the present application. 8 Board Rule 10(A) provides, in part, that the record owners) of the tract(s) of involved land shall be the applicant(s) or co-applicant(s) unless good cause is shown to support waiver of this requirement. The Board's decision in In Re: Pilgrim Partnership (#5W0894-1-EB, October 4, 1988) supports Meadowbrook's position. There, the applicant sought a permit for development on a lot reached by a right-of-way over property that the applicant did not own. The appellant owned the fee underlying the right-of-way. The appellant argued that his co-applicancy was a legal prerequisite to the granting of any permit, even though the applicant unquestionably had an easement across his property. The Board agreed with the appellant, noting that one of the reasons for the co- applicancy rule is . the need to ensure that persons with a substantial interest in the involved lands have an opportunity to participate in the permit proceedings. #5W0894-1-EB, page 5. In the Pilgrim case, the "substantial interest" of the appellant that made his co-applicancy mandatory was his ownership of lands beyond the right-of-way that would have to be used to upgrade the right-of-way. In the present case, the Meadowbrook members likewise face the certainty that facilities on their property, outside the 1.4-acre site itself, will be used to serve the subject development. For example, the contour maps filed by South Burlington Realty with the District Commission clearly demonstrate that the existing Meadowbrook access road will serve the new buildings. 9 The contour maps also show that the proposed construction site is higher than the already -completed portions of the Meadowbrook Condominium, and therefore that water is likely to drain from the area of the new buildings across the existing development. (Please see pages 2 and 3 of Meadowbrook's September 25, 1989 letter to the District Coordinator for description of the severe existing problems with drainage on the property.) The Meadowbrook members have an additional substantial interest in this project besides their ownership of the land on which the buildings and related facilities will be built. Under the Declaration, the proposed new construction will become part of the present Meadowbrook condominium regime. Both the Condominium Ownership Act and the Declaration provide that the structural components, mechanical systems and parking areas of all buildings within the condominium regime are a part of the "common areas and facilities" of the condominium. 27 V.S.A. §1302(6); Declaration, pp. 9-10. The Condominium Ownership Act further provides that . . . annually the common expenses shall be charged to the apartment owners according to the percentage of the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. 27 V.S.A. §1310. "Common expenses" include the "expenses of administration, maintenance, repair or replacement of the common areas and facilities." 27 V.S.A. §1302(7)(b). Therefore, the Meadowbrook members have a substantial interest in the present project derived from their obligation to contribute in the future to its maintenance and upkeep. 10 The District Commission, in support of its decision not to require that Meadowbrook be a co -applicant, cited In Re: Flanders Building Supply, Inc., #4C0634-EB (October 18, 1985). In that decision, the Board gave three reasons for the basic co-applicancy rule: 1) the need to ensure that any permit conditions imposed by a commission or the Board will be enforceable, 2) the need to ensure that the owners of land involved in subdivision or development have consented to the activity under review, and 3) the need to ensure that persons with a substantial interest in the involved lands have an opportunity to participate in the permit proceedings. District Commission Memorandum of Decision #4C0154-5 (revised) (November 7, 1989) , page 4. As to the first of these reasons for the rule, the District Commission concluded that any permit conditions would, in fact, be enforceable. As to the second reason, the District Commission felt that "the consent by the owners of land involved in the development is implicit in the Declaration of Condominium and its covenants." Id. This perfunctory conclusion ignores crucial facts about the Meadowbrook development. Under basic principles of real estate law, any person who buys a Meadowbrook condominium unit obtains title with both the burden and the benefit of the declaration of condominium, any recorded covenants and other easements, covenants and permits of record. These recorded documents together give the potential unit owner a picture of what he or she may expect by way of future activity at the site, as well as what activity he or she should not expect. Among the recorded 11 documents of which the owner has notice is any Act 250 permit applicable to the project (Act 250 permits are recorded in the apprcpriate land records in the same manner as a deed; see 10 V.S.A. §609(a)). In the present case, the original Act 250 permit was issued in 1974 with a construction completion date of September 4, 1977; this completion date was extended once by the District Commission, to September 4, 1979. See "Factual Background", pp. 4-5 above. Thus, for more than 11 years, the Meadowbrook mer:bers have been on notice that the construction time for the final phase of the project had expired. It would be only reasonable if they assumed that the final phase had been abandoned, despite the provision in the 1975 Declaration of Condominium that the development might have as many as 50 units. In view of the passage of so much time between the last extension of completion date and the present application, the Board cannot escape the conclusion that even if the unit owners may once have implicitly consented to further construction, their consent expired years ago. The District Commission felt that the third reason, under the Flanders Building Supply decision, for requiring co- applicancy would be satisfied if Meadowbrook were merely a party, rather than a co -applicant. This third reason for co- applicancy is . .to ensure that persons with a substantial interest in the involved lands have an opportunity to participate in the permit. 7-7 4C0634-EB. This conclusion, like the District Commission's conclusion concerning the second reason for co-applicancy, is 12 ignores reality. The owner of the land involved in an application will almost always qualify for some form of party status under Board Rule 14. Such party status, however, gives a participant a far more limited role in the application than does co -applicant status. The District Commission (or Board) can, and ordinarily will, restrict the participation of the party to certain criteria of Act 250. Board Rule 14(B). A co -applicant, in contrast, may participate in shaping and presenting the application under all of the criteria. The Board has already recognized this distinction in the Flanders and Pilgrim cases. The Board would never have cited, as one of its reasons for the co-applicancy rule, the need of persons with a substantial interest to participate if such persons' interests could be adequately protected by mere party status. Rather, the Board recognized that the person who owns the very land which is to be developed under the proposed permit (as distinct from neighbors, public interest groups and the like) has a much larger personal stake in what is built on that land. Therefore, under Board Rule 10(A) and the Flanders and Pilgrim decisions, Meadowbrook's co-applicancy is indispensable in this application. The District Commission's suggestion, in its November 7, 1989 memorandum, that South Burlington Realty has an absolute right to construct additional condominium units that "has been upheld by the Chittenden Superior Court" is incorrect. See Memorandum of Decision #4C0154-5 (revised) (November 7, 1989) Page 4. The Chittenden Superior Court case in question is apparently South Burlington Realty Corporation v. Meadowbrook 13 Condominium Association Inc. D/N S733-83 CnC. A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in this case, dated December 11, 1985 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In that case, South Burlington Realty challenged Meadowbrook's right to amend the Declaration of Condominium to eliminate reference to the unbuilt eleven units. The case turned on a provision of the Declaration stating that South Burlington Realty must be a signatory to any amendment of the Declaration until all fifty of the planned units are sold. (See Exhibit A. Page 5, Para. 8) Since Meadowbrook had not obtained South Burlington Realty's signature, this provision of the Declaration was dispositive of the entire case. In other words, the case was not about retained development rights, but rather simply about a question of procedure under the Declaration. The Court recognized this fact in stating: The substance of the Plaintiff's [i.e., South Burlington Realty's] claim is that this amendment is invalid because the Defendant [ i.e. , Meadowbrook] did not comply with the Declaration's amendment procedures. Exhibit A, Page 8. Similarly, the two Illinois Appellate Court cases relied upon by the Court in reaching this conclusion were cases concerning declaration amendment procedures, not the validity of long -retained development rights. Exhibit A, Pages 9-10. To the extent that the Court discussed the validity of South Burlington Realty's claim of retained development rights, the discussion was no more than dicta. The peripheral nature of this discussion is indicated by the plain error of fact and law committed by the Court when it stated that South 14 Burlington Realty "still owns" the undeveloped portion of the d h x ea ow roo rac . i i A, Page As note in t e first paragraph of this Section I.B. (supra, p. 8), Meadowbrook, not South Burlington Realty, is the owner of the site in question under Vermont law and the Declaration. Therefore, the 1985 Superior Court decision concerning an amendment procedure is not relevant to the present action. II. This Application Should Not Be Treated As a "Minor Application" Under Board Rule 51(A). In view of the evidence presented, and offered for presentation, by Meadowbrook, the simplified procedures of Board Rule 51(A) applicable to "minor applications" are not appropriate here. By its terms, Rule 51(A) applies only if the District Commission finds that the proposed project "appears to present no significant adverse impact" under any of the ten Act 250 criteria. In view of the record in this matter, the District Commission, and the Board, cannot properly make such a finding. Among the considerations that the District Commission may make in determining whether Rule 51(A) treatment is appropriate are (1) the extent to which potential parties and the District Commission have identified issues cognizable under the ten criteria ... and (5) the thoroughness with which the application has addressed each of the ten criteria. Board Rule 51(A)(1),(5). By its letter (with exhibits) dated September 25, 1989, Meadowbrook had raised substantial issues under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). 15 Specifically, Meadowbrook had pointed out that the current configuration of the existing and proposed building was a radical departure from the site plan approved in the original Act 250 proceedings, and that the configuration of the existing buildings as built had never been properly approved by the District Commission (September 25 letter from Douglas K. Riley to Louis Borie, Section 1).2 In the same letter, Meadowbrook pointed out serious discrepancies between the surface water drainage improvements as built and those improvements as approved under the original permit. (Ibid., Section 2) Nevertheless, South Burlington Realty apparently submitted an affidavit, dated April 25, 1990, indicating compliance with Land Use Permit #4C0154 and amendments. (See Land Use Permit #4C1054-6, Exhibit List, Exhibit #34.) Under these circumstances, the District Commission was bound, and the Board is now bound, not to employ Board Rule 51(A) in this application. Instead, the appropriate procedure is to treat the application as a new application, as required by Board Rule 34(B). 2 The original permit, #4C0154, required completion as shown on plans prepared by Calcagni, Frazier, Zajchowski Architects, Inc. See Exhibit B, Page 2, Paragraph 6. By letter of James A. Lamphere to the District Coordinator dated July 30, 1975, South Burlington Realty sought to amend the permit by substituting a different site plan. See Exhibit C. By memorandum dated August 6, 1975, the District Coordinator acknowledged the request for permit amendment. See Exhibit D. No amendment adopting this proposed new site plan, however, was actually made. The first amendment of the Land Use Permit after the exchange between Mr. Lamphere and the District Coordinator was on December 23, 1975, and concerned only the substitution of South Burlington Realty for Munson Earth -Moving Corporation as the applicant. See Land Use Permit #4C0154-1, Exhibit E. This and later amendments incorporated the original permit by reference. 16 III. Even If A Board Rule 51(A) Procedure Is Justified A Hearing is Required With Respect To Act 250 Criteria 4 Meadowbrook's response to the District Commission's March 23, 1990 Notice of Application (Letter from Douglas K. Riley to Craig DiGiammarino, April 16, 1990) raised substantive issues requiring a hearing under Board Rule 51(B)(5). This response included, and incorporated, the September 25, 1989 letter with exhibits proving Meadowbrook's claims. In addition, it included an offer of evidence in the form of engineering drawings, testimony concerning drainage and aesthetics, and expert engineer testimony concerning drainage and erosion. Meadowbrook's statement of the issues and offer of proof cannot be legally ignored. For example, it is inconceivable that the differences between the original site plan, Exhibit A to Meadowbrook's September 25, 1989 letter, and the site plan included as Exhibit B to the same letter, are not substantive. The radical relocations of the buildings and pavement shown by these exhibits represent major changes to the aesthetic impact of the project and to likely drainage patterns. Similarly, the long and detailed list of missing or substandard drainage improvements listed, and verified by exhibit, in Meadowbrook's September 25, 1989 letter to Mr. Borie, raises substantive issues. It indicates a pattern of neglect in construction of those drainage facilities that must serve not only the existing development but the proposed new development area, since the latter is on higher ground. (See 17 the various site plans of record in this matter, including those filed with the current application.) The Board cannot, as the District Commission did in its April 19, 1990 response to Meadowbrook's request for appeal, simply state in a conclusory way that no substantive issues have been raised. At minimum, the Board must hear Meadowbrook's evidence and make the appropriate findings of fact.3 Conclusion Meadowbrook requests that the Board rule that Meadowbrook is a mandatory co -applicant in this matter. Meadowbrook's members' ownership of the property in question, coupled with the impossibility of otherwise protecting adequately Meadowbrook's vital interest in this project, compel this result. Nothing in the condominium documents or Vermont law justifies a contrary result. This application should not be given "minor application" status under Board Rule 51(A). The record indicates substantial problems with existing phases of the project and unresolved questions under Act 250 criteria 4 and 8 that require that this application be treated as a new application. The Board must allow Meadowbrook to present proof of its claims under Act 250 criteria 4 and 8. Meadowbrook's offer of proof is clear, specific and relevant under the Act 250 criteria. The Board cannot make an informed decision about 3 The District Commission promised to hear evidence from Meadowbrook as long ago as the September 28, 1979 hearing on an extension of completion date. See "Factual Background," supra P. 5. W the present application without considering evidence of significant impacts to and from the surrounding development. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 17th day of September, 1990. MEADOW/Meadow.br 19 THE APPELLANT MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. BY:< `Dauglas `K. RiTey, Esq. 5UUTH BU1flL1i'-'GT01! HLALTY CHITTEIZD N SUPERIOR COURT CORPORATION, _ _ Docket No. S733-83 CnC Plaintiff i CM E�OE F1L1TJeRKS y COURT CL0U1`!T OFF1cE MEADOWBROOK CONDOMI-NIUM DEC S i ASSOCIATION, ITC. �d Defendant FI,A'%IC1S G. FEE - CLERK FI14DINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAH, AND ORDER The above entitled cause was tried by court before the it 11undersigned in August of 1934. It followed a lengthy case, also tried by court, involving; the sane parties. The plaintiff in that case is the Defendant here, and. the suit was by the is Condominium Association for damages resulting. from defective i construction of a condo-minium develo-oment in South 3urlin7ton. Comulaint in the iTeado,wbro^ Condominium Assn Inc. v. South Burlinton 3ealty Corn. case was dated October 3, 1930, and filed i OCtOber 9, 1930. The complaint in thi S case Was d2 Led A:ugust 1 1 , I 1933, and iwas filed august 12, 1933. A preliminary r]oti on filed by eadow"_roo'. to treat this case -as a compulsory counterclaiM .;as den; ed. 7ollo'::in;Z. the hearings in August, 1984, the parties were given an ext-ended period Of time to file requests to find and memoranda of law. Meado'•Ibroo_-. filed its requests in its case during October. S3R filed its responses during a , J nuary, 1'35. 3R filed its requests and memoranda in tni s ith the responses, S case. T:lereaf tar, no raqueSts or :emoranda ;were filed b " J- -�eadowbr "r 00__ . 1 used u7)on the credible evidence introduced at the hearing;, I the Court ma',es the following findings, conclusions, and order: j _ i 1. The :laintif=', South --urlington Realty Corporation (SB:,), is a Ver-mont Corporation with its principal place of j business at South Burlington.. Its stock is owned by Randall ":-'unson, a businessman in the Burlington area. lie is also the , principal owner of Munson Eart:,i Moving Corporation. 2. The Defendant, eadowbrook Condominium Association., Inc. 1! j(Association), is a Vermont non-profit corporation, again having ji its principal place of business at South,BurlinCton. It was created pursuant to 27 V.S.A., Chapter 15, as the condominium association for the P•?eadowbrook development. 'lie Association j mana;es all the common areas in the develo-Dment and acts in that regard on behalf of all the owners. Throu-h its name, it brought i suit in October 1930 for damages on the gro ind that the i developer, SB', had failed to properly construct certain aspects o_ the .;evelopment relating to the roads, d= ai _:ae, carports, i dri ve..,ays and parltiin:g areas, front steps and stoops, and a sewer 1 pumping station for two of the houses called Cambridge and Dover. � In 197= 11 c a dedicated certain land it owned to the Vermont Condominium Act by recording a Declaration of Condominium for : eadowbrook. SB' was the Declarant. Fifty condominiums ::,ere to be constructed in several phases on 11.3 acres of land. These were commenced in groups of two buildings, Anchorage and ' Sri dgeport being the first phase, Cam bri d.;e and Dover the second, and Fairl'ield and Essex the thir:. The tennis courts and the s,.ai-coming pool dere a separate phase from the coast: action of 2 i 'juildin�7s. r f ter three sets of buildings were completed, thirt-l- nine units had been constructed. Left to be completed in another phase were eleven units on 1.2 acres of land in the northwest section of the development. 4. The developlent was built, as stated above, in phases, and it '.,as built from south to north. On the west, the - development is bounded by the Rice High School playing fields. On the north and east, it is bounded by property of the University of Vermont. Access to the development is from Joy Drive to the southwest. The entrance to the developient is near the southwest corner of the 'leado'.,abrook property. In effect, the remaining portion of the undeveloped property of SBR is landloc:_e:3 in the north nest co_nner. Roads and utilities are installed and are adjacent and available for the area to be developed. Access for read and utilities from a direct•'.on other then throu-n the :`.eade.•;broo • development doe 1 s not appear reasonable or possible. 7. Since about 1975 or 197°, the Association and SRR had been liavili;r di«iculties over various aspects of the development. 7'h0 ssociC Lli On -a anted SCR to repair many i terns of past cons truc *ion, i nclud in— roads, drainage ( :cater was r e t t i n - into LZ u base:-en"s), carports-, drive'.•:ays, and sewer pumps. There was a dispute over ::h;r the promised cable television had not been orouht to the development. SPR ::=rote the Association in early 197Q sa-ilnc- that it ':could have nothir-- more to do with the ain'U anance of the Se';; er DU ID1 ] station for Cambrid.7e and Dover. ..one of tie di s, -utes seemed to ^a' e pro resc toward settlement. 3 In October 1930, the Association brou-,ht suit. i 6. In 1979, when SBR attempted to have its Act 250 permit � extended, the Assoc-ia-+ion appeared, obtained party status, and i objected. It objected again when SBR tried to get permits for I ianother construction project (not connected with 'Meadowbrook) on the ground that the Association was having problems with the i; !I developer and he was unreliable. Then, in 1981, the Association 1 tool matters into its own hands. Although it already had a suit pending against the developer, it filed an amendment to the i 1-leado;•,brook Declaration in the land records ;which effectively i prohibited S3R from going further with the remaining property in I the northwest corner. The last phase of eadc,1. broo's1_ has not been i bui It . 7. The original Declaration provided t-hat all properties , in eado;abroo': we~e to be held, sold, conveyed, and occupied � subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, conditions, char ;es, and liens set forth in the Declaration. (?lai nti f f's 1 , pa.; e 1, paragraph 5). In addition, section 11 of the Declaration bound each Veadc;aOr ock unit owner and member to Comply with, all Covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Pursuant to Section 7, SER reserved the right to construct up to seven buildin s on the land at ::ea.o-abroo'- Six have now been constructed. SBR also reserved a ri .�ht of first refusal on resale of 'Jead0:•ib�'Ook properties for as long as SBR remained a ::,ember of the ssoci aticn, ;ani cn me-:bershi) would last as long as it was sti 11 a o,.•r:-,er in the develo-)nent. (Section 17). To date, SBR is still a -ember of the association. 4 i 8. Section 16 of the Declaration contained the provisions for amendments. Required was an instrument in writin , "signed by unit o•,aners enti-fled to 75:'1 of the Common Interests then !outstanding and by the Association . . . ." (Declaration pave 13). In addition, subsection a. stated as follows: Declarant. To be valid such instrument of !� amendment must also be signed by Declarant - until it has sold the 11 original units and the 39 additional Units but not thereafter. ,(Declaration page 14). There are now 39 units constructed; and ;s the seventh building would complete the 50 units. o. l-then the Association filed :its amendment to ti,e Declaration, it did not see",-. the approval of S3R, or obtain its signature. Association members simply were not satisfi eci with ! 1 y, ;. i^ the, T a_ Uhe progress of the litigation with SBR, an� hey wanted to bring 'pressure on the developer. The amendment in the land records was of aced ti:ere without prior judicial approval. 10. Ste? still o,ans and pays taxes on the undeveloped land. From its location in the :.Seado.•rbrook development, it is obvious that the property has little potential for development unless it is part of the -Seado;abrook Condominium Project. 11. The amendment to the or_7ina_ Declaration of 107" that i caused the problem was recorded September 4, 10/81. The amend -=I, was short. It simply deleted sections 7 and 17 from the original. As stated above, Section 7, entitled IlAdditional Construction," rave S=:R the right to construct not more than seven buildin:-s on the dedicated ^roperty. That section contained a number of restrictions on the developer. It i ; was not an unfettered right to construct buildings as it »leased. mentioned, Section 17 was the ri�h_t of first refusal. It did not apply by its terms to mortgage lenders. Accordingly, it did i not restrict owners in obtaining financing. By deleti g Section 7, the develooer was effectively denied the right to complete the !project, using the roads and facilities of the development for the purposes of construction. By deleting Section 17, the Association simply further removed the developer's control over i ;the progress of the development. 12. The Court finds that the Defendant interfered with -the property rights of the Riaintiff by amending the Declaration without its approval and filing the amendment in the town cler'.'s office. This effectively placed obstacles in the way of the completion of '-•ieado-:7broo!-. As to the clai-� for damages, ho,tiever, the COUI't cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that tha Plaintiff suf fare^: more than nominal damages. The required .ermi t extensions had not been obtained. '.o construction Was in prOzreSS ',as.Bn the a:�e'1C =c?1t %:;35 filed.O CO^l�leted constr;.lc+ion i� i ;as rendered unsaleable. At most, the developer Was left with payi nS taYeS On _' SeCti On Of lane for i11i C11 it iJaS doubtful that Act 2:: O and o he= per"-*t-Cou,1.2 Oa obtained- t_1 t ie %.1 V Orders the amendinent be rescinded, the developer '.::ill be in no worse p051tiOn t an before. T-1 C011rt Can find n0 1oSt Opportunity for prof- not now available. The Plaintiff's invest rent is still i s tact. Perhaps the economic climate for condominiums is nog.; more favorcble th n in 1331. If nominal da-;a;es are awarded, tha-7 should be In t:ze amount of 51COD. 13. As to eyemplary damn. .,,es, the Defendant acted upon the advise of attorneys, and at the time of the amendment, the Association was in a serious disagreement with the developer, who for all appearances was rejecting every attempt at resolving clearly justifiable concerns about the quality of some of the ;construction. Althou;h the amendment may have been ill advised, jland did not comply with the provisions of the Declaration, the Court cannot find a reckless disregard of the rights of the developer or bad faith on the oart of the .Association. 14. The Court finds no credible evidence to sunport a �findin-- that the Plaintiff lost its``righ� to construct the seventh building on account of lathes, that the Plaintiff breached any fiduciary duty to the Defendant or its members, or that there is or was any 'li:npossibility of performance" on account of the decisions of the District Environmental Commission or Enviror.-:ental Board. CO:dCLUSIOi?S This case arises from Defendant's amendment to the Declaration of Condominium o£ the :4eadowbroo=: Condominium of 501:th Eurli :;ton. The developer brought this action in equity see=_ingr declaratory and injunctive relief. It requests that t:7e Court order the 1ssociation to remove the Amendment from the South Burlin;ton land records and declare the rights of the parties vis a vis one another. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages. Compensatory damages are sou`ht in the amount of to>:es paid on the land durin.; the three year period that the 1laint:.ff was unable to proceed with consT.r:ction. 7 :emplary damages are sou--ht on the theory that the Defendant's conduct shoti:,ed a reckless or wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights. The equitable relief and the damages claims are discussed separately. I. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief In 1975, SBR, as declarant, recorded a Declaration of ''Condominium for 1•ieadowbrook. The execution and recording of this ;Declaration makes the property subject to the Condominium Ownership Act ( Act) 27 V.S.A. 0> 1307. In August, 1081, the Defendant amended the original Declaration by deleting two sections and effectively eliminating the Plaintiff's retained rights to construct eleven more units and to exercise first refusal on any units placed for sale. , The substance of the Plaintiff's claim is that this amendment is invalid because the Defendant did not comply wit the Declaration's amendment procedures. (Plaintiff's E:.hi bit ;`I, ,16 and 16(a)). By the Declaration's own terms, and according to the Act, each apartzent owner is bound by and shall strictly comply with the restrictions set forth in the Declaration. 27 V.S.A. '5> 1307. Sneci f i cally, the Declaration's applicable amendment procedures sections, read together, require the f0110'.iln�: ? written instrument, Si:�natUreS Of unit owners entitled to 757, of the common interests then outstanding, signature of the Association, signature of the Declarant (SBR), and filin,; in the land records. To be valid, therefore, amendments to the Declaration must include the Plaintiff's si:nature until it has sold all of the planned fifty units. 8 (?Plaintiff's _hibit 1`1, j 16(a)). Failure to comely with the restrictions of the Declaration shall be grounds for an action for damages, injunctive relief, or both by an aggrieved apartment owner. 27 V.S.A. 5 1-107. An apartment owner is defined in the Act as a person, including ` i corporations and associations, 27 V.S.A. 5 1302 (12), who own(s) i an "estate in real property recognized by law and an undivided interest in the fee simple estate or any other estate in real property recognized by law of the common areas and facilities in the percentage specified and established in the declaration." 27 V.S.A. § 1302(2). Both the Defendant and the Plaintiff, by their Croperty interests established in the Declaration, fit within the Act's definition of an apartment owner. On the basis of Vermont statutes and the or_;inal Declaration, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief =rom the action of the Association in amending the Declaration without the signature of Plaintiff. Such an amendment did not conform to the requirements of the Declaration. 27 V.S.A. P�, 1307. The Court should order that the amendment be rescin3ed and the ori,inal Declaration reinstated. .,o case law in Vermont deals directly :: i th the prcblep at hand. 0ui1ance, ho..;ever, is provided b; case lair from another state. in Stue`,.e v. i,auletta, 413 -..E.2d 138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1931), the condominium developers and a unit purchaser agreed that parkin; spaces `.could be provided to the purchaser. As the s-Dacas had not been previously designated, it .las further agreed tnat this would be accomplished by amend ment to the declarati on. 9 0 Subseauently, other unit owners challenged the amendment. In determining the validity of the amendment, the reviewing court scrutinized the dec-laration's provisions and concluded that the amendment was invalid. The court found that the parties had been bound by the declaration's provisions, and because there was no evidence to show that the amendment procedures had been followed, the amendment was ineffective. Id. at 141. Another case from the same district had a similar result. In St. Francis Courts Condoninium Ass'n v. Investors Real Estate, 432 I•?.E.2d 1274 (Ill. App Ct. 1982), the court declared an attempted amendment to the declaration invalid. The court looked to the Condominium rroperty Act's amendment procedures prcvision. 1!hen the record _"ailed to that these procedures ;•:er. followed, the court concluded that the amendment was ineffective. Id. at 1277. ae Court concludes 1. a , the lact,s of the -oresent case warrant a result si la-r to those of the cases cite-;. A review of the Vermont Condo-il ni um O,:rnership Act, 27 V.S.... § 1301 -i -- leads the Court -3202 to conclude that beca-ase the ref ndant failed to follow the amendment procedures in the Declaration, the amendment filed in the Town Clerk's office on June 25, 1 ?81 , is invalid and ought to be removed from the records. IT Comienzatory and rxemolar-- Hama --es The Court '.as found an interference -•-iith ti:e Plaintiff's prooer'i.•y ri r-h'ts in .:ea70l;brOo=:. The CO: _ t, however, has not Found more than nominal dama`es. The ";curt conclu--4es that the i 10 Plaintiff's clai -i for damages on the basis of the ta;:es paid is unpersuasive. As it no,,.; is to have all of the former benefits of ounership, and there is no showing of lost value in the property by not being sold in 19081 or 10,52, this claim for damages is not proved. The Court concludes that simply because the Defendant interfered -ui th the Plaintiff's property rights, nominal damages should be a:varded. Clark v. ?oua Terra Coru., 133 Vt. 54 (1974) (owner of right of way wrongfully obstructed owner of land over which it crossed entitled to damages, even if only nominal, because violation of those rights, when established, requires :some recognition)., Accordingly, $15b iri'nominal damages should be a:•:arded. As the Court has not found the actions of the Defendant to be either reckless or in bad faith, no exemplary damages should be a:asrded. 0 ORDER WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED A14D ADJUDGED that JUDGMENT BE E".1TER?'D FOR THE PLAI.TIFF, and that the Defendant shall forthwitl cause its Amendment- to the Declaration filed with the South ':urli ngton on June 25, 1931, to be removed, or otherwise rendered null and void, by causing the original Declaration of Condominium filed by South Durlington Realty Corporation of South Burlington, dated October 13, 1975, to be reinstated. Plaintiff shall further recover of the Defendant the sun of 0117E U ?DRED DOLLARS 0. 00 1 r- S ($10 ) , toget zee.. with jus y t costs: Dated at Chelsea, County of Orange, this day of December 1905. Presiding Judge 1 � J Ass] S a t� _ ud`e r.� Ass istr ant, Jud',-e :I 12 1� �I r. Exhibit B rA. CASE No. APPLICANT ADDRESS Sty' e of V'.ml--�" nt LAND USE PERMIT 4C0154 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED Pinebrook J^3sociation Inc. P. 0. Box 171 10 'JS,� Chapter 151 (Act 250) Burlirigton, �Fi' 05401 and Vermont ?'ealth Re,.;ulations, Chapter 5, Sanitary Fn-ineerinF Subchapter 10, Part I, Subdivisions. A land use permit is hereby issued to the above named applicant for a 50-unit condominiam project off Joy Drive, South 'narlington, Vermont. The project must be co,�mleted as shot:•n on the plans submitted and in accornance i-ri.th the conditions below. irye aonlicant is rem nded that this per:n t is bein,:; issued only for the 1a�,:s and regulations stated above. Any applicable state or local per at not included above .Nast be obtained in addition to this perr^,it. CO'. ?7iT � n'•d 1. This ner-iit shall e::pire on September 4, 20011, and all construction shall be ca-,nieted rrior to September 4,' 1077 unless an extension is obtained as provided for in 2. 7:-,e continuing jurisdiction diirin; the lif et .me of the no=Ll t and ray ceriodically require that the pen ittee file a statement that the project is beinre completed according to the terms of the permit. 3. The project area for t`v.s development is that land identified in attac}.meant ',o IDortion of the i::_O,�eCt arca may be use -;I for any other nurnose without the prior approval of the Cora-rission. 4. The arrlics",t shall comoly :jith all conditions imposed by the City of South T•,•Lurlil4c;ton. 5. �7he anplic<ant shill Obtain apor Oval of the se•,•:(-2r S''v'stcm alA '•alter system f-rom the city er4,ineer an,i also the Ac;:�ncy of P-nvironlr,ent.a 1. Conservat'.on under the Dcoartment of ?iealth Subdivision ;eE7alant ions. 6. The Subdivision r;Ust be c0-)letcd as sho'..r: on the prepm ed by Calca(,;;i, T'razier, Zajchoi•Is'ki, Architects, inc. , Revised itrch 26, 1974 a.nd those prenare,i b`I Laurence :?. 1.illis dated i:ovember 197U , all of %.:hick ;..ave been sta- c-i "APPROVr,i�" by the Division of :�nviror:-,ental Fz" ;ineei'1;:i;. }:,eissued 31, 1 ,; CO:.7iiilO;•;S continued on FaSe iUiV�>i Ud) CAS: }�0. /iC0ltirl ArPLICP! T rinebroo;c Assoc, ation Inc. ADD:: r.SS }?Darlington, Vr.V 051i01 7. These condo.-rsniu-,, units �:,.re anrrovc„i for connection to the C.it r South Burlington cipal Sc,•rer System. y o� 8. These condo'niniun units of South Burlinnton � unicipal!,later dSysteior Connection ° seapprovu by the Vermont ]kpartment of Health. e 9. These condo,7iJUIzI, units are approved for leasing, the use of these units b unit of°hers}gip on1Y. Renting, or use of these units as a "public b}uilde�`ee as a place of business, of I'.ealth ?�ar;s. Title -� as defined in the Depart, ,ent detailed plans are sub,itteucttonand approvedebprO ebited until fic unless 10. rach prospective purchaser of these condornini Y District Office. COPY of the approved plot p1G,n, the e tun units shall be sho:.n a Land Use Permit before ti, nFineer s site report and the any Written contract of sale is entered into. 11. !;o chanrres shall be Trade to the approved t approval from the District Office. plan �'ithou� prior t,°ritten 12. All conditions above apply to 10 V the Deoartr,,ent of riealth p SA, C;- . —. 151 (Act 2 () Subchapter 10 e alations, Chat o )and .� Chapter S La~' a' ' I, Subuivi sions L �.' } - �ineeri apply only to Act 250 and conditios FxLepu tra`, co;raitions 1 to 5' �Partiment of riealth Su}�zivision Re�•- ll,.t° 11 a�p1y o-�y to the rya--.� � io, ,s , ='°=' the District i; 4 Zvi Cu�„i;is ';� r ,,L Tor, „en�al Co-,i, fission • Cla per P. 0. :pox 108 Essex Junction, ti ' G51+52 Dated at -ssex Juncti ;, this 31st r1 on, ,e,,, ay of Dece; ,oer, 1974. I In Re STii.i� OF DISiTHICT CO, uSSIGN #4 i-,unson Earth ?riving Corporation 366 Dorset Street South $arlinn on, Vermont 05401 i,M\L1Ir'�rS Ciy r�l l C. A, Fw sE S^'A 511 Land use ?er -dt 4`11C01514 '_1 nsfer of Per-mit 1) Land Use Permit ;;4C0154 ..as issued on Septe;;;oer 4, 1974 to r r.ebrook Associ- ation. -Inc. , P. 0. Box 171, Darlington, Ve�zmont.for a 50 unit conda,,intum ^Koject off Joy :r,ive in South aar?LnEton, Ver,-ant. The—Ir permit as reissued Dece-weer 31, 1974 to incorporate approval under the De: Ga tenant of ealth Subdivision Regulations. 2) On Js":uary 21, 1975 I,:wnson Wirth I;oving Corporation sub•�i.tte-d notice to the District L'4 Env;_Yon .ental Co:.,,ission requesting that Land Use Permit '4C0154 be transferred to A�Imson Earth Gorporation. .11 3) MU -son Eaarth 1'i3ving Corporation has reviei-Jed the application, the Rindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and conditions relative to the per,;,it, a,d Stands re_a y to accept the responsibility for co:;Dleting the application as approved. 4) ! i:nson Ea_" h Movirz Corporation has demonstrated their ability to wnde: to <e and successf'ally cG.=lete the project. They have also demonstrated the financial Capability to construct the project. 5) Cn Ja a =�' 2S, 1975 notice of the proposed transfer i,Gs sent to all parties to the Origira1 aoplication. No request t.^.at the hecr'_rLS be re -Opened waz receiVeu itiit:ni71 the 20 days Specified under Rale 20 of the Envixvn;,ental ca=d. CFO Land lise Pe_:--, "` ,-'r4C0154 for a 50 unit Con^om nium project shah be tra~,sferren to I'}unson Earth Mbvinr; Corporation. All F j nd'rq-,s of Fact., Conclusions of �W, and conditions as Orlf- na.11y issued shall re-ain in full effect. The total ­eSpG;.Sibility f Or the development c �d SLib liV' SiOn shall C'e 1;�th -he del .�tce. Dated at Essex Junction, Ve. „ o; ;t t,^.Is 25th da& of ror the District. Curtis 1'l. Carter , fistrict CoGrci ,ator D._Strict 4`4 !'nvirron * .ntla1 Co.,., i sslon has directed ar,, C,::-`.,S Caster, District Coo:-.-in_LGr, LG Sign 'h 1' f^_f E5 of Fan a J-i :—.a:ia Use " e.'.�'j L on L: .,_'j be]--.a.lf. Exhibit C WIEMANN - LAMPH ERE, ARCHITECTS 346 SHEL©URNE STREET ©URLINGTON, VERmONT 05401 TELEPHONE W02) 063.5056 RICHARD H. WIEMANN A.I.A. JAMES A. LAMPHERE A I.A. July 30, 197S Mr. Curtis Carter, Coordinator Environmental District No. 4 State of Vermont Ill West Street Essex Junction, Vermont OS4S2 Re: Meadow Brook Condominiums - Formerly Pine Brook Condominiums Dear Curt: I am writing on behalf of South Burlington Realty and would like to re- quest an amendment to the original project mentioned above. As you will note on the attached Site Plan the Buildings and Units vary slightly to the original site plan developed by CalcagTni-Frazier and Zajchowski Architects, Inc. The garage building has been placed nearer to the road and the buildings have been placed in an effort to make better use of the site and save more of the tree areas from demolition and construction damages. In addition to the above we have added a swimming pool and two tennis courts to the project. These were requested by the lending agency and we feel will help the marketing of these units. The tennis courts have been placed on the east side of the brook and will require a small gravel path and bridge to get to this area. We intend to keep this area as natural as possible. We would also like to make you aware of the fact that the original Pine Brook Condominium project was purchased by Munson Earth "loving Corp. of South Burlington. The 0%aner, Mr. Randall Munson intends to construct them under South Burlington Realty. Mr. Munson is 01,rner of both Corporations. As I understand from our conversation this A.M. we have approval to start construction on the Units, however we must hold up until the District Environmental Commission can review the pool and tennis court additions. If you have any questions please call. JAL : j d enc Very truly yours, ames A. Lamphere WIEIANNN-L`L'IMERE, ARCHITECTS • r� Exhibit D St,c1te Of Ve1'111011t Dcl�artinent of Fish and Came I)rt)aHmelit of I'orn•sts and Parks Uepartwent of Water Resources Enviroarnental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Heercation Jntcragency Committee on Natural Resources Natural Resources Conservation Council P•'TPDRAP�Mr, i AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT' ENVIRONMENTAL C01NBIISSION 111 i;est: `street ".,.--sex Juuiction, vT 0 5)152 Auer ust C, 1975 TO: Parties to land Use Permit 'JIIC01511 FROM: District #4 Rrvironmental Comission SUIBJECT: Armendrment to Permit Piunson S rth ?rioving Corporation has recuested that ?and Use Peet 'LC015'1 be amended to reflect the revised site p).^n. Art ,cherl is a coD1,7 of the ni m and letter of explanation. It is the iriti a1 Lmmression of the Col-Tni.ssion that the density aid basic co:mf, �w, ti0�l hair eel and, therefore, th:? appl:?n.` cnt s'no:il of:the buildi uS has not C not be held Up from con-mancin— on Phase T. '!'. e addition of t!)e pool and tennis courts do, h0'riLver, constitute a ch::n,;e that - to be fully revie:rer.?. AS pm, Of this review, the Coi.yiission consider the proposed total layout of the developm-nt. Any party i•lishirig to comment on the proposed revisions or request a hearinry should do so within 15 days of receipt of this Jmotice. All parties wi11 be notified of any hearire or mecting of tt)e State 01 LAND USE PERMIT AMENDIMENT CASE No. 11=154_1 APPLICANT South Darlir„¢ton Realty ADDRESS 366 Dorset Street South Darlington, `ti'1' 05401 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED 10 VSA, Chapter 151, (Act 250) and Vermont State Board of Health Regulations, Chapter' 5, Sp_.nitar y Engineerir;, Subchapter 10, Part 1, Subdivisions. DISTRICT C011-MSSION # 4 hEREBY GRAIN''TS TIM REQUEST TO AMID LAND USE PERi.uT 4 4C0154 FOR T:- PURPOSE OF changing the name of the applicant from 14unson Furth : Joving Corporation to South Rurlinp; on Realty, to correct the record; the princii of each being the sane. THE APPLICAAT IS REMINDED THAT THT_S P R•ffT IS ZZING ISSL=-D ONLY FOR THE IA,4S AND REGULATIONS STATED ABOVE. ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL PER.= I:OT INCLUDED ABOVE I;UST BE OBTAII�D IN ADDITION TO THIS PER:dl'i'. 1. All conditions as stated on the Land Use Permit dated February 25, 1975 reMain in full effect and are 'rereby incorporated by reference. -or the L1sLr ict i=4 '3nlriroI:7.enta! Cc.-_, ,.ssion Curtis W. Carter, Environmental Coordinator Dated at Essex Junction, Ver;..ont, this 23rd day of December, 1975• EB-A-11/3/75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Douglas K. Riley, Counsel for Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc., the appellant herein, sent a copy of the foregoing brief to the following parties by hand -delivery, on this 17th day of September, 1990: Randall G. Munson d/b/a South Burlington Realty by Dale Rocheleau, Esq. Downs, Rachlin & Martin PO Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402 Vermont Environmental Board 55 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 I further certify that I sent a copy of the foregoing brief to the following parties by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the same date: South Burlington Board of Selectman and Planning Commission c/o Margaret Picard, City Clerk 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Jct., VT 05453 Land Use Attorney Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 So. Main St., -2 Center Waterbury, VT 05402 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Vermont Department of Transportation Interstate Division 110 State St. Montpelier, VT 05602 Craig DiGiammarino Assistant Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West St. Essex Jct., VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 17th day of September, 19.90. Do glas K. Riley Counsel for Meadowbrook Condominium Association C:\WP50\MEADOW\MEADOW.COS r FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 29 August 1990 Mr. John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H File: eel69 Dear Mr. Jaeger: We have received a copy of Mr. Barlow's letter dated 22 August 1990 with respect to the above referenced Project. Our plans have been modified to reflect the changes requested in the summarized findings listed as items l through 4 in his letter. As requested in item 5, we have provided stormwater runoff calculations for the post developed conditions of the development. We have subdivided the watershed contributing flow to the receiving stormdrain system into three subareas. The tnclosed calculations indicate the peak rate of runoff into the culvert receiving runoff is 9 cubic: feet per second ( CFS) . We have determined capacity of the culvert receiving the stormdrainage from the proposed development to be 26 CFS. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Charles Van Winkle Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting • Surveying TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 � Project : MEADOWBRDOK (88M9> User: CM Date: 08-29-90 County : CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: DEVELOPED WATERSHED AREA TO EX.D.I. W\24"CMP O---ET ..... ..... ..... Total watershed area: 0.005 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- DA 1 DA 2 DA 3 Area(sq mi) 0.00* 0.00* 0.00* Rainfall(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 85* 85* 86* Runoff(in) 2.10 2.10 2.19 Tc (hrs> 0.18 0.12 0.14 (Used) 0.20 0.10 0.10 TimeToOutlet 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ia/P 0.10 0.10 0.09 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------ (hr) Flow DA 1 DA 2 DA 3 11.0 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 11.9 3 1 l 1 12.0 5 2 2 1 12.1 9P 4 3P 21:::' 12.2 8 5P 2 1 12.3 4 3 1 ' 0 12.4 1 1 0 0 12.5 1 1 0 0 12.6 1 1 0 0 12.7 1 1 0 O 12.8 0 0 0 0 13.0 0 O 0 O 13.2 0 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 15'5 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 16.5 0 0 0 0 17.0 0 0 0 0 17.5 0 0 0 0 18.0 O 0 0 O 19.0 0 0 0 0 20.0 0 O 0 0 22.0 0 0 0 0 26.0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines [R-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPU[ATION VERSION 1.11 Project : MEADOWBROOK (88169) User: CM Date: 08-29-90 County : CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: K� Subtitle: DEVELOPED WATERSHED AREA TO EX.D.I. W\24"CMP -- T -- T Subarea : DA 1 _ _______________________________________________ ����----------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B Cl D Acres (CN> _______________________________________________________________________________ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - 0.94(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) - - 0.80(98) 1.74 ==== _______________________________________________________________________________ SUBAREA: DA 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.74 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:85 _______________________________________________________________________________ TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 . Project : MEADOWBROOK (88169) User: C Date: 08-29-90 County : CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: DEVELOPED WATERSHED AREA TO EX.D.I. W\24"CMP ----ET -~~-=+--- Subarea : DA 2 _______________________________________________________________________________ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN> _______________________________________________________________________________ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - .425(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways ' - - .375(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .8 ==== _______________________________________________________________________________ SUBAREA: DA 2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .8 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:85 ___________________________________________________________________________-___ TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 ` � Project : MEADOWBROOK (88169) User: CM Date: OS 29-90 County : CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: 4x Subtitle: DEVELOPED WATERSHED AREA TO EX.D.I. W\24"CMP OUTLET -/ / Subarea : DA 3 ' _______________________________________________________________________________ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) _______________________________________________________________________________ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - 0.27(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - 0.29(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .56 _______________________________________________________________________________ SUBAREA: DA 3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .56 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:86 _______________________________________________________________________________ RATIOKAL "A-0" CALCUTATIORS • roe CJw Dater _ ? 9 Job No. �4C3 Dr: rn Drainage area to F X, ]:)�T, Developed Undeveloped area- 7L/ n,%; Cumulative area- SCS @oil types A. Time of Concentration(P Cumulative upstream Tc from min. Flow Type Surface Type Hannings n Hydraulic Length(ft) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (ft/sec) © tc(min) O << a 3.l n. raLnLal1 1nCen$1Cy Frequency Storm Tc (min) i (in/hr) 4 C. C number TA TAt- I / / •yj Min. Plui p4CV10VS TG Men - runpulailvc Tt Mon. © SCS Chapter 3 Q Rutter@ or SCS 3.1 3Q H1/Vel/60 or .266 (nHL)•8 SA Q , DA decr#ption ( c factor % of DA l 1 1 Composite c D. Run-off ear storm i (in/hr) c A (ac) c x i x a- Q(cfs) Page of MI01[AL RUN -OTT CA.LCULATIOKS FM 1 Dates 08_29-90 Job No. Drainage area to OD Developed Undeveloped area- Cumulative area SCS Boil types r' %",e „1 A. Time of Concentration 0 Cumulative upstream Tc from min. Flov Type Surface Type Hannings n Hydraulic Length(ft) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (ft/Bec) © tc(min) O Ll �'iJJI 1)P'l' yt. C`/Ye. �ti C7 01 < B. Kaintall intensity ency Storm I Tc (min) I i (in/hr) C. C number TvTAI %. �j i' M:n. O. � 2a hULt. P105 "t VIOVS TG Min. rue". I.Al Vt rL MIA. © SCS Chapter 3 © Butters or SCS 3.1 30 H1/Vel/60 or .266 (nHL). SA DA decription 1 I c factor % of DA 1 1 1 I Composite c - D. Run-off 'Year storm i (in/hr) c A (ac) c x i x a- Q(cfs) Page of MffauTuflowl. Data, 08 - 2 C? - 90 Job No 6 9 Bye an Drainage area to Developed v1 'Undeveloped area- 0• 6 Cumulative area- SCS Boil types C A. Time of Concentration(9 Cumulative upstream Tc from min. Flow Type Surface Type ,Hannings n Hydraulic Length(ft) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (f.t/sec) tc(min) C 011 L fn /7 �5 B. Rainfall Intensity Frequency Storm I Te (min) I (in/hr) C. C number Te, -r j% I . 11-5 - _1 ___3 I — ftlin. Plas PottvIevc- 7-c- Mon. COMWIMANE T e- MIA. SCS Chapter 3 Butters or SCS 3.1 30 8. H 1 /Vel/60.or .166 WLY SA DA decrtption I c factor % of DA Composite c D. Run-off .�ear storm i (in/hr) e A (ac) c x i x a Q(cfs) f Page — of JOB 01 Gn per, c> c, I c' l FiTZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED SHEET NO. I OF One Wentworth Drive 2'� 10 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 CALCULATED BY /G+ M DATE ` (802) 878-3000 CHECKED BY '� DATE ,I tl PRODUCT 20e-1(s*sue)205-1(PaMd)®®ac.. Graan.rasa. awii. To OW PtM TOLL FREE1-eoo-m-6= KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 29 WILLISTONI VERMONT 05495 S•rRmtrN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.B. ROGEtt W. DORWART, P.B. ELROY L. LANGOELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. MAR"rIN W. MAIN, P.E. August 22, 1990 Mr. Vincent Koehler Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H Dear Mr. Koehler TIiL: 802-879-6343 PAX: 802-879-6376 We reviewed the Meadowbrook "Site and Utilities Plan" sheet 1 of 2, dated March 1990 last revised 6-19-90. Our findings are summarized below: 1. The proposed culvert at the northern driveway has 9" to 15" of cover. We suggest that at least 12" of cover be provided. 2. The cover over the Building G entrance walk culvert should be increased. 3. The proposed north edge of the parking lot pavement is shown at elevation 103.25. It does not appear that this is high enough to drain properly. 4. As outlined in our last review (May 30, 1990), you should request pavement details, fill specifications and information on sub -drainage so that we can verify their adequacy. 5. Drainage calculations verifying the adequacy of the receiving stormdrain system for the project should be requested. Page 2 August 22, 1990 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H These comments were communicated to John Jaeger and Lance Llewellyn in June. This letter was written at the request of Joe Weith, City Planner for South Burlington. Please call if you have any questions. inFerely, i Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld cc: Greg Dicovitsky Lance Llewellyn Joe Weith File: 82175E-1 KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 29 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STMIEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.F. ROGER W. DORWART, P.G. GLROY L. LANGDELL, P.G. C ILL BARLOW, P.G. DONALD J. PARKER, P.G. MARTIN W. HAIN, P.G. May 30, 1990 Mr. Vincent Koehler, President Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Association Dear Mr. Koehler: TF.L: 802-879-6343 FAX: 902-879-6376 In accordance with your request I have reviewed the Meadowbrook "Site and Utilities Plan" sheet 1 and 2, dated February 1989, last revised 4-19-90. Our findings are summarized below: 1. The swale along north side of building H should be deeper and the ditch slope to the east should be steeper. The swale which runs to the east does not have an adequate outlet. 2. The ditch along the west side of the main access road will not ade— quately drain the roadway. 3. The parking lot finish grade appears to range from 12% to less than 1%. More finish grades are necessary and it would be preferable to see pavement slopes in the 1.5% to 5% range. 4. Both Buildings G and H appear to shed water off roofs and front yards across walks and onto the pavement. This is undesirable in the typical freeze —thaw cycles that we see in Vermont. 5. Much of the site is graded at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slopes. While these slopes are stable they are difficult to mow. 6. Spot grades should be shown at the perimeter of the buildings to indicate the grades. There should be a 2% minimum slope away from the buildings. 7. The site has a history of frost action. Pavement details, fill specifications and provisions for subdrainage should be provided. Page 2 May 30, 1990 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Association 8. The site grading indicates that a low spot just off the northwest corner of the site is to be drained along the west side of Building G into the existing swale along the Rice playing field. We would like to review the drainage calculations for this swale. Particular points of interest are the flow at the southwest corner of Building G and at the point where Rice ditch outlets. Is the Rice ditch adequate to receive this additional runoff. Is there any problem associated with the additional runoff or the regrad- ing as far as the Burlington Country Club and Rice are concerned? 9. The runoff from the parking lot appears to sheet into the south perimeter ditch which is 6 inches deep or down the south entrance drive out into the existing roadway. The grading in this area should be given additional consideration. 10. We suggest that you consider an additional drop inlet east of Building B or possibly additional ditching east of Building B to better handle surface runoff in this area. 11. Are foundation drains proposed for Building G and H? 12. What is the elevation of the Rice ditch at the point where the ditch between Building B and Building G discharges? Is there adequate slope and protection against surcharge for Building B. 13. The sidewalks should have spot grades. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding my comments or the drawings. S,incerel', Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld File: 82175E-C46-1 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 17 August 1990 Mr. Gil Barlow, P.E. Knight Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 29 Williston, Vermont 05495 RE: Meadowbrook Condominiums FILE: B8169 Dear Gil: Our submission deadline for the revised final plat drawings for Meadowbrook Condominiums is September 4th. In order to complete our revisions, you were going to forward your comments for our use in modifying the drawings. Could you please supply this at your earliest possible time. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Lance A. Lle,G.�eIIyn, P.E. ti cc: Joe Weith Greg Dicovitsky LAL/kal LAL#3:8B169 Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting* Surveying BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING DOUGLAS K. RILEY DEIRDREJ. JOYCE HAND DELIVERY i . ��Il►L LISMAN & LISMAN �..► A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 802 864-5756 TELECOPIER 802-864-3629 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT 84 PINE STREET July 27, 1990 BURLINGTON. VERMONT Stephanie Kaplan, Esq. Executive Officer State of Vermont Environmental Board 58 East Street Montpelier, VT 05602 South Burlington Realty Company Land Use Permit No. 4CO154-6 Dear Stephanie: LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL I am enclosing an original and ten copies of our appeal in this matter on behalf of Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. I have also enclosed a check for the filing fee in the amount of $50.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very my :yours, Douglas K. Riley DKR/jss Enclosures 17197-008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I Douglas K. Riley, Attorney for Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. sent a copy of the foregoing appeal concerning Land Use Permit Amendment No. 4C0154-6 by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this 2�7g day of July, 1990 to the following: Randall G. Munson d/b/a South Burlington Realty c/o Dale Rocheleau, Esq. Downs, Rachlin & Martin Courthouse Plaza P.O. Box 190 -- Burlington, VT 05402 John Yeager Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Margaret Picard, City Clerk Chair, Board of Selectmen Chair, City Planning Commission Joe Weith, City Planner Chuck Hafter, City manager 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street - 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission W. Gilbert Livingston M. Lynn Whalen Patricia Tivnan 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Regional Engineer Ernest Christiansen 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dept. of Health Attn: Donnna Chandler 60 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 07 BY MEADOW/Act250.app 17197-008 rN day o uly, 1990. Do as Ri ey Attorney for Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IN RE: ) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION NO. 4 SOUTHBURLINGTON ) LAND USE PERMIT NO. 4CO154-6 REALTY COMPANY ) NOTICE OF APPEAL COMES NOW Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Lisman & Lisman, and appeals, pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 40, to the Environmental Board from the issuance of Land Use Permit Amendment No. 4C0154-6, dated June 29, 1990 (copy attached). The District Commission committed error in the issuance of the subject Land Use Permit Amendment in the following respects: 1. The District Commission improperly accepted, considered and granted the subject Land Use Permit Amendment application without requiring that either the appellant, which is the statutory representative of the owners of the subject property, or the owners themselves, be co -applicants. 2. The District Commission improperly treated this application as an application for a "minor amendment" in the face of evidence that a full re-examination of the impact of the project under the Act 250 criteria was necessary. 3. The District Commission improperly approved the subject amendment without providing the appellant a hearing and the opportunity to present evidence concerning significant impacts under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). DATED at Burlington, Vermont this c�27/-lday of July, 1990. MEADOWB OKONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. BY: Douglas K.-Rile , 17197-008 State Vermont vim: of ..... t�lt Water Supply & Wastewater Permit LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED Environmental Protection Rules CASE NO. WW-4-0245 Chapter 4, Public Buildings APPLICANT Meadowbrook Condominium Appendix A, Design Guidelines ADDRESS c/o Douglas Riley P.O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402 This project, consisting of constructing the final 11 two bedroom condominium units in buildings G and H of the 50 unit Meadowbrook Condominium Project located off Joy Drive Extension in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. This Permit does not constitute Act 250 approval under Case Number 4C0154 GENERAL (1) This permit does not relieve the permittee from obtaining all other approvals and permits as may be required from the Act 250 District Environmental Commission, the Department of Labor and Industry (phone 828-2106), the Vermont Department of Health (phone 863-7220), and local officials PRIOR to proceeding with this project. (2) The project shall be completed as shown on the plans Project Number 88169 Sheet 1 of 7 "Site & Utilities Plan" dated March 1990, last revised 5/23/90 and Sheet 3 of 7 "Typical Details" dated February 1989 prepared by Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc. and which have been stamped it by the Division of Protection. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans without prior written approval from the Division of Protection. (3) No alterations to the existing building other than those indicated on the approved plan or Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit, which would change or affect the exterior water supply or wastewater disposal or the approved use of the building shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Natural Resources. (4) A copy of the approved plans and this Permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or local personnel. (5) In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole) of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. (6) By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental/health statutes and regulations, with this permit. l7) All conditions set forth in Certification of Compliance ' #4C0154 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. Y Water Supply & Wastewater Disposal. Permit. WW-4-0245 pade 2 WATER SUPPLY (8) The project is approved for water supply by construction and utilization of the proposed public water system subject to the jurisdiction of the Vermont Department of Health. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Division of Protection. The permittee shall forward a copy of the Health Department's acceptance letter of the completed public water system to the Division of Protection for inclusion in the project file. (9) The water main extension is approved provided the water main extension is constructed in strict accordance with the Department of Health's "Letter. of Approval" Project #12761 WSID #5091 to Greg Dicovitsky dated May 31, 1990. SEWAGE DISPOSAL (10) A professional engineer, registered in the State of Vermont, is to generally supervise the construction of the sanitary sewer line extensions and, upon completion of construction, the supervising engineer is to submit to the Protection Division a written certification stating all construction has been completed in accordance with the stamped approved plans. The engineer's certification is to be submitted to the Division prior to the occupancy of any unit and the certification shall include, but not be limited to, the numerical results of all leakage testing performed on each segment of the sanitary sewer extension and all manholes, as described in Appendix A, of the Environmental Protection Rules. Timothy J. Burke, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer Dated at Essex Jet., Vermont this 18th day of June 1990. cc: Donald Robisky South Burlington City Planning Commission Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Craig DiGiammarino Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission Municipal Hall South Burlington, VT 05403 June 1, 1990 Commission Members: It has come to our attention that a proposal for expansion of the Meadowbrook Condominiums on Joy Drive is being presented to you. We are writing to express our opposition to this plan and the reasons behind that opposition. There is already too much traffic through the East Woods neighborhood in which we reside. City traffic counts as well as our own have documented up to 450 vehicles per hour during peak hours. Hadley Road, Meadow Road and Proctor Avenue provide a convenient outlet to Shelburne Road for residents of Meadowbrook as well as to commuter traffic from Spear Street via Farrell Drive. Expansion at Meadowbrook will only add to this problem. Therefore, we ask you to not approve the expansion of Meadowbrook Condominiums. Sincerely, d; Brian V. Reed and Hollace J. Reed, Residents, 80 Hadley Road 6/5/90 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condo- miniums as depicted on a 7 page set of plans page one entitled "Meadowbrook, Site & Utilities Plan," prepared by Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc. and dated March, 1990 with the following stipula- tions: A144'0vb 1. The applicant shall post a=44 ,"O, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. The nl an G�b�z-- zi-�-azir�;c .The__..._.dy; SPA „1 an_.._s.2a11...,_be. apnred-'9p' -t3rr""C1`ty'aTT7Ti-p�9-�-0 plo�- 2. The applicant shall pay the $200 per unit recreation fee prior to permit. 3. The drainage plan shall be revised prior to permit to address the concerns raised in the letter dated 5/3/90 from Gill Barlow of Knight Consulting Engineers. The revised drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to permit. 4. The Revised Final Plat shall be recorded in the office of the City Clerk within 90 days or this approval is null and void. SAtJ 1TAiZY /AON`IOLr- — 1S PAVEZ> ovmmlo IN�BRj ELI;VAT,01.1S -Nu`:PT �J� P--570lbL!5NC`D i-I F1mn Pa.lotz 7o wd1Z 4-0Kjd-vT21JC:-1oN FICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAI PLANT LIST KEY OTy _ PLANT NAME SIZE CS 16 Cr, NUS S. AIiGENTEO-M41'(i1NA1A _ Variegated Redtwi,,, Dogwood 24-36" 10I7 = .27-'L Gr 03 GLEDI rSIA TRIACANTIIt,' INERMIS Shademaster Honey', ust 14 1 1/2-2"cal I�Cri :7- 33 0 its 155 HEMEROCALLIS SP. Mired Daylilies Bareroot JC 10 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS "SEA GREEN" 4 Sea Green Juniper 2 Gallon'II I3A 12 PICEA ABIES NIDIFORMIS Dwarf Birdsnest Spruce 18-24" +0 PS 07 PINUS STROBUS •1�1 Eastern White Pine 5-6' = 3 PF 17 POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA ABBOTTSWOOD Abbotswood Potentilla 2 Gallon /Q /70 PG 15 POTENT ILLA F'RUTICOSA "GOLD DROP" */Qc Gold Drop Patentllla 2 Gallon IrO SU II EiF'1!2(1F_rl HUMAt DA ",IAF'ANFSE LITTLE PRINCESS" Japanese Little Princess Spirea 2 Gallon /S : 116 ;V UJ SVRING/1 VIII_G/1R1`.; Ln MM011 Purple Lilac VT 17 V I BURNI-IM I H I L OBU1-I American Cranberrylluah Viburnum .-� 7x-1.S= 7,oi3O I 400 (5) 1/iBu6?klLuti 4rJD 6) -TO �/E�jE-j01r�A� �GGE�fJ � �1/9C •'^ REVISIONS DATE Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 001 05403 June 4, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South. Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: .A. final. note about drainage at Meadowbrook. These are my own observations, and I am no engineer, but I believe you will agree with the conclusions. The area, where Buildings G and H and their carports will be built is now heavily wooded, and thus absorbs much water_. In spite of this we have serious drainage problems in the area already developed. The current Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn site plan calls for the two buildings to be located about as in the Weimann-Lamphere site plan, with one unit shifted from the south of G to the east of H. The carports, however, instead of being located close to the drive will be put together and surrounded by a 24 foot loop of black -top. (This is necessary for fire engine access.) Under this site plan it will be necessary to remove almost all the trees. It seems obvious that such removal, and addition of so much black -top, will sharply curtail the water absorbing ability of the area. This means that drainage for the new units must be very carefully and completely planned to avoid serious run-off onto the area, already developed. Yours very truly, 6� Robert S. Schultz Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer I I � IBU/CD/NG 'B' -_--� IGARAGE I \ v I I 1 - 2 ACES I I I fi r I I I I I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 1, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, June 5, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. 7i ere , oe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp �autb TfOu.fliugtnu 3fire Department 575 +Dnrtirt ttrrrt Ruth 1rrlingtun, 1Jrrtn int 115401 - s ! M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Chief Goddette Re: June 5, 1990 agenda items Date: June 1, 1990 5) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION BUILDING, KIMBALL AVENUE 1 OFFICE OF JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR. CHIEF (802) 658.7960 a. The water system for fire protection must be a looped sys- tem. b. There must be 3-hydrants at a location approved by the Fire Department. C. The water system must supply at least 2500 gpm. 6) MEADOWBROOK CONDOS, JOY DRIVE Plans have been reviewed by this department and all the changes requested for have been made and at this time I do not see a problem in given proper protection. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. Box 29 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. MARTIN W. HAIN, P.E. March 23, 1990 Mr. Robert Schultz, President Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Review of Meadowbrook Condominium Expansion Dear Mr. Schultz: TEL: 802-879-6343 FAX: 802-879-6376 We have made a preliminary review of two drawings -- Sheet 1 of 7 , entitled "Site and Utilities Plan" dated February 1989 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn and Sheet 1 of 1 entitled "Site Plan" dated March 1990 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn. We have the following comments: 1. The two drawings have different layouts. We assume that the 1990 layout is proposed. This drawing should be revisedshow the contours and drainage. 2. The assumption is made by the designer that the drainage for the proposed units will be handled by proposed drainage improvements to the south. It is not clear what these improvements are. The drainage improvements shown on the "Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan" dated 7-7-84, prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., were not designed to accommodate any additional development. It is necessary to evaluate their adequacy for additional development. My initial judgement is that additional drainage facilities would be necessary. The Meadowbrook Condominium Association should request that the designer of the drainage for the proposed expansion provide detailed calculations for the drainage design which should include an evaluation of all the receiving drainage ways as well as those within the project. 3. The proposed footing drain system does not have a specified outlet. It should be fully designed including size, inverts and cross-section. Cleanouts should be located in this system. Page 2 March 23, 1990 Re: Review of FitzPatrick-LLewellyn Site Plans 4. The February 1989 site plan does not show adequate drainage along the west side of the existing roadway. 5. Past investigations indicate the need for a Swale along the north side of Building B. The proposed site plan should address this. 6. There is not an adequate swale along the north perimeter of the project. This completes our initial comments. This letter is not intended to be a comprehensive review. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld File: 82175-C43-1 KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 29 WMLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. BONNIE L. CARPENTER, P.E. March 6, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans Dear Mr. Gratton: TEL: 8o2-879-6343 We have evaluated an original site plan for Meadowbrook, an as -built working sheet and a site plan for an expansion of Meadowbrook and have the following comments: 1. The following drawings were reviewed: a) ` "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums" drawing no. 1, dated December 16, 1975, prepared. by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, stamped by James A. Lamphere, Registered Architect (referred to as Plan A in the following discussions). b) Worksheet prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 1984. This sheet indicates as -built locations and spot grades as•of July 1984 (referred to as Plan B in the following discussions). c) "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums", with the CS Architects title block, no date, no drawing #. This plan shows two proposed condominium buildings, two carport buildings and new parking, all to the north of existing unit B on Meadowbrook property (referred to as Plan C in the following discussions). 2. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have an adequate drainage system. The problems include undersized and non-existent drainage piping, inadequate ditches, inadequate underdrains, inadequate slopes on paved surfaces and poor siting of the buildings. This has caused wet basements, and failing pavements. 3. Plan A does show two "future" condominium buildings to the north of existing Unit B. It is clear that Plan A does not include the site design for these future units in that there are no design contours and the existing contours are at a 4' interval versus a 1' interval in other portions of the site. Furthermore, the proposed drainage on Plan A is not adequate to accommodate these future units. Page 2 March 6, 1989 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans 4. We assume that Plan C is a preliminary drawing in that it does not have any contour information and it has inaccurate and incomplete topo- graphic information. In addition it does not indicate any upgrade of the existing Meadowbrook drain system which would be necessary to accommodate the additional impervious area shown on Plan C. 5. The following issues should be addressed before any additional units and parking are constructed north of Unit B in the wooded area on Meadowbrook property: a. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have adequate drainage to accommodate any additional impervious areas unless the runoff from that new area is piped through to the stream on the east and south side of the site. b. The high water table should be evaluated. C. The drainage area immediately northwest of Meadowbrook should be investigated to assess its impact on surface water runoff and the groundwater table in Meadowbrook and the appropriate steps should be taken. d. Adequate space should be left between existing Unit B and any new construction to the north to allow the construction of a proper diversion swale and underdrain. There should be no trees planted within 10' of this underdrain. e. The stormwater from the new area should be piped through the existing Meadowbrook complex to prevent further drainage problems. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. C incerely `�V Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB /kld File: 82175U-C28-1 F Meadowbrook Condominium Association e Joy Drive e South Burlington, Vermont 0501 05403 May 7, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: You have said that the Planning Commission was interested in the question of drainage at Meadowbrook. This is a very serious problem here, and there is much material on the subject. I attach copies of a. letter to me, March 23, 1990, from Gill Barlow of Kni8ht Consulting Engineers, and a letter to Remi Gratton, March 6, 1989, also from Gill Barlow. These are among the more important documents on the subject of drainage at Meadowbrook. I will send other material later, not wishing to deluge the Commission with a flood of paper at one time. Yours very truly, Robert S. Schultz President, MCA Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 0-WI 05403 May 21, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: Here is some more material relating to the drainage problem at Meadowbrook. In addition to various letters, etc., I attach a single copy of three site plans mentioned at various points in the correspon.dne included here or in the Barlow correspondence sent you on May 7, 1990. Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan, Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., 7-7-84 Meadwobrook Site and Utilities Plan, Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc., February 1989 Meadowbrook Site Plan, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. March, 1990 Also a. section of the Official Vermont Base Map, Sheet no. 096217, Series 1250, 1978 In addition, I enclose copies of the following correspondence: Letter from Bill Szymanski to Remi Gratton, September 4, 1989 Letter from Remi Gratton to Bill Szymanski, April 18, 1989 (This letter has a reference to the wl.'ial photograph.) Letter from Hal Kemp to Bill Szymanski, Oct. 13, 1988 Also a "key" to the Knight Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan. I hope this material may be useful to the Commission. Y urs very truly, Robert S. Schu ot Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer C tf o� �'"d 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 658-7954 September 14, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Remi: In reference to your letter of April 18, 1989 and Hal Kemp's letter of October 13, 1988 and the site drainage improvement plan prepared by Knight Consulting Engineer's dated July 7, 1984, I am in agreement with the infor- mation provided to correct the site drainage with some minor exceptions and they are as follows: 1. Storm drainage pipe, I would recommend it be plastic or concrete and not metal or aluminium. Our experience with metal pipe is that it deteriorates even if it is coated. We have no objections to using it for culverts, like under driveways but not for storm sewers. The underdrains should also be plastic. 2. The underdrain system should have a couple of cleanouts, so it can be cleaned and flushed 3. Storm drain outlet pipes should include headwall to control erosion. I agree that these improvements should be implemented prior to construction of any additional untis. Very truly yours, William QV. manski City Engin e WJS/b Meadowbrook Condowuiniuui Association . Joy Drivc . -Stluth 13ur1in9ton, Vernwnt 0540] April 18, 1989 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Bill: Many thanks for coming out here a couple of weeks ago and looking over the Meadowbrook drainage problem with Bob Schultz and me. With your experience, you will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, even though things right now are remarkable dry for this time of year. (You may remember the great amount of water shown in the aerial photograph done in the spring of 1978). As you have commented, the site plan dated December 16, 1975 originally submitted by South Burlington Realty Corporation - and approved - showed no site drainage Program, except for buildings A and B. Therefore, while it may be possible to "grandfather" the G and H buildings themselves in the a ppoved plan, there was no drainage design approved for the new buildings, and so it would seem necessary to study this problem before a permit is issued for construction. I attach a copy of a letter from Knight Consulting Engineers, dated March 6, 1989, which deals with this drainage problem, as well as a copy of a letter to you, dated October 13, 1988, from G. Hal Kemp, then President of Meadowbrook Condominium Association. page 2 Also, in line with your request, I am sending you two drawings prepared by Knight Engineers, dated July 7, 1984: one showing existing surface water drainage plans and the other a preliminary surface water drainage plan for corrective work. This drawing, it should be pointed out, deals with existing drainage problems, and has nothing to do with problems resulting from construction of G and H buildings. Very truly yours, Remi Gratton Vice President Copies: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl H. Lisman, Esq. Meadowbrook Board Members RG:jb Meadowbrook, Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 October 13, 1988 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Meadowbrook Condominium Association has a severe drainage problem. Mr. Joseph Weith, a member of the South Burlington City Planning Board, was informed about this during a discussion with Mr. Remi Gratton, who is a member of our Association. Mr. Weith suggested that it be brought to your attention. The Meadowbrook drainage system, as it presently exists, was not adequately designed to handle drainage from the undeveloped section of the property. Presumably, the plans of the developer were to deal with the problem when the last two buildings and accompanying carports were built. The drainage across the undeveloped area includes heavy runoff from the Burlington Country Club and the UVM farm. Inasmuch as there now appears to be interest by some contractors to complete the last two buildings at Meadowbrook, we feel it appropriate to bring our concern to the City Planners and to you. It is recognized that two buildings, one with five units and the other with six units, have been approved on the site plan dated 12/16/75, showing footprint, size, and location of the buildings. That development would conform to layout as approved. This is mentioned because earlier this year a prospective developer was interested in Meadowbrook and chose to ignore the approved footprint, both regarding the size of individual units and location of carports. In this connection, I am attaching a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1988, to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, from Miles P. Weidner who was then president of Meadowbrook Association, regarding our concern of variances. We believe that that developer no longer desires to proceed. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to District Coordinator Louis Borie from our attorney, Carl H. Lisman, Esq., listing various problems which would be posed by further development of the Meadowbrook property. We offer, as Mr. Gratton has in the past, to meet with you at the site to show you the seriousness of the situation. Sinc re y, G. al Kemp, President Enclosure cc: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl Lisman, Attorney L Key to: Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc. Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan 7-7-84 August 6, 1984 MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS BUDGET COST SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE UPGRADES Upgrade (in order of Description Cost $ priorities) .1. New 24-inch storm sewer outfall and catch 8200 basin 2. New stone lined swale and 15-inch diameter 1800 culvert 3. New 15-inch storm sewer, catch basin, 15-inch 4000 culvert and 8-inch underdrain 4. Seed existing swale along Rice High School 900 boundary and upgrade outlet 5. Install new catch basin and replace existing 3400 8-inch storm sewer with 15-inch storm sewer 6. New 8-inch underdrain along main entrance 9700 roadway w/catch basin 7. New swale along main entrance road 2500 8. New swale and outlet along west side of 2100 carports for A & B units 9. New swale and regrading along north side of 4700 B units 10. Improve swale north of B units 2600 11. Install 8-inch storm sewer with 3 catch basins 9100 along west side of A Units 12. Improve swale northwest of E units 1400 13. Install swale and regrade along west side of 6600 C units Meadowbrook Condomi;__ims f Preliminary Cost Summary Page 2 14. Install swale and regrade along north side of 4700 D units 15. Install swale and regrade along west side of 12600 E units 16. Install swale and regrade along north side of 1700 units F-5, F-6, and F-7 17. Construct swale along north end of C units 600 $76600 M E M 0 R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: June 5, 1990 agenda items Date: June 1, 1990 5) U.S. IMMIGRATION. KIMBALL AVENUE 1. There should be a sidewalk across the frontage of this par- cel. 2. There must be a retention basin to control the runoff from the parking and building area. 3. The lot should be served by a single curb cut. 4. The Kennedy Drive - Kimball AVenue intersection should be signalized. 5. Kimball Avenue at entrance should be widened to accommodate left turns. 6. Any existing curb cuts shall be closed by removing existing depressed curb and constructing standard barrier curb. 6) MEADOWBROOK, JOY DRIVE Engineer for project should get together with Engineer for the Association and Mr. Gil Barlow of Knight Engineers, Inc. to be sure that all their concerns have been addressed. IL'v 5c>. 9 " ( - �Z� p 40 LVLA jJ j Y�- ho-a,-�x dr V u,� ^S h 1-0 7)etr- V6, C� South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Strcet, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 May 28, 1990 Gill Barlow, P.E. Knight Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 29 Williston, VT. 05495 Re: MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM PHASE 5 Dear Mr. Barlow: As per our telephone discussion today, we look forward to receiving by Friday, June 1 an indication of any problems you may see with the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn site plans for Meadowbrook Phase 5, as revised April 19, 1990. As I indicated, our specifications for the Phase 5 site plan call for no adverse impact upon the adjoining land uses with regard to drainage and soil erosion. We believe the proposed site plan goes beyond the "no impact" criterion and improves upon the existing conditions of the adjoining land, especially in the area of the Bridgeport building. Our primary concern though, as well as our only requirement, is that the Phase 5 improvements do not cause the deterioration of existing conditions. If for any reason you are not able to evaluate the latest plan by June 1 or if you should need further information, I would appreciate your giving me a call. Thank you. Sincerely, John Jaeger Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, I3uild, Lease, Consulting _I r,'cx�rktrr� - Planning Agenda 10, 1990 agenda items April 6, 1990 Pages 4 010 • South Burlington Realty proposes to revise the final two build- ings (11 units) of an 8 building, 50 unit planned residential development approved in the mid 1970's. To date, phases I - IV, consisting of 39 units, have been constructed. Phase V, con- sisting of the remaining it units, has yet to be built. This revised plat proposes to slightly alter building location, park- ing layout and circulation. The property is zoned R-4. It is bounded on the north and east by UVM, on the south by State of Vermont (I-89), and on the west by the Burlington Country Club, Rice High School and commercial businesses. Building Layout: The originally approved plan for Phase V showed a 6 unit building along the west property line and a 5 unit building along the north property line. The revised plan shows these buildings flip-flopped, the 6 unit building along the north line and the 5 unit building along the west line. Setbacks: The original plan required a 30 foot setback. The buildings are still proposed to be 30 feet from the property line. The Zoning regulations now require a 50 foot P.U.D. perim- eter setback in the R-4 zone. I see no problem with the 30 foot setback since the restof the project was developed this way and there are no adjoining sensitive uses. Circulation: Circulation has been changed to show a 24 foot wide loop road in front of the units. There previously was not such a road which prevented adequate emergency access. Parking: 25 parking spaces are required. 24 spaces were origi- nally approved and 24 are shown. Drainage: Residents have complained about drainage problems. See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 21, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 054.03 Re: Meadowbrook Condos Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments from Bill Szymanski. Please contact me .if you have any questions. 7oe `erely, Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 1. 2. -,'--;nutb T-15 ur1Yngtvn Mire "Department 575 Dorset street 3nutb -43nrlrngtun. Dermunt 05403 Lt M ) "J— ( CO +�wt T�S SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CHIEF GODDETTE TUESDAY MAY 15,1990 UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION BUILDING KIMBALL AVE. It. .';40 (802) 658-7960 Plans were reviewed by the fire department and the following is required if we are to give proper fire protection; A. THE WATER SYSTEM FOR FIRE PROTECTION MUST BE A LOOPED SYSTEM. B. THERE MUST BE 3-HYDRANTS AT A LOCATION APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. C. THE WATER SYSTEM MUST SUPPLY AT LEAST 2500 GPM. MEADOWBROOK CONDO'S JOY DRIVE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE CHANGES REQUESTED FOR HAVE BEEN MADE AND AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM IN GIVEN PROPER PROTECTION. DRAFT MEMO From: William J. Szymanski City Engineer COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 3060 WILLISTON ROAD 1. There should be improvements to the intersection. At the very least provisions for left turns. This portion of Williston Road is State and any work at the intersection must be approved by them. 2. New building should be sewered with a separate line not to the existing building. 3. Site shall drain toward the north. U.S. IMMIGRATION KIMBALL AVENUE 1. There should be a sidewalk across the frontage of this par- cel. 2. There must be a retention basin to control the runoff from the parking and building area. 3. The lot should be served by a single curb cut. 4. The Kennedy Drive - Kimball Avenue intersection should be signalized. 5. Kimball Avenue at entrance should be widened to accommodate left turns. 6. Any existing curb cuts shall be closed by removing existing depressed curb and constructing standard barrier curb. MEADOWBROOK JOY DRIVE Engineer for project should get together with Engineer for Asso- ciation and Mr. Gil Barlow of Knight Engineers, Inc. to be sure that all their concerns have been addressed. ) G�� - � /Z�.e:��-ems' � �..•�,� PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hear- ing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 5, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive. The parcel is bounded on the north and east by the University of Vermont, on the west by Rice Memorial High School, Burlington Country Club, and Hall Communications, Inc., and on the south by I-189 2) Revised Final Plat application of Daniel and Leo O'Brien for resubdivision of lots 1 and 2 of the eleven lot Business Park North subdivision on Kimball Avenue. The proposal is to adjust the boundary line between lots 1 and 2 thereby creating a 6.43 acre parcel (lot 2) and a 1.26 acre parcel (lot 1). The properties are bounded on the east by A. Palmer, on the north by H. Mayo, on the west by D. O'Brien and on the south by Kimball Avenue. Copies of the plants are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess, Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission May 19, 1990 BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING, III DOUGLAS K. RILEY DEIRDRE J. JOYCE LISMAN & LISMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P O BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 802-864-5756 April 16, 1990 Mr. Craig R. DiGiammarino Assistant District Coordinator District 4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 TELECOPIER 802-864-3629 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT 84 PINE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL Application No 4C0154-6, South Burlington Realty Company_ Dear Mr. DiGiammarino: We represent Meadowbrook Condominium Association, which consists of the legal owners of the property involved in this application. This letter is our request, on behalf of our client, for party status and a hearing in this matter. Please recall, as noted in my earlier letter to you, that our client is not a co - applicant and should not be listed as such. We request a hearing in order to present evidence under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). There are preliminary legal issues, however, that bear on the propriety of treating this application as a minor application. These issues have not yet been settled. We firmly believe that any permit for construction of additional units at Meadowbrook Condominiums should be handled under Environmental Board Rule 34(B), not Rule 34(C). This condominium project as it exists does not comply with the specifications approved by the District Commission in connection with the original permit and existing amendments. The departures from these specifications in the current construction amount to "substantial changes" to the project, requiring a new application under Rule 34(B). Furthermore, these departures have rendered the land and improvements less able to handle additional stormwater runoff from any new construction than they would have been if the existing construction complied with the specifications. Also, the site plan actually approved in the original Act 250 application (prepared by Calcagni, Frazier, Zajchowski, Architects, Inc., revised March 26, 1974) differs greatly from both the current project as constructed and the proposed new construction. Again, "substantial changes" are involved, requiring a new application under Rule 34(B). Mr. Craig R. DiGiammarino Assistant District Coordinator April 13, 1990 Page 2 We brought these issues to Louis Borie's attention by letter dated September 25, 1989 (copy enclosed). Mr. Borie's advisory opinion on this subject, #4-084, dated November 6, 1989 is now on appeal to the Executive Officer of the Environmental Board. No decision has yet been rendered on this appeal. Until the Executive Officer renders her decision as to whether the discrepancies in the project as built are "substantial changes" under Rule 34(B), it is premature for the District Commission to consider this application as a minor application. Should the District Commission choose to hold a hearing on the application in its present form, Meadowbrook Condominium Association requests an opportunity to present evidence concerning criteria 4 and 8. The evidence will consist of engineering drawings of the site, testimony concerning both drainage and aesthetics from members of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association, and expert testimony concerning drainage and erosion from the Association's consulting engineer, Gill Barlow. We also will request the District Commission to review the plans and specifications that formed a part of the original Act 250 permit, as amended. If you need any additional information, please contact me. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. VeVC my yours, , C Douglas K. Z DKR/jss Enclosure MEADOW\DiGiam.ltr CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Douglas K. Riley, Attorney for Meadowbrook Condominium Association, sent a copy of the foregoing letter and enclosures regarding application #4C0154- 6 by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 16th day of April, 1990 to the following: Randall G. Munson d/b/a South Burlington Realty c/o Dale A. Rocheleau, Esq. Downs, Rachlin & Martin Courthouse Plaza P.O. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402 John Yeager Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Margaret Picard City Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chairman, Board of Selectmen 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, Town Planner City Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street - 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 c Douglas K. Riley LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P O BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VT 05402 BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING. III DOUGLAS K. RILEY LISMAN & LISMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 802-864-5756 TELECOPIER 802-B64-3629 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT 84 PINE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT September 25, 1989 Louis Borie, District #4 Coordinator State of Vermont District Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL South Burlington Realty Company, No. 4CO154-5 Dear Mr. Borie: We represent Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. ("Meadowbrook"). At the September 20, 1989 hearing on the application by South Burlington Realty Company for an extension of construction completion date, the Commission instructed Meadowbrook to present a written description of the changes in the Meadowbrook condominium project since the original permit was issued in December, 1974. This letter is Meadowbrook's response to that request. The unauthorized construction, changes and omissions in this development from the project as authorized under the Act 250 permit have been "substantial" within the meaning of Environmental Board Rule 34(B) and 2(G). These changes have had significant impacts under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). The changes include the following: 1. Configuration and Layout of Buildings. The placement and configuration of the townhouse buildings, parking garages and accessory structures as actually built bear little resemblance to the layout shown on the approved site plan. The original permit, in Paragraph 6, provides in part that "the Subdivision must be completed as shown on the plans prepared by Calcagni, Frazier Zajchowski, Architects, Inc., revised March 26, 1974... 11 The permit has never been amended to incorporate any other site plan. I have attached as Exhibit A to this letter a detail from a copy of the approved site plan on record with the South Burlington Louis Borie Page 2 September 25, 1989 Zoning Office. Exhibit B is a detail from a later site plan prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere Architects. The latter plan depicts the existing buildings somewhat more accurately. North is at the top of each copy. The radical changes in both configuration and placement of buildings are obvious from these drawings. It should be noted that even the Wiemann-Lamphere drawing is not completely accurate. For example, our measurements indicate that the placement of Building B is over 12 feet north of the position indicated on the Wiemann-Lamphere plan. The District Commission has never considered the effects of the changes in positions of buildings, garages, recreational amenities and paved areas illustrated by these drawings. It should take the opportunity to do so by treating this request for extension as an application for a totally new project. 2. Drainage Improvements. The approved site plan shows no surface water drainage improvements whatsoever. The District Commission recognized this problem during the permit process, and contacted the original architect for "additional information" about, among other things, "surface and subsurface drainage system." (See Exhibit C, letter from Curtis W. Carter to Alfred A. Calcagni, 7/2/74.) The architect responded with a letter and attached statement, dated August 21, 1974. (See Exhibit D). Among the promises made to the Commission by the architect were (a) "the minimum culverts size will be 12 inches of asphalt coated corrugated galvanized metal pipe" (many culverts in the project are, in fact, smaller); (b) "all culverts will have a minimum 2 foot coverage to protect against frost heaves" (many culverts have barely any coverage at all, and have forced their way up through the pavement); (c) "pipes will have concrete headwall outfall..., end of headwalls at outflow will have stone rip rap" (no such features were incorporated into the actual construction); and (d) "berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains will be utilized if required." (See Exhibit D, pp. 5-6.) The judgment order in Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corporation, 5880-80CnC, dated December 21, 1985, submitted by the applicant at the September 20 hearing, amply indicates that the last promise also was not kept. Louis Borie Page 3 September 4, 1989 Meadowbrook and its members have suffered years of inconvenience and expense because the surface water drainage system in the project is woefully inadequate. Among the problems experienced by condominium owners have been large areas of standing surface water, flooded basements, flooding and icing of paved areas, and ground erosion. Meadowbrook's consulting engineer, Gill Barlow, has concluded that the drainage system must be upgraded with additional swales, piping, drains and re -grading. Clearly, the applicant's promise, made in response to a specific request of the District Commission, to provide adequate drainage was broken. The applicants should now be required to submit a detailed surface water drainage plan to handle any new construction, and to adhere to it. We are prepared to provide expert testimony, unit owner testimony and additional written material on these issues. It is quite clear that the pending permit amendment should be handled under Rule 34(B). We will be happy to supply you with additional information if you wish. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, LA - Douglas K. Riley DKR/jss f State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation.: Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist January 26, 1999 Mary Trottier, Esquire Ward, Kelley & Babb 3069 Williston Road South Burlington., `IT 05403-6030 Dear Ms. Trottier: AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Telephone #(802) 879-5656 Subject: Certification of Compliances #4C0154 & #4C01544 and Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permits #WW-4-0245-1-R & #WW-4-0245-2, Meadowbrook Condominiums located off Joy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding the above subject project. This office has now accepted the, exterior sanitary sewer line extensions and water service piping for the Meadowbrook Condominium project approved in Certification of Compliances #4C0154 and #4C0154-4 and Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permits #WW-4-0245-1 -Rand #WW-4-0245- 2. Please note that the water mains are under the jurisdiction of the Water Supply Division who may be contacted by calling (802) 241-3400. Please contact me afa-802-879-5675 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ernest P. 'stianson Regional Engineer is copies: City of South Burlington Donald L. Hmlin Consulting Engineers, Inc. AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (ANR) AND ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD (ACT 250) PROJECT REVIEW SHEET THIS IS NOT A PERMIT TOTAL # DEC PERMITS _ PRE-APP'_.'CATION REVIEW RESPONSE DAT� PENCING APPLICATION # cGiiGd' 0_�q5=14 DISTRICT TOWN JG' 7%1t 4 ld&rt,ef7lo�" PIN # OWNER OF PROJECT SITE: NAME: ADDRESS: 1 �c�/ �lK'st,�c l(r�'iT TELEPHONE. ( :;'41 -Ll'IN�I Eased on information provided by K7Crty�<� of lana of /C acres, located on t 4) & REPRESENTATIVE: NAME. 4 r ADDRESS. TELEPHOr,,E. a project was reviewed on a tract/tracts The project is generally described as: �7L'ii�%!dl✓ oc 1Ltd.'iti,JiJt� u,19_7F12 Prior Permits From ibis Office: 48' PERMITS NEEDED FROM THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION 1. ACT 250: THIS IS A JURISDICTIONAL OPINION BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION. ANY NOTIFIED PARTY OR INTERESTED PERSON AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME MAY APPEAL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD (ACT 250) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS OPINION (10 V.S.A. SEC. 6007(C)). Commercial, residential or municipal project? Length of newiimproved road(s) Has the landowner subdivided before? Wheniwhere,,# of lots AN ACT 250 PERMIT IS REQUIRED: _YES NC, Copies sent :o Statutory Parties: COMMENTS: ii ftCay�trg �0 nGN'p;'OEl Lt2 ' ,' "Jar;-, "gM;*wkt, ,�, Mir j3+,1`l�U*, tr i YES NO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DISTRICTS #4,6 &9 111 WEST STREET ESSEX JUNCTION, VT 05452 SIGNATURE: "",M DATE. "V?!1$ ACCRESS: Cistrict Coordinator Telephone: (802)879-5614 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION REGIONAL OFFICE: PERMIT,=PPROVAL REQUIRED / YES NO Water Suppiy & Wastewater Disposal Subdivision & or Exemption Deferral of Subdivision Tent/Travel Trailer Campground Mobile Home Park _=:ccr Drains (UIC) Sewer Extension REGIONAL ENGINEER ASSIGNED: (00-5/70tv3c.✓ AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES r7 ! i. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNATURE: ���(Ld I/O - .CGz DATE: �L'. y!d7�. ADDRESS: CONSERVATION Environmental Assistance Division 111 WEST STREET Wastewater Management Division Telephone: (802)879-5656 ESSEX JUNCTION,VT 05452 THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, NON -BINDING DETERMINATION REGARDING OTHER PERMITS WHICH YOU MAY NEED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENTS INDICATED BELOW AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE. 3. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ANR (802-241-3822) Contact: Discharge Permit; pretreatment permits; industrial, municipal Stormwater permits (state and federal, UIC) OTHER PERMITS AND REVIEWS YOU MAY NEED: (Continued) 4. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, ANR (802-2413840) Contact: Construction/modification of source Open Burning Furnace Boiler Conversion/Installation Industrial Process Air Emissions 5. WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, ANR (802-2413400) Contact: Weil head protection areas Bottled Water Construction Permit, water system improvements Permit to operate Diesel Engines (> 200 bHP) New Hydrants New Source 6. WATER QUALITY DIVISION, ANR Contact: Hydroelectric Projects (241-3770) Use of chemicals in State waters(241-3777) Shoreland encroachment (241-3777) Aquatic nuisance control (241-3777) Wetlands (241-3770) Section 401 Water Quality Certificate; (241-3770) Stream Alteration (748-8787/786-5906) Water Withdrawal (241-3770) 7. WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ANR Contact: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facility certificate (241-3888) Underground Storage Tanks (241-3888) Hazardous waste handler notification requirement (241-3888) Asbestos Disposal (241-3444) Lined landfills, transfer stations, recycling facilities, drop off (241-3444) Composting Facilities (241-3444) Disposal of inert waste, untreated wood & stumps (241-3444) HW transporter certificate (241-3888) Waste oil burning (241-3888) 8. FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION, ANR Contact: Dam operations (greater than 500,000 cu. ft.)(241-3451) State funded municipal water/sewer extensions/upgrades and Pollution Ccntroi Systems (241-3750) 9. POLLUTION PREVENTION HOTLINE (1-800-974-9559) Contact: RECYCLING HOTLINE (1-800-932-7100) Contact: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Contact: 10. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE, ANR (802-241-3700) Contact: Nongame & Natural Heritage program (Threatened & Endangered Species; Stream Obstruction Approval Judy Mirro 802-241-3745 11. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY (802-828-2106) or District Office# Construction Permit fire prevention, electrical, plumbing, accessibility (Americans with Disabilities Act) Sprinkler Systems Storage of flammable liquids, explosives LP Gas Storage Plumbing in residences served by public water/sewer with 10 or more custcmers Boilers and pressure vessels 12. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (800-439-8550 in VT) (802-863-7221) (Lab 800-660-9997) Contact: Food, lodging, bakeries, food processors Program for asbestos control & lead certification Children's camps Hot Tub Installation & Inspection - Commercial 13. AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES Contact: Child care facilities (241-2158) Residentiai care homes (241-2345) (Dept. of Aging & Disabilities; Nursing Homes (241-2345) Therapeutic Community Residence (241-2345) 14. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION Ccntact: Access to state highways (residential, commercial) (828-2653) Junkyards (828-2067) Signs (Travel Information Council) (828-2651) Railroad crossings (828-2760) Development within 500' of a limited access highway (828-2653) Airports and landing strips (828-2833) Construction within state highway right -of way (Utilities, Grading, etc.) (828-2653) 15. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Use/sale of pesticides (828-2431) Milk processing facilities (828-2433) Golf courses (828-2431) Green Houses/Nurseries (828-2431) Contact: Slaughter houses. poultry processing (828-2426) Animal shelters/pet merchant/livestock dealers (828-2421) Weights and measures, Gas Pumps, Scales (828-2436) Retail Sales/Milk/Meat/Poultry/Frozen Dessert/Class "C" Pesticides (828-2436) 16. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE (800-6423281) VT Residential Building Energy Standards (See Enclosure) 17. DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION (802-8283226) Histonc buildings Archeological sites 18. DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL (1-800-832-2339) Liquor ;icenses General Info (1-800-642-3134) 19. SECRETARY OF STATE (1-802-828-2386) Business registration Professional Boards (1-800-439-8683) 20. DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (802.828-2551) Business taxes (sales, meals & rooms, amusement machines) 21. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (802-828-2074) Fuel taxes; commercial vehicle Franchise tax/solid waste 1�2�LOCAL PERMITS (SEE YOUR TOWN CLERK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING COMMISSION, OR PUBLIC WORKS) 'TfFEDERAL PERMITS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BLDG 10-18, CAMP JOHNSON, COLCHESTER, VT 05446 (655-0334) 25. OTHER: REVISION DATE: — Form Date 1119' Rev. 7/98 State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife - Department of- Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation March 18, 1998 Meadowbrook Condominium Owners c/o Meadowbrook Condo. Assoc. 69 Joy Drive South Burlington VT 05403 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division Essex Junction Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 879-5656 Permit # WW-4-0245-1, Meadowbrook -- Permit changes to water & sewer service lines and building footprints located on Joy Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. Dear Permitee: We have received an inspection report dated March 10, 1998 from Dubois & King for the sewer line extensions. This satisfies Conditions #10 & 11. Thank you for your close attention to the permit conditions. Please note that any changes to the water or sewer lines/systems, or changes in use that increase the demands of the systems, may require a permit from this office. Sincerely, Jessanne Wyman Assistant Regional Engineer c City of South Burlington Planning Commission Douglas Fitzpatrick - Dubois & King Neil Wheelwright -Miller, Eggleston & Cramer, LTD. TAX MAP #: FILE #: LOCATION: DATE 3-13-73 3-26-74 4-1-74 6-25-74 9-9-75 4-19-76 5-11-76 5-10-77 11-8-77 6-22-81 4-10-90 6-5-90 3-26-96 35-4-0 MEADOWBROOK APPLICATION PURPOSE GRAND LIST #: 0940- FP 3 LOT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ? RECIND 3-26-74 APPROVAL AMEND 3-26-74 MOTION FP PHASE I-11 UNITS V TENNIS COURTS APPROVAL PHASE I-POOL/TENNIS SP PHASE III-14 UNITS SP PHASE IV-14 UNITS V DECK SK PHASE V-11 UNITS RF P " " RFP if if FILE NAME: URBAN WHEELOCK HAAS,WILLIAM(MEADOWBROOK HAAS, WILLIAM SO. BURLINGTON REALTY HAAS,WILLIAM(MEADOWBROOK it it if if DAVIDSON, DICK HAAS,MEADOWBROOK(1990) FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCOR' )ATED Engineering and Planning Sei., es One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 TO •� 1 [LIF.44C L ` bu 4G3G�l�]�44La[� DATE'4 JOB NO. / O Q ATTENTIONH 9C0 O RE: WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings Prints ElEl Plans ❑ Samp ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order DESCRIPTION Fm THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: \ ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted �1 For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ turned for corrections ❑ For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US State of Vermont WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT Case #: WW-4-0245-1-R LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED PIN EJ96-0131 Environmental Protection Rules Applicant: Randall G. Munson Effective September 10, 1982 d/b/a South Burlington Realty Address: 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 This project, consisting of constructing the final 11 three bedroom condominium units in buildings G (6 units) and H (5 units) of the 50 unit Meadowbrook Condominium project located off Joy Drive in the city of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. This Permit does not constitute Act 250 approval under Case Number 4CO154 and amendments. GENERAL 1. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans Project Number 88169, Sheet 1 of 7 "Site & Utilities Plan" dated March 1990 last revised 2-20-96; and Sheet 3 of 7 "Typical Details Site Facilities" dated Feb. 1989 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. and which have been stamped "approved" by the Wastewater Management Division. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans without prior written approval from the Wastewater Management Division. 2. A copy of the approved plans and this Permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or local personnel. 3. In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole) of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 4. The Wastewater Management Division now reviews the sewage and water systems for public buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 61 - Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit. 5. This permit shall supersede Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit #WW-4-0245 dated June 18, 1990, thereby rendering it null and void. 6. All conditions set forth in Certification of Compliance #4C0154-4 dated May 19, 1983 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit WW-4-0245-1-R Page 2 7. This permit shall supercede Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit #WW-4-0245-1 dated April 16, 1996, thereby rendering it null and void. WATER SUPPLY 8. The water main extension is approved provided the water main extension is constructed in strict accordance with the Agency of Natural Resources' "Public Water System Permit to Construct " Project # V-1276 WSID # 5091 to South Burlington Realty Company dated February 29, 1996. 9. The project is approved for water supply by construction and utilization of the municipal water service depicted on the approved plans. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Wastewater Management Division. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 10. The municipal sewer collection system herein approved shall be routinely and reliably inspected during construction by a Vermont -registered professional engineer who shall, upon completion and prior to occupancy of the subject establishment, report in writing to the 'Wastewater Management Division that the installation was accomplished in accordance with the approved plans and permit conditions. 11. The inspecting engineer's written construction report shall include the testing data and conclusions of all infiltration, leakage, and pressure testing performed on the components of the sewer collection system, in accordance with Appendix A of the Environmental Protection Rules. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 19th day of April, 1996. William C. Brierley, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation BY Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer c For the Record South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington Selectboard Act 250 Coordinator -Faith Ingulsrud Water Supply Division Department of Labor and Industry Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. Meadowbrook Condominium Association PLANNING COMMISSION 26 March 1996 page 2 the 36, 000 sa . _St. g _nQral /medical off ice building, and 2 ) re- ducing the size of the 12,432 sct. ft. building to 11,400 sq. ft. of qeneral office use as depicted on a two page set of plans, �a e 1 entitled "National Gardening Proposed New Offices Site Plan," pr.AparAd by Civil Engineerin Associates, Inc, dated Dece_m_ber. , 1994 last. revised 3 21 96 with the following stipulations: 1. All revious a royals and sti ulat.ions which are not bein superseded by this apprnN7al shall remain in effect.. 2. The Planning Commission approves 198 parkinr spaces, eight of which are shown as future s aces and therefore will not be con- structed at this time. These 198 spaces represent a waiver of 12 s aces of 5.7% of the total re uired. It is the Commission's o inion that. 198 spaces will ade uatel serve the r.o'ect since a significant portion of the ross s uare foota e of buildin "B" will be devoted to stairwaV and elevator space and therefore will not be devoted to use which t icall enerates parkinq demand. The eight future spaces shall be constructed if determined to be necessary by the applicant. 3. For the ur ose of calculat.in required road impact fees under the South Burlin ton Im act Fee Ordinance the Plannin Commission est.imatos that the 2L2posed office cam lex will en- erato 115 vehicle tri Ands durin the P.M. eak hour. 4. The final plat plans shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The Plans shall be si nod b the Planninq Commission Chair or Clerk rior to recording__ 5. The "neck down" im rovements ro osed for the East. Woods nei hborhood shall be in lace rior to issuance of a Certificate of Occu anc Com liance for either buildin . Mr. Austin seconded. The motion was than assed unanimous) . 3. Public Hearing: Revised Final Plat- applicat.ionof South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the eleven remaining units (Phase V) of a 50-unit planned residential devel- opment known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive: Mr. Giebink said the existing plan shows a 5 and a 6 unit building. It also showed the limits of clearing for the project. He then showed the proposed new locations of the 2 buildings and the limit of pavement. A substantial number of trees around the perimeter will be saved under the new plan. There will also be a decrease in the amount of pavement. The new plan is designed to block off headlights from shining into residences. Mr. Geibink PLANNING COMMISSION 26 March 1996 page 3 showed the area where they will add landscaping and where trees will be saved. Mr. Jaeger noted that drainage concerns had been raised at the last hearing. He said that he had Doug FitzPatrick contact the People who did the drainage work and they affirmed that the 1990 plan answered all concerns raised by the engineer for the Meadowbrook homeowners. There will be less stor.mwater to be fed into the system than anticipated in the 1990 plan because there will be less pavement. Mr. Jaeger showed the new landscaping plan based on discussions with the Meadowbrook residents. Trees have been added off the ends of the 2 new buildings. They have also added 60 dogwoods to screen the new buildings and the parking area from the ex- isting buildings. Mr. Burgess asked the applicant to show the areas where trees will be saved. Mr. Jaeger said they will identify special trees when the surveyors go out and mark cuts and fills. Mr. Austin was concerned that with less than standard setbacks, there should be more of a buffer for adjacent properties. Mr. Jaeger said there is a woods beyond the area, and the neighbors preferred the other locations for landscaping. Mr. Balfe noted that the Meadowbrook neighbors still prefer the original plan. Ms. Gilfillan, Secretary of the Meadowbrook Board, said they have been working with Mr. Jaeger and there were efforts made to save trees. She noted that beyond the line, there are no bigger trees to be saved. Unfortunately, because of drainage work, most of the large trees must come down. She noted that progress is being made on other issues, but there is no final agreement as yet. Mr. Divine asked if it is possible to have more landscaping put into the plan. Mr. Jaeger said he would expect if this plan is approved and they can come back with something more amenable to the residents, the Commission would consider it. Mr. Burgess outlined the Commission's options: to take the word of the applicant, to word the approval to have the final landscaping plan approved by the City Planner, or to say this is the final landscaping plan. Ms. Gilfillan asked that the motion be worded to stipulate that the applicant continue to work with residents on the landscaping issue. Mr. Austin said he wasn't sure that was a "measurable" condition. He added that the applicant would be foolish to cut down more trees than necessary since trees help to sell the property. Given the options as outlined by the Chair, Mr. Jaeger withdrew the offer to continue to work on the land- PLANNING COMMISSION 26 March 1996 page 4 scape plan. Mr. Sheahan noted it would still be in the applicant's best interest to work with residents. Mr. Sheahan moved the Plannin Commission approve the revised final plat. application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remainin units (Phase V) of a 50 unit. 21anned residential develo ment. known as Meadowbrook Con- dominiums Jo Drive as de icted on a seven a e set of plans a e one entitled "Meadowbr.00k South Bu_rl_ington, Vermont, Site and Utilities Plan," 2reparedby FitzPatrick-Llewell n Inc., dated March, 1990, last. revised2/20/96, with the followina stipulations: 1. Allrevious approvals and stipulations w seded by_ this_ approval shall remain in eff ec 1 are_ not supper- 2. Pursuant to Section 9.404 of the zonin re ulations the Planning Commission modf._; PS the 50 foot PUD perimeter G _thae- and_a2proves a 30 foot PUD perimeter setback. 3. The final Tat plans shall be revised to show the chan es listed below and shall -require a22roval of the,.City Planner. Three co ies of the approved revisedlat plans shall be sub- mitted -to -the -city Planner prior to recording: as The _Plans_ shall be revised to locate the additional fire hydrant in a location apro ved-b the Fire Chief. b. The landscapingplan shall be revised to reflect the landscape plan presented to the Commission dated 3/23 /96 . c) Sheets 1 and 6 shall be revised to indicate the zoning boundaries. 4. The T-lanning Commission a22roves a sewer allocation of 49 If re wired by -the Zonin Administrator theapplicant shall pay theper__ allon fee rior to 2ermit issuance. 5. Any__ new_ exterior lightinq shall consist of downcast.in shielded fixtures so as not to cast li ht be and the ro ert ling. ApZ change in li htin shall be approved b the City Planner prior to installatiion. The proposedj2arkin-g lot licrhts shall be downcastina shielded fixtures. These lights shall be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a zoning ermit 6. The draina e i e for storm sewers shall be plastic or con- PLANNING COMMISSION 26 March 1996 page 5 concrete not metal as the lans show. 7. The applicant shall conduct a water flow test at the existin hydrant. The results of this flow test shall be Drovided to and approved by the Fire Chief prior to permit. issuance. The a22licant shall obtain a Certificate of Occu anc Com- ance from the Administrative Officer 2rior.to occu anc of the llina units. 9. The final lat Tans shall be recorded in the land records within 90 da s or this a22roval is null and void. The plan shall be si ned b the Planning Commission Chair or Clerk iDrior to recording. Mr. Teesonconded. Motion passed unanimously. Since the previous items took longer than expected, members agreed that it would be best to postpone the Centennial Heights hearing. Austin seconded. Motion assed unanimousl . Mr. Weith agreed to notify the neighbors prior to the hearing. A brief recess followed. 5. Public Hearing: Presentation and Consideration of the Proposed 1996 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Weith said that most of the changes are vary minor and consist of updating data and refining language. The current plan was adopted in 1991 and is, in effect, a vision of what the city desires to be in 20 years. The authority to create such a plan granted through the Vermont Planning and Development Act, Titie 24, VSA, Chapter 117. The plan is updated every 5 years. To create the presently proposed plan, the Planning Commission held 15 public meetings and two public forums. They received input from various city departments, citizens' committees and outside organizations. Before the proposed Plan is adopted, the City Council will hold an additional public hearing and must then make a decision whether or not to adopt the plan. Mr. Weith then showed the Table of Contents of what is covered in the Comprehensive Plan. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 24, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 1996. Please note the conditions of approval including the requirement that the final plat plans be recorded within 90 days (June 24, 1996) or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, JW/mcp 1 Encl. please give me a call. ncere y, i J e Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 25, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the March 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of approval including the requirement that the final plat plans be recorded within 90 days (June 24, 1996) or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please JW/mcp 1 Encl give me a call. Si cerel , d Jo Weith, Ci y Planner LINTON & LINTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 363 WILLISTON ROAD P.O. Box 1100 WILLISTON, VT 05495-1100 PHILLIP C. LINTON LESLIE S. LINTON ROBERT H. RUSHFORD April 19, 1996 HAND DELIVERY Faith Ingulsrud District Environmental Commission #4 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 RE: Randall Munson d/b/a South Burlington Realty Company Application No. 4CO154-9 Dear Ms. Ingulsrud: TELEPHONE: (802) 879-1100 FACSIMILE: (802) 879-7055 Enclosed are the original and three copies of the Applicant's Prehearing Memorandum. Very truly yours, LINTON & LINTON �z Robert H. Rushford c: South Burlington Realty Co. Enclosures STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: RANDALL MUNSON d /b / a ) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY) Application #4C0154-9 366 Dorset Street ) South Burlington, VT 05403 ) APPLICANT'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM NOW COMES the Applicant, RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY, by and through his attorneys, Linton & Linton, and hereby submits the following Prehearing Memorandum. INTRODUCTION The Applicant holds Land Use Permits #4C0154 through #4C0154-8 for the construction and development of 50 condominium units known as the Meadowbrook Condominium. To date, 39 of the units have been constructed. The construction of the remaining eleven units is authorized by Land Use Permit Amendments #4C0154-6 through #4C0154-8. The current application is a proposal for minor modifications to the location of the buildings and parking layout for the remaining eleven units. No significant changes will be made to the drainage system, building locations, building materials, landscaping, screening or aesthetics of the project. The application proposes the removal of one unit from the six -unit structure and moving it over to the five -unit structure, the substitution of enclosed garages in the location of the former carport, the rotation of the garage structure, the closure of the circular driveway and one of the access driveways, the addition of six enclosed parking spaces in the location of the former access driveway, the retention of a larger LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 amount of existing vegetation and addition of 75 landscaping plantings for the project, and minor modifications to the architectural details of the building design. In 1990, the Applicant entered into an Agreement with the Meadowbrook Condominium Association, whereby the Association acknowledged the right of the Applicant to proceed with the construction of the eleven unit project identified in Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0154-6, and agreed not to oppose the project in future permitting proceedings. Before submitting the current application, the Applicant met with representatives of the Association on at least eight occasions to review the plans, design and layout of the proposed amendment. Over the course of these eight meetings, the Association reviewed all aspects of the project, including the location of the buildings, the landscaping plan, drainage plan, the parking and garage layout, the building design and construction components, including size and location of decks, windows, doors, porches, chimneys, exterior brick/cedar shingle material, and lighting. The Applicant and Association have reached an oral agreement on all aspects of the current amendment application. SCOPE OF REVIEW The scope of these proceedings is controlled by two factors. First, the current proposal has been treated as a Minor Application under Rule 51 of the Environmental Board Rules. On March 13, 1996, the District Coordinator issued a Notice of Applica- tion and Hearing for a Minor Application and proposed Land Use Permit Amend- ment #4C0154-9. Although the Association has not submitted comments on the proposed Permit Amendment (i.e., consistent with its agreement with the Applicant), FA LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 Michael G. Devine, an Association member and owner of unit B1 of the Meadow - brook Condominium, submitted a letter to the District Coordinator raising issues under Criteria 1(B) (Stormwater) and Criterion 8 (Aesthetics). According to Rule 51(D), if a hearing is convened, "it shall be limited to those criteria or sub -criteria identified by ... a successful petitioner for party status ...." Second, the current application seeks the amendment of a prior permitted project. Where, as here, an application is for an amendment to a previously permit- ted project, the scope of the Commission's review is limited to those criteria which are impacted by the proposed modifications. According to Durward and Lorraine Starr, Land Use Permit Amendment #7R0594-1-EB, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order at 2-3 (Apr. 30, 1986): It is in the very nature of a permit amendment proceeding that scrutiny is limited to the change in a project's impact on values cognizable under the 10 criteria. More simply stated, if a project's modifications result in no impact on for example, educational services scrutiny under Criteri- on 6 is inappropriate. Id. (emphasis added); accord John A. Russell, Inc., Land Use Permit Amendment #IR0275-1-EB (Nov. 30, 1983). Mr. Devine has submitted comments to the Commission under Criteria l (B) and 8. However, since the proposed modifications to the permitted project will have no impact under these Criteria, scrutiny under these Criteria is not appropriate. CRITERION 1(B) (STORMWATER DRAINAGE) T",.e Applicant's proposed amendment leaves the stormwater drainage system approved in Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0154-6 virtually unchanged. In fact, 3 LINTON & LINCON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 the proposed changes to the system will result in a net improvement to the stormwater drainage plan. First, the proposed amendment retains the same design and all of the catch basins and swales of the original drainage plan. Second, the reduction of the six -unit building to a five -unit building will provide additional space in the northwest corner of the property for the location of a larger more efficient swale. Third, the open swale in front of the open parking area is replaced with an underground catch basin system to provide an adequate space for the planting of 60 dogwood trees (i.e., which will create a vegetative screen for the open parking area). Finally, since the proposed amendment calls for the closure of a portion of the former access driveway, the impervious area will be reduced from 27,021 square feet to 25,581 square feet. Because the proposed changes to the drainage system result in a net decrease in the stormwater impacts of the project, scrutiny under this Criteria is not appropri- ate. Durward and Lorraine Starr, Conclusions :of Law and Order at2-3. In his submission to the Commission, Mr. Devine discusses his concerns about the pre -development drainage patterns and his concerns about the drainage system approved in Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0154-6. He fails, however, to raise any substantive issues with respect to the proposed amendment. For example, Mr. Devine notes that in its undeveloped state, project site is poorly drained and that he has experienced a wet basement for many years (although his baser lent improved when drainage work was performed on the adjacent Rice Memorial High School Lands). In the site's current undeveloped state, all stormwater 11 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VEEMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 runoff sheets in a general southerly direction towards Mr. Devine's unit. Both the approved drainage plan and the proposed plan call for major improvements to the pre -development drainage patterns. Stormwater runoff will be funnelled through a system of swales to catch basins and underground pipes. Both the approved plan and the proposed plan call for the construction of a berm/swale to run the length of the southerly boundary of the site to serve as a water bar between the project site and Mr. Devine's unit. Because this issue relates to the predevelopment drainage patterns and the approved plan, it is not an appropriate subject for these proceedings. Similarly, Mr. Devine raises concerns about stormwater runoff from adjacent lands and possible fertilizers or herbicides that are used by neighboring landowners. These issues, however relate to the previously approved drainage system, not the proposed amendment. Therefore, they are not appropriate subjects for these proceed- ings. The�only comment Mr. Devine raises with respect to the proposed amendment is his concern that the change from staggered building foundations along the westerly side of Building G to a more linear foundation line will increase and/or overburden the stormwater drainage system. However, the proposed foundation line will have no impact on stormwater runoff, because the building foundations are at a higher elevation than the stormwater swales. Rather than flowing in a north/south direction along the foundation line, as contemplated by Mr. Devine, the actual stormwater flows in both the approved plan and amended plan will run in a westerly direction away from the building foundation into the swale located behind Building G. 67 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 I CRITERION 8 (AESTHETICS) The proposed amendment will not result in a material change to the aesthetics of the approved project. In fact, the proposed amendment will have the effect of reducing the aesthetic impacts of the project. First, the building bulk, mass, setbacks, components, and layout are virtually unchanged from the original approval. As in the original approval, the building exteriors will consist of brick and cedar shingles. Second, the approved exterior lighting will be changed to shielded downcast lighting fixtures. This will reduce the nighttime lighting impacts of the project. Third, the central carport has been rotated and changed to an enclosed garage. The rotation of the structure will enhance the I visual field, since the view towards Building G will no longer be obstructed by a line of parked cars in an open carport. By turning the structure sideways, only a portion of the structure will block the view of Building G, and no cars will be visible. :. Fourth, with the elimination of the loop driveway and second access, the impact of vehicle headlights shining into the back of the units in Building B will be reduced. This impact will be further reduced by the addition of the second enclosed parking structure which will further screen vehicle headlights from Building B. Fifth, with the elimination of the second access, existing vegetation along the southeast corner of the project will be retained. Sixth, moving one unit from the 6-unit structure over to the 5-unit structure will create additional open space in the northwest corner of the it project and will allow additional existing vegetation to be retained. Seventh, the II ji proposed amendment will involve the planting of 75 additional vegetative plantings, it it 6 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 including 60 dogwood trees in the green space located in front of the open parking area. These plantings will create a vegetative screen for the vehicles in the open parking area. Because the proposed amendment reduces the aesthetic impacts of the previously approved project, Criterion 8 is not an appropriate subject for review in these proceedings. Durward and Lorraine Starr. Conclusions of Law and Order at 2- 3. In his letter to the Commission, Mr. Devine generally maintains that the plans "do not comport to the aesthetic design of the original project." However, Mr. Devine fails to provide any further description of his objections. Presumably, Mr. Devine is objecting to the above described modifications, which will reduce the aesthetic impacts of the approved project. PARTY STATUS According to Rule 51(E), the Commission shall rule on all party status petitions prior to or at the outset of the hearing. Adjoining property owners may participate only "to the extent that .. [they] demonstrate[] that the proposed [amendment] ... may have a direct affect on the adjoiner- s property under any of the 10 criteria ...." In his submission to the Commission, Mr. Devine has raised several concerns relating to the previously permitted project. However, he has failed to demonstrate .. that the proposed amendment will have any impacts on his property with respect to Criteria 1(B) or 8. Accordingly, his request for party status should be denied. See Spring Brook Farm Foundation Inc. Application #2S0985-EB, Memorandum of 7 it LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 it I I Decision at 7 (Jul. 18, 1995) (adjoining property owner denied party status where she failed to demonstrate any direct effect under any of the criteria raised by her). In addition, Mr. Devine's request for party status should not be considered in a vacuum. The Applicant and the Association have worked together for the past several years to iron out their differences. This work has resulted in the execution of an Agreement where the Association recognized the right of the Applicant to build the project and agreed not to oppose the Applicant in the permitting of the project. In accordance with the spirit of the Agreement, the Applicant and Association have discussed and reached agreement on all aspects of the proposed amendment. Consistent with this agreement, the Association has not submitted any comments to the Commission in opposition to the project. However, the Devines, who are members of the Association and participated in the meetings with the Applicant, now seek party status in these proceedings. Because the Association represents the interests of all unit owners, including the Devines, the Devines' interests should be represented, if at all, by the Association itself. This principle was recognized in the Memorandum of Decision for Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0154-5 at 4 (Oct. 13, 1989), where the Commission recognized that the unit owners need not be named as co -applicants since "the Commission is prepared to admit the condominium owners, by their association, as parties to the permit proceedings, which will afford them ample opportunity to participate." TEL. (802) 879-1100 E:1 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 W1LL15TON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 Dated at Williston, Vermont this _Zq_day of April, 1996. c: Parties on Attached List TEL. (802) 879-1100 RANDALL MUNSON d /b / a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO. BY: LINTON & LINTON Attorneys for Applicant Rob H. Rush€br 0 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 Fnx (802) 879-7055 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY Application No. 4CO154-9 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the Applicant's Prehearing Memorandum was mailed by U.S. Mail, First Class Postage Prepaid, to the following: Charles Brush Pinnacle Builders 161 Austin Drive Burlington, VT 05401 Michael G. Devine B1 Meadowbrook, Joy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 James A. Caffry, Esq. Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 Meadowbrook Condominium Assn. c/o Douglas Riley, Esq. P.O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402-0728 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452-0108 Margaret Picard, City Clerk 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair of Board of Selectmen 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair of Planning Commission 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dated at Williston, Vermont this 19th day of April, 1996. ROBERT H. RUSHFORD, ESQ. Attorney for Applicant LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 i State of Vermont WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT Case #: WW-4-0245-1 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED PIN EJ96-0131 Environmental Protection Rules Applicant: Randall G. Munson Effective September 10, 1982 d/b/a South Burlington Realty Address: 69 Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 This project, consisting of constructing the final 11 three bedroom condominium units in buildings G (6 units) and H (5 units) of the 50 unit Meadowbrook Condominium project located off Joy Drive in the city of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. This Permit does not constitute Act 250 approval under Case Number 4CO154 and amendments. GENERAL 1. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans Project Number 88169, Sheet 1 of 7 "Site & Utilities Plan" dated March 1990 last revised 2-20-96; and Sheet 3 of 7 "Typical Details Site Facilities" dated Feb. 1989 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. and which have been stamped "approved" by the Wastewater Management Division. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans without prior written approval from the Wastewater Management Division. 2. A copy of the approved plans and this Permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or local personnel. 3. In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole) of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 4. The Wastewater Management Division now reviews the sewage and water systems for public buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 61 - Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit. 5. This permit shall supersede Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit #WW-4-0245 dated June 18, 1990, thereby rendering it null and void. 6. All conditions set forth in Certification of Compliance #4C0154-4 dated May 19, 1983 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit WW-4-0245-1 Page 2 WATER SUPPLY 7. The water main extension is approved provided the water main extension is constructed in strict accordance with the Agency of Natural Resources' "Public Water System Permit to Construct " Project # V-1276 WSID # 5091 to South Burlington Realty Company dated February 29, 1996. R. The project is approved for water supply by construction and utilization of the municipal water service depicted on the approved plans. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Wastewater Management Division. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 9. The municipal sewer collection system herein approved shall be routinely and reliably inspected during construction by a Vermont -registered professional engineer who shall, upon completion and prior to occupancy of the subject establishment, report in writing to the Wastewater Management Division that the installation was accomplished in accordance with the approved plans and permit conditions. 10. The inspecting engineer's written construction report shall include the testing data and conclusions of all infiltration, leakage, and pressure testing performed on the components of the sewer collection system, in accordance with Appendix A of the Environmental Protection Rules. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 16th day of April, 1996. William C. Brierley, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By�g/� Ernest P. C ristianson Regional Engineer c For the Record South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington Selectboard Act 250 Coordinator -Faith Ingulsrud Water Supply Division Department of Labor and Industry Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. Meadowbrook Condominium Association City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 15, 1996 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Phase V, Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a copy of the March 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Oe Weith,` ity Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl PLANNING COMMISSION 13 March 1996 page 2 Mr. Weith asked the status of the "neckdowns." Mr. Morrissey said they are waiting to get together with neighbors to see exactly where the "neckdowns" will go. They will be in place before the opening of the building. Mr. Webster noted that the greenhouse and unfinished space are not included in the gross square footage. Mr. Barritt asked what happens in the future if they want med- ical offices. Mr. Burgess said they would have to come back to the Planning Commission with a request to change the use. That would have a higher parking requirement and would generate more traffic. Mr. Barritt said he was heartbroken to see the clearcutting that occurred on that lot. Animals and birds lost their habitat. He felt there should have been an alternative to that. Mr. Dickinson reported on new traffic figures. Peak hour trips would be reduced from 140 to 111 vehicle trip ends in the peak hour. There would also be slightly less traffic in the adjacent neighborhood. No other issues were raised. 4. Discussion regarding revised final plat application of South Burlington Realty to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50-unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive: Mr. Jaeger said they were originally permitted for 50 condos. The 11 remaining units will be built on a 1.4 acre section. Four will be two bedroom units and the remaining 3 bedroom units. Buildings 5 and 6 have been reversed to maximize views. Parking has been enlarged for 18 cars instead of 11. There are also some changes in landscaping and the water line. There will be a 5- unit building and a 6-unit building. The drainage plan remains the same. They will meet the landscaping plan. Ms. Gilfillin expressed the concerns of the Meadowbrook Board. They do not believe the changes proposed are minor and are in violation of the permit. She noted that people buying into Meadowbrook have been buying based on the 1990 plan. The Board wants to assure that that plan is followed. The issues that concern them are: a. the ends and backs of buildings: Ms. Gilfillan showed photos of what the ends of buildings look like. They are of brick construction. This has an affect on appearance. The present proposal is for shingles on the ends. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 March 1996 page 3 Mr. Burgess noted that aesthetic review is not the Commission purview. b. The footprint of the building is also a concern. The Board would prefer a stagger affect for consistency. c. They are also concerned with brick chimneys. They present plan is to make them optional. She believed the chimneys are in the act 250 approval. d. Timing: The applicant wants to clear cut the area of old growth trees. Residents are concerned they will cut and leave the area unbuilt for a long time. Mr. Jaeger said they won't start a building until they can finance it. To do that they have to have it half sold. He said they will try to get together with Meadowbrook and work things out. Mr. Burgess asked if the applicant would be willing to stipulate that once a building is started it would be finished. Mr. Jaeger did not see a reason to. Ms. Gilfillan noted they have been talking with the developer for a long time and have been at a stalemate until recently. Mr. Burgess said the Commission is encouraging the developer to try to work things out. Mr. Austin suggested identifying trees to be saved outside the footprint of the buildings. Mr. Sheahan added that he preferred to see mature trees saved and suggested possible credit for those trees that are saved. A resident noted that a place where the applicant has indicated they will save trees actually has no trees at all. Mr. Fisher asked about the drainage problem and where water will drain to. Mr. Jaeger said it would sheet flow into swales with catchbasins, then into the drainage system. Residents said they now have to chip ice from pipes in the winter and you can stand and watch water going across the road. Mr. Jaeger showed where there would be new catch basins. They will replace 8" pipe with 15" pipe. Mr. Weith said the City Engineer has found the drainage plan adequate and acceptable. 5. Discussion regarding final plat approval of South Burlington Realty Company for construction of a planned residential development consisting of 92 multi -family units in 23 buildings on 27.76 acres of land, 201 Patchen Road: Nj STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a ) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY ) Application #4C0154-9 366 Dorset Street ) South Burlington, VT 05403 ) APPLICANT'S MOTION TO DELETE PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITION #15 REGARDING CRITERION 9(F) NOW COMES the Applicant, RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY, by and through his attorneys, Linton & Linton, and hereby submits this Motion to Delete Proposed Permit Condition #15 with respect to Criterion 9(F). The Applicant holds Land Use Permits #4C0154 through #4C0154-8 for the construc- tion 50 condominium units known as the Meadowbrook Condominium. tion and development o � To date, 39 of the units have been constructed. Minor modifications were made to the building locations and site plan configurations for the remaining eleven units in Land Use Permit Amendments #4C0154-6 through #4C0154-8. These modifications did not involve any change to the construction components of the previously approved buildings. The current application represents another minor modification to the location of the buildings. However, no significant changes will be made to the building structures that were originally approved. The exteriors of the buildings will be brick with cedar shingles, in accordance with the originally approved design. The interior components (i.e., insulation thickness, plumbing fixtures, furnace efficiency and utilities) will be the same as those which were originally approved, with the exception of a conversion from oil space heating to more efficient natural gas, which has only recently become available at the site. A, lough the current application may arguably represent a substantial or material change to the project under some of the Act 250 criteria (i.e., thereby justifying the need for a permit amendment), no material change has been proposed under Criterion 9(F). The buildings proposed under the permit amendment application will comply with all of the LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 permit conditions previously imposed under Criterion 9(F). Because the proposed modifica- tions will have no impact on Criterion 9(F), review under this issue is inappropriate. According to the Environmental Board, the District Commission's review of amend- ment applications must be limited to those Criteria which are impacted by the modifications presented in the amendment application. This issue was specifically addressed in Durward and Lorraine Starr, Land Use Permit Amendment #7R0594-1-EB, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order at 2-3 (Apr. 30, 1986). In that case, the Board held that: It is in the very nature of a permit amendment proceeding that scrutiny is limited to the change in a project's impact on values cognizable under the 10 criteria. More simply stated, if a project's modifications result in no impact on, for example, educational services, scrutiny under Criterion 6 is inap2propriate. Id. (emphasis added); accord John A. Russell, Inc., Land Use Permit Amendment #1R0275-1- EB (Nov. 30, 1983). Because the proposed modifications to the building locations will have no impact on energy issues, consideration of Criterion 90 is inappropriate during the amendment application. Accordingly, Criterion 9(F) may not be considered at this; time The only apparent reason why the proposed permit amendment addresses Criterion 9(F) is to impose new regulatory standards for energy efficiency on the applicant. However, in the absence of a change in the project which has a material or substantial impact on Criterion 9(F), the Commission may not reopen conditions or findings for the purpose of imposing new regulatory standards. See In re Taft Corners Associates, Inc., 160 Vt. 583, 593, 632 A.2d 649 (1993) (where no appeal is taken, "the findings, conclusions and permits are final and are not subject to attack in a subsequent application proceeding, whether or not theme properly_ granted in the first instance") (emphasis added); see also In re Molgano, 5 Vt.L.W. 314, 316 (Nov 10, 1994) ("rights vest under regulations existing at the time of filing of a proper application") 2 LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VEEMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 Accordingly, issues relating to Criterion 90 should not be considered at the hearing on this matter, and permit condition #15 in proposed Land Use Permit #4C0154-9 should be deleted and condition #21 in Land Use Permit #4C0154-6 should be inserted in lieu thereof. Dated at Williston, Vermont this � day of April, 1996. c: Parties on Attached List RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO. BY: LINTON & LINTON Attorneys for Applicant BY: - Robert H. Rush -ford 3 LINTON & LINTON P.O. BOX 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: RANDALL MUNSON d/b/a SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY Application No. 4CO154-9 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the Applicant's Motion to Delete Proposed Permit Condition #15 Regarding Criterion 9(F) was mailed by U.S. Mail, First Class Postage Prepaid, to the following: Charles Brush James A. Caffry, Esq. Pinnacle Builders Agency of Natural Resources 161 Austin Drive 103 South Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 Michael G. Devine Meadowbrook Condominium Assn. B1 Meadowbrook, Joy Drive c/o Douglas Riley, Esq. South Burlington, VT 05403 P.O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402-0728 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452-0108 Margaret Picard, City Clerk 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair of Board of Selectmen 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair of Planning Commission 575 Dorest Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dated at Williston, Vermont this 8th day of April, 1996. , ERT H. RUSHFORD, ESQ. Attorney for Applicant LINTON & LINTON P.O. Box 1100 TEL. (802) 879-1100 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 FAX (802) 879-7055 South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 April 4, 1996 Ray Belair Department of Planning & zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Project Dear Ray: Please find enclosed a letter from John Choate of SBWD/Champlain Water District with an attached SBWD hydrant map section copy and pertinent fire flow test data relative to the above mentioned location. Upon reviewing the letter from Mr. Choate, Chief Wally Possich agreed that the existing #12 hydrant location, supply and pressure is adequate to meet the project requirements. He also stated that the proposed new hydrant is not needed due to the above mentioned existing hydrant location, supply and pressure. Chief Possich will also be forwarding a letter to you stating the above mentioned facts. Please feel free to call with any questions. Thank you for your time and assistance. iNrelyRi=son Prime Real. Lstate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development. Design, Build, Lease, Consulting SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT 403 Queen City Park Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-864-4361 Mr. Rick Harrison April 2, 1996 South Burlington Realty Co. 366 dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Meadowbrook Project at Joy Drive Daer Rick, Please receive the attached SBWD hydrant map section copy and pertinent fire flow test data relative to the above mentioned location. Due to the differing pressure/hydraulic zones (High and Main Services) the entire road is essentially supplied from Spear St. save just the first 100-200 feet off Farrell St. Just before hydrant #8, which was relocated a couple years ago to the North side of Joy Dr., the main line has been cut and capped (red line). Although this service area is not looped we feel there is adequate supply and pressure to meet the project requirements and are prepared to respond favorably to a review submittal. If any further information is necessary please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, �Kf/�� John Choate, SBWD Champlain Water District cc: Chief Possich, SBFD wp/sbletter Date: `'/ `l7— Sou._, Burlington Water Departm At Fire Flow Test Report Time: Test Location: ,�ouJ%1rQlt —Vdc� �,2: t� Test Performed By: MEASUREMENTS: USE A 2'/2" HYDRANT OUTLET (Indicate if other than 2'/z") N) FLOW HYDRANTS: FLOW HYDRANT STATIC PRESSURE: Hydrant 91 psi Hydrant #2 psi Hydrant #3 psi FLOW HYDRANT RESIDUAL PRESSURE: Hydrant 41 psi (P) Hydrant #2 Sip(P) Hydrant 43 psi (P) FLOW READINGS: (Use Formula 91 To Calculate Flows (Q) ) Hydrant 91 GPM(Qi) Hydrant 42 GPM(Q2) Hydrant 93 GPM(Q3) Total Flow (Q i + Q 2+Q ,) 6 (QF) RESIDUAL HYDRANTS: RESIDUAL HYDRANT STATIC PRESSURE: Hydrant 91 _Q_psi Hydrant 92 psi Hydrant #3 psi RESIDUAL HYDRANT RESIDUAL PRES SURE: (Residuals Must Be At Least 10 psi Below Static) Hydrant 91 psi Hydrant 92 psi Hydrant 413 psi DISCHARGE AT 20 psi RESIDUAL_ b 3 FORMULAS: ��- 2) 1) Q = 29.83 C d2 V 1 Q = Discharge in GPM C = Hydrant Coefficient (SEE BACK) O, S d = Diameter of outlet in inches P = Vel. Pressure in psi. Sa GPM (Q20) (Use Formula #2 below) 0.34 HR �J�' /D 0 Q20 = QF 0.54 HF Q2o = Discharge at 20 psi QF =Actual Test Discharge(total flow) (Use the worst case residual hydrant info. for the following values) HR = Drop from original static pressure to 20 psi residual HF = Pressure drop during test in psi yS Draw Sketch and Other Information On Back (ie: tank, tank level, pumps, ex...) HftAMIPROTIREFLOW.SAM 10/30/95 CWD FIRE FLOW TEST REPORT Sketch Plan: NORTH LA v r PGT/Ib/Ii:\AMIPRO\FLOWSKCH.SAM June 9, 1995 0 u 0 CD 0 00 7 a rt 0 0 -h C 0 rt 0 rt C 0 7 0 7 0 � Q w 114 I I , I I � vl °N , b b�� �� I 12 A•C SPEAR _ I oo II �- II CD 0"D I ,Il n 13 ) I I cl) bib Ali O C G) v O Z IN I . MEADOw6 P 0 0 ti O D\ FAIRMOUNT S T. V I� MEADOW ROAD -- _c 1 B D.1. P. — —"--- io� j � 21 6 A. C. in I 611A.C. _ >I _-0 HARD ROAp -- ai I 4'tA.C. 3 I -- to BIRCH 1 WOOD CT, I I I0 I� o D.I—P� 1 r'-I I I_d I 1 0 al APPLETREE CT. I cn I> Ia METER �o�'I I - Iw I - VA U L T STREET' m I � I w r w 1 � I I 1 ti I � I I 1 I I I I � I I �! I I y 1 _ _ 8 A.C. I STREET L--CWD 2411D:I.P. �1 I I I 61 I U Q� QII n �I It I 24"CWD i 4 / r ELBURNE II z42/ 1 I I �_ ROAD I 01 I U.S. ROU 7 ----- ' D.I.P. r I �� _ I METER �10 CWD \1 12 C. — I VAULT D.1. P. 111 i c� r SIN 0 i x r Io Nal l I- P Ir1 Ilo QP olrr it PINE ST. I 13 11 a: IN I1N - -__- 6 A.C. FARRELL 4;7 7-5 L - I <--" - 3/26/96 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised final plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive, as depicted on a seven (7) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled "Meadowbrook, South Burlington, Vermont, Site & Utilities Plan," prepared by Fit zPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc., dated March, 1990, last revised 2/20/96, with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. Pursuant to Section 9.404 of the zoning regulations, the Planning Commission modifies the 50 foot PUD perimeter setback and approves a 30 foot PUD perimeter setback. 3. The final plat plans shall be revised to show the changes listed below and shall require approval of the City Planner. Three ( 3 ) copies of the approved revised plat plans shall be submitted to the City Planner prior to recording.`` a) The plans shall be revised to locate the additional fife��„y, hydrant in a location approved by the Fire Chief. ' b) The landscaping plan shall be revised to:- mi nimum $8; O.flfl--va-1-ue-�.--2._)..,_.rr�elude._.p nt n�� the b�["ff w ea to --screen the development from,. Rice- High- School,... and---.the--2) Burlington Country Club, and 3 ) show the existing mature trees which will be Drew ed. c) Sheets 1 and 6 shall be revised to indicate the zoning boundaries. 4. The Planning Commission approves a sewer allocation of 4950 gpd. If required by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant shall pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. 5. Any new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting shielded fixtures so as not to cast light beyond the property line. Any change in lighting shall be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. The proposed parking lot lights shall be downcasting shielded fixtures. These lights shall be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 1 6. The drainage pipe for storm sewers shall be plastic or concrete not metal as the plans show. 7. The applicant shall conduct a water flow test at the existing hydrant. The results of this flow test shall be provided to and approved by the Fire Chief prior to permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to occupancy of the dwelling units. 9. The final plat plans shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chairman or Clerk prior to recording. 2 L)t�tw- raw6S - t 3%7)a le�� /Y�s lD69 �S t _._ / `/ j cSc7 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 2 center, on the west by Farrell Street, on the south by I-89 and on the east by WCAX-TV studios. Access/circulation: No change Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 8.1% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 37.4% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is 27.8% (maximum allowed is 30%). Setback requirements are met. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, is $31,185, which is being met. The landscaping plan should be revised to reflect the larger building footprint. Parking: The project requires a total of 210 parking spaces and 198 spaces including six (6) handicapped spaces will be available. This is a 12 space or 5.7% shortfall. The Planning Commission approved a 14 space or 6.7% shortfall as part of the original approval. Bike racks are being provided as required. Traffic: The proposed amendment will reduce estimated trip ends from 140 to 115 vte's. Sewer: The sewer allocation request of 4600 gpd is not changing. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. The applicant will also be required to pay $11.62 per linear foot of sewer line along the property's frontage. 4) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - PHASE V MEADOWBROOK CONDOS - DISCUSSION This project consists of the construction of 11 multi -family units (phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development. These 11 units were approved on 6/5/90 (minutes enclosed) but were never constructed. This property located at the easterly end of Joy Drive lies within the R4 District. It is bounded on the north and east by UVM land, on the south by I-89 and on the west by the Burlington Country Club, Rice High School and commercial businesses. 2 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 3 Access/circulation: Access to the development is via a private road off from the Joy Drive cul-de-sac. No access changes proposed. Circulation is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 10.9% (maximum allowed is 20%). Overall coverage is 27.1% (maximum allowed is 40%). The residential buildings do not meet the 50 foot PUD perimeter setback. This entire project was originally approved with a 30 foot setback and the proposed buildings will meet this setback. The Zoning Regulations now require a 50 foot PUD perimeter setback in the R4 District. The Planning Commission may modify this setback under Section 9.404 of the zoning regulations. Staff sees no problem with the 30 foot setback since the rest of the project was developed this way and there are no adjoining sensitive uses. The Planning Commission did modify this setback as part of its 6/5/90 approval. Parking: This phase of the development requires 25 spaces and 29 spaces are provided (18 covered spaces and 11 open spaces).• Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on ��'e building costs, is $14,500 which is not being met. The Planning'e.� Commission as part of the 6/5/90 approval required an $8,000" landscaping bond. The landscaping now proposed has an estimated value of $6615. Staff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to add additional landscaping to meet the $8,000 approved �'­* V',�t in 1990. ti Sewer: The sewer allocation requested is 4950 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. t4 Lighting: Exterior lighting will consist of the following: --- five (5) parking lot lights consisting of 100 watt mercury vapor lamps mounted within lantern type fixtures on 16 foot poles. These lights are not downcasting and shielded. Applicant should propose an alternate fixture which is downcasting and shielded. --- eleven (11) 60 watt incandescent porch lights. 3 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 4 Other: --- no dumpsters will be used. --- the plans should be revised to indicate the zoning boundaries. 5) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY - 92 UNIT PRD - DISCUSSION This project consists of the construction of 92 multi -family units in 23 buildings on 27.76 acres. The preliminary plat approved on 12/12/95 (minutes enclosed) was for 100 units in 25 buildings. This property located at 201 Patchen Road lies within the R4 and C.O. Districts. It is bounded on the south by a single family residence and the Summer Woods residential development, on the north by the Patchen Place residential development and a cemetery, on the west by undeveloped property and on the east by single family residences and Patchen Road. Access: Access will be via a new 30 foot paved street off Patchen Road and a connection to Arbor Road. The portion of the street from Patchen Road to and including the Arbor Road connection will be constructed to City standards and will become a City street. The portion of the road which lies westerly of the intersection with Arbor Road is a "loop road" cul-de-sac and will remain a private street. The cul-de-sac portion provides access to 80 units which is 30 units more than permitted under Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations. The applicant is proposing a median for the first 100 feet of the private street as a safety measure since this is the only portion of the street that will have only one (1) access. This concept was approved by the Commission for the residential portion of the L&M Park project on Shelburne Road. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 9.0% (maximum allowed is 20%). Overall coverage is 17.21% (maximum allowed is 40%). Buildings #1,2 and 3 do not meet the 30 foot front yard setback from the proposed street r.o.w. The Commission modified the front yard setback for these buildings at preliminary plat. Density: Staff determined that 76 units is the base maximum density as calculated under Section 26.152(a) of the zoning regulations. The proposal is for 92 units which is 16 units or 21% 4 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston 0 Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 March 25, 1996 Mr. John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook, South Burlington File: 88169 / 96013 Dear Mr. Jaeger: As you requested, we have engineered a revised site plan for the above -referenced Project, specifically for the previously -referenced buildings G and H. The site revisions, from an engineering standpoint, were reasonably superficial: re -arrange the units, remove some pavement, change the garage configuration, and modify the grading to suit the new layout. As instructed, the drainage system abutting Building B was left virtually unchanged. The remaining drainage system was modified only to more efficiently intercept the runoff and accommodate a deeper burial. In fact, in our memorandum to you of 20 February 1996 (see enclosed), we've indicated there is actually a reduction of 33 ftz in impervious area with the modified plan. As a result, our letter to you of 29 August 1990, examining the site's storm runoff and storm system improvements stiff stGnds. T! re revised site layout should have an overall equal, or less, stormwater impact than the analysis done for you in 1990. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-CLEW LYN INCORPORATED Douglas R. 1 zPatrick, P.E. cc: Charles Brush C 1W PW IN=W PD0CSIDR F429WW13L.1 Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting 0 Surveying Mar 25'96 16:38 Ho.006 F.01 FITFRTRICK-LLEWELLYN TEL:1-802-879-3846 M FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Lngineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drivo • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (110?.) t)70 3000 29 August 1990 Mr. Jul -in Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H File: 88169 Dear Mr. Jaeger: 0 V U ""', 00 P W We have received a copy of Mr. Barlow's letter dated 22 August 1990 with respect to the above referenced Project_ Our plans have been modified to reflect the changes requested in the summarized findings listed as items 1 through 4 in his letter. As requested in item 3, we have provided stormwater runoff calculations for the post developed conditions of the development. We have subdivided the watershed contributing flow to the receiving stormdrain system into three subareas. The inclosed calculations indicate the peak rate of runoff into the culvert receiving runoff is 9 cubic feet per second (CFS). We have determined capacity of the culvert receiving the stormdrainage from the proposed development to be 26 CFS. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Charles Van Winkle 0 Design • Inspection • Studios • Permi[ling • Surveying Prapmx C, KNoour, )a.. P.P. ROOK% W. DORWAAT, P,R, RMY L. LANoppw, PY. CILL BAN1,0W, RR, DaNATM ). PARIM, PA. MAO-MM W. HAIN, RIZ, ,august 22, 1990 KNIGHT CONS'ULTINa ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. Box 29 W(LLISTON, VERMONT 05495 RECEIVED Mr. Vincent Koehler Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings C & H Dear Mr. Koehler AUG 23W F 1,rZ p ATs ICK- LLEWF_1-LYN INCORPORATED Donvuhft isnSi�neetf Tn 801-97T4343 NXI 902-979-6376 We reviewed the Meadowbrook "Site and Utilities Plan" sheet 1 of 2, dated March 1990 last revised 6-19-90. Our findings are summarized below: 1. The proposed culvert at the northern driveway has 9" to 15" of cover. We suggest that at least 12" of cover be provided. 2. The cover over the Building G entrance walk culvert should be Increased. 3. The proposed north edge of the parking lot pavement is shown at elevation 103.25. It does not appear that this is high enough to drain properly. 4. As outlined in our last review (May 30, 1990), you should request pavement details, fill specifications and information on sub -drainage so that we can verify their adequacy. 5. Drainage calculations verifying the adequacy of the receiving stormdrain system for the project should be requested. Page 2 August 22, 1990 Re: Meadowbrook Expansion - Buildings G & H These comments were communicated to John Jaeger And Lance Llewellyn in June. This letter was written at the request of Joe Weith, City Planner for South Burlington. Please call if you have any questions. inFerely, - !� Gill Barlow, P..E. KNIGHT CONSULTINC ENGINEERS, INC. CB/kld CC: Greg Dicovitsky Lance Llewellyn Joe Weith File: 82175E-1 Exhibit C .Rely 2, 1974 Mr. Alfred A. Calcagni 86 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 PO Box 108 Essex Jct., Vermc 658-3006 Deal Fred. I have reviewed the application submi ed by �o for construction of 50 condominium units, South Burli Ve� y Pinebrook Association, Inc. The application e ed by this office under 10 VSA, Chapter 151 (Act 25 ) and th ,pepartment of Health Subdivision Regulations. Althouq e app ',nation was, for the most part, complete the Commi s on\ \ that some additional information be submitted. As cxµ our phone conversation earlier this date, some of th e//''��t may have been covered in the review done by the planning o iia o and included in their stipula- tion. (( 1. A typical r s-section of the private road and specifications we that will be folioin it onstruction to include possible provisions for sidewalks. (� 2. Nature and JA_L ion of outdoor lighting. 3. Typical landscaping plan for the buildings or a minimum standard to be followed_ 4. Surface and subsurface drainage system. 5. Soil erosion control plan, both temporary and permanent. 6. A statement from the local planning commission that the proposed development is in conformance with the town plan. It would also be helpful to have submitted any information you have concerning the impact of the proposed development on the local school system and assurance that the configuration of the private drive is adequate for fire equipment and emergency vehicles. Mr. Alfre `aIcagn -2- July 2, 1974 The hearing on the application has been scheduled for July 24, 1974 as noticed in the attachment to this letter. Please be advised that if the units are to be rented rather than sold, that they will have to be reviewed and approved under the Department of Health Public Building Regulations. I look forward to discussing this project with you further and answering am questions you may have concerning the review procedure. Sincerely, CURTIS W. C.' RMR Environmental Coordinator 0-IC/dem Distribution: Environmental Board Agency oz Environmental Conservation (( Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission fir-. William Hall Mr. Jaime s McNamara I v CALCACNI - FR archit e-~ts R - ZAJCHOWSKI 86 saint pout street burlington. vermont 05401 tel- 802.863-6a63 August 21, 1974 Project: Pine Brook Condominium South Burlington, Vermont Mr. Curtis Carter, Environmental Coordinator District Environmental Commission P. 0. Box 108 Essex Junction, Vermont 05478 Dear Mr. Carter: He submit the following statements and draining dated August 22, 1974 in reply to your agency's additional information reauested at the hearing held on July 24, 1974 for the above project: 1. Statement as to the impact that salt and oil in the storm water discharge will have on the brook. The condominium association by-laws will state that no salt is to be used on paved areas and roads and special sump type catch basins will be installed. See attached letter indicating insertion to put into the By-laws of the Condominium Association Section 12 SALTING OF ROAD AND PAVED AREAS. We feel with the omission of salt on the paved areas during the winter should eliminate the impact of salt in the tto= water discharge. With regard to reducing the impact of oil in the storm water discharge, the developer will provide sump type catch basins as shown on the drawing dated August 22, 1974. 2. Plan to be utilized for control of soil erosion. The developer submits the attached statement indicating the control of soil erosion during trod following construction. 3. Description of how the drainage flow on both sides of the proposed road will enter the Joy Drive cul-de-sac without being discharged onto Vermont Boardcasting land. CALCACNI FR crrchIte,''ts �R ZAICHOWSKI Page two Mr. Curtis Carter August 2:., .19T4 The private road from the end.of the cul-de-sac on Joy Drive into Pine Brook development will have drainage ditches on both sides of the road to collect and direct water, and prevent water from going onto the Vermont Broadcasting Land. (See drawing dated August 22, 1974). 4. Detail of rip -rap to be installed at the outlet of the two storm sewers. The developer will provide rip -rap at the outlet end of the storm sewers as shown on drawing. (See drawing dated August 22, 1974). 5. Provision to be inserted into the Condominium By-laws to provide a mechanism for upgrading the proposed road to City standards in the event the City is requested to take over maintenance. Provision should assign the responsibility to the association and provide for assessment of costs. The developer will provide a section to the Association by -last that will make the association responsible for costs in the event that the City is requested to take over the street. (See attached letter describing Section 11 to be included into by -lasts). 6. Letter from the fire department stating that they have reviewed the plans and feel that they can cope with the road pattern and power line. Developer has reviewed drawings with City of South Burlington Fire Department and we have attached his letter indicating no problems. 7. Description of the insulation standards to be followed in the construction of the condominiums. The developer sha11 insulate the building using the best practice of construction standards for insulation. The building shall be insulated with L" thick Fiberglass Batt insulation in the walls and 6" full thick fiberglass roll or bate insulation in the bottom chord of the roof truss system. Rigid perimeter insulation 2" thick x 2'-0 deep shall be provided for all buildings with slabs on grade. archite^ts CALCAGNI FRA2 ' ZAICHOWSKI Page three Mr. Curtis Carter August 21, 1974 See attached dravings dated August 22, 1974. In addition to the above information the developer submits the following information that vas discussed at the hearing and vhich may have needed further documentation. a. The South Burlington School Board has reviewed the impact of the Pine Brook Condominium project and finds there to be no impact on the educational facilities when the project is completed. Enclosed find copy of School Board's letter. b. The developer agrees to work with Mr. Russell Raey during the construction of this project to insure the protection of the trees and to prevent soil erosions. We hope the above information satisfies the points requested in your July 31, 1974 letter. We shall await hearing from your office and ve hope that a decision could be made that would alloy design and pla=ing to commence immediately. OWSKI FOR Mr. William Haas Pine Brook Condo nium Inc. South Burlington, Vermont AAC/tf A U G 2 9 :74 ROAD CONSTRVMQN The: line Brook Conti o=i ni u K Project road xTstem vill . be priTately built and maintained with funds provided by the management contract of the Association. The basic specifications vill be those of"that Timm of Beath &zrlinattsn (See attached draxiaa anted Lzsgu:t 22, Ig74). EROSION COTf�tQL r The deTelopam ent rill not cause unz-ee.sons bl a soil erns i on, or reduction in the capacity of the 1an.d to hold vater so that a danorome or mihealtDT condition may result. a. General: Bound site planning methods vil1 be am lcTed as the prime measure of controlling erosion. The building sites and the majority of roads" are located oc slopes of under 7 b. R.oedvaTal All roadvaTv are designed for under 5 percent sad vtore road: ere cut into these slopes, the near contours rill ba a n3dwim of 1 on 241 to ainiacise erosiom. Tb*st slopes rill be seeded and anl.chcd, and if required, because of ground .rater or axx&le of repose 11=itations for thin soil, gill be rQ-established at 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 slopes. in no case are slopea &neater than 10 Tsrtic&l feet anticipated. If trees are to be saved at the tap or bottoec of a slope and, therefare, a 1 on 211 slops am=t be maintained. SeTeral deyiees rill be utilized: soddening, trosioarmert or ch'cken wire mesh adequattlT staked or plus or :inns k inch tinbera stared horizontallT into the slope at about k Poet interrali- Mineral soil cuts and fills Pill be dressed rtih k feet Of rood soil snd duff and seeded with grains and naturally with ftra= that germinate readily in nearly exposed humus . c. Drainage Svales: Svales under 3 percent rill bs seeded: from 3 to 10 percent sod xill be used in conbinst'an vith ata.iing and erosion netting at the higher percent slopes. Armoring rith raah.ed 6ra.Tel maT also be utilized near culvert inlets and outfalls depending upon gz-ade characteristics. Where velocities or d-ischarge rarrants, concentrated Tolames will be d-ispatched on the hill sides or directed to existing natural drainage raTa. Water berg rill be introduced to stabilize broad channels mad present excessive erosion (bwing the construction process. Temporary silt basins will be utilized if this becomes a problem in the cause of construction. These rill be age sections of concrete corrugated metal pipe, plus or ma's 4 feet deep, set in drainage courses or outfal.ls to the harm. drain sTTten to preyv nt excensi" distribution of fines &mrIn3 Farm of concentrated run --off. d, (,`nlverts. The mini = culverts size rill be 12 inches of asphalt coated cor:-ngated galvanized metal pip*. Larg*r aizsm ri•, be used vbcre needed and rill bt a xiniBun of 15 inch" All eu.lyerts frill hale a ai.ni=ma 2 foot cO"ratm to PrOt*e't against frost heaves. pipes rill haTe concrete hasAvall Outhlla to facilitate appearance and ainisize erodien on adjacent fill sloped. Fad of headvalla at outflow rill have stone rip rap. (Sae drawing dated Ang=t 22, 1974) . e. Miscellaneous De-rices: Although not anticipated, be= ditches, interceptor trenches or drains gill .be utilized if required. Additional stabilization v-ill occur with seeding, mulching and planting as indicated in that section. All of the above as rell as the planting materisls and methads rill be incluAdd on the dravings and specifications issued to the South barlington City Engineer and City Manager for approval prior to construction. In suammary, everything rquired by sound engineering practice will be employed to protect the environment and present a pleasing aspect for a quality development. Pine B. k Condowi rL um ABsociatir BY —Lags -13- Section 11. ER'iRUCE AND ROADWAYS The Association vi]1 maintain and repair a1I perking areas and roadva," owed bT the Association. In the event the Association should request or the City deem it necessary to take orer the road, the cost to upgrade the road to City specifications and the responsibility to do such rill be bonne by the Association. Section 12 8AI.TTDfC� 0�' RQAD AbD PAVED 'AREAS y. . Salt vill not be used on road, paved areas or other properties held or controlled by the Association. -2 1 ❑ Districts xl & 98 RR #2. Box 2161 Pittsford, VT 05763 (802)483-6022 Districts 92 & #3 RR +tl, Box 33 N. Springfield, VT 05150 (802) 996-2215 Districts 04. 86 & 99 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 879-6563 November 6, 1989 r STATE OF VERMONT Environmental Board District Environmental Commission Douglas K. Riley, Esq. Lisman & Lisman P.O. Box 728 Burlington, Vermont 05402 RE: Advisory Opinion tt4-084 South Burlington Realty Co. (74CO154) Dear Mr. Riley, ❑ District a5 324 North Main Street Barre. VT 05641 (802) 479-3621 ❑ District A7 180 Portland Street St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 (802) 74&8787 ❑ Environmental Board Office c/o State Office Building :Montpelier. VT 05602 (802) 828-3309 I have received your September 25, 1989 letter concerning the need for a permit amendment for changes to the South Burlington Realty Co. (SBRC) Meadowbrook Condominium project permitted under Land Use Permit 4Tr4CO154 and subsequent amendments. I have also received a reply letter from South Burlington Realty, dated October 2, 1989. I am treating your letter as a request for an advisory opinion as to whether a permit amendment is required for the alleged changes to the project you have outlined. The primary issue is whether "substantial changes" have occurred in the SBRC project which would require a permit amendment pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 34(A) and (B). Rule 34(A) states, in relevant part: An amendment shall be required for any material or substantial change in a permitted project or any administrative change in the terms and conditions of the land use permit. Page 2 Advisory Opinion n4-084 South Burlington Realty Co. J4CO154 Rule 34(B) states, in relevant part: If a proposed amendment involves substantial changes to a permitted project or permit, it shall be considered as a new application subject to the application, notice, and hearing provisions of Sections 6083, 6084, and 6085 and the related provisions of these Rules. "Substantial change" is further defined in Rule 2(G) as: "Substantial change" means any change in a development or subdivision which may result in significant impact with respect to any of the criteria specified in 10 V.S.A., Section 6086 (a) (1) through (a) (10) . In your letter you state that substantial changes have been made to the development with respect to 1) configuration and layout of buildings and 2) drainage improvements. With respect to the first issue, it does appear from a review of the file that the Permittee requested a permit amendment on July 30, 1975 for a revised configuration and layout of the buildings. The District Commission notified all parties of the proposed changes by memo dated August 6, 1975. All parties were given 15 days to comment. It appears that no parties filed comments and that the Commission subsequently determined that a permit amendment was not required. Therefore it is my opinion that the revised configuration and layout of the buildings have already been approved by the Commission and do not constitute a "substantial change" within the meaning of Rule 34(A). With respect to the second issue, you state that drainace improvements were not completed as proposed by the developer. From my site visit and my review of the decision of the Chittenden Superior Court in Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty CorD., No. S880-80CnC, it is apparent that there have been and may still be problems with site drainage in the project. If the drainage improvements were not completed as originally approved by the District Commission, this may constitute a violation of the permit. The Environmental Board has the 1 Page 3 Advisory Opinion #4-084 South Burlington Realty Co. 74?4CO154 authority to revoke a permit for violations pursuant to Board Rule 38(A). Such violations, if they do exist, would not constitute "substantial changes" requiring a permit amendment pursuant to Board Rule 34(A) and (B). Therefore, it is my opinion that the "drainage improvements" you refer to do not require a permit amendment. This is an advisory opinion and, as such, may be appealed to the Executive Officer of the Environmental Board pursuant to Board Rule 3(C). Any such appeal must be filed by December 3, 1989 and should be filed with the Executive Officer, Environmental 'Board, c/o State Office Building P.O., Montpelier, Vermont 05602. Sincer ly, Louis Bore District tt4 Coordinator cc: All Parties n4-084/eb SURLINGTON OFFICE Courthouse Plan ' 199 Main Street Pout Office Box 190 Burlington. Vcrtnonc 03a02-0190 Telephone W2) 863-2373 Facsunde 18021 862.7312 Telex 92-1857 ST. JOHNSBURY OFFICE 9 Prospect Street Pose Office Box 99 St Johnsbury. Vermont 05819.0099 Telephone 1802) 748.8324 Facstmrlc 1807) 748-4394 Telex 88-8639 REPLY TO: Burlington Otbce DOWNS RACHUN & MARTIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1 Robert D. Rachim Marc S. Hach COUNSEL Allen Marcus W-tW= W. Schroeder John H. Down James C Gallagher' Paul H. Ode. Jr. William A. Q1bcrc Kathlecrt H. Dam Cary H. Bames Dennu W. Wells James G. Wheccer. Jr. Robert S. Luce John H. Marshall Chnstophcr G. Stoneman Leo A. Sisson. Jr. Cregory S. Clayton - Priscilla K. Rcb&ngcr Htucner Briggs Charles N. Hurt. Jr. • Andre D. Boutfard Richard N. Bland Robot A. Stiller. Jr. Peter D. Van Ooc WiLhcizzu a E Dingemans (NY Bar Only) Dale A. Rocheleau Bruce, C. Palmer Ajuta R. Tutrie Emcm" Ctev Abel K7mberty K. Hayden *Also Adm ncxl us NH October 2, 1989 Louis Borie District tt4 Coordinator District Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: South Burlington Realty Company Land Use Permit Application, T#4C0154-5 f Dear Lou: On behalf of Randall G. Munson, d/b/a South Burlington Realty Company ("SBRC"), we wish to respond to Meadowbrook's letter of September 25, 1989, describing the changes in the Meadowbrook Condominium project since the original permit was issued in September, 1974. Meadowbrook alleges "substantial" changes in the project having significant impacts under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). Specifically, Meadowbrook alleges changes with respect to the configuration and layout of buildings and drainage improvements. We will respond to each in turn: 1. Configuration and Layout of Buildings. On July 30, 1975, SBRC's architect, Jim Lamphere, asked for amendment of the permit to substitute a site plan prepared by Wiemann- Lamphere Architects. A copy of Mr. Lamphere's letter is attached to this letter as Exhibit A (letter). The substituted site plan was provided by Meadowbrook in its September 25 letter as Exhibit B (showing a portion of the Lamphere site plan). We can provide you with a clearer copy showing the entire site plan if you wish. On August 6, 1975, the District tt4 Environmental Commission notified all parties existing at the time of its determination that Do vts RACHLIN & yIARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 2 "the density and basic configuration of the buildings has not changed, and, therefore, the applicant should not be held up from commencing on phase I." (This Memorandum is attached as Exhibit B) Without objection, the Commission's 1975 determination still stands and no permit amendment was required. See Env. Bd. Rule 34. Consequently, all subsequent reviews of the project have been based on the Lamphere site plan. For example, Land Use Permit ?4C0154- 4, dated June 20, 1983, approves pump station and water system plans based on the Lamphere site plan. Furthermore, SBRC obtained a Project Review Sheet from the District 4 Commission, dated February 14, 1989 (attached as Exhibit C), which was based on the Lamphere plan and which concludes there is no material or substantial change in the design of the project. As part of the project review, SBRC informed you that for the last two buildings the footprints would be smaller and the interior layout would be different but the exterior design would remain the same. With respect to Meadowbrcok's alleged placement of Building B twelve feet from what is shown on the Lamphere plan, SBRC submits that this does not constitute a "material" or "substantial" change. Frequently, building locations should be changed due to unforeseen site conditions such as ledge, higher than anticipated water tables, or an aesthetic consideration which can be better served by increasing the distance of the building from a stream or wooded area. SBRC does not immediately recall why the location of Building B is slightly different from that shown on the site plan. Nonetheless, the difference has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). 2. Drainage Imnrovements. Meadowbrook relies upon statements of Alfred A. Calcagni, the architect for the original developer (Pinebrook Association Inc.), concerning the contemplated drainage system based on the old site plan. Mr. Calcagni's statements are referenced as one of the specifications for the project in the District Commission's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated September 4, 1974. Relying upon the Calcagni specifications, Meadowbrook appears only to be concerned with (a) some culverts being smaller than 12 inches in diameter; (b) some culverts buried less than 2 feet underground; (c) ends of pipes not having a concrete headwall outfall and then a stone rip DowNs RACHLIN & NIARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 3 rap; and (d) lack of berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains "if required". With respect to (a), regarding the size of culverts, Meadowbrook redressed this grievance in court and in one instance got more than what was required under the Calcagni specifications. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., No. 5880-80CnC, p. 18. (Chittenden Superior Court, Dec. 21, 1985), modified and affirmed, No. 85-563 (Vt. Supreme Court, June 23, 1989) (these decisions were provided to you during the District Commission hearing on September 20, 1989). Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (a) is accomplished. Since such work is within the scope of the original permit, there is no material or substantial change requiring a permit amendment. With respect to (b), regarding the depth at which the culverts were buried, Meadowbrook also redressed this grievance in court. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., supra, at pp. 16 and 13. To the extent that culverts are not buried at least two feet underground, because the court fashioned another remedy, the difference does not have a significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). Furthermore, Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (b) is accomplished. With respect to (c), regarding the concrete headwall with stone rip rap, Meadowbrook had the full and fair opportunity to redress this grievance in court. Presumably Meadowbrook did not do so because it could not find anything defective about the as -built design. See generally Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlincton Realty Corp., supra, pp. 8 - 21. Any deviation from the Calcagni specifications in this regard has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). With respect to (d), regarding the lack of certain berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains "if required," the court ultimately determined what ditches, trenches and drains were required. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Coro., supra, at pp. 8 - 12. Since the Calcagni specifications, and DowNs RACHLIN & MARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 4 consequently the Act 250 permit, were silent on what was required, the court made this determination. The court's determination was within the scope of the original Act 250 approval and has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). Furthermore, Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (d) is accomplished_ In sum, Meadowbrook has already had the full and fair opportunity to adjudicate all the drainage issues. Meadowbrook should be estopped from asking for SBRC to pay again for an upgraded drainage system with more swales, pipes, drains, etc. This issue was settled and Meadowbrook should not be able to recover twice for the same grievance. With respect to drainage for the remaining portion of the project to be constructed (11 units in two buildings), SBRC or its successor in interest will follow the applicable Calcagni specifications as Meadowbrook requests. We trust that you will conclude that Meadowbrook has failed to allege any material or substantial change in the project which would require a permit amendment under Rule 34. I will provide you with additional information upon your request. Sincerely, Dale A_ Rocheleau DAR:pro B4.37.0926 Enclosures: Exhibit A (Letter of 7/30/75 by Architect James Lamphere regarding substitution of site plan) Exhibit B (Memorandum of 8/6/75 by District -4 Environmental Commission to All Parties) Exhibit C (Project Review Sheet from the District 4 Commission, dated February 14, 1989) cc: Distribution List W IEM ' )N N - LAMPH ER E, �RCH ITECTS 346 SHELBURLc STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (8021 863-5056 RICHARO H. WICMANN A.I.A. JAMCS A. LAMPHCRQ A.I.A. July 30, 1975 Mr. Curtis Carter, Coordinator Environmental District No. 4 State of Vermont 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont OS452 Re: Meadow Brook Condominiums - Formerly Pine Brook Condominiums Dear Curt: I am writing on behalf of South Burlington Realty and would like to re- quest an amendment to the original project mentioned above. As you will note on the attached Site Plan the Buildings and Units vary slightly to the original site plan developed by Calcagni-Frazier and Zajchowski Architects, Inc. The garage building has been placed nearer to the road and the buildings have been placed in an effort to make better use of the site and save more of the tree areas from demolition and construction damages. In addition to the above we have added a swimming pool and two tennis courts to the project. These were requested by the lending agency and we feel will help the marketing of these units. The tennis courts have been placed on the east side of the brook and will require a small gravel path and bridge to get to this area. We intend to keep this area as natural as possible. We would also like to make you aware of the fact that the original Pine Brook Condominium project was purchased by Munson Earth Moving Corp. of South Burlington. The Owner, Mr. Randall Munson intends to construct them under South Burlington Realty. Mr. Munson is Owner of both Corporations. As I understand from our conversation this A.M. we have approval to start construction on the Units, however we must hold up until the District .Environmental Commission can review the pool and tennis court additions. If you have any questions please call. Ver truly yours, / rWIF-ames A. Lamphere JAL:jd kNN-L tPHERE, ARCHITECTS enc �!g 1 State( )Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Itecreation Interagency Committee on Natural Resources Naturai Resources Conservation Council MEFOR/ IMT1 I AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIOC DI5TRlCT EWIRONMENTAL COMIvIISSIOI` 111 !Jest `:trees Essex Junction, VT 05452 Au„rust G, 1975 TO: Parties to Land Use Permit YIICO154 FT%Crn: District fit lhvirenrrental Corrn.ission �,� �C2���,Jn SU=-CT: Air--ndment to Pez:^j t Pk=on t,--th "Ibvinf� Corporation has requested that E,snd Use Pe --nit 0001511 be anended to rnc'l ect the revised site olan. Attached is a copy of the nLL*i lnd lettor of explanation. it is the initial impression of the Commission t`�at t'1e density and basic ccnf{;nua_icn of the buildi nSs ham, not clja_nr�cfi and, therefore, the anolica-,t should not be held un ikon cc=.-enci^.; on Phase I. The addition o f t'ie pool end tennis courts do, however, constitute a ch�=-e tlya t wlll need to be fully revie:•ied. As nor: of th's review, the Commission .rill consider the proposed total layout of the develcrr•.2nt. Any party Frishing to cc=, ent on the proposed `or rccuest a hear-in should do so ''Within 15 days of receint of this notice. All parties will be notified of any heari n,rr or meeting of t'le Cor.-mission. •- AGENCY OF NATURAL RFSOURCF_S AND ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD PROJECT REVIEW SHEET II District K ApplicYnt n C Application N TIIIS IS NOT A PERMIT Towr' On � /�`L / 19 , ! revie+red information tmtteetLtireg a on s tact or tra of land of Acrm proposed by k �! hA^ Vcrmnm, aqQ is The project vri11 be on lands awned by �W Al I )tom i Ls.. �m G I �J,:n �� I tor. generally decribed ar C �t�t ct S 7� �v 1 �c,� t.A� �a. 1� t ,G,t�(� � L-1 S c',Al F3t., psttsnk moat be obtained for thin project awder tier fodnw+nf permit pro, me which I have checktdr )i/, Su�I, �� (�1qJ � tLy-t- V C ACT 250 PROTECTION DIVISION PERMITS: Defcrrai of Subdivision-. 1}d,t— P riW1 Subdivision: Tent and Travel Trailer Mobile Home Part Law•, Stream Alteration Law, Municipal Sewer Line Estemion: FISH AND WILDLIFE DEPT. PERMIT: Stream Obstruction Permit. Prior Permits from this oR'tee 9 The abort JuriWktionxf d rndonn is based l` InforreaLion provided and the fdtq snC / l,^.C/FC �� �- S C KJ.' n Ct c (�•t,�><� !O �Y,M/ TTHESEHEONLYPT 4AINABrCE.NOCOTSISPERM ITTEDUNTIL L ALL PERMITS CHECKED ABOVE HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN WRITING. THIS IS AN ADVISORY OPINION AND MAY SE A PPFALED. ANY PARTY WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS OPINION MA Y REQUEST A REVIEW BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICF.R OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD. (ACT Ztn)_ OR TIIF DIRECTOR OFTHEPROTECTI NDIVISION,ASAPF.PRIATE- ANY SUCH REQUESTMUSTBEMADEINWR1TltN(; THROUGH THIS OFFICE BY / /19- I also recommend that you conuct the foltowing Vermont State Agencies because this project may need approval under their pm%rsms: I. AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Waterbury, VT 03676 Air Pollution Control (244.87311 WatmQtx&yCatfiorw-iFednilpnirmreg124A-14<I1 Hydro Electric Projects (244.73471 Use of Chemicals in State Watcn IZ44-Sh1A) Dam Operations R Review (244-87531 DAFud/Chemed-c*-&w Rswdnwwaoett244-A7021 Msnagtmcnt of IAka and Ponds (24a-QQ�_ —% Industrial Prncmt Air Emn.rnns (2".9711) Discharge o(Temponry Pollution Stormwster Perms 2"-5674) IndimaDiicharge(grwerthan b.'0ogpol(24s-5674) Waste Msnagemene Sanitary landfills (24s-R702) Industrial Furnace/Boller Conversion/Installation (244-8731) 2. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR A INDUSTRY. Montpelier, VT 05602 - Tcl: 828-2106 Electrical Wiring Approval Storage of Flammable Liqurdt• Es(rtrvsrves Fire Prevention Approval Tramways and Ski Facilities 17— Acom for Handicapped Approval Elcvtiors Plumbing in Public Buildings - Plumbing In Single Family Revdenco served by Boilers and Pressure Vends Public Wster/Sewer w/ 10 or more customers 3. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Burlington, VT 054dt - Tcl: 863-7220 (Contact: ) Food, lodging, bakeries and eitildrtn's amps Pro(ection of Public Water Source Nursing homes. 6otpitals sod botnes for the ages! Estcrnion of water Tina nv" s0()- 4. DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR (Comult the telephone directory under VERMONT. STATE OF•HiRhways (Conucr ) Accm to Sum Highways (Residential Orivctvays I Development within 500' of a limited ■coeu highway 3. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION. Montpelier. VT 05602 Signs (Trivet Information Couoal) (828-2651) Airpom and Landing Strips (828-2828) Construction within a sate highway right -of -wry (Utilities. Signs. Junkyards (82R-2-"7) Drivcwsys)(828-2653) 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Montpelier. VT 05602 (Contact: ) Use of Pesticides (828-24231 Mill[ Premsint Facilities (828.24311 Slaughter Houses (828.74261 Animal Shdtcrs/Kennels 182E-242I ) 7. AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVtCE3. Waterbury. VT 05676 - Tek ZAI-715R (Cnnua: Day Cur Faalides Residential Child Care Pactaines Community Care Homes 8. PUB UCSERVICE BOARD (82-23581/ PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT (82.8-2811) Hydro Projects Alterrsative Sovrcn of Emnl 9. DIVISION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. Montpelier. VT 03M02 - Tel. 628-3226 10. LOCAL PERMITS - Conua your town officials 1 t. OTHER: + .7—rn nvNrnn Urvrsron / cnvrronmenur 3/8E 7Vhite awy - Appliesrrt Hegtonai Utrrce �'�rtt. �t ctrprrvrnc Numrrer A -G Ye4lo+ copy - File --- Pink mpy = Prbteetion Oiviswr.r(Watrrbury l— ^ -- City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 6, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovit.sky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condos, Joy Drive Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's, Chief Goddette's and Bob Gardner's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, April 10, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request.. S ce.r//ely, - Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp l � City of South Burlington WATER DEPARTMENT 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. 864-4361 TO: Joe Weith, City Planner FROM: Bob Gardner, Water Superintendent`-'--� RE: Plan Reviews DATE: April 3, 1990 I have reviewed and offer comments on the following sets of plans received from your office. 1. 355-357 Patchen Road, Pinkham Engineering Assoc., dated 12/14/89 a. The plans do not indicate the size and material of the main serving the proposed hydrant at the entrance to the project. b. A curbstop must be installed on the 2" line serving the east units. C. The 2" water line serving the proposed units is a dead end line and I think the engineer should take another look at the peak demand that this project will place on the line to determine if a 2" line is adequate. 2. Pillsbury Manor III, Krebs & Lansing Engineers, dated 1/90 a. This plan as shown is acceptable to this department 4, 3. Meadowbrook, Fitzpatrick & Llewellyn, dated 3/90 a. The proposed new hydrant must be installed by the use of a tapping sleeve and valve not by inserting a tee as shown. This will avoid having to shut down the main and reduce the chance of contamination from cutting in the tee. 4. Park Place, Champlain Consulting Engineers, dated 3/22/90 a. The existing water main on Dorset Street is a 14" AC main not a 1611 main as shown on the drawings b. The two 14" gates valves shown to be inserted into the Dorset Street main at the south entrance must be eliminated. They are unnecessary. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: April 10, 1990 agenda items Date: April 6, 1990 3) GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. The site should be served by a gravity sewer to the existing pumping station near the interstate highway. The plan shows another pumping station. This can be done by using a 10 or 12 inch pipe to flatten the slope if necessary. 2. The short spur should have a 50 foot radius at its intersec- tion with Swift Street Extension to accommodate the large trucks anticipated for this development. 3. There should be a triangle sight view easement reserved on each side of lots 1 & 4 where the spur intercepts Swift Street Extension. 4. Street width at cul-de-sac shall be 24 feet. The Swift Street. cul-de-sac need not include curbs. 5. Power and telephone line should be placed outside of the street r.o.w. 4) MEADOWBROOK DEVELOPMENT, JOY DRIVE 1. The condominium association had a study made for the correc- tion of drainage problems in the area. The problems described in the study should be addressed before any additional expansion is approved. The study was done by Knight Engineering of Williston. 2. The jug -handle where the driveways connect should be recon- structed. 3. Runoff from U.V.M.'s cornfield should be diverted to the east. 4- HO --X� 77- C(O/,) i i //v�E— JL� S.-� s - r Planning File Data for Computer Input 1. Original Property Owner Z. Developer's Name,,`O I 3. Name of Development G a..► �-e�.r F.-.ca 1. Address of Development or Project 5. Type of Project__ Minor Subdivision((MI) Major Subdivision (MS) Site Plan (SP) 6. Zoning District 1 7. Zoning District 'l K. Zoning Board Approval date if Required 9. Date of Planning Commission Hearings/Meetings Site Plan Date - or Sketch Plan Date 10. Preliminary Plat date 11. _ Final Plat Date ll. Devised Final Plat Date 1 (if applicable) 13. _ Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if applicable) 1 } . Acreage of 'rotal Project 15. lise of Land 1 1 G . Use of' Land 2 Usr• (it' Land 3 ! t t <, 1' Land 1 1 `.a . Plumber of Lots �'�►. `�umher of• S i n a I e Faini IUnits 21. N,nnher• of M i i I t i imi I-N7 Unity aC)__/.� -: ►�►•G,Gn ,�i•, �, /�/'r i()ri Cos-1 of, lim Idit,,z 23. Size of Building (Square footage) 24. Streets___ City Street CS Private Street PS 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 34. 36. 37. 38. Date of Acceptance of streets by City Bond- Landscaping�� ADD Bond -Streets _ Bond -Sewer Bond -Water Bond -Other Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) Date Recorded - Expiration date of Approval Date of First BuildingPermit_ Tax Map Number Map File Location 1 Map File Location 2 Map File Location 3 Other fees ( Type and amount)rse- Preparers Name: Date: 7//2,' Posted in Computer (Name, Date): ) \ �� m���o� ��' Department ����� ����8������xv ��/8�� xm���������o* 575 Darort 1�trccy tyowtb Jgurlington. Vermont 05403 102>651/9*0 T0; SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; CHIEF 8ODDETTE RE; TUESOAY APRIL 10,1990 AGENDA ITEMS DATE; TUESDAY APRIL 30990 IN 3. ABBOTT PROPERTY DTRCH LANE PUEFN CITY PARK 2-LOT SUB -DIVISION PLANS WERE REVIEWED BY THE FIREDEPARTMENT AND THERE IS NO WAY THE DEPARTMENT CAN GIVE PROPER EMERGENCY PROTECTION IF NEEDED. THA FOLLOWING ARE MAJOR FRUBLEMS: A. 8IRCH LANE AND THE HIGvT OF WAY IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO GET EQUIPMENT IS FOR RESCUE WORK OR FIRE FIGHTING. B. THE WATER SYSTEM IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION AL'G FRENCH FRIES WILLTSTON ROAD ADDITION FOR SEATING AT THIS TIME I REVIEWED THE PLANS AND DO NOT FEEL THE ADDITION OF SEATING WOULD EFFECT THE PROTECTION TO THE PROPERTY IF HEQUIRED. MEADOWBROOK 2-UNIT ADDITION JOY DRIVE PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TQ ALLOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GIVE EMERGENCY SERVICE IF NEEDED, 4. GREEN ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK SWIFT ST. EXT. OFF RT. 116 AT |HT5 TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH !HE SITE PLAN FOR THIS DEVELUPNFNT. 1 South burlinRealty Com ton an /4S g� y 366 Dorset Street, P.O. I3ox 2267 South I3urlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 January 9, 1990 District Environmental Commission #4 Attn: Louis Borie 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT. 05452 Re: South Burlington Realty Company Land Use Permit Application No. 4CO154-5 Dear Commissioners: This is to request an extension of the deadline for filing an amendment application persuant to the Memorandum of Decision and Order No. 4C0154.10 dated November 14, 1989. That Memorandum and Order required South Burlington Realty to submit an amendment application within 60 days; for the reasons given below we request an extension of 60 days, until March 14, 1.990. Recent events between South Burlington Realty and the Meadowbrook Homeowners suggest that we may be able to resolve some differences so that the final development might proceed with the concurrance, rather than the opposition, of the homeowners. On January 4 our firm met with the Association's attorney, and we understand that the Association will meet with their attorney on January 11 to discuss an agreement which would allow development to proceed with certain conditions. The agreement under discussion is essentially the proposed agreement: of November, 1988 between CS Construction and the Meadowbrook Association. Since any agreement with the Meadowbrook homeowners would effect. the obligations of South Burlington Realty as well as details of the project, we feel it would be prudent to devote a limited period of time to resolving our differences before submitting an amendment application. We request an extension of the. original 60 day time limit from January 13 to March 14, 1.990. If you require any additional information, please contact Gregory Dicovitsky or me. Thank you. Ser y, ohn Jaeg r cc: Attache Distribution List Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Developmeut Design, I3uild, Lease, Consulting South Burlington Realty Compare,�,�� 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 March 14, 1990 Mr. Joseph Weith, Planner South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe: Attached is a copy of our Amendment Application for permit #4C0154 relating to Meadowbrook Condo- miniums. If you should have any questions about this matter, I would appreciate your calling either me or Greg Dicovitsky. Thank you. ki enclosure Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Plan- ning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Confer- ence Room 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 5, 1990 at 7:30 PM to con- sider the following: 1) Revised Final Plat ap- plication of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the 11 remain- ing units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential de- velopment known as Mead- owbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive. The parcel is bounded on the north and east by the University of Vermont, on the west by Rice Memorial High School, Burlington Country Club, and Hall Communications, Inc., and on the South by I- 189. 2) Revised Final Plat ap- plication of Daniel and Leo O'Brien for resubdivision of lots 1 and 2 of the eleven lot Business park North subdi- vision on Kimball Avenue. The proposal is to adjust the boundary line between lots 1 and 2 thereby creating a 6.43 acre parcel (lot 2) and a 1.26 acre parcel (lot 1). The properties are bounded on the east by A. Palmer, on j the north by H. Mayo, on the fin,­ west by D. O'Brien and on the south by Kimball Ave nue. Copies of the plats are avail- able for inspection at themm South Burlington City Hall. William Burgess,p Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission May 19, 1990 );xhQt A COUNTRY C L.0 •I, •''�r4t i,;,;y •.� � �I;:•' yr` �,r t��,i .� ��I' Ir R, 1 t �• ; • 114 �IrA / 14 v}f 2^a � ., • , .... �• Ibwa I , o park ram" , .i ,,t, .`M� � N•11• .� play¢ , �;i ', ' •i rec rerttloil lend ILI INV ray W6 �{y+(�`,��'j ✓,{r l,. �,��Il h'�f7r'��r,1711'r•�.l, l�jl'•'Fi : � � '• r , Memorandum - Planning June 5, 1990 agenda items June 1, 1990 Page 3 I recommend that a staggered, landscaped berm be provided along the Kimball Avenue frontage. This would help hide or at least breakup this huge expanse of pavement and parked cars. Building Heights: The proposed height is 45 feet. The Planning Commission must approve this building height. Other: The plan should show the limits of the 100-year flood plain. 6? MEADOWBROOK CONDOS, PHASE V. JOY DRIVE The sketch plan for this application was reviewed by the Commis- sion on 4/10/90. My memo of that meeting is enclosed. Minutes are not yet available. Drainage: There are two drainage issues related to this applica- tion. Since this is a revision to the original 50 unit application. The first issue relates to existing drainage prob- lems within the development. The second relates to drainage impacts resulting from these 11 units. In regards to the first issue, the condo association hired Knight Engineering to make recommendations on improvements to remedy existing problems. A plan was prepared showing recommended improvements. As a result of a law suit, South Burlington Realty is required to pay the Condo Association a certain amount of money so that the Association may carry out the recommended improvements. In regards to the second issue, the applicant is proposing drain- age improvments to accommodate the 11 new units and parking. The applicant is committing to doing the improvements recommended by Knight Engineering which are needed to accommodate the 11 new units. These improvements are shown on pages 1 and 2 of the plans. The other improvements recommended by Knight Engineering will be the responsibility of the Condo Association using the money paid by South Burlington Realty. 3 Memorandum - Planning June 5, 1990 agenda items June 1, 1990 Page 4 Landscaping: Required landscaping is $17,000. The plan proposes Dogwood, Honeylocust, Juniper, Spruce, White Pine, Potentilla, Lilac and Viburnum. The plan is valued at approximately $ 40,00 . Sewer: Sewer- allocation was granted with the original approval. 4 - Planning Agenda 10, 1990 agenda items April 6, 1990 Page 4 South Burlington Realty proposes to revise the final two build- ings (11 units) of an 8 building, 50 unit planned residential development approved in the mid 1970's. To date, phases I - IV, consisting of 39 units, have been constructed. Phase V, con- sisting of the remaining 11 units, has yet to be built. This revised plat proposes to slightly alter building location, park- ing layout and circulation. The property is zoned R-4. It is bounded on the north and east by UVY, on the south by State of Vermont (I-89), and on the west by the Burlington Country Club, Rice High School and commercial businesses. Building Layout: The originally approved plan for Phase V showed a 6 unit building, along the west property line and a 5 unit building along the north property line. The revised plan shows these buildings flip-flopped, the 6 unit building along the north line and the 5 unit building along the west line. Setbacks: The original plan required a 30 foot setback. The buildings are still proposed to be 30 feet from the property line. The Zoning regulations now require a 50 foot P.U.D. perim- eter setback in the R-4 zone. I see no problem with the 30 foot setback since the rest. of the project was developed this way and there are no adjoining sensitive uses. Circulation: Circulation has been changed to show a 24 foot wide loop road in front of the units. There previously was not such a road which prevented adequate emergency access. Parking: 25 parking spaces are required. 24 spaces were origi- nally approved and 24 are shown. Drainage: Residents have complained about drainage problems. See Bill Szymanski's comments. 4 KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 29 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. MARTIN W. HAIN, P.E. March 23, 1990 Mr. Robert Schultz, President Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Review of Meadowbrook Condominium Expansion Dear Mr. Schultz: TEL: 8oz-879-6343 FAx: 8o2-879-6376 We have made a preliminary review of two drawings -- Sheet 1 of 7 entitled "Site and Utilities Plan" dated February 1989 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn and Sheet 1 of 1 entitled "Site Plan" dated March 1990 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn. We have the following comments: 1. The two drawings have different layouts. We assume that the 1990 layout is proposed. This drawing should be revisedshow the contours and drainage. 2. The assumption is made by the designer that the drainage for the proposed units will be handled by proposed drainage improvements to the south. It is not clear what these improvements are. The drainage improvements shown on the "Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan" dated 7-7-84, prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., were not designed to accommodate any additional development. It is necessary to evaluate their adequacy for additional development. My initial judgement is that additional drainage facilities would be necessary. The Meadowbrook Condominium Association should request that the designer of the drainage for the proposed expansion provide detailed calculations for the drainage design which r should include an evaluation of all the receiving drainage ways as well as those within the project. 3. The proposed footing drain system does not have a specified outlet. It should be fully designed including size, inverts and cross-section. Cleanouts should be located in this system. Page 2 March 23, 1990 Re: Review of FitzPatrick-LLewellyn Site Plans 4. The February 1989 site plan does not show adequate drainage along the west side of the existing roadway. 5. Past investigations indicate the need for a swale along the north side of Building B. The proposed site plan should address this. 6. There is not an adequate swale along the north perimeter of the project. This completes our initial comments. This letter is not intended to be a comprehensive review. Please call if you have any questions. S�ncerely, Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld File: 82175-C43-1 KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. Box 29 WILMsTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. BONME L. CARPENTER, P.E. March 6, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans Dear Mr. Gratton: TEL: 802-879-6343 We have evaluated an original site plan for Meadowbrook, an as -built working sheet and a site plan for an expansion of Meadowbrook and have the following comments: I. The following drawings were reviewed: a) ' "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums" drawing no. 1, dated December 16, 1975, prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, stamped by James A. Lamphere, Registered Architect (referred to as Plan A in the following discussions). b) Worksheet prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 1984. This sheet indicates as -built locations and spot grades as -of July 1984 (referred to as Plan B in the following discussions). c) "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums", with the CS Architects title block, no date, no drawing #. This plan shows two proposed condominium buildings, two carport buildings and new parking, all to the north of existing unit B on Meadowbrook property (referred to as Plan C in the following discussions). 2. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have an adequate drainage system. The problems include undersized and non-existent drainage piping, inadequate ditches, inadequate underdrains, inadequate slopes on paved surfaces and poor siting of the buildings. This has caused wet basements, and failing pavements. 3. Plan A does show two "future" condominium buildings to the north of existing Unit B. It is clear that Plan A does not include the site design for these future units in that there are no design contours and the existing contours are at a 4' interval versus a 1' interval in other portions of the site. Furthermore, the proposed drainage on Plan A is not adequate to accommodate these future units. Page 2 March 6, 1989 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans 4. We assume that Plan C is a preliminary drawing in that it does not have any contour information and it has inaccurate and incomplete topo- graphic information. In addition it does not indicate any upgrade of the existing Meadowbrook drain system which would be necessary to accommodate the additional impervious area shown on Plan C. 5. The following issues should be addressed before any additional units and parking are constructed north of Unit B in the wooded area on Meadowbrook property: a. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have adequate drainage to accommodate any additional impervious areas unless the runoff from that new area is piped through to the stream on the east and south side of the site. b. The high water table should be evaluated. C. The drainage area immediately northwest of Meadowbrook should be investigated to assess its impact on surface water runoff and the groundwater table in Meadowbrook and the appropriate steps should be taken. d. Adequate space should be left between existing Unit B and any new construction to the north to allow the construction of a proper diversion swale and underdrain. There should be no trees planted within 10' of this underdrain. e. The stormwater from the new area should be piped through the existing Meadowbrook complex to prevent further drainage problems. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. C incerely Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB /kld File: 82175U-C28-1 e I Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont OY401 05403 ay 't , Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: You have said that the Planning Commission was interested in the question of drainage at Meadowbrook. This is a very serious problem here, and there is much material on the subject. I attach copies of a letter to me, March 23, 1990, from Gill Barlow of Kni8ht Consulting Engineers, and a letter to Remi Gratton, March 6, 1989, also from Gill Barlow. These are among the more important documents on the subject of drainage at Meadowbrook. I will send other material later, not wishing to deluge the Commission with a flood of paper at one time. Yours very truly, M-WI I Robert S. Schultz President, MCA Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive Nir. Joe Weith. City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: South Burlington, Vermont OWI 05403 May 21, 1990 Here is some more material relating to the drainage problem at Meadowbrook. In addition to various letters, etc., I attach a single copy of three site plans mentioned at various points in the correspondne included here or in the Barlow correspondence sent you on May 7, 1990. Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Plan, Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., 7-7-84 Meadwobrook Site and Utilities Plan, Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn, Inc., February 1989 Meadowbrook Site Plan, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. March, 1990 Also a section of the Official Vermont Base Map, Sheet no. 096217, Series 1250, 1978 In addition, I enclose copies of the following correspondence: Letter from Bill Szymanski to Remi Gratton, September 4, 1989 Letter from Remi Gratton to Bill Szymanski, April 18, 1989 (This letter has a reference to the eo-T ial photograph.) Letter from Hal Kemp to Bill Szymanski, Oct. 1.3, 1988 Also a "key" to the Knight Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Ilan. I hope this material may be useful to the Commission. Y -u�rs every truly, Robert S. Schu t Copies to Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and the City Engineer ei4 4 sa"A B""VA-M 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 658-7954 September 14, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Remi: In reference to your letter of April 18, 1989 and Hal Kemp's letter of October 13, 1988 and the site drainage improvement plan prepared by Knight Consulting Engineer's dated July 7, 1984, I am in agreement with the infor- mation provided to correct the site drainage with some minor exceptions and they are as follows: 1. Storm drainage pipe, I would recommend it be plastic or concrete and not metal or aluminium. Our experience with metal pipe is that it deteriorates even if it is coated. We have no objections to using it for culverts, like under driveways but not for storm sewers. The underdrains should also be plastic. 2. The underdrain system should have a couple of cleanouts, so it can be cleaned and flushed 3. Storm drain outlet pipes should include headwall to control erosion. I agree that these improvements should be implemented prior to construction of any additional untis. Very truly yours; William � manski City Engin e WJS/b Meadowbrook Condominiuin Association . Joy Drivc . SO U01 13ur1ington, Vermont 0540J April 18,1989 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Bill: Many thanks for coming out here a couple of weeks ago and looking over the Meadowbrook drainage problem with Bob Schultz and me. With your experience, you will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, even though things right now are remarkable dry for this time of year. (You may remember the great amount of water shown in the aerial photograph done in the spring of 1978). As you have commented, the site plan dated December 16, 1975 originally submitted by South Burlington Realty Corporation - and approved - showed no site drainage Program, except for buildings A and B. Therefore, while it may be possible to "grandfather" the G and H buildings themselves in the appoved plan, there was no drainage design approved for the new buildings, and so i t would seem necessary to study this problem before a permit is issued for construction. I attach a copy of a letter from Knight Consulting Engineers, dated March 6, 1989, which deals with this drainage problem, as well as a copy of a letter to you, dated October 13, 1988, from G. Hal Kemp, then President of Meadowbrook Condominium Association. page 2 Also, in line with your request, I am sending you two drawings prepared by Knight Engineers, dated July 7, 1984: one showing existing surface water drainage plans and the Other a preliminary surface water drainage plan for corrective work. This drawing, it should be pointed out, deals with existing drainage problems, and has nothing to do with problems resulting from construction of G and H buildings. Very truly yours, Rem! Gratton Vice President Copies: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl H. Lisman, Esq. Meadowbrook Board Members RG:ib Meadowbrook, Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 J October 13, 1988 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Meadowbrook Condominium Association has a severe drainage problem. Mr. Joseph Weith, a member of the South Burlington City Planning Board, was informed about this during a discussion with Mr. Remi Gratton, who is a member of our Association. Mr. Weith suggested that it be brought to your attention. The Meadowbrook drainage system, as it presently exists, was not adequately designed to handle drainage from the undeveloped section of the property. Presumably, the plans of the developer were to deal with the problem when the last two buildings and accompanying carports were built. The drainage across the undeveloped area includes heavy runoff from the Burlington Country Club and the UVM farm. Inasmuch as there now appears to be interest by some contractors to complete the last two buildings at Meadowbrook, we feel it appropriate to bring our concern to the City Planners and to you. It is recognized that two buildings, one with five units and the other with six units, have been approved on the site plan dated 12/16/75, showing footprint, size, and location of the buildings. That development would conform to layout as approved. This is mentioned because earlier this year a prospective developer was interested in Meadowbrook and chose to ignore the approved footprint, both regarding the size of individual units and location of carports. In this connection, I am attaching a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1988, to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, from Miles P. Weidner who was then president of Meadowbrook Association, regarding our concern of variances. We believe that that developer no longer desires to proceed. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to District Coordinator Louis Borie from our attorney, Carl H. Lisman, Esq., listing various problems which would be posed by further development of the Meadowbrook property. We offer, as Mr. Gratton has in the past, to meet with you at the site to show you the seriousness of the situation. Sinc re y, Gal Kemp, President Enclosure cc: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl Lisman, Attorney !,it�y 4soMi�i 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 658-7954 September 14, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Remi: In reference to your letter of April 18, 1989 and Hal Kemp's letter of October 13, 1988 and the site drainage improvement plan prepared by Knight Consulting Engineer's dated July 7, 1984, I am in agreement with the infor- mation provided to correct the site drainage with some minor exceptions and they are as follows: 1. Storm drainage pipe, I would recommend it be plastic or concrete and not metal or aluminium. Our experience with metal pipe is that it deteriorates even if it is coated. We have no objections to using it for culverts, like under driveways but not for storm sewers. The underdrains should also be plastic. 2. The underdrain system should have a couple of cleanouts, so it can be cleaned and flushed 3. Storm drain outlet pipes should include headwall to control erosion_ I agree that these improvements should be implemented prior to construction of any additional untis. Very truly,yours; William manski City Engin e WJS/b PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington \\ )) 575 DORSET STREET `vim SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 March 21, 1988 Greg Dicovitsky Munson Earth Moving 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Dicovitsky: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The City of South Burlington gave approval for 50 condominiums to be built in the Meadowbrook development off of Joy Drive. Eleven units remain to be built and can be constructed after applying for a building permit. A sewer allocation of 450 gallons per unit or 4950 gpd total will be made. This project conforms with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. You should check with the Water Department regarding water services. Sincerely, -J6-AVC,& 44UL�- Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp a South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 June 21, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset...,... -.... .. r_... South,' ington, VT 054 '� RE: PROPOSED PERMIT # 4CO154-6 MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM .M=% Dear r . Enclosed is a copy of the latest, and hopefully final, revision to the Meadowbrook Site and Utilities Plan. Please give a call if there are any questions. Thank Since J Jlaeger ' or S uth Burlington Realty Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting D F.ITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 65495 • (802) 878-3000 20 June 1990 District 4 Environmen%41 Commission c/o Mr. Craig DiGiammarino III West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Meadowbrook Development, Joy Drive, South Burlington File: 88169 Dear Mr. DiGiammarino: On behalf of South Burlington Realty, we are forwarding for the Commission's review, copies of the updated site plan for the above referenced application. The Meadowbrook Homeowners Association, through their consultant, Knight Engineering, had reviewed our proposed drainage scheme. Although our previous drainage plan, as presented, would not have exacerbated the existing drainage conditions, Knight Engineering had requested that we modify our drainage design. As you will observe from the enclosed site plan we have added additional culverts, catch basins and revised the grading to redirect accumulated stormwater to the eastern portion of the site. In addition, a berm has been added between buildings "B" and "G" to direct runoff into the catch basins. We trust the Commission will consider these modifications as minor details and issue a decision shortly. As always, should you or the Commission have any questions, pleas contact us. Sincerely FITZPATRICK-LLEW,,EL//LYN INCORPORATED e1VdW,:,r1,1 CC/�t// Charles Van Winkle cc: Nancy Manley, Permits & Compliance John Jaeger, South Burlington Realty Design • Inspection 0 Studies • Permitting • Surveying Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05403 April 18, 1989 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Bill: Many thanks for coming out here a couple of weeks ago and looking over the Meadowbrook drainage problem with Bob Schultz and me. With your experience, you will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, even though things right now are remarkable dry for this time of year. (You may remember the great amount of water shown in the aerial photograph done in the spring of 1978). As you have commented, the site plan dated December 16, 1975 originally submitted by South Burlington Realty Corporation - and approved - showed no site drainage program, except for buildings A and B. Therefore, while it may be possible to "grandfather" the G and H buildings themselves in the appoved plan, there was no drainage design approved for the new buildings, and so it would seem necessary to study this problem before a permit is issued for construction. I attach a copy of a letter from Knight Consulting Engineers, dated March 6, 1989, which deals with this drainage problem, as well as a copy of a letter to you, dated October 13, 1988, from G. Hal Kemp, then President of Meadowbrook Condominium Association. page 2 Also, in line with your request, I am sending you two drawings prepared by Knight Engineers, dated July 7, 1984: one showing existing surface water drainage plans and the other a preliminary surface water drainage plan for corrective work. This drawing, it should be pointed out, deals with existing drainage problems, and has nothing to do with problems resulting from construction of G and H buildings. Very truly yours, Rem! Grat"ton' , Vice President Copies: Joseph Weith, City Planner Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl H. Li sman, Esq. Meadowbrook Board Members RG: jb KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX sg WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 STEPHEN C. KNIGHT, JR., P.E. ROGER W. DORWART, P.E. ELROY L. LANGDELL, P.E. GILL BARLOW, P.E. DONALD J. PARKER, P.E. BONNIE L. CARPENTER, P.E. March 6, 1989 Mr. Remi Gratton Meadowbrook Condominium Association Meadowbrook Condominium Unit B Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans Dear Mr. Gratton: TEL: 802-879-6343 We have evaluated an original site plan for Meadowbrook, an as -built working sheet and a site plan for an expansion of Meadowbrook and have the following comments: 1. The following drawings were reviewed: a) "Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums" drawing no. 1, dated December 16, 1975, prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, stamped by James A. Lamphere, Registered Architect (referred to as Plan A in the following discussions). b) Worksheet prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 1984. This sheet indicates as -built locations and spot grades as of July 1984 (referred to as Plan B in the following discussions). c) Site Plan - Meadowbrook Condominiums", with the CS Architects title block, no date, no drawing #. This plan shows two proposed condominium buildings, two carport buildings and new parking, all to the north of existing unit B on Meadowbrook property (referred to as Plan C in the following discussions). 2. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have an adequate drainage system. The problems include undersized and non-existent drainage piping, inadequate ditches, inadequate underdrains, inadequate slopes on paved surfaces and poor siting of the buildings. This has caused wet basements, and failing pavements. 3. Plan A does show two "future" condominium buildings to the north of existing Unit B. It is clear that Plan A does not include the site design for these future units in that there are no design contours and the existing contours are at a 4' interval versus a 1' interval in other portions of the site. Furthermore, the proposed drainage on Plan A is not adequate to accommodate these future units. Page 2 March 6, 1989 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Site Plans 4. We assume that Plan C is a preliminary drawing in that it does not have any contour information and it has inaccurate and incomplete topo- graphic information. In addition it does not indicate any upgrade of the existing Meadowbrook drain system which would be necessary to accommodate the additional impervious area shown on Plan C. 5. The following issues should be addressed before any additional units and parking are constructed north of Unit B in the wooded area on Meadowbrook property: a. The existing Meadowbrook complex does not have adequate drainage to accommodate any additional impervious areas unless the runoff from that new area is piped through to the stream on the east and south side of the site. b. The high water table should be evaluated. C. The drainage area immediately northwest of Meadowbrook should be investigated to assess its impact on surface water runoff and the groundwater table in Meadowbrook and the appropriate steps should be taken. d. Adequate space should be left between existing Unit B and any new construction to the north to allow the construction of a proper diversion swale and underdrain. There should be no trees planted within 10' of this underdrain. e. The stormwater from the new area should be piped through the existing Meadowbrook complex to prevent further drainage problems. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincere' Gill Barlow, P.E. KNIGHT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GB/kld File: 82175U-C28-1 Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 October 13, 1988 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Meadowbrook Condominium Association has a severe drainage problem. Mr. Joseph Weith, a member of the South Burlington City Planning Board, was informed about this during a discussion with Mr. Remi Gratton, who is a member of our Association. Mr. Weith suggested that it be brought to your attention. The Meadowbrook drainage system, as it presently exists, was not adequately designed to handle drainage from the undeveloped section of the property. Presumably, the plans of the developer were to deal with the problem when the last two buildings and accompanying carports were built. The drainage across the undeveloped area includes heavy runoff from the Burlington Country Club and the UVM farm. Inasmuch as there now appears to be interest by some contractors to complete the last two buildings at Meadowbrook, we feel it appropriate to bring our concern to the City Planners and to you. It is recognized that two buildings, one with five units and the other with six units, have been approved on the site plan dated 12/16/75, showing footprint, size, and location of the buildings. That development would conform to layout as approved. This is mentioned because earlier this year a prospective developer was interested in Meadowbrook and chose to ignore the approved footprint, both regarding the size of individual units and location of carports. In this connection, I am attaching a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1988, to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, from Miles P. Weidner who was then president of Meadowbrook Association, regarding our concern of variances. We believe that that developer no longer desires to proceed. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to District Coordinator Louis Borie from our attorney, Carl H. Lisman, Esq., listing various problems which would be posed by further development of the Meadowbrook property. We offer, as Mr. Gratton has in the past, to meet with you at the site to show you the seriousness of the situation. Sinc 4rey,G, a, President Enclosure cc:�seph Weith, City Planner VCichard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl Lisman, Attorney BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING, III DOUGLAS K. RILEY Stephanie J. Kaplan Executive Officer State of Vermont Environmental Board Montpelier, VT 05602 Dear Stephanie: v�� LISMAN & LISMAN (/ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NOV 2 4 Ibbd ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 728MANAGa' .-1`S C =FICE BURLINGTON. VERMONT05402 ';I- -c'�1 OF w• P,1TILINGTON' 802-864-5756 TELECOPIER 802-864-3629 p OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA November 21, 1980 AT 84 PINE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL South Burlington Realty Co. Land Use Permit No. 4CO154-5 I am submitting for filing the original and ten copies of a "Memorandum in Support of Meadowbrook Condominium Association's Appeal or, in the Alternative, in Support of Motion to Revoke Permit." Very truly yours, Michael Marks sdh Enclosures mm.n21 cc Parties LISMAN & LISMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 802-664-5756 BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING. III DOUGLAS K. RILEY May 25, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Stefanie J. Kaplan, Esq. Vermont Environmental Board State Office Building Montpelier, VT 05602 TELECOPIER 802-864-3629 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT 84 PINE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL South Burlington Realty Company: Land Use Permit #4C0154-5 Dear Stephanie: I am enclosing the original and ten copies of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association's Opposition to Motion to Alter and supporting Memorandum of Law in connection with this matter. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very t ly yours, Douglas K. �le DKR/jss Enclosures STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RE: SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY) COMPANY ) Land Use Permit #4C0154-5 PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ALTER 11 The Petitioner, Meadowbrook Condominium Association ("Meadowbrook") moves the Vermont Environmental Board (the "Board") to deny the motion of South Burlington Realty Company (the "Permittee") to alter the Board's decision of May 4, 1989, and further requests that the Board declare that the Permittee is not entitled to apply to the District 4 Environmental Commission for a new land use permit amendment until the Board announces its decision on the Permittee's motion. PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ALTER Introduction I In its May 4, 1989 decision in this matter, the Board ti revoked Permittee's Land Use Permit No. 4C0154-5. The Board ordered the matter remanded to the District Commission for a E !i hearing on whether the Petitioner (or its individual members) I� !! should be made co-applicant(s) to Permittee's application for ! extension of construction completion date. By motion dated May 19, 1989, Permittee moved the Board to alter its decision to provide that the Board itself would hold the required - evidentiary hearing rather than the District Commission. In the same motion, Permittee announced that it intends to file a new application for extension of construction completion date LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 i with the District Commission "while the Board considers this II I Motion." (Permittee's memorandum, Page 3). i Argument I� I. No alteration of the Board's decision is appropriate. I In all respects, the Board's May 4, 1989 decision is 4 complete and correct under the applicable law and undisputed facts of this case. The Board found (and the parties have not i disputed) that i The common areas and facilities of the Meadowbrook j Condominium include the entire 11.31- acre tract shown on the original site plan for construction of all the condominium buildings, including the 11 proposed to be i constructed for which the construction completion date was extended. Memorandum of Decision, Page 2. This fact, combined with the undisputed provisions of the Declaration of Condominium and applicable Vermont law, compelled the Board's conclusion that that the District Commission violated Act 250 and the Board Rules by ignoring Petitioner's request to be made a party to the amendment proceedings. !s Once the Board reached this conclusion, there was no need I of further evidence, and therefore no need for an evidentiary i hearing.- This conclusion alone disposed of the case, 4 rendering all other questions moot. Hence, the ordinary principles of judicial economy made it unnecessary and inappropriate for the Board to take up the rest of the potential issues identified in the Board's Prehearing Order. See, for example, Rogers v. W.T. Grant Co., 132 Vt. 485, 489 (1974) (Supreme Court will not reach the issue of damages in a LISMAN & LISMAN 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW I P O. BOX 728 i BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 l ) case where it affirms a judgment for the Defendant); My Sister's Place v. City of Burlington, 139 Vt. 602, 608 (1981) (Supreme Court will not consider whether a party properly pleaded a defense where evidence uncovered during discovery proved that the defense did not exist). The Board is not always required to conduct an evidentiary hearing in a revocation action. Unlike an appeal under 10 VSA Section 6089 (a,) and Board Rule 40, a revocation proceeding under 10 VSA Section 6090(c) and Board Rule 38(A) is not a de novo hearing of the entire permit application. Rather, the issue before the Board in a revocation action is whether there has been violation of the terms of the permit or any permit condition, the approved terms of the application, ,I or the Rules of the Board. Board Rule 38(A)(2). If, as �I here, the existing record amply demonstrates that the District Commission violated Act 250 procedure, then no new evidence ' I is required before the Board makes its decision. Therefore, the Permittee's claim that the Board is bound to hold an evidentiary hearing is groundless. II. Permittee may not re -apply to the District Commission while the present motion is pending. The District Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this revocation action as long as the Permittee's present motion is pending before the Board. The Permittee has, by its own action in filing this motion, forced the Board to retain jurisdiction of this matter and blocked LISMAN & LISMAN 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P O BOX 728 BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 the remand to the District Commission. Furthermore, the running of the period within which the Permittee must file any appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court of the Board's May 4, 1989 decision is terminated during the pendency of this motion. Board Rule 31(A). Therefore, the Permittee itself has extended the period of time during which either the Board or the Supreme Court may continue to have jurisdiction over this matter. It has long been settled in Vermont that a trial court has i no jurisdiction over a matter while that matter is before the Supreme Court. Kotz v. Kotz, 134 Vt. 36, 38 (1975) and cases cited therein. A petition for revocation of permit under I� Board Rule 38(A)(2) is precisely analogous to an appeal from a trial court to the Supreme Court. In both cases, the I fsupervisory and appellate functions of the higher tribunal would be threatened if the lower tribunal continued to consider the matter at the same time as the higher tribunal. If Permittee wishes to exhaust all possible motions and methods of appeal, it is entitled to do so. It should not, however, be permitted to short-circuit the process by having y the Board and the District Commission consider the matter simultaneously. Permittee's apparent desire to sell its proported development rights in the Meadowbrook property (Permittee's memorandum, Pages 3-4) in no way justifies this irregular procedure. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully LISMAN & LISMAN 4 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 728 j BURLINGTON. VT. 05402 requests the Board to order that the District Commission shall have no jurisdiction over this matter until the Board announces its decision on the present motion. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 26th day of May, 1989. THE PETITIONER Meadowbrook Condominium Associat' Douglas K. Riley, Esq. of Lisman & Lisman LISMAN & LISMAN 5 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P 0. BOX 728 i BURLINGTON, VT 05402 elm CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Douglas K. Riley, Esq., of Lisman & Lisman, attorney for Meadowbrook Condominium Association sent a copy of the foregoing Opposition to Motion to Alter and Memorandum of Law by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 26th day of May, 1989 to the following: South Burlington Realty Co. by Dale J. Rocheleau, Esq. Downs, Rachlin & Martin Courthouse Plaza P.O. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402 City of South Burlington Board of Councilmen and Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 S. Main St. - 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 26th day of May. LISMAN & LISMAN Attorneys for Meadowbrook Condominium Association BY: , (�L Douglas K.-Riley LISMAN & LISMAN 6 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 / ( C. 4 ✓ ., Z tJ CIF 1►. Meadowbrook B-1 Joy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 December 22, 1988 }sir. Richard 'card Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 0540 bear Lick: .A. brief note to remind you of our conversation on or about hoveffibef 24 - a date I remember because it was just after I got out of the hospital. At that time I pointed out that the approved plan for buildings G and h at Mea.dowbrook showed footprints for the buildings, but showed no plans for drainage. Therefore, while the footprip_t plans could be grand - fathered, there was no drainage proktam which could be g,randfathered. You commented that this meant the project would have to go back to the full. I'lanning; Board for review. Bill Szymanski concurred. Since you were away this week, I discussed the prcbIrm with bill, and also with Joc Vdieth, but they had heard nothing. I would like to know if therE have been any further_ developments in this case. If I can be of any assistance, please don't l.esitatF to call (658-4792). Sincerely yours, I. Remi Gratton Member, Ileadowbrook Board of Directors j t L s Q V"° t Oil » �t+• y' Yr9 $' �` , (r,) Lt -sa,P : we4tww -krovit r BURLINGTON OFFICE Courthouse Plaza ��/ Q D0 Nl7 %�u Q' r AVl ILIN AR �LV Robert D. Rachlin Allen Martin Priscilla K. Reidinger COUNSEL Marc Heath John H. Downs 199 Main Street Post Office Box 190 lX 1 James C. Gallagher- m William W. Schroeder SPECIAL COUNSEL Burlington, Vermont 05402-0190 PROIIiSSIUNAL CORPORATION William A. Gilbert Gary H. Barnes Paul H. Ode, Jr. Heather Briggs Kathleen H. Davis Heather Telephone (802) 863-2375 James G. Wheeler, Jr. Dennis W. Wells Facsimile (802) 862-7512 William W. Pearson Robert B. Luce Telex 92-1857 John H. Marshall Christopher G. Stoneman Leo A. Bisson, Jr. Gregory S. Clayton* ST. JOHNSBURY OFFICE 9 Prospect Street Pe .0 p 7, � Charles N. Hurt, Jr. Kimberly K. Hayden Post Office Box 99 Qom' Richard N. Bland Andre D. Bouffard St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819-0099 John H. Tarlow Robert A. Miller, Jr. Telephone (802) 748-8324 ,/' Peter D. Van Cot Wilhelmina E. Dingemans (NY Bar Only) Facsimile (802) 748-4394 13 Dale A. Rocheleau Bruce C. Palmer (MA 6s RI Bars Only) 88-8659 4\ MACTelex Anita R. Tuttle 'Also Admitted in NH REPLY TO: Burlington Office ..i OFFICE MANAGER'S P BUFIEINGIO March 9, 1989 �ff t OF SO. Stephanie Kaplan Executive Officer Environmental Board State Office Building PO Montpelier, VT 05602 In re: South Burlington Realty Co. Land Use Permit Amendment 4CO154-5-EB Dear Stephanie: On behalf of South Burlington Realty Company, I am enclosing the original and ten copies of South Burlington Realty Company's Response to Meadowbrook's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing in connection with this matter. Sincerely, Dalocheleau DAR PhLr B4.37.0309 Enclosure LAW OFFICE OF DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN ST. JOHNSBURY AND BURLINGTON, VT STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RE: ) LAND USE PERMIT SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY ) NO. 4CO154-5-EB PERMITTEE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING Introduction On March 2, 1989, Meadowbrook Condominium Association ("Meadowbrook") filed with the Environmental Board (the "Board") a Petitioner's Request for Evidentiary Hearing. The request calls for a hearing on certain aspects of the project as built ten years ago and how they have allegedly deviated from approved plans. In this Response, South Burlington Realty Company (the "Permittee") responds to the issues raised by Meadowbrook's Request for Evidentiary Hearing. Argument Meadowbrook's request for an evidentiary hearing is merely an attempt to take the Board on a fishing expedition. The request asserts too little in substance and was filed too late in this proceed _ra _ 1. Too Little Substance: This proceeding pertains to the issue of whether to revoke an extension of the construction completion deadline. Meadowbrook's request for an evidentiary hearing does not allege that there are unapproved changes in development plans for the last eleven units in the project. Meadowbrook only alleges changes in the project with respect to the existing development which was built about ten years ago. LAW OFFICE OF DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN ST.JOHNSBURY AND BURLINGTON, VT Meadowbrook has seen the drawings for the proposed units and has not alleged any fact that they will deviate in a material or substantial way from the approved plans. District Commission # 4 reviewed the entire project and determined in effect that the requested permit amendment did not involve a material or substantial change. Meadowbrook is merely requesting a fishing expedition without alleging any impact on the Act 250 criteria. The Board should deny the request for hearing since Meadowbrook failed to allege facts constituting a material and substantial change in the project relating to the extension of development. 2. Too Late in Proceeding: Meadowbrook has failed to file a statement of facts alleging material and substantial changes by March 1, 1989, in accordance with the Board's Prehearing Order, dated February 24, 1989. Accordingly, it has waived any rights it may have to pursue this issue before the Environmental Board in this proceeding. Raising the issue at this late date would cause the Permittee to suffer even greater harm by delays in the effect of its permit extension. Soon the permit extension will not be of any use to the Permittee and Mca-do.:brock ..-411 have effectively extinguished the Permittee's development rights. Conclusion Again, Meadowbrook is trying to collaterally attack the District Commission's determination to treat the Permittee's application as an administrative amendment because there were no substantial or material changes requiring reconsideration of the Act 250 criteria or new conditions. Meadowbrook had the chance to present its arguments and lost. It is now attempting to organize a fishing expedition in this proceeding but it is too late. In order to put this matter to rest, Permittee requests that the Board rule that Meadowbrook has failed to allege material or substantial changes having an impact on the project under the Act 250 criteria. Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 9th day of March, 1989. B4.37.0309 LAW OFFICE OF DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN ST.JOHNSBURY AND BURLINGTON, VT DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN By: Dale A. Rocheleau 199 Main Street P. O. Box 199 Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 863-2375 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RE: ) LAND USE PERMIT SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY ) NO. 4CO154-5-EB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Dale A. Rocheleau, have sent a copy of the foregoing Permittee's Response to Request for Evidentiary Hearing to the State of Vermont Environmental Board, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 9th day of March, 1989, to the following: Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. by Carl H. Lisman, Esq. Lisman & Lisman P. O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402 City of South Burlington Board of Councilmen and Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P. O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT- 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street, 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05767 For Information Only: Louis Borie District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 9th day of March, 1989. DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN By / Dale A. Roche eau LAW OFFICE OF 199 Main Street DOWNS RACHLIN P. O. Box 199 & MARTIN Burlington, VT 05402 ST. JOHNSBURY ( 8 0 2) 8 6 3- 2 3 7 5 AND BURLINGTON, VT RECEIVED LISMAN & LISMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. BOX 728 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 802-864-5756 BERNARD LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER MARY G. KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING. III DOUGLAS K. RILEY March 2, 1989 Stephanie J. Kaplan, Esq. Vermont Environmental Board State Office Building Montpelier, VT 05602 MAR - 3 1989 MANAGER'S OFFICE "TY OF SO. BURLINGTOr South Burlington Realty Company: Land Use Permit #4C0154-5-EB Dear Stephanie: TELECOPIER 802-864-3629 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT 84 PINE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL I am enclosing Petitioner's Request for Evidentiary Nearing in connection with the above -referenced matter for filing with the Board. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Douglas K. Riley DKR/bes cc City of South Burlington Board of Councilmen and Planning Commission Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Mark Sinclair, Esq. Dale A. Rocheleau, Esq. e i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I hereby certify that I, Douglas K. Riley, Esq., of Lisman & Lisman, attorney for Meadowbrook Condominium Association sent a copy of the foregoing Petitioner's Request for M Evidentiary Hearing by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this day of March, 1989 to the following: South Burlington Realty Co. �} by Dale J. Rocheleau, Esq. Downs, Rachlin & Martin Courthouse Plaza P.O. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402 City of South Burlington Board of Councilmen and Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 �i Essex Junction, VT 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources i 103 S. Main St. - 2 Center Waterbury,_ VT 05676 DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 2/v day of 1989. LISMAN & LISMAN Attornevs for Meadowbrook Con iniu ssoocciation BY:<r�_ Douglas-K. Riley, Esq. LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P O BOX 728 BURLINGTON_ VT. 05402 LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RE: SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY ) COMPANY ) Land Use Permit #4C0154-5-EB PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING Meadowbrook Condominium Association, the petitioner ("Meadowbrook"), requests that the Board schedule a hearing for the purpose of allowing Meadowbrook to present evidence concerning Meadowbrook's following assertions of fact: 1. The locations of the buildings within Meadowbrook Condominium, as actually built, are substantially different from the locations shown on the plans approved by the District #4 Environmental Commission under Land Use Permit #4C0154, as amended, including the locations of the buildings immediately adjacent to the proposed additions to this pro]ect. 2. The surface water drainage facilities in Meadowbrook Condominium, as actually constructed, do not conform to the drawings approved by the District 4 Environmental Commission in connection with Land Use Permit #4C0154, as amended. 3. There are substantial discrepancies between the contours of the Meadowbrook Condominium site as shown on the plans approved by District #4 Environmental Commission in connection with Land use Permit #4C0154, as amended and the actual contours at the site. 4. Meadowbrook Condominium has experienced substantial., unanticipated problems with surface water LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 728 BURLINGTON, VT. 05402 drainage and storm water runoff requiring re -design of the drainage system within the Condominium. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this CL,,)►) day of �1021 r THE PETITIONER Meado ook Condominium ocia�-S BY: \ Doug as K, 1 ey, Esq. of Lisman & Lisman cc see attached Certificate of Service - 2 - Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 October 13, 1988 Mr. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Meadowbrook Condominium Association has a severe drainage problem. Mr. Joseph Weith, a member of the South Burlington City Planning Board, was informed about this during a discussion with Mr. Remi Gratton, who is a member of our Association. Mr. Weith suggested that it be brought to your attention. The Meadowbrook drainage system, as it presently exists, was not adequately designed to handle drainage from the undeveloped section of the property. Presumably, the plans of the developer were to deal with the problem when the last two buildings and accompanying carports were built. The drainage across the undeveloped area includes heavy runoff from the Burlington Country Club and the UVM farm. Inasmuch as there now appears to be interest by some contractors to complete the last two buildings at Meadowbrook, we feel it appropriate to bring our concern to the City Planners and to you. It is recognized that two buildings, one with five units and the other with six units, have been approved on the site plan dated 12/16/75, showing footprint, size, and location of the buildings. That development would conform to layout as approved. This is mentioned because earlier this year a prospective developer was interested in Meadowbrook and chose to ignore the approved footprint, both regarding the size of individual units and location of carports. In this connection, I am attaching a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1988, to Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, from Miles P. Weidner who was then president of Meadowbrook Association, regarding our concern of variances. We believe that that developer no longer desires to proceed. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to District Coordinator Louis Borie from our attorney, Carl. H. Lisman, Esq., listing various problems which would be posed by further development of the Meadowbrook property. We offer, as Mr. Gratton has in the past, to meet with you at the site to show you the seriousness of the situation. 4inre y, l Kemp, President Enclosure cc: Joseph Weith, City Planner�"e Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Carl Lisman, Attorney Meadowbrook Condominiu) Association . Joy Drive . Sout,lrlington, Vermont 05401 April 15, 1983 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. yard, It is my understanding that John C. Giebink,Green Mountain Development Group, Inc., is purchasing the balance of the land owned by South Burlington Realty Corp. at the )'readowbrook Condominium Project on Joy Drive. The Board of Directors of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association has met with Mr. Giebink to preliminarily learn of his development plans. During these discussions, it was learned that the proposed two buildings, which he desires to build, may be substantially different from those con- structed under the Declaration of Condominium and the proposed buildings are larger than the footprint approved and on record with the City of South Burlington. We are deeply concerned with these variances since the Declaration of Condominium for the Meadowbrook Condominium, which is on file with the City of South Burlington, states with respect to Additional Construction in Section 7: "Declarant shall have the right to construct.....Buildings upon the remaining portions of its land hereby dedicated to the Condominium ('the remaining land') on the follow- ing terms and conditions: a. Additional Buildings and. Units. Each Building shall contain either five, six or seven Units. Said Buildings shall be similar in configuration, layout and exterior design to the two Buildings described in Section 3, subject to Declarant's rights to make such modifications as it deems appropriate consistent with view, site and terrain nnnriitinnc_" (underlining added) Although Mr. Giebink has agreed to furnish sketches and additional information, because of these obvious variances we request that permission for Green Mountain Development Group, Inc. to proceed be withheld until we hhave had an opportunity to resolve these inconsistencies. We also want to further investigate his proposed changes in location of the carports from those set forth on the site plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, cc: John C Giebink Miles P. Weidner, President Jane Lafleur, City Planner Carl H. Lisman BERNARO LISMAN CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER G. KIRKPAI RICK MICHAEL MARKS E. WILLIAM LECKERLING. III DOUGLAS K. RILEY LISMAN & LISMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 726 BURLINGTON. VERMONT05402 802-864-5756 TELEC.O PIE R 902-664-362-9 OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA AT SA PINE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT September 15, 1988 Mr. Louis Borie District Coordinator District Environmental Commission Ill West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 LOUIS LISMAN COUNSEL Meadowbrook Land Use Permit 4C0154- Dear Louis: We represent the Meadowbrook Condominium Association. I understand that an application to amend the existing land use permit may have recently been filed. The Association received no notice of the filing. Although it was not a party to the original permit, it was a party in revocation proceedings initiated a few years ago. In any event, the Association has objections to any extension which would permit construction of additional apartments, at least for the following reasons: (a) Construction activity will cause noise and may cause emissions during construction, including dust; (b) connection of additional apartments to the municipal water system which loops through the area may adversely affect water pressure and, in any event, may require enlargement of lines; (c) erosion on the site, during construction and thereafter, is likely unless appropriate precautions are taken; (d) construction and subsequent residential traffic on the private road maintained by the Association will adversely affect safety; and Mr. Louis Borie P„ o September 15, 1988 (e) any construction will take place in an area which has scenic and aesthetic qualities which will be adversely affected. Accordingly the Association requests a hearing and an opportunity to present evidence on criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. Furthermore, inasmuch as the Association is responsible for the common elements in the condominium regime upon which any construction would take place, it�tpn y must be a party co -applicant to any amendment appl' Vjryjt±*i y *urs, Carl - f.' Lisman CHL/ddp cc South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 Pearl Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 7. City of South Burlington a WATER DEPARTMENT 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. 864-4361 October 2, 1989 Mr. Chip Burr South Burlington Realty Co. 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT--- 054_03 RE: ;,Meadowbrook Condominiums;,. Clusters G & H (11 Units) Joy Drive, South -,Burlington Dear Sir, This letter is an update of a previous letter sent to Mr. Greg Dicovitsky, of your firm, dated April 4, 1988. At that time the South Burlington Water Department made a determination that the estimated daily water demand of the above referenced project of 4,950 gallons per day would not place a burden on or hamper our ability to provide service to our existing customers. I have again reviewed this project and have determined that the South Burlington Water Department can still provide the estimated daily demand of 4,950 gallons per day without encumbering the service to its existing customers. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT Robert L. Gardner Superintendent cc: Joe Weith BURLINGTON OFFICE Courthouse Plaza 199 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0190 Telephone (802) 863-2375 Facsimile (802) 862-7512 Telex 92-1857 ST. JOHNSBURY OFFICE 9 Prospect Street Post Office Box 99 St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819-0099 Telephone (802) 748-8324 Facsimile 1802) 748-4394 Telex 88-8659 REPLY TO: Burlington Office DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Robert D. Rachlin Marc B. Heath COUNSEL Allen Martin William W. Schroeder John H. Downs James C. Gallagher- Paul H. Ode, Jr. William A. Gilbert Kathleen H. Davis Gary H. Barnes Dennis W. Wells James G. Wheeler, Jr. Robert B. Luce John H. Marshall Christopher G. Stoneman Leo A. Bisson, Jr. Gregory S. Clayton - Priscilla K. Reidinger Heather Briggs Charles N. Hurt. Jr. • Andre D. Bouffard Richard N. Bland Robert A. Muter. Jr. Peter D. Van Cot Wilhelmina E. Dingemans (NY Bar Only) Dale A. Rocheleau Bruce C. Palmer Anita R. Tuttle Ernestine Grey Abel Kimberly K. Hayden *Also Admitted in NH October 2, 1989 Louis Borie District #4 Coordinator District Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: South Burlington Realty Company Land Use Permit Application, #4C0154-5 Dear Lou: On behalf of Randall G. Munson, d/b/a South Burlington Realty Company ("SBRC"), we wish to respond to Meadowbrook's letter of September 25, 1989, describing the changes in the Meadowbrook Condominium project since the original permit was issued in September, 1974. Meadowbrook alleges "substantial" changes in the project having significant impacts under Act 250 criteria 4 (erosion) and 8 (aesthetics). Specifically, Meadowbrook alleges changes with respect to the configuration and layout of buildings and drainage improvements. We will respond to each in turn: 1. Configuration and Layout of Buildings. On July 30, 1975, SBRC's architect, Jim Lamphere, asked for amendment of the permit to substitute a site plan prepared by Wiemann- Lamphere Architects. A copy of Mr. Lamphere's letter is attached to this letter as Exhibit A (letter). The substituted site plan was provided by Meadowbrook in its September 25 letter as Exhibit B (showing a portion of the Lamphere site plan). We can provide you with a clearer copy showing the entire site plan if you wish. On August 6, 1975, the District #4 Environmental Commission notified all parties existing at the time of its determination that DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 2 "the density and basic configuration of the buildings has not changed, and, therefore, the applicant should not be held up from commencing on phase I." (This Memorandum is attached as Exhibit B). Without objection, the Commission's 1975 determination still stands and no permit amendment was required. See Env. Bd. Rule 34. Consequently, all subsequent reviews of the project have been based on the Lamphere site plan. For example, Land Use Permit #4C0154- 4, dated June 20, 1983, approves pump station and water system plans based on the Lamphere site plan. Furthermore, SBRC obtained a Project Review Sheet from the District 4 Commission, dated February 14, 1989 (attached as Exhibit C), which was based on the Lamphere plan and which concludes there is no material or substantial change in the design of the project. As part of the project review, SBRC informed you that for the last two buildings the footprints would be smaller and the interior layout would be different but the exterior design would remain the same. With respect to Meadowbrook's alleged placement of Building B twelve feet from what is shown on the Lamphere plan, SBRC submits that this does not constitute a "material" or "substantial" change. Frequently, building locations should be changed due to unforeseen site conditions such as ledge, higher than anticipated water tables, or an aesthetic consideration which can be better served by increasing the distance of the building from a stream or wooded area. SBRC does not immediately recall why the location of Building B is slightly different from that shown on the site plan. Nonetheless, the difference has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). 2. Drainage Improvements. Meadowbrook relies upon statements of Alfred A. Calcagni, the architect for the original developer (Pinebrook Association Inc.), concerning the contemplated drainage system based on the old site plan. Mr. Calcagni's statements are referenced as one of the specifications for the project in the District Commission's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated September 4, 1974. Relying upon the Calcagni specifications, Meadowbrook appears only to be concerned with (a) some culverts being smaller than 12 inches in diameter; (b) some culverts buried less than 2 feet underground; (c) ends of pipes not having a concrete headwall outfall and then a stone rip DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 3 rap; and (d) lack of berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains "if required". With respect to (a), regarding the size of culverts, Meadowbrook redressed this grievance in court and in one instance got more than what was required under the Calcagni specifications. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., No. S880-80CnC, p. 18. (Chittenden Superior Court, Dec. 21, 1985), modified and affirmed, No. 85-563 (Vt. Supreme Court, June 23, 1989) (these decisions were provided to you during the District Commission hearing on September 20, 1989). Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (a) is accomplished. Since such work is within the scope of the original permit, there is no material or substantial change requiring a permit amendment. With respect to (b), regarding the depth at which the culverts were buried, Meadowbrook also redressed this grievance in court. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., supra, at pp. 16 and 18. To the extent that culverts are not buried at least two feet underground, because the court fashioned another remedy, the difference does not have a significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). Furthermore, Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (b) is accomplished. With respect to (c), regarding the concrete headwall with stone rip rap, Meadowbrook had the full and fair opportunity to redress this grievance in court. Presumably Meadowbrook did not do so because it could not find anything defective about the as -built design. See generally Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., supra, pp. 8 - 21. Any deviation from the Calcagni specifications in this regard has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). With respect to (d), regarding the lack of certain berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains "if required," the court ultimately determined what ditches, trenches and drains were required. See Meadowbrook Condominium Association v. South Burlington Realty Corp., supra, at pp. 8 - 12. Since the Calcagni specifications, and DOWNS iZmin,IN & MARTIN Louis Borie October 2, 1989 Page 4 consequently the Act 250 permit, were silent on what was required, the court made this determination. The court's determination was within the scope of the original Act 250 approval and has no significant impact on any of the Act 250 criteria or on any finding, conclusion, term or condition of the project's permit. See Environmental Board Rules 34, 2(g), and 2(p). Furthermore, Meadowbrook was awarded damages and is responsible for seeing that the work concerning (d) is accomplished. In sum, Meadowbrook has already had the full and fair opportunity to adjudicate all the drainage issues. Meadowbrook should be estopped from asking for SBRC to pay again for an upgraded drainage system with more swales, pipes, drains, etc. This issue was settled and Meadowbrook should not be able to recover twice for the same grievance. With respect to drainage for the remaining portion of the project to be constructed (11 units in two buildings), SBRC or its successor in interest will follow the applicable Calcagni specifications as Meadowbrook requests. We trust that you will conclude that Meadowbrook has failed to allege any material or substantial change in the project which would require a permit amendment under Rule 34. I will provide you with additional information upon your request. Sincerely, Dale A. Rocheleau DAR:prc B4.37.0926 Enclosures: Exhibit A (Letter of 7/30/75 by Architect James Lamphere regarding substitution of site plan) Exhibit B (Memorandum of 8/6/75 by District #4 Environmental Commission to All Parties) Exhibit C (Project Review Sheet from the District 4 Commission, dated February 14, 1989) cc: Distribution List d COY olll BURLINGTON 5.; .. SITE I �\ v d 6 1 � �� .�we,. ,�T _, �F�.�- .T ��. `�-w--'—_ i j' ���__ __ .,a � YID �I � 'c•7 � i 'ta I I — -- LOCUS =—T! GARAGE NOTES BUILG H V I B� W�- I `�--"�', � I \� �� 1. PEMIMLT LR PNIN•LRTY LINE AND PROPOSED UU ILDINGG LOCAI ION R' IDY�P �� 1 I I `� 1 INFOHMATILN/ TAKEN FROM PLAN ENTITLED 'MEADONUHOOK CUNUOMINIMUMS - ` • _ - I I I SITE PLAN" BY CS ANDIIIECTS STAMP DATED DECEMBER IJ, IVOB. \� 2. EXISTING WAIER MAIN LOCATION AND EXISTING SANIIAHY SEWEH V. } �I f LOCATION/ELEVATIONS IAKLN FOHM UNTITLED PIg10CUPY PROVIDED BY CS �1 �1es Jl( °L [GARAGE � ARCH ITLC75. ALL INFONMAIIUN MUSI BL VEHIFILD IN FILLO PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. J. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DHAINAUE FEATURES BY FITZPATRICK- P , LLEWELLYN INCOHPURATED. - _ W - ,W- /I _ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPIIUNt ELEVEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND CARPORTS WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICES ON APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES. DRAINAGE T---�� IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED 10 CORRECT / 1 EXISTING PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH of iH15 3 PROJECT. 5. UTISTING WATER SANITARY SEWERS RESIDE WITHIN AND EXISTING 20' J i ;_ ��" II � �- � I • � __ ` / —` %-_-Y-� UTILITY EASEMENTT4NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY). 6. FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND EROSION CONTROL SEE SHEET e, L "J. I I 7. FOOTING DRAIN DESIGN BY ARCHITECT. B. 0' SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.004 1/1. 6" SANITARY SEWER - MINIMUM SLOPE 0.006 1/1. t I � BUILDING G w �. lot- SPACES LEGEND r - 12--CA ARTS ,,X _,TOLL 'I� _ f/! wa.Q . I �J __,._ "a -Ta! P -RTY I— I .I r ;= i _7q__. OI-- � / � f' 1 •.• __.—i veo►oslo eo4a o. Nv[rENj � i 1-,, � � // 1 \ -_� _- _—_ � __ __ •.,ST,.+4 cowTo�a � _IE 1 ___-- -.-_ t. --- I (-_ �V ►tOPO1a0 GrrwTbJt L.4E " I C 1F\- ' A � � J � J � o _ . r . • v o .TNT oC [ U.W LIJ! If 71 - - .- ' � ( Ij � ,"•. � � --. i va.°[ To .[..a�L' .-0..i° a..� °� .[o aap oa., waa w4t II e T . y _ _ __ _ _ 9I ._.°o-_ _ _ .._ Q _ ■.raTLM, w.Tee u..a /w.ra .o Nre.�-r '� I _ _ / . „ [ / - � Mr "� • PeoPotao .wTae Ll..e wML.E o..Y--T O p c�LG L.TaD r'+Talaac TloN $ a.,aT, +q Po.�a[ roLc I '. ., .Iva- W ` __J •., / � I �D �—_�-_-► aeT Mc T L,.+a i SCALE: 1" • 20' - --- 1°° �/ Z. 10 I�.. .,, s:: el, 1 Iro M DOWBROOK n IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY* TO ENSURE THESE DRAW/NGS - SITE C.a UTILITIES PLAN --- ^ n I I\ r I INCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. BUILDING "91 � / � .' I fFc Im.so I - gyp} p\�p� M-/�Mo MA_RCH 199O JI ��L5 V'V?��� 11 IED INCORPORATED INe„o nwni --1 ft—I.. suvm[S -------b I NO. REVISIONS DATE WILLISTON VERMONT I RECEIVED VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD l FEB 24 1989 10 V. S.A. , Chapter 151 MANAGER'§16FFldouth Burlington Realty Co. by Prehearing Conference (`ITY OF S0. SURLINGWe A. Rocheleau, Esq. Report and Order Downs Rachlin & Martin Land Use Permit P.O. Box 190 #4C0154-5-EB Burlington, VT 05402-0190 On February 1, 1989, a prehearing conference was convened by Environmental Board Chairman Leonard U. Wilson in South Burlington, Vermont, with the following parties participating: South Burlington Realty Co. (SBRC) by William Schroeder, Esq., Dale Rocheleau, Esq., and Gregory Dicovitsky Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. (Meadowbrook) by Douglas K. Riley, Esq. On October 24, 1988, Meadowbrook filed an appeal from Land Use Permit #4C0154-5 issued by the District #4 Environmental Commission on September 19. On November 10 the Executive Officer sent a letter to Meadowbrook indicating that the appeal was filed more than 30 days from issuance of the District Commission's decision and would be dismissed, but provided opportunity for Meadowbrook to respond before it was dismissed. On November 21, Meadowbrook filed a memorandum in support of its appeal and, in the alternative, a motion to revoke the permit. Meadowbrook contends a) that its appeal should be considered timely filed since it was sent to the Board on October 12, 1988, the 23rd day of the appeal period, and b) that the permit issued to SBRC should be revoked for failure of SBRC to list Meadowbrook as a person with a substantial interest in the land on its application, in violation of Rule 10, and for failure of SBRC to serve notice to Meadowbrook of the amendment application, in violation of Rule 12 (d) . At the prehearing conference, SBRC argued that the revocation request should be dismissed because it constitutes an improper collateral attack and stated it will file a motion to dismiss the revocation petition. The parties identified the following issues and agreed to file briefs for the Board's decision: 1. Whether the permit amendment is void because Meadowbrook was not sent notice of the application and was not made a co -applicant. 2. Whether the appeal filed by Meadowbrook from Land Use Permit amendment #4C0154-5 was timely filed. Prehearing Conference Report and order Page 2 3. Whether there were any material or substantial changes to the project. 4. Whether the filing of an application to extend a construction completion date allows review of impacts in the absence of any material or substantial changes to the project. 5. Whether this revocation petition constitutes an improper collateral attack. If Meadowbrook asserts that there are changes to the project, Meadowbrook will file a statement of facts listing those changes. If SBRC disputes the assertion of Meadowbrook, SBRC shall so inform the Board and an evidentiary hearing will be held. On February 15, both SBRC and Meadowbrook filed briefs. Reply briefs must be filed on or before March 1. • A public hearing will be held on March 8, 1989 at 1:30 p.m. at the Montpelier City Hall, Main Street, Montpelier, Vermont for the parties to present oral argument on the legal issues raised in this matter. Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 23rd day of February, ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Leonard U. Wilson, Chairman PH 4C0154-5 (APL20) / CERTIFICATE OF SERV-J I hereby certify that I, Stephanie J. Kaplan, Executive Officer, Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing Notice of Oral Argument and Prehearing Conference Report and Order by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 23rd day of February, 1989, to the following: South Burlington Realty Co. by Dale A. Rocheleau, Esq. Downs Rachlin & Martin P.O. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402-0190 Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc, by Michael Marks, Esq. Lisman & Lisman P.O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402 City of South Burlington Board of Councilmen and Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 S. Main St. - 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Harris G. Abbott, manager Land Records Office University of Vermont 339 Waterman Building Burlington, VT 05405-0160 Louis Borie District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Jct., VT 05452 Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 23rd day of February, 1989. By Stephanie J. Ka r'] ;� n - .✓' Executive Officer Environmental Board s. J South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 October 26, 1989 Mr. Peter Jacob South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Land Use Permit # 4C0503 Dear Mr. Hogan: Enclosed is a copy of our Application for Land Use Permit Amendment to our Permit #4C0503, for your information. If you should have any questions please Dicovitsky or me at South Burlington Realty. Thank you. Si cere y, - J n G. Jaeger contact Gregory Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT 'MENDMENT to 1,el-mit #4CO503 RUCTIONS: Use this form for minor Land Use Permit amendments, including permit trnnnfe Applications for permit transfers are to be completed by the traneforreo. rION 1 - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY pplicatiora No.: Filing Date: aws Involved: Deemed Completed By, ee: rION II - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT ( 802) 86 3-90 39 APPLICANT: South Burlington Realty_ Co. , 366 Dorset St., S.Burl. , W 0540.3 (Name) ,r (Ad ress) (Phone &o PROPERTY OWNER: same as above (Name) (Address) (Phone #) PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ABOUT THIS APPLICATION (Complete only if different than 01) Gregory A. Dicovitsky same same (Name) (Address) (Phone N) WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY? fee simple IF YOU ARE NOT FILING THIS APPLICATION AS AN INDIVIDUAL, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWINGS Corporation 4/7/62 Vt. 4/7/62 (Legal Entity) (Date Formed) (State) (Date registered in VT WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE PERMIT: Extend _completion date for roads and a;tilities from ll/l/89 to 11_/1/92. DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM INFORMATION IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICA' a. Acreage in the entire tract of land b. Acreage in this project ` C. Date the project will be started d. Date the project will be completed 1 1 2 e. Funding or bonding of this project f. Municipal services to be used. g. Estimated construction cost "ION III - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PERMIT TRANSFERS TRANSFERREE: I hereby agree to complete this project as set forth in the applicatioi Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Land Use Permit 0 ,and as amended above: (Transferree) TRANSFER.ROR: I hereby agree to the transfer of Land Use Permit 0 as set forth above: (Transferror) 'ION IV - NOTICE TO PARTIES - TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS FOR ACT 250 PROJECTS This application must be signed by the applicant and landowner. By signing this applicat n, the applica assumes responsibility for t informatiory providod and, w the ame dment invoXVptI ct 250, confirms that the town selectmen, planning commissior and ional 1 ommission were given a copy o the application as required. s si e of app cant ate ' (signatu olandowner South I1-6- Aington Realty G Aipany 366 Dorset Strcct, 1'.0. Box 2267 South Iiurlingtf►n, Vermont 05403 (8O2) !i(i3-(i34)1 uctober 31 • i 'ar+•i Mr. Louis Rorie District Envirunmental Comm:issi on 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont. 05452 Re: Corporate Circle (Land U^e Pormi.t #4C()o')03) Dean Mr. Borie, Enc.l osed is an appl icat.i on for an citrrF ri cimr•r,t to i ;IF' referenced Land Use Permit. Tbfe amendmei-0-. w , rer.11.ae::i i:, tr,( ;;,I extension of i_tie i.ompl etimi drat e for threr- Yer:arr;. The project is incomplete i:r,1. two ha^ic cF!azrfill 5_. k'ira� until the last quarter of I' H8, Il-i,,r(, wa-.n't. av;ailr)l.,,,• -ewoI (11, in the South Burl.inaton sv :tem. Second, si.nc.r, l 'Wt) i t',-' (.'i t.v South Burlington has been 1n t be proce ss of rev.oa►.ina t111:; , 0 ,1:: its City Center. Althoucill the zr)ning i:,-, at.i l l bF,mq t:irifa 1 r,nF•(! it i s now subs -;taut i s 1. 1 y come,1 c t e. South BTar i i nqt on +r:-a i t v !r 17 bf-en cooperai i.nCJ t:1.1.IIY wii h the ('i.ty in cr►aat:.i)iq 111,- E)r.r,r, �. framework for (-mr. :_harem on;als,. Physical construction ha,.; . however. , corgi i.tal.lr^r.. The wat.el and sewer systems; have bwen Reg arr.ii i.m 1'nt i.—lo l WaY approximately three quarters of t.hf� base cuurs, and h:+l. fir:;tpaving course are in iAar:r.,. In addit:iun wF b-ole ro,,1.nl IY sigried. an agreement wi.t.h th, 1.,'ity oI- 5ol.a.t h i31.1t I.irig t'.or' cooperate in the desicin •::anal construction on tla(, Corpr,rai— W%av { Hinesburg Road intersection. IIo :ar.f> currently desiranina out- next pr.oiec.t. phase on a six acre r.arc.el and hope to burin di:.(-iis:limy it with the Planning Commission before years F�nf:i. Si.nce the df:,l <ay-; .i 11 c ompI rat :i oi1 have bc:.-era ; -ar (ieI y t,r ► r ::+ t i of either situations beyond our control (e.a. lark rA Gf weticl- capaci.t.y) and out desire to vroceed in coopoi 0 i oil wi I h t t,f, i ( v , we ask that our reaues t. he granted. Thank vo1i i-oT volir he i t, . Cordially, c,r'✓r�or Dicovitsky Enclosure Poin►c Real htilalc — Commercial, Residcutial, Industrial I)evc1opnicnt lksigll, Build. Lease, Continiting PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 5 Mr. O'Brien said total lot coverage would be 44% with building coverage at 80. They will provide more parking than required. 264 spaces are required and they propose 286. The building will have 3 floors. Landscaping will be brought up to standard. Screening is a problem as they can't berm on the side. It was suggested that screening be accomplished with plantings. They will also ask for credit for the wooded area on the lot. The building will be 45 ft. high and there will be additional setback to compensate for the height. Mr. O'Brien said they have agreed to take out the curb cuts from the original road and put in regular curbs across the curb cut areas. The water system will be looped to meet the Fire Chief's request. There will be 3 hydrants. The building will be sprinklered. INS anticipates 218 employees. They will use 56,000 sq. ft. of the building. The rest would be leased to other tenants. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realty Company to revise and construct the remaining ll units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive Mr. Craig stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Dicovitsky said the original plan did not have a loop road. It has been put in at the request of the Fire Chief. One unit has been moved to leave more space between the older and the new buildings. Carports have been relocated. Regarding drainage, there is a commitment that no new construction adversely affect what is already on the site. Older drainage problems have existed since before 1980. There is a court directed award in this matter and all drainage probelms will be able to be taken care of the the condominium association. Mr. Llewellyn said they have agreed to bring a storm sewer with 2 drop inlets and a berm so all storm water will be directed away from the older development (Cluster B) where there is a problem. Mrs. Maher asked if the Commission can be concerned with an old drainage problem. Mr. Weith said they can but he didn't know what this developer could do about it. They don't have control PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 6 over the older units. The Court has ordered them to pay an amount to the condo association to alleviate the problem. Mr. Weith added that the City Engineer says the current plan is OK. Ms. Pritchard of East Woods noted that the East Woods residents oppose any additional development because of traffic problems in the area. They beleive any new traffic is a detriment to what is already an unbearable problem. She noted there are over 450 cars in their neighborhood in peak hours. Mrs. Maher explained that the Commission cannot deny the present application on that basis as they can't review off -site traffic. Mr. Dicovitsky said they had had Tom Adler review the traffic situation. He read a letter from Mr. Adler saying the planned units would add 3 cars in the peak hour. Mr. Schultz said he had learned last night of a letter regarding drainage. He said that Gil Barlow has said nothing about being completely satisfied with what is proposed by the developer. Mr. Weith said he had spoken with Mr. Barlow and that Mr. Barlow agrees in concept with what is proposed. He wants to see it on paper. Mr. Dicovitsky said they would agree to stipulations that these concerns are met. Mr. Dicovitsky said they feel that the amount being asked for landscaping is too high. Mr. Weith said there is no precedent on how to deal with this. Mr. Llewellyn said the landscape plan will be revised to reflect the new drainage plan. There will be a berm on the south side. AFter a brief discussion, members agreed that $8,000.00 in landscaping would be acceptable. Ms. Peacock moved that the Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington rEalty company to revise and construct the 11 remaining units (Phase V) of a 50 unit planned residential development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums as depicted on a 7 age set of plans page one entitled "Meadow - brook, Site & Utilities Plan," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc, and dated March, 1990, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall pay the $200 per unit recreation fee prior to permit. 2.The applicant shall ost an $8,000 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. 3. The drainage plan shall be revised prior to permit to address the concerns raised in the letter dated 5/3/90 from Gill Barlow of Kni ht Consulting Engineers. The revised drainage plan shall be i PLANNING COMMISSION 5 JUNE 1990 page 7 approved by the City Engineer prior to permit. 4. The Revised Final Plat shall be recorded in the office of the City Clerk within 90 days or this approval is null and void. Mr. Belter seconded the motion which then passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm. Clerk Key to: Knight Consulting engineers, Inc. Ireliminary Surface Water Drainage Ilan 7-7-84 August 6, 1984 MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS BUDGET COST SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE UPGRADES Upgrade (in order of priorities) Description Cost $ 1. New 24-inch storm sewer outfall and catch 8200 basin 2. New stone lined swale and 15-inch diameter 1800 culvert 3. New 15-inch storm sewer, catch basin, 15-inch 4000 culvert and 8-inch underdrain 4. Seed existing swale along Rice High School 900 boundary and upgrade outlet 5. Install new catch basin and replace existing 3400 8-inch storm sewer with 15-inch storm sewer 6. New 8-inch underdrain along main entrance 9700 roadway w/catch basin 7. New swale along main entrance road 2500 8. New swale and outlet along west side of 2100 carports for A & B units 9. New swale and regrading along north side of 4700 B units 10. Improve swale north of B units 2600 11. Install 8-inch storm sewer with 3 catch basins 9100 along west side of A Units 12. Improve swale northwest of E units 1400 13. Install swale and regrade along west side of 6600 C units - Meadowbrook Condominiums Preliminary Cost Summary Page 2 14. Install swale and regrade along north side of 4700 D units 15. Install Swale and regrade along west side of 12600 E units 16. Install swale and regrade along north side of 1700 units F-5, F-6, and F-7 17. Construct swale along north end of C units 600 $76600 "Rain or Shine" Polypropylene Lanterns Built to stand up to the weather, these attractive polypropylene lanterns are virtually "main- tenance free," as they never requir painting, will not rust, corrode or fade in color. -9322 WH K-9313 ------------ Number Finish Diffuser Lamps Dimensions Hgt. from center _ o wall openino K-9307 K-9307 Black White Clear acrylic Clear acrylic 1-60-W. Max. 1-60-W. Max. (M) (M) Hgt. 17%2", Width 73/4", Extension 83/4" Hgt. 17%2", Width 7:'4", Extension 83/4" 10'12 10'/2" K-9312 K-9312 Black White White Lexan(3 White Lexan(O 1-60-W. Max. 1-60-W. Max. (M) (M) Hgt. 71/2", Width 6", Extension 63/4" Hgt. 7%2", Width 6", Extension 63/4" 2'/2" 2%2" K-9313 Black Clear LexanrJ 1-60-W. Max. (M) Hgt. 7%2", Width 6", Extension 63/4" 2Y2" K-9317 Black Textured clear acrylic 1.60-W. Max. (M) Hgt. 171/2", Widt'- 8", Extension 8'/4" 11' ♦ K-9320 ♦ K-9320 Black White Frosted white glass Frosted white glass 1-60-W. Max. 1-60-W. Max. (M) (M) 8'/4" Square, Hgt. 43/4" 8'/4" Square, Hgt. 43/4" ♦ K-9322 ♦ K-9322 Black White Frosted white glass Frosted white glass 2-60-W. Max. 2-60-W. Max. (M) (M) 10%4" Square, Hgt. 5%2" 10%4" Square, Hgt. 51/2" K-9341 White "White Polycarbonate 1-60-W. Max. (M) Hgt. 73/4", Width 51/4", Extension 4" 33/4" K-9342 White *White Polycarbonate " 1-7-W. Twin Tube Fluorescent Hgt. 73/4", Width 5/", Extension 4" 33/4" C E 11 ♦U.L. listed for damp location 'Prismatic Polycarbonate '"Minimum starting temperature for 7-W. fluorescent twin -tube is 01 F. 184 KICHLER LIGHTING Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 May 8, 1982 Mr. Bill Szymanski City Manager City of South Burlington Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Bill, RECEI MAY 1 1. °198? MAPJAGER'S 0r=FICE CITY So. Rur7LINGTON This letter is follow-up to a conversation you had with Dave Kaufman yesterday at Carl Lisman's office. The attached letter from South Burlington Realty and our request to Carl Lisman to prevent inappropriate action by Munson are self-explanatory. Dave tells me that you agreed to write a letter to Munson informing him that the City wishes the work to be done by the end of May or after October 1. We would appreci- ate a copy of the letter and ask that you might also send a copy to Carl Lisman. We very much appreciate your cooper- ation on this matter. It is important to our homeowners that the city be protecting them when possible from mis- treatment by developers. As long as this letter is in the machine, I might also mention that we hope the City is keeping an eye on the other areas of our problems with Munson, and is prepared to assist us when possible. Thank you very much. Sin rely, Hal emp, resident cc: Carl Lisman I South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington. Vermont 0 401 (802) 863-6391 May 5, 1982 Mr. Hal Kemp Board of Directors Meadowbrook Condominium Association Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Relocation of water line and installation of valves Dear Hal, Pursuant to our conversation last weekend relating to the above mentioned items, please be advised that we are planning to start work as weather permits, within the next 30 to 45 days. Since we will be working around, and in the rear of "C" carport, it would not be wise for anyone to plant their gardens until we have completed our work. We hope to be able to work out an efficient procedural plan so as to cause a minimal disruption of services. If you have any further questions please feel free to call. Ve truly yours, SO BURLINGTON REALTY CORP. Douglas Schner Develop ent Coordinator DCS/cm Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting i • Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive ® South Burlington, Vermont 05401 May 8, 1982 Mr. Carl Lisman Attorney at Law 191 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Carl, As per your conversation with Dave Kaufman yesterday, we are again concerned with the Munson situation, most specifically at this time in regards to the relocation of the water line which runs under the C carport. The attached letter indicates a plan by Munson to do this work during the month of June, which would render the vegetable garden used by many owners useless for the summer, as well as tear up the pavement in front of the C carport just when summer is beginning, kids are playing, people are having guests, etc. We feel this continuing "steamroller" approach by Munson is intolerable nad should not be permitted. Dave indicates that Bill Szymanski was in your office on Friday and that he agreed that, although the City wants the lined relocated, it should not be done at the expense of homeowners. The attached letter to Bill reiterates his willingness to inform Munson that the work should be per- formed before the end of May or after October first, so as not to inconvenience the Association. Please take whatever action is necessary to insure that the above is understood and complied with by Munson. We also question the status of replacement couplings which must be those behind D building - that is, whether they are going to be replaced and whether that also will raise a question of destroying backyards at the peak of the summer season. Additionally please keep close tabs on the sewer pump system. Doug Schner has told Dave and I that Munson sees nothing wrong with the existing system. Obviously they are going to try and get away with leaving it as is. Please remind whoever makes the final decision on the matter that we currently spend $2000 per year maintaining the "adequate" system. We're just a little concerned that he may sneak something past us if we are not right on our toes. Guess that's about it for water and sewer. Let me know if there is any action we should take, and also the status of the C water line, so me may tell owners to plant their gardens without worry. Thank you. S i c , cc: Bill Szymanski al Kemp re ent �ii7wJ4d.�i�`i^s .''ti, .""�.L"'x��-�!j�a�".Ff'.l'Y:-''{��"""^'1..^: t;'.'iJ'*'::.'�.-'�..., .t :,• ..�� 1•.y .�t.t �.. ov1t{t•�i�wnn.�+'%�7�'Si ';1`��.�1�7 i•�°Y��►r=, City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET '�''�.r' �!� •, ,, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS401 TEL. 963-2891 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER W"SAM 1. UV AANM May 10, 1982 Munson Earth -Moving Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Attns Douglas Schner Dear Doug: I have been informed that you intend to undertake corrections at the Meadowbrook Development, mainly water main and sewage pump- ing station. There is great concern among residents that the water main relocation will disturb a garden plot. I urge you to get this work done within a week or two at the very latest, so as not to lose these gardens, this year. Prior to any work, you must notify Bob Gardner, Superintend- ent of our Water Department to go over the work and also the day that construction is to start. The water department must also inspect the work prior to any back -filling. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. Very trul y. urs, William✓ J /Szymanski City Manager WJS/b ec: Robert Gardner, Superintendent South Burlington Water Department RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY J OSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL SPOKES, '®LEY & 01BUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS402 August 20, 1981 Mr. William Szymanski City Manager Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Munson Earthmovinq - Meadowbrook Dear Bill:' (SO2) 862-6451 (802) 863-2657 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL I received a telephone call from Susan Haitsma of the Agency of Environmental Conservation Protection Division regarding the above. As a follow-up to this call, I re- ceived a letter, a copy of which is enclosed. It does not look like the Protection Division will be pursuing this matter. It is possible that the Attorney General's office will pursue it on behalf of the Depart- ment of Health. Meanwhile, it appears as though Munson will be con- tacting the City to try to resolve the situation so that he may construct the next phase. This should be our best handle on solving the remaining situation. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Very truly yours, Joseph F. Obuchowski JFO/gmt Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator!/ State e. )Verryiont, Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation Department of Water Resources Division of Protection Natural Resources Conservation Council Department.of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering Kenneth Stone Technical Services Department of Health 60 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Ken: AGI;,'CY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COiNSERVATION DIVISION OF PROTECTION TEL: 828-3341 State Office Buildil Montpelier, VT 0560: August 18, 1981 RE: Munson Earth -Moving Corporation Land Use Permit #4C0154 Meadowbrook Condominiums South Burlington. Vermont Canute Dalmasse and I have reviewed the file on -this case -once again. We intend to take no further action on it because the violation of the Act 250 permit relates only to South Burlington app.roval and to your approval. The City has taken no further action since it filed a Notice of Claim. Please contact Merideth Wright, Esq., Environmental Division of the Attorney General's office, if you would like her to pursue the case on your behalf. We are not comfortable doing so, especially when William Duffy, Environmental Engineer, apparently signed off on it for the Agency of Environmental Conservation in a Certification of Compliance dated 11/25/74. I understand that Mr. Munson may be attempting to resolve the problems shortly because he would like to construct the final phase of units. Please let us know if you would like our continued involvement. Very truly yours, XIc. (=, r Susan G. Haitsma SGH:hg Permit Administrator i CC: Merideth Wright, Esq. Joseph Obuchowski, Esq. i RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI SPOKES 8 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 December 19, 1978 Mr. Richard Ward, City Zoning Administrator Mr. Stephen Page, City Planner City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Zoning and Occupancy Permits Gentlemen: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 We are having some difficulty with the Meadowbrook Condominium Development and Munson. I would suggest that you contact both Bill and myself before issuing any more zoning or occupancy permits. Very truly,..y-tiurs, ,.:_.N Richard Sp es RAS/ccb cc: William Szymanski MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. 366 DORSET STREET a SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 EITELEPHONE 863-6391 RFCEIVED June 8, 1979 JUN 11 1979 MA,'4AGE[R'S OFFICE Mr. William S3y, 2mianski CITY SO. BURLINGTON City Manager City of South Burlington Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Meadowbrook Condominiums Dear Bill: At the direction of the city, and subject to written agreements, V vie, in cooperation with Hr. Ed Blake, of the Champlain Water District turned on the Spear Street connection and shut off the L' Joy Drive line at approximately 2:10 171M todaZT June 8, 1979. At approximately 3:00 PH today, Ed Blake contacted me in response to an earlier call. At that time I asked him what kind of Dressi.ires he was running. He told me that the pressure in Joy Drive was approximately 28 P.S.I. and the pressure at Meadowbrool from the new service was approximatly 130 P.S.I. We feel the 130 P.S.I. is an excessive working pressure which approaches the design limit of the distribution piping , laterals and residential plumbing fixtures. Please be advised that we will replacement or damage caused to property with the condominiums. V V. fr ;Fours t U11 1101==S lAr chlael SEE Ran Proj ect Manar-er Q not be responsible for the repair, the system and/or personal OF A E S K I L L fF INTEGRITY ... SIR, HEAVY CONSTRUCTION e ROADS o WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS III SITE WORK e EQUIPMENT RENTALS Meadowbrook Condominium Association . Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 January 22, 1979 Mr. Michael Ram Meadowbrook Condominium Project Manager South Burlington Realty Corp. 366 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Mr. Ram, RFc,pIVFD j A.N 2 5 1979 MANA— s f : __ CITY SO. �UrUTtG:O.I The members of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association are extremely concerned about the continuing low water pressure. The Board of Directors is committed to obtaining an adequate supply of water for the entire Meadowbrook Condominium Association. The Board of Directors recognizes the existence of a dis- pute between South Burlington Realty and/or Munson Earthmoving and the City of South Burlington. Howevdr, to place the develop- ment in a hazardous and inconvenient situation because of the dispute is wrong. The Board of Directors therefore requests that the new water line be put to use without delay. South Burlington Realty and/or Munson Earthmoving are welcome to continue the dispute with the city but not at the expense, endangerment, or inconvenience of the Meadowbrook homeowners. Please respond to the above matter, indicating your corporation's intentions. cc: C/o�Argly Wil Crg, President Mearo Condominium Association Randall Munson William Szymanski, City Manager Carl Lisman, Attorney at Law 1 _ MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. r 366 DORSET STREET • SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERt;',ONT 05301 • TELEP►If3fiE KI•litil February 11 1979 R 7 r, F I it F 0 Mr. William Craig President M ..c� r Meadowbrook Condominium Association Unit C-7.:: Joy Drive South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Mr. Craig, In response to your letter of January 22, 1979, regarding the Association's concern over the low water pressure, I am writing to offer some background information and state our corporation's intentions. We certainly appreciate the concern the Association has regarding the situation and we have contacted the South Burlington fire chief and instructed him as to which valves should be opene"k and/or closed to provide adequate pressure in case of a fire emergency. Back in June, 1974, at the project inception, we received a letter from Bill Szymanski stating that the project could be connected to the city's water and sewer systems, which are adequate to handle the development. Based upon these assurances we proceeded with the project. At a later date it was determined that, in fact, the pressure available was inadequate to provide fire protec- tion to the project as well as the Joy Drive commercial area. At that time the city proposed and installed a new 8" water main at Farrel Drive which would connect the Joy Drive service to the Champlain Valley Water System. This effort did not solve the problem; and at that time we were requested to extend the water line from the Meadowbrook property to the Spear Street main over the lands owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This right-of-way was given by license agreement between UVM, the City of South Burling -ton, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The work was instigated by the city, not only to provide fire protection for Meadowbrook, but to improve the services for future o `moo 6[Ill HEAVY CONSTRUCTION • ROADS • WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS • SITE WORK • EQUIPMENT RENTALS Mr. William Craig Page 2 February 11 1979 development along Joy Drive and that future section of the town. In Mr. Szymanski's letter of July 2, 1976 to our Mr. Jim Wallace he indicated that he would recommend to the Board of Water Commissioners that they acquire the new line if the study showed that it would be beneficial or necessary for satisfactory fire protection for the commercial development on Joy Drive. Munson Earth -Moving Corporation installed the 8" connector and performed the work subject to the approval of the City of South Burlington and it was understood that the city would reimburse Munson Earth -Moving Corporation for their work. It is our company's position that until the City of South Burlington settles its debt, Munson Earth -Moving Corp will not turn on the Spear Street connector. 1", 1979 DleadowLrook. Condominium Ass6ciation Joy Drive South 3urlington, Vermont 05401 Attu. IAr. Williwa o- . Craig. President Dear .fir. Craig, lie city Council iias requested that I place you on the Atj.t--iida for tlliu City A,-"ouricil Meeting of IIarch 19, 1979, as per your re(Iuest. `i'lic iciectirig is scrLoduled to at 7-..'j'6 in tila City hall. Conference, floom, 1175 vlilliston R.oad, Sout'i Burlington, Vermont. Vcry truly your-,..;, J. Szymanski C-ity .'-Iariagccr Meadowbrook Condominium Association • Joy Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 March 1, 1979 RECEIVED The City Council City of South Burlington 5 ��%� South Burlington, Vermont 05401 MAR - Dear Council Members, MANAGER'S U' FICE: CITY SO. BURLING j ON The Meadowbrook Condominium Development on Joy Drive is caught in the middle of a conflict between South Burlington Realty Corporation, the developer, and the City of South Burlington, concerning water lines. This situation has existed for at least six months and represents a hazard to the home- owners. To explain simply; the Meadowbrook development's water is currently coming from a Joy Drive line when it should be coming from a new line that was layed many months ago from Spear Street. Because a dispute arose between the developer and the City over payment for the new line, it has never been turned on. The result of the above situatbn is that Meadowbrook homeowners suffer; specifically: 1) Water pressure is insuf- ficient and is in.fact lost completely at times; 2) The insuf- ficient water pressure represents an extreme fire hazard which has been confirmed by South Burlington's fire chief; 3) No alternative source of water for fire department use exists because of the isolated nature of the development; 4) The fire hazard is a threat to the safety of the thirty-four families living in the development, many with children. Despite constant and repeated communication between the Meadowbrook Condominium Association Board of Directors and both South Burlington Realty Corporation and City Manager William Szymanski; absolutely no action has been taken that has resolved the problem. Meadowbrook Condominium Association has no objection to South Burlington Realty Corporation and the City of South Burl- ington continuing their dispute, but not at the expense of thirty-four families, and several million dollars worth of real estate. The Meadowbrook Condominium Association Board of Directors therefore requests an appearance before the South Burlington City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting to discuss and immediately resolve the problem. Your prompt reply will be appreciated. Thank you very much. S' c rp y, Pl� illiam J raig, resident Meadowbro Cond inium Association cc$ Mr. Carl Lisman Mr. William Szymanski MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. 366 DORSET STREET *SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 *TELEPHONE 863-6391 February 12, 1979 City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05401 IN`V0 ICE Re: Maple Sugar Lab Water Line Amount Now Due 6 203332.48 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 9 ROADS * WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS e SITE WORK * EQUIPMENT RENTALS r. ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of June, 1Q77, by and between Munson Earth Moving Corp. of South Burlington, Ve=ont, (hereinafter referred to as the Developers), the City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation in Chittenden County,` S*,e °(.)f Vermont, (hereinafter referred to as the City) and the Chittenden Trust Company, a banking institution with its principal's play'$ business in Burlington, Chittenden County, bite of Ve$ • e ' after referred to as the Bank); :�uasa WITNESSEETH : 9 WHEREAS, the Developers are presently engaged in the d'evelopnent'and sale of fourteen (14) condominium units in a development known as Meadowbrook Condominiums in South Burlington, Vermont, and -in order to comply with the ordinances, laws and regulations of:the City and its constituent commissions and officers, has executed simultaneous ly with this Escrow Agreement, an Agreement with the City.in which it has agreed, among other things, as follows:t��t� 1) Developers hereby covenant and agree that -it -will rhk; within one (1) year from the date hereof make all improvement in accordance with the plans on "file -L for Phase III of the 'M@adoirbrook Condominium 'bevel-- opment, including Wiemarih and Lamphere Architects (Yr. drawing No. 2. dated Seg�ember 9, 1975, road'and �nco sanitary sewer design by W.'Bohlen revised date of • ,S_ July 18, 9?5 all requitements as set forth by City Planning ` ommu ssion at the ,meeting held Mey 10, '1977, " , and instAlation of an '8" '�_iater main as shown on a waterline layout drawing W. C. Bohlen date+` October, 1975 WHEREAS, tha City and Developers have by said Agreement agreed to an Escrow arrangement for the benefit of the City, as provided herein in the event the Developers for p any reason on. `'to perform its c"14tment and 9�ligations set forth in said Agreement with thE 1 ,se ate x, • a,: , jCity, ' 1 ;'WHEREAS, the Developers have deposited simultaneously with the; `Escrow agreement �a a c w ii`v. 4f i T 1%ntv Thousand Dollars ( 20,000.00) in the bank, and �itREAS,-the Bank will keep said deposit in escrow for the benefit of the City and has agreed to disburse the funds in accordance with the terms hereinafter set forth; x RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. 0BUCHOWSKI SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 Sou-n4 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 January 31, 1979 Lloyd Portnow, Esquire 117 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Lloyd: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 Enclosed please find a copy of a letter received by South Burlington from the Meadowbrook Condominium Association. To be absolutely frank, it would appear your client is being unreasonable to the extent of jeopardizing the safety of the residents of Meadowbrook. Would you please do whatever you can to convince him of the importance of this situation. If he feels he has a claim against the City, it should be resolved as a separate matter. Any attempt to exert pressure in this fashion I am sure will be used against your client should he have a viable position. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS/ccb Enclosure X cc:4,'William Szymanski, Manager, City of South Burlington tit STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES MAN/-�G`,-ra•S �, r :. `-. CITY 00. EtUi2Lii 'u`' Mr. Michael Ram Project Manager South Burlington Realty Corp. 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Ram: DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTH 60 MAIN STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401. (802) 862-5701 January 30, 1979 Re: Meadowbrook Condominiums South Burlington, Vermont We have located copies of your plans for the above referenced project. Apparently, these documents were submitted in 1974, although approval was never issued for construction. So that we may continue with our review as specified by your Permit, please submit corrected plans and specifications as requested by Mr. Kenneth M. Stone's letter of December 19, 1974. At that time we will develop a schedule whereby compliance with the conditions of your Permit can be met. Very truly yours, Gl ce -'4 / /� Lane A. Llewellyn, P.E. Sanitary Engineer Division of Environmental Health cc: Richard Trudell William J. Szymanski, City Manager, South Burlington Tom Nesbitt P. Howard Flanders Susan Cain, District Environmental Coordinator Ben Scotch Steve Goodkind Ll C� 1 7 19 le, MANAGk-R'S 4o1TFI0i;; CITY SO. BURLINGTON RICHARD A. SpoiLEs JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 Sou-i-H BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 octobar 106, 1976 iAoa Chitten6en Trust Company Att.-'­Mr. Edward A. Flowers Vice Presideat C(, itutiercial L(.-)ar, Department Two Burlington Square Burlington, Vermont 0.53402 R;. loluason !: arta i''iovixlci Corr). ocar Ld: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-285 City of 6out,j Durljr tten p I n s c . C_�Ii don Trust Coal aiy and ..,arth vlovi�'I(� an t,,groel�(,e tit CT of I De ve, I .11 conneccion ta JL "d Agr -y i-rj sai y (;a, a,�;ity t1le Cit�j, Mi";­ ral��Ilt, this is to ZAJLVI�,o voa tkiat f t, ae Lartii .1,iovinj Corp. o 11 alid t* N4reemaat referred to ill t;je Lscrow Agroei,.iei'lt. �L�,L -- I ispro) rs �City is vi_a-, to i.r t! safety 0i tile nas not J)een wxiteteh6ei 4. oJIs f;.posed toelid beConnecLd t0ilell e.a understand t`Aat tiiis aafr et et to OccUr. uas t I y r ti1L rc)a,.Away with d O,�. r, �; af �,,"j an�! Lai,,ipilerel adequatL, tUraaround as CIL-il;icti-�r' tle II a has not be(31, completaki. By col,�y of this 1(_,tter, wejre advisjyjcansoartMovi-19, C0 r taat if teje ,ill 20 days Of thel aj)ove itellis are aot COMLletO& A� ;, date of this letter, tij: City of South ilurlinqtoi�. will proceed to have t-he 'r ori. dOne wil-11 the funds being b"I Trust Company. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes R,yz)/Ccl) - cc 1. Aijnson Larr,11 City Manager ofilliam Szymanski, South Burlington C Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Cy YaY 17, 1976 . � t° . s ' 'allace Nnson `_arth Yovint Corp. 366 orset trFet ut T url ing ton , VT 05401 Mis is to "ormally confirm the action of the :_youth Tur inEton Manning Commission on lay 71, 1976 in a provin;- an a er dment to Phase I of Yeadowtrook Condominiums, consi:tin7 of two tennis courts aN a swimming pool, as on. plan entitled "Site Ilan badowbrook ' or.dominiums", 15 nt & lc, Tsec. 1971. The Commission further iapproved tho renaming of your private str >et serving this --�1 N valopment as Joy Orive. The, approval or the arpndment to Phase I is conditioned or, our satisf;• KF the "its 'nZineer's r< commendations on VnAn court drainage plus, of course, conformity to the City's zoning ordinance (exceptiny your varianee). YL `ours truly, Aephen -aCe Planning assist At ` P/j RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 Decerber 13, 1972 Lloyd A. Portnow, Esquire Samuelson, Portnow, Lang, & 14'iller, Ltd. 117 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vermont 03401 Re : M.eadowbrook--Phase III . Escrow Agreement Dear Lloyd: R F 0 E I V F D CITY Sty. E1URL1ivo,rokt 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 I have your letter of 'November 24, 1973. I understand the !-aple Research Lab water ling is not activated, and thus the escrow agreement has not been complied with. lie will expect the line to be activated and a proposed bill of sale for the line and easelment deed to be submitted to the City. Until this is done, we will consider ►"°anson to be in continuing default. I might add that the City will not be in a position to issue any additional zoning permits or occupancy perr:Iits until these conditions are satisfied. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spo}res RAS/enj cc: William Szymanski, Manager, City of Sout'. i3arli?lgton °�--' OF CLAD., The ate ity of !iurU",., too, "'OUIIte fA ChitteAdetA, :At'dte CLAI.M. by autaoxity 0Z, '�7 V.6.A. '��haptar �0" S'.4k'CIjApt'c.'r 7. TIUS 40tiCe of Cj4j­g 15 filod J-r4 rr.,gjjtjo. tA> CertAkjj rwal roj,�rty lacAte,j t4o CitY of South UurIinqtv,;'n, CowltY Of -"hIttendcn, state of Vermont wla clli is ;tn n aa ow. co aidomirli=.a4, z< a retaidsotlal 10volopmcat. Owrtec! 'eveload Y 4out4 aurlinqtoa ';�&aity cor]poratjon A!qd 4, lwlaonx Zarth­ oirinq Coriporation. `1�aid real ::ro erty is �7,orc fully d,-_scriio*d, as a portion of ti,;e iaild azd Promisam to ��urliw�to.n Aealty Carc)oratiort ',�q a warranty JUed of Minson Cor,,,x)r,*ttioa (.,ate�i "ptwar)er 12, 147!; and rocord*6 I" VOI(Ame 12t- 4-A. pages 7- of tile Soutn. i;,urlin-Itsa iaau ;�ecc;rdls, aad also II: )eir4g a porti,4r� of tt.i* jayid A coaveyajl to t-.Isc- Soath Burlinjto.i ottalty corp*,ora- ;41 a Warvulty lj*wa ulf Veri�iont broadcastii-f-,, �_or;��ratiaa i.iOCOPAWr 1, 1575 anu� rot;ord4a iA.,4 rAt. pa>;a.4* Of Sair' 51.aat_h WurIinn Cora !,aAd, kecortls. .1;aL-1 - al Z0, prot,.>o)rty ir-ClUdO* t1w c0vAJQftiUIUtA dI0V.',1lQj?M,0at whicA4 Iij, ftra full,, L aawcriLed in t�w i')eclar-xtiofi:,Aan of ccmlwainiuru OwxxeX4"i�_., OZ certaiii lanUa Aad ;4uJIA, ;Outt . J;jqz iq tilo, City of . j ouclaration boin.,j lJataij. fl.,,.Ctokoor 13, 1.975 and of rdeorr'Z in voltma 123 Z%t P4';j"zq is- and in Vuluvw 123 ztt 144-, wid, i.,i ti-to Plle�claratior dated Julv 1971 of razor,,` in !VcAwz,*ia 11131, at, Psvn;ts 404- a-a,1,7 its ,uiendmeut dated September .219, lV71 and of r000r,;I in Va'l-w-a'O 1;� , AL PaVeS 3Z- GZ tha Land fteoorda of ItIle CiLy of South Warliii-,toa, aud in a Sup�)Ieri�antary OeclaraLion latod Februar-Ir 171, a also of racori in Volwwj, 13�, at. s 3iP.1- of Sai-a iec3aii Recordl�;. The city of 6o4tli AurlingtoA asserts t.qa foliowiAtj clairas i4 rtlaciotk to ttva above—*&cribad real pro, -arty-. I. Tne and the davololper jiave failed LO SeCUre Certifi<Iated of OCCUPancy as sa-U-tica 41.1;;i of Lao tatty- barli'agtou zoaif,5 Ordinaric*� ind 24 V.ii.A. 4A 4 3 (a) (;.e) ��. Iha owix4jr aa<i t1he t�eveio�,er zawt failed to comply wita t.s&e ter,�4z, of as )-�soroW A�ireenwnt which 13 ,�ratad June 1+'Y, 1977 4'.41-inso4 Larti"i-kilowiLig, Cori-.�orattk.�n and t�A,e i.;ity of Soutu The ownex an'di tt4c- devQloptry liave fartliar tailed to co�i�ply witli ttvs tlarrtts of am arreel .Neilt witAh th-O City of South surlinsjcor& jua& Ili'i, 1977, th-e tarmq of wisica agreeitent arkj by ref-creAce, into th's jwiiox aal the doveloiIor have "ailed, to nqA- wi=4 tlie taz;�.S ani6i of Land USO Per;mit '.0. 4,ZA;154 waic.-A wa.4 iAsutisk-4, A -a ro�jar4 to tixa ihaadowi�rook Coudov,,i"i�Am- ,L�eVelQj,4tWit pur-UUaIlL tO 1%'A' V.S.A. C"ptar L'il. khe o��rtqr ,aki.,J aevzloetwr iaidve violat4�0, thc torus of said geriaiL LY tiAeir i,4iI-jxA to %,acure ayproval for t"Lle, syzt4wi from, t;,W Sant,. Burlington City EAgiaeer an( I from vio ASWXY of Lnvironn<�,ntal conservation. The claim vie city of 'A�Irlinqtcu aricies 'Unter ;;aUtions So�jtA� 404 t.04 of thSoutit BurlIM;;vton 3i,,4443, 441.14, auu; -44451 "0 "OvisiOxls CO�Vt4ixlftd, k _pter I I en��' ro1�jujatjona 'Adl-ital 214; lth,�aL Z.-ucrvw Aqroora;�4at refarrc�,..' ta in Para�jrakpj%. W111, tx-,Q tervis zxccor,zxayil,,It,� t.je. burliu9ton plaaning ""Ormiuslon's 'Ap�'pr'r-wVal of the meadowbrook Oubdivi*iOft The C-ity of South r5urliwjtor, cla,411mm a Xigl*it to enforce. or sook t,,4e e.,j,Qrcejrk- laws an5"71 as $Pecifi'�--311Y tO fiaa for thp viol a jc-ije. eauawrya te" abova, all Jr, Statutas awl i & - %- aw4ar tliat, "1� o t'le I.,,aut of m.; Jz%fQrrmation and bOlief , thc�t St4t0melxits alade -;:x�ve are i;xua. tilis tlay t,:�f i�79. cII,Y OF ��U-4A Cit Y�Iwna-f,-or Ii - SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SPOKES 1775 WILLISTON ROAD JOSEPH F. OEUCHOWSKI November 14, 1978 TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 Lloyd A. Portnow, Esquire Samuelson, Portnow, Lang & Miller, Ltd. 117 St. Paul Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Munson Earth -Moving Corporation Dear Lloyd: I am in receipt of your letter of November 8, 1978. If I understand this letter correctly, you are indicating that your client has not activated the Maple Research Lab water line. The City shall consider this a default of the escrow agreement, and will act accordingly. Very truly yours, Richard A, Spokes RAS/ccb cc: William Szymanski, Manager, City of South Burlington M E M O R A N D U M To: Files of ey o Oominiums, Glenwood, Larkin A;artments, Meadowoo pe r, fool" flhin From: SSP — Re: "Loose ends" to be resolved on water lines with C14D Date: 9/13/78 Before release of bonds or any further approvals on these projects, Ed Blake should be contacted. SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SpoKEs 1775 WILLISTON ROAD JOSEM F. OBucxiowsm TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 liarc.',,.i C', 1975 Mrs. Margaret Picard Clerk, City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Development Dear Peggy: In response to Munson Earth-Moving's failure to provide an adequate water system in the Meadowbrook Condominium Development, we have decided to file a document entitled "Notice of Claim." In short, this document constitutes public notification that the City asserts certain legal claims against the owner and developer of the Meadow - brook Condominiums. Those claims are based upon City ordinances, Act 250, and Department of Health Regulations. We have gotten Bill to sign the Notice of Claim on behalf of the City of South Burlington as its City Manager. The process for filing the Notice of Claim is as follows: The Notice should be filed in the "Claimants Book" which is required to be kept in the City Clerk's office pursuant to 27 V.S.A. §605. The Notice should be indexed under the City's name as Claimant. Second, the Notice must be recorded in its entirety in the City of South Burlington Land Records and indexed in the general index for deeds under the City's name as Grantee and under the name of South Burlington Realty Corporation as the Grantor. Please give Gil Livingston of my office a call once the Notice of Claim has been filed in order that he may forward copies of the Notice to Munson and South Burlington Realty. Thank you for your help with this matter. Very r� y6urs Ric hapokes RAS/ccb Lnclo,sure cc: ,William Szymanski ('�rY,+l? rc:>/.ir t, . fi/�.,/a! r°�✓` 01 e ij MYRON SAmtJE�::0 �1 ,!/ % 1_LOYU A O�N '�-+iURTN!/I`r�r %t(Y �i'!!, RICHARD A. LANG,JR. "/ MARTIN K.MIL.LER. JON R. EGGLE 'TON R '_ C)ecerriber 28, � <_� % 8 JAN 10 1979 MANAGaR'S (,—' 1t t CITY So. BURLINGTON TELEPHONES AREA CODE 802 862-5511 852-6512 Richard. A. `pokes, l;scl. Spokes tI 0buchowsk:i P. 0. Box 2325 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Meadowbrook-Phase III Escrow Agreement Dear Dick: I am in receipt of your letter. of December 13, 1978 in regards the above -entitled matter. It is our position that the Escrow Agreement has been complied with in total since the water line has been installed, and has the capacity of activation, if needed. We will be subrni.tting to the City a proposed bill, as well as an Easement Deed. for your review in the hopes that the City would pay for the work that has been completed and accept the deed thereto. Very tr'ul" yours, t L1ovd' A. PFortnow For the Firm LAP/ckb cc Randall G. Munson MYRON SAMUELSON LLOYD A. PORTNOW RICHARD A. LANG, JR. MARTIN K. MILLER JON R. EGGLESTON RECEIVED DEC w MA14AGIE Richard Spokes, Esq. Spokes & Obuchowski P. 0. Box 2325 South Burlington, VT 05402 Re: lkleadowbrook-Phase. III Escrow Agreement Dear Dick: I am writing to advise you that the turnaround his been installed and blacktopped, that the fire hydrant is in place, that landscaping has been completed, and that this work has been done with the recognition of your letter to the Chittenden Trust Company of October 16, 1,978, and my response to you of October 31, 1978. We believe that the escrow agreement of June 16, 1977 has been complied with, and al that you direct the escrow agent, Chittenden Trust Company, to rern to Munson Earth -Moving Corporation the $20,06r: 0, together ith any interest which has accrued. Ver tr.y ypurs, L. o`rd.. )P 0 rtno.hr 17o r the ,"Firm _ ----- --- (,' eJ!2-LCE'!�-fY1; r4t 4�tla/ 1 �'1/rY�/7l�C72{. �;E7 ril.(PYdV TELEPHONES i AREA .CODE 802 862-6511 862-6512 November 24, 1978 LAP/ckb cc Randall G. Munson Philip Warren Michael Ram Edward A. Flowers Bill. Would you please call me regarding this matter. RAS l SPOKES F-3 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT L.AW P. O. BOX 2325 SOU['H BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A SPOKES November 6, 1978 IT15 WILL.ISTON ROAD. J05M-i F. OBUCHOWSKI TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 Lloyd A. Portnow, Esquire R EC F Samuelson, Portnow, Lang & Miller, Ltd. 117 St. Paul Street NOV 17 Burlington, Vermont 05402 r 19%8 MANAGZR,s ,,awlcr Re: Munson Earth Moving Corp. CITY so. RURLiNQT©N Bear Lloyd: Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1978 in regard to Munson Earth Moving Corp, and the Chittenden Trust Company Escrow Agreement. Would you please advise me by letter whether your client plans to connect his water system to the service from the Maple Research Lab. Thank you. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS/ccb cc: William Szymanski, Manager, City of South Burlington MYRON SAMUELSON LLOYD A. PORTNOW RICHARD A. LANG, JR, MARTIN K. MILLER JON R. EGGLESTON October 31, 1978 Richard Spokes, Esc{. Spokes & Obuchowski P;. 0. Box 2325 South Burlington, VT 05402 Dear Dick: ���u�Km, /Crrrrrto�r,� l ns%io� TELEPHONES AREA CODE 602 862-6511 662-6512 R V E 0 NO Gr'FICE. Ty SO• PURLINGTQH Pursuant to our phone conversation of the other day, and in response to your letter of October 16, 1.978, in regards Munson Earth Moving Corporation, said letter being directed to Edward A. Flowers of the Chittenden Trust Company, I am writing to advise you that my client represents to the City of South Burlington that the fire hydrant and the turnaround as suggested in your letter of October 16, 1978 will be completed and installed by no later than December 15, 1978. If the turnaround has not been installed and blacktopped and the fire hydrant in place1by that date, Munson Earth Moving Corporation would be in breach of/its escrow agreement with the City of South Burlington in regards Phase III of Meadowbrook Condominiums, said EsgTow Agreement being dated June 16, 1977. Very/,�1jy yours , L16vd- A. Port1hoW' For the Firm" ---- LAP/ckb cc Edward A. Flowers Randall G. Munson % Does this look OK? Dick /'��- w iv y ,, `'"� ►r� r+^a►, r •. a Zj e s r I�.,ryr / 1 ,fig ,ram .._ .....,/'Alt. . jr'+� 1`"'1!,i'r� �% d {"'y'"./r �%^� i�'A1V'�r°"'✓. rPi � ._�." �'9i�`�C_. ""' .. '... m_.« . f W,# "mac V°°' ,enao r7 /os.9 I*r r� "' � v reW17 .�, d�►•°*7" ��'•Tr4►�+ a! .. '��iIL't I�Q'? _. rl�'' ' rt �✓�r 4t7 r 41AP.�s.°x�.#„ ��h) NOVEMBI;R 8, 1- 77 The South Burlington Planning Commission he ld.a regular meeting on Tuesday, November""8, 1977 at 7003 1pm in,the Conference Room,`,Municipal .pffioes, 1175 Williston Road `: o.r Members Present William Wessel, Chairman, Ernest Levesque (late), Sidney Poger, David Morency, Kirk Woolery,,James Ewing Others Present Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Fran Brook. Free Press; Qeorge T.'13art, Jerry Olson, LouisTessier, Ray Lawrence, James Lamphere, Donald F. Kerwin, Dick Taft, R.E. Curtis, Peter Collins, Tyler' Bart, William 8ehuelei*. Richard Segal, Paul Graves Mr. Wessel said that item 8 would-be discussed at the -work session November 15. Minutes tf October 25 1 ?7 It was moved by Mr. Poger and 'seconded 'by Mr. Morency to cce t the minutes of October 25, 1977 as circulated' The motion passed uhanim usiy. Final Review of Phase IV'(14 units) of Meadowbrook CodKiftiniums Joy Drive Mr.' Tessier said that the carport area had been re -designed' and that the i configuration of -the buildings had,been slightly changed. 'Mr. Poger asked about ;paving the turnaround and was told that that would .be done when the:last;phase went in. Air. Woolery moved th t he 'South Burlin ton Plan An Commission a rove the :Site �Q la" of Meadowbrcok Condominiums ';aside ict d on a . u 't entitled "Site Platt- ,- base four Meadbwbrook:.Condomihiums South Burl' t t C 7-71 Arawn by P-D., .Subsect to the followin sti dated rg utions ,:This .talazi is considered to ha a mi.,,,,. ,«,.A,�.� — w•.r ,tee vi;J + 2 plat illFpicting the entire oroiect ass ,,built and as saorayed. shall ad. seconded the otion and it assbd unani Dual . )ntinue MM11{. ++ea,c-li! .on final lat of Brand OAK= -Condominiums I 800 'DorSt set reet 0 units - Mr: Wessel said that at the -last meeting, the dewelopers.'had submitted_an engineering report showing enough capacity for 2,pha<ses'of,tthis project and that that issue had not been` res0ived. He said that the` Commiss�iost was- sctirig in a Judicial role""and "that they had to balat�oe -the, interests 6f the,, cityand of t developer and"he added that the Commission was an independent body.. A"r. James he Lamphere said that i;:any of the costs associated with developing land occurred y in the initial :Stages and 'that.: they had,10 knots that sY cotald build cc rred ! r two phases or_they could not take the financial risk of developing then beingstopped. P ng one phase leam and pped. He said that they felt the report indicated enough capacity in the sewer for 4, phases ands they were onIYr asking for 2; No one has shown them Specifically where the engineering.4tudy- i& imcOftvat:,and° they would :like Mr. P090r 01oved that site �,Vf,'David El 4. 9' 4 lT g/roe�r<.w Mw a%Lan. aed :Produce . aoilit . • w z� 2 21 71, revised 4 22 77, dram b date atipulationet y F• $• S, tea aub ect to the fo to i 1) e Y cuts be Closed and curbs be in atalled. 2) Provisiona for storm drai EWneefi.R c +hall be as a roved by the t )'. a sidewalk to citystandards) be extended acroaa t the ro ert he frontage of -- =4) bonds,, in are a ro' riots amount to be ,determine idministra#or shall be eted for'eloai the curb''ll, bland Zonin ©they access site in r�vemonta. ea in , and 5) the a lioant shall exeente'a auitable'le al`inat` .aeaeas: from the rear o the adioinina ,,,.,,,.__�. wentto ermit nn.a "+r i7 ass rior'to issuance of a buildij4i = W c: er�ti t . 6) the landaca.,i lam be revised to show a ravel aecesa to the olmea property in the gear. l : X'• Ming aadnnd�rd F.tgs+s6tion. require :a 15 "da 'Mr. hash ached that~.�the: �6 y:waiting period for a building , misaion::not that Xr. Spokes had requested that because he eometimee`recsMr P 0 said pressure f r a p1e and 'needs ti=e to consider the trumentof The .motion . Tea Ir o condo ri u a end of Jo Louis Mr. Teaaier �Ohowed' ,%}w., d. Commieaida �br`� plans and the proposed changes. Baaiaally�,'�1 Wanted % aoV -ot�ee h xildirig sites three,.huild 'p 6a :V*th` �'15 waits 1:nto 2 i►i+�th 1 cond+tnni ha' regul&"me � could csttna v it would still ho", to reasoa for :the eh n'Y little chillNr. NoreYicy 'asked the Of the build ` "Be and" *as *old that it in ato."Eivoi- g 4 The new "locations the � �°� �rould give �Cheen more ' privac P aent buildings are landd told that they ng asked how `long They:' hoPe to' have 14 more unit Was told th byare about1140 each. more thaw that bF�Auguat 1979,` Those last 2 977, and 25 two phases. At present 11 are oon late, X.5. l probAbly be done in the Bartlott'e Bay`B*wor snit,. P gisael asked if they were on i►aa to1Q that 'ihoy were. Mr. Poker moved that the South' Burls ton P1snnY CommXiaibn a ro�+e`. the site lam of-Headoxbrook,Condominiutna a "fiito,p se de is ed on- a- entitled ee 'Meadoxbrook Condominiums, South Burli ton iialt,�r, Corp. ,: 77 rev bed_ 4 14` 77., drawn by .A. ti u t o c , aubjeot to d �, 5. ZL—MIEG COMKISSION .. 1). this plan is considered.to be a minor modification under section 01.of the South Burl i "ton'Subdividion Re 1a ions #o s-subdivision .plan preTiously,approved b ,his Commission on 6 25 74 and 5"11 76. 2) a plat depicting all phases (1-through 5) as agreed by the developer 'ys _and the Planning Assistant shall be recorded The motion was seconded b Mr. Wooler and Y y passed .unanimously . Public hearing on preliminary plat application of Flanders Lumber and Hickok and Boardman. 160 condominiums.. at 800 Dorset Street. Messrs Curtis and Lamphere Ramon Lawrence represented the developers, and outlined what they wanted to do. These will be 2 bedroom units in the $25-27,000 price range'- e then went through a memo dated May 6, 1977 from Mr. Page. Mr. Leonard Lamoureux discussed traffic with the Commission, saying that the people living in these units would probably only have one car, and that he thought that there would be .78 cars per unit going in and out in one peak hour period. Mr. Morency said that that would be 120 cars per hour in that period, but Mr. Page pointed out that these numbers coincide pretty well with other projects in the area and that in the evening peak the traffic would be more diffuse. He hoped that Bruce Houghton would be able to look at the project. Mr. Lawrence said that they have moved some things and put some others in in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Chief and that the distance between buildings is 30'. Mr. Rozendaal raised a question about the building type, saying that he had never seen condominiums in this price range and was not sure that they would be kept up. Mr. Lawrence said that they will have an Association and that others in this price range have worked. Mr. Peter Collins pointed out that these are aimed at the blue-collar market and that these people have a great pride in ownership. As far as recreation, Mr. Lawrence said that they will have a sliding area and perhaps a ballfield. He pointed out that a tennis center was next door. The possibility of putting a baseball diamond on this land was discussed. The phasing schedule would be basically 40 per year. Mr. Lamoureux discussed the possible erosion problem, saying that the soils here are predominantly sandy loam and well -drained. The USDA says that this has slight limitations for construction but they would not build on steep slopes, so he sees no problem in erosion assuming that storm drainage is properly channeled. A closed system would take the water to the stream where there would be a headwall or end section. 6 yards of stones would be placed around the pipe and the stream as energy dissipators. Mr. Page asked what would be done to prevent erosion during construction since some of the units are close to the slope. Mr. Lawrence replied that they would use the standard measures required by the State of Vermont. Mr. Ewing asked how they were going to get the retaining walls in and Mr. Bob Nethot explained it, adding that they were planning to remove the present unsuitable fill and replace and compact it. Mr. foolery moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Preliminary P1 t a roval for Flanders Lumber and Hickok and Boardman the Brand Farm to the next regularly scheduled meetine which iA WTAv PA 14. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ll,_19 Mr..Poger then moved that the Planning Commission refuse the request of Mr. Roger Bor1a for approval of a barking 1o_t an CilbeStrp'et� Seconded by Mr. Lidral. Mrs. Little asked if the Commission would look into itSt see if it was com- mercial or not, and Mr. Wessel explained that was her responsibility, that she should contact Mr. Ward. Mrs. Little then asked if it would be returned to a lawn, now. Mrs. Krapcho asked if the Commission could stipulate that the area be re- seeded and return to its former condition. Mrs. Borja objected that the area had not been. seeded; it was being used the same way before they bought the house. Mrs. Little said the person who lived there alone never used it for parking. Mr. Borja said he couldn't tell people not to park on his land, but by using pea stone it would be much better. Asked about home occupations, Mr. PAge explained it is a public use; it is a customary home occupations which is available to the general public. Mr. Poger felt a public use should not be allowed to encroach into a residential area. The vote on the motion was six affirmative votes, to refuse approval, with Mr. Levesque voting against the motion. Meadowbrook Condominiums,_ Mr. James Wallace This was on the agenda as an amendment to Phase I for the construction of swimming pool and two tennis courts and also a request to rename Pine Brook Drive (� to Joy Drive. l Mr. Wallace explained that at the time this plan was originally approved they had withdrawn the tennis courts from their proposal because they had just learned that the so-called brook was not located where it was shown, so it was impossible to physically get the courts into that location regardless of the zoning regulations and the greenbelt of the interstate. It just didn't fit in there physically. They still had the swimming pool. After reviewing the entire project and remapping the location of the brook, they then rearranged the proposed buildings. They still had the same count, but by rearranging they kept the recreation all in the same areap in one location. They applied to the Zoning Board for a variance, not knowing the exact Inter- pretation of that greenbelt ordinance. They do have a good screen of woods at least 150 feet beyond the tennis courts to the interstate. He said that was their proposal now for the location of the tennis courts and shimming pool. Mrs. Krapcho asked what the setback was from the inteistarte Mr. Wallace replied it was 265 feet from the ,tennis courts to the pavement. Mr. Schuele asked about the distance to the right of way. Mr. Wallace said at that point it is 40 feet; from the tennis court to the right of way fence is about 165 feet. It does take a jog, to compensate for the drainage of the brook that comes down through. He said their feeling was that it would be more desirable to have a tennis court there in place of a building that could be visibly seen from the interstate. Now this will be completely surrounded by woods. Mr. Poger asked if the tennis court was on the same area for which approval was given on the building. Mr. Wallace explained approval wasn't given for this building on Phase I; it was originally given to Cal.cagri; it was conceptual, for conceptual approval. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11. 1766 Mr. Armstrong asked the location of the power line. Mr. Wallace -indicated the :location on the drawing, saying nothing could be,.put under the right of fray but it will be just about ten feet from there. Mr. Wessel asked if these facilities were just for the use of the owners. Mr. Wallace said that was correct. He added that he had no objection to the recommendations made by Mr. Szymanski. Mr. Wessel'asked what powers does the Commission have since this was subject to a zoning variance. Mr. Page said the variance was granted for the construction of the court within a certain number of feet of the right of way. The decision was made by the Zoning Board. He said his understanding of the proposal before the Commission was'that it was substantially a subdivision amendment proposal. Aa the applicant comes back in with additional phases. it will be incumbent on him to site the buildings in such a way that will meet with the Commission's approval. He said in considering if there were any compelling reasons Why this should not be approved, the only thing he could come up with was that if the facilities were public they would be expected to have access and parking, but; this is only'for the people who live there. The only other Idea, Mr. Page :•aid, was some sort of pedestrian access to the facility. He had no other compelling arguments. Mr. Poger asked if these were outdoor courts and pool and was told they were. Mr. Schuele said he was objecting to a person agreeing to take something out in 'order to get site plan approval and then goes to the Zoning Board and gets approval to put it back. Mr. Wallace told Mr. Schuele he was under a wrong assumption.that.they:took it out because it was in the CO District. That is false -- totally false. Mr. Schuele asked what the Planning Commission Minutes showed. Mr. Wallace explained they couldn't physically put it there because of the brook location. There is not enough physical room to put that tennis court there and still stay 50 feet back from the brookway. The only question of the CO area was the 50 foot setback. Mr. Schuele said as Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the Con- servation Zone is about the onl?�V% get one unless the City buys it. Mr. Wallace said they went through this same debate at the Zoning Board, And through existing +circumstances and precednts set, they gave the variance. Mrs. Krapeho asked Mr Wa3.`iace if they were is fact wIXhin the CO zone. Mr. Wallace replied that' was the variance graiated, `dthin 150 feet from the right of may, Mr. Page said it wa&,*4 incursion into the CO District. Mr. Pager stated that if the Zoning Board has given a variance, there is nothing the Commission can do about the variance unless it questions, as in Mr. Schuele's point of view, that taking,it out of the CO District is strictly not according to Hoyle. , Mr. Poger said there is 24 feet of road in there and a right of way can have no structures in it. Mr. Wallace replied a road isn't considered a structure. Mr. Poger said it seemed to him that tennis courts would be perfectly compatible with the transmission lines. Mr. Wallace said not according to the power company. Mr. Levesque said he considered the CO District would be a site which would be very appealing for playing tennis. . Mr. Schuele said the CO zone concerns more than aesthetics, it is the place for oxygen regeneration. Chairman Wessel said he didn't feel that was an issue for the Planning Commission tonight. 16. t'40 X 'PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 1976 Mr. Schuele said he thought it was a moral issue. The people are beginning to get upset. Now the Commission has to approve something which It said it wouldn't want to do in the first place. Mr. Wallace said he was disturbed over references made that they are trying to do something that is not right. Their intentions have been honorable from the beginning. He said they had been asked to put in courts and a pool for the project and this is what they are attempting to do and still keep the environment. He said he was a 100% environmentalist himself. They are trying to save trees, even going to the point of trying to move some of the units in a way to preserve some of the best trees in the area -- not going in and leveling the whole thing. He suggested that Mr. Schuele come down and see what they had done to preserve the trees in that area. Mr. Schuele said the problem is that the Natural Resources Committee has a concern to protect the citizens' interests, the City's interests, by the fact that the CO zone was supposed to be the City's oxygen regeneration plant. Everytime the CO zone is infringed on, it means essentially saying that conservation isn't important. Should the State or Federal ,government decide to build the road in their right of way, this would be within 40 feet of the road. The City has no control over what the Federal government puts in. Chairman Wessel asked about the street name change. Mr. Wallace said there seemed to be a conflict of names and Mr. Szymanski had suggested that they continue as Joy Drive. There were no other changes. Mr. Poger said he would like to go along with Mr. Schuele's statement about the CO District. There is a very distinct problem. The Planning Commission did set up a plan to preserve certain areas and to give a CO belt, whether for aesthetic purposes or for oxygen regeneration, and there is a problem of incu4sions into the area. But he does recognize the Zoning Board of Adjust- ment's feeling that their position is to give variances. The Planning Com- missions position is to conform to the Plan. There must necessarily be con- flict at certain times. The variance has been given and the Commission does not have too much choice in the matter. He felt that at some time the Council, the Zoning Board and the Commission should sit down together; there has to be some kind of agreement or understanding or else declare open warfare. This kind of sniping is oWnter-productive and is not good for the City. Mr. Levesque moved that the Planning Commission approve ruest of Meadow - brook Condominiums subject to the re_ coommenTations of the City Engineer as contained in a memorandum from Mr. Page dated May -19?61 also that the Planning Commission approve the changing of the street name to Joy Drive. The above noted memorandum is to be pa of the record. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Levesque said he felt strongly that man can be compatible with nature and that advances have to be made. Man can enjoy nature a little whilq playing tennis. Mr. Armstrong said the Tree Committee had been down to the site and approved of the way the trees were being preserved. There was no discussion of the tennis courts at that time. The motion of Mr. Levesque was voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Krapcho referred.to Fr..Poger's suggestion for a meeting with Council and the Zoning Board. Mr. Poger added that the CO District has become one of the Commission's problems and there should be some discussion as to the role of both bodies. The meeting was declared adjourned at 1.0:50 p.m. Cl erk PLANNING COMMISSION SMEMBER 9, 1975 4. Mr. UnOorth said if he were to do what was suggested he would have three 125 ^foot, lots there. -He asked what was the sense"of having' guidelitie� out and when someone comes in the Planning Commission just jerks things around. Chairman Wessel told him that was out of order. Mr. Unsworth then asked why, if he meets all the requirements that are put forth in these regulations, why he may not be granted permission. The Chairman answered the Commission has many discretionary powers. Mrs. Maher said they have to interpret these zoning documents in the light of good sensible planning, taking into consideration all the people of South Burlington, not just the people who are going to buy his lots, but the neighbors also. Mrs. Unsworth asked if other streets laid out like this were considered strip developments also, and Mrs. Maher replied they are, it is a horrendous situation. Mrs. Krapcho said Spear Street is a fairly major street and the concern is much stronger in limiting future curb cuts on such streets than it would be on a street such as Joy Drive. It is not one policy uniformly applied throughout the City but one policy for certain categories of streets. She said her concern was to find out whether this application does meet the re- quirements of the zoning regulations, and while the Commission is theoretically only dealing with the two lots, it must recognize the land remaining. She would like to know whether they are authorized to approve this arrangement of two 180 foot lots and a 60 foot right of way. She said she did feel very strongly that any lot which could have access from any existing right-of-way should use that access. Mrs. Krapcho then moved that the Planning Commission request an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether it can formally approve the creation of e oot n the R-1 Spear Street. Seconded by Mrs. Maher and voted unanimously. Mrs. Krapcho then moved that ct in the area ea Seconded by Mr. Lidral and voted unanimously. Chairman Wessel informed Mr. Unsworth this would be on the agenda for next week. Final subdivision review of Pine Brook development, Joy Drive Mr. James Wallace asked Mr. Lamphere to make the presentation. Mr. Lamphere displayed drawings on the board and indicated the location of the street and the power line coming across the property. There will be eleven units in the first phases the rest will be developed in the back part of the property. They found they were unable to most the setback requirements without making changes in the site planet also the lenders had asked them to include a swimming pool and a tennis court. He said they were asking for final approval at this meeting. Mr. Wallace referred to the nine -conditions specified on June 25, 1974, when the development received conditional approval, saying that the first six items have been approved by the City Manager, a copy of the time table has been submitted under item #?, that ALB, the posting of bonds will be complied with, `4 PLANNING COfflIiS_ SXOp SEPTEMBER their�at:orney_ia_ now _working-with._the _City -Jlttorney on a final draft of the eondominium by-laws. This will keep the City of South Burlington free and clear of any commitments for future maintenance of the road. The condominium association will own that road and be responsible for all main- tewance. The subdivision plan, Otte* it is approved, is to be recorded. Mr. Lamphere said they have had to re -arrange units because of physical re- straings on the property, but they are basically in the same location and the same number of units. Asked about any variance from setback requirements, Mr. Lamphere said there was no need for variances. Mr. Ewing asked if the tennis court had property setback from the interstate. Mr. Wallace explained that physically it has not been layed out, no they cannot verify that it does meet the requirement. If it cannot be done as shown,, they will attempt to shift it and still stay away from the brooks if they cannot accomplish it they will either out the tennis courts down to one or have some other configuration. If necessary they will do away with the tennis courts. They are not asking for any variance and will in -All cases comply. Asked about drainage, Mr. Wallace said a slight variation will require a dropped inlet in the drain. Regarding lighting, there will be lights in the front of the units. There will be lighting in between the units and the parking area, and when the walks are put in there will be adequate lighting in the area. These would be at walk height while the others would be the same height as those coming in from Joy Drive. They will be allowed to plant shrubbery beneath the power lines if they will �;. maintain it, but are restricted as to height. Asked about approval from the Fire Chief regarding the placing of fire hydrants and the general layout for fire service and access to the backs of the units, Mr. Wallace said all of his dealings had been through the City Managers that Mr. Szymanski had looked at the fire hydrants and there was no comment. Mr. Lamphere indicated on the plan the units where a fire truck could get around in back and others could be reached by going through the Rice playing field, and that any of then could be reached with hoses. He explained where a fire truck could come in and go out. Mr. Wessel asked if the problem of the right-of-way had been solved. Mr. Wallace said the power is not coming in from the street, it is coming in off from the existing transmission poles to a new pole and then goes underground. The only things in the right-of-way are sewer and water which are already in. The road base is done. Mrs. Maher asked how work has been begun and no bonds have been posted, and asked if any work has been done since approval was given in June. She was told that some of the primary work on the road itself has been done. Mr. Lamphere explained Mr. Ward had told them they could go 4boad with the site work but they would either have to complete the street to acceptance or post a bond. He said they want to post those bonds and get their building permits. Mr. Wallace said that to complete what is there would reduce the amount of the bond. Mr. Page said the developer is quite reedy to post the bond but must have approval from the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION 6. SEPTEMBER 9�? 5 Airs. Maher moved that the Plannin _Gnunission ve.a of the first hase of eleven units to the Pinee`Bri�pondominiumy2nl to hDevelo�mention Conti ent u n.final"approval of the lands i — nece+ asar� bonds. �p n plan and the p She further moved that all the conditions outlined niin®thell conditiona___1 apProva_1 given Hill still be in force.���_ this approval is given with the understanding that the tennis court aslshowso nat on the plan will not be approved at this time me or in that location. a royal i_ s given with the understanding that application will noAlsodehfo_r a additional phase until the Plannin Commission has a -laws. —�- roved the condominium Seconded by Mr. Lidral and voted unanimously. Mrs. Maher asked when Mr. Munson had acquired the property. Mr. Wallace said it was sometime late last year, and that he, Mr. Wallace, had picked up the project for him in June of this year. Mrs. Maher asked that the letter containing the timetable for the project be attached to the Minutes of the Meeting; also that Mr. Page follow up to remind the developer of the condominium by-laws. review o2 Darking plan for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -P@,y Saints Mr. Ron Bishop and Don Bordonaro represented the church in the presentation. It was explained that about seven proposals had been prepared and the one they selected would prevent the blasting of the considerable outcropping of ledge, would preserve as much green area as possible, and preserve what was foreseen as a playing area for the children. It is necessary to extend the parking lot to meet the zoning regulations. The lot will be larger than required for the phase being built but would be necessary for the final phase in about five to seven years, and they are attempting to put in all the parking spaces now rather than tearing it up again when the next phase is built. The question of drainage had been raised at the last meeting, and the City Manager has now approved the drainage plan. There had also been concern that there was not very much green space in the middle of a big lot. Also the kinds of trees to be planted was to be reviewed by the Tree Committee. Mr. Bishop said he understood this had been done, but Mr. Armstrong who is a member of the committee said he had not been down there, although possibly the rest of the dommittee had reviewed it when he was unavailable. Mr. Bishop said he believed there was no restriction against running the 1lht neiby separa�inguittxiththe treesebutixould rathene if They can break the out - to make it easier to plow. ve just a center island Asked by Mrs. Krapcho if they intend to pave the entire area immediately, Mr. Bordonaro said to meet the seating capacity of the new addition and meet South Burlington's parking requirements they do need about two-thirds of that new parking area, and they think it would be better to build the whole lot now, although it is doubtful if it would be paved before winter. Mr. Bishop said they would not destroy any of the screening plantings by this plan; the parking lot would still be shielded by plantings and will not show from the road. Also, he said, they do not use any Walt at all. Mrs. Krapcho indicated an area which she felt was not adequately landscaped from the highway. Mr. Armstrong agreed that the front does need more planting. Mr. Bishop said they had no objection to that. Asked by Mr. Ewing about curbs, Mr. Bishop said because of snow removal they do not plan to put in curbs except for the island. "+✓ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGMinh JUKE 25, 197419 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public meeting on Tuesday. June 25, 1974, at 7130 p.m. in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBEM PRESENT Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman; John Dinklage, Ernest Levesque, Sidney Poger, William Robenstein, Ronald Schmucker. William Wessel MEMBERS ABSENT None (Mr. Robenstein left at 10:00 p.m.) OTHERS':'PRESENT Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator= Frank Breen, Bill Schuele, Fred Smith, Len Scarfone, Carolyn Scarfone, Ralph DesLauriers, Ruth DesLauriers, Chris Deslauriers, Fred Taylor, Paula Taylor, Kay Neubert, Fred Blais, Jim Erring, Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Graves, Paul Flinn, Terrance Boyle The Chairman opened the meeting at 7135 P.m. Minutes of June 11, 1974 Mr. Poger noted that a sentence should be added on page 3 to reads the re- location of Route 7 might cause the present businesses in that area to decide to relocate; that relocating Route 7 may give us a new business area. Mr. Din�lage moved that the Minutes of June 11, 1974 be accepted with the inclusion of Mr. Poger's correction. Seconded by Mr. Wessel and voted unanimously. Pine Brook Condominiums Chairman Maher read a memorandum from Mrs hard regarding the power poles on the project. Mr. Ward added there are several different methods of protecting the poles. The Chairman suggested leaving it up to the City Manager as to whether or not there would be protection in this area. Chairman Maher then read a memorandum from Mr. Szymanski recommending a side- walk to extend to the cul de sac. Responding to a question as to the size, the Chairman said the Commission could not require anything more than the maximum requirement. Chairman Maher read a lengthy motion by Sidney Poger recorded in the March 26 Minutes. Mr. Poger suggested eliminating items #1 and #4 in that motion. Mr. Poger moved that the new motion should read: subject to the following conditional 1 that a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic be constructed to the out de sac; --�� +•o �4i++o�va appxvval 16 conaltlonal upon receipt of comments of the Tree Committee, with a formal landscape plan being Riven to the Tree QNLU- 31 tee� that all drainage be approved by the Cit Mana er; 4 t the wer Poles be protected as agreed to -by -Green Mountain Power; that a roval is a so conditionalon approval o a ree is t Mara or 2. r... Qsv'ns�elrl � is Dy tines e� ciLl-a-E-Tornegy Motion seconded by Mr. Robenstein. JUNE 25, . 1974 ons _by letter of March 26 be aoaplied with, give the PlaHURg �o`mmaIss p a time as u�q ired by the City Managers approval of the com om n um by-laws Mr. Frank Breen, as the real estate agent, said any time table he could give would be purely speculative. It might be feasible to break ground by next springs would be built as a demand type of thing. Mr. Dinklage felt it important to know what the rate of build-up would be in order to make some assessment of future projects and their impact on city services that the builder could be required to give the Planning Commission a revised building schedule, or schedules when they occur. Mr. Dinklage then moved to amend #7 as follows: the developer be required to give the Planning Commission a time table of his scheduled building and to inform the Planning Commission when any change is made. This amendment was . accepted by Mr. Poger. Mr. Schuele expressed concern over the possibility of all subdivisions being finished at once, putting a burden on the Citys that the developers might hold buck until there was a demand for housing, then all build at once. Mr. Poger felt this was possible but not probable. Mr. hard explained that unless certain site improvements are made, the sub- division would be lost in two years; that all the sub -divisions that are now active have been going five or six years. Mr. Schmucker suggested a time table could be a condition of approvals that a time table should be made a part of an application and presentation. Jack Tabaka asked when the permit would become effective if received at this meeting. Mr. Ward said the approval would be effective immediately but they would have to get the 250 approval. Also the project has to wait 21 days after the City Council zone change. Also, the final site plan has to be recorded. Asked about time limits, the Chairman said the developer has actually got to do some preliminary work within six months. Mr. Schmucker added that if every six months he does something that would further the construction, he can delay it for a long time. Mr. Robenstein raised the question of escrow time limits and was asked by the Chairman to get the policy from the City Manager for the information of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wessel said a bond can be required for three years and then be renewed once for another three years. Then the City can go in and do the work itself. Mr. Dinklage suggested asking Mr. Ward to clarify our existing bonding regu- lations and if they can be used to assure compliance with a site plan and with a time table. The Commission voted unanimously to approve Mr. Poger's motion. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Commission r uest an opinion from the City Attorne as to the uses that can be made of the bondim power to assure oom- _liance with site plan and time table approved a Planning omm sa on or vivrwwas li. seconded by Mr. Schmucker and voted unanimously for approval. 3 JUNE 2 1_ 1974 The Chairman said the request would be for a formal opinion from the attorney in writing. Extension of East Terrace - Des Lauriers Ralph DesLauriers presented two drawings to the Commission. Mr. Ward stated the City Manager had not seen the latest plan. Chairman Maher warned Mr. DesLauriers that this could mean he might not get approval at this meeting. Mr. DesLauriers said he had received detailed and specific engineering re- quirements from the City Manager and these had been closely adhered to, that he had talked several times on the phone with Mr. Szymanski. Mr. DesLauriers felt that by going down point by point with the Commission, acceptance could be given "subject to complete approval of the City Manager." The specific changes requested by the City Manager have been made, but if the Manager finds something he does not like, then there would be no approval. He said that Mr. Szymanski had not indicated to him that his not being present at the meeting would mean that the Commission could not automatically accept the plan. The Chairman referred to a letter received from the City Attorney regarding the proposed sub -division, the second paragraph of which stated that the Zoning Board may extend the district boundary of the R-4 land by 50 feet, permitting the developer to use this for R-4 purposes. The Chairman also read the portion of the letter concerning a park for a playground. Considerable discussion followed regarding the R-7 land being included in the sub -division. Mr. Dinklage felt the Commission could not accept the plot shown because it does not have the authority to grant such a zoning change. Mr. Ward said it would be possible to get four duplex lots (18,000 sq. ft.) the way the plan is laid out; that the use is either for single family or for conditional use for duplexes; but the Commission can concern itself only that these are building lots for single family dwellings; the Coamission does not have the power to say a duplex can be built on 14,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. DesLauriers said his lots would qualify for duplexes according to the square footage requirement if the Zoning Board changed the district boundary. Mr. Schmucker gave the Chairman an opinion from the City Attorney which he had been requested to obtain by phone. The Chairman said this opinion is that all the Commission is approving is lots. Mr. Dinklage felt there nothing to prevent the Commission from approving a sub -division where a lot crosses the boundary. Mr. Ward said they won't need the R-7 land for single family houses but will need it for duplexes. Mr. Schuele complained he was more concerned about the basic concept and con- cerned abou-.t the deception. Mr. DesLauriers denied he was being devious in trying to acquire the 18,000 sq. ft. lots; that he can do what the R-4 regulations say he can do, that is, to build single family dwellings. Mr. Deslauriers then used the drawing to explain the project step by step; the present pavement, the 60' right of way with a 30' pavement centered in the midele of the right of way, an 8" water main extending the entire length of the road and into the other main presently running behind the street. This will tie in all of Fast Terrace so they can receive water from both directions. P % 3 m OfYi"pl �Vll i44 o" �9t-t &, & a)' �: � TH 'BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION J ::::- - I ISCUS, SCUSSION ON PINE BROOK CCNDOMINIUMS—"T'� Mr. Sp, ,from Mrs. Maher, that he Mr. Spokes said, in response to 4 question felt it was justified to realize 'the'llitdke (made in approving the t&,res6ind-':the approval would be in order. proposal) and that a motion" Mr. Setmueher moved that$. bece Qg 1,egal-oiAnion #51+ from City-, Attogney.--Spok2s and d ue , U -�AAA'I -to a misunderstanding over which was la I af rect at the -tLrLe-8.. the -March 26th approval of the Pi e Brook CondomIn by the PlannIng -Commission.$.. be rescinded And voided in -its entirety. Seconded by Mr. Weasel. Mot on Dassed unanimously. . -1-4 . X; I., � -a, L, W .., DISCU�aIWOIF 1MOCEDURE FOR ZONE gHA-GE "-U4kU.B...7 tw, The me iA6 'by 'Mr 4�� pgg6. as� this s, �,jjub q�q b & e laboii t Ini- g 6n i--thd � or i tbr i 6L :which opuld -K6ckll-st -for-.- Mr d rz such request -is MMd,44-" .-age was-dirocted to prep*4� a) zonW change :requests and,,01-aits" Aa . n revie w -� f6ijV �pr osent alit idn' andv i n meetllng*"7�'�I` discut*icir-at the � next Planning tComm 's's'g.- WORK SE281 -WITH, bffi. RAIX D- kSLin S AM Mr. D�o-�fl&uriers4..,.pre-serx-te4t, a sketch 014rjfor the 'extension •of East. Terraand teloo,ment' of his larid -66`-he-,resid"tlAldev f fi&essAbnd egress. Discus�tlbn"- oentered that 111! imejS Meetlng7-adjourned at P 0�— C 3 4 I'A t r t*l;, apprl�—,priai-,;a p ' proved any a 0 ArtiW*11, ;, o Pi i' JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 60 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 April 1, 1974 AREA CODE 602 963-2057 Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion Letter 54 New Zoning Regulations - ISSUE: Do the new zoning regulations apply to subdivision applications pending upon the effective date of the new zoning regulations? Dear Bill: The question has been raised whether the two subdivision applications pending before the Planning Commission on March 21, 1974, must conform to the City's new zoning regulations. It is my understanding that both subdivision applications were filed prior to March 21, 1974, which was the effective date of the new zoning regulations. Neither application at that time, however, had been approved by the Planning Commission. It is also my understanding that neither applicant has been issued a zoning permit. In order for a person to be free from the limitations of a new zoning ordinance, he must have established a nonconform- ing use or a vested right, or there must be some specific authority contained in the State's enabling act or in the municipality's zoning regulations preserving pending permit applications. My examination of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and our new zoning ordinance reveals that neither source contains language fixing the rights of an applicant at the time his application is filed. Therefore, the issue is whether the two applicants in ques- tion have established a nonconforming use or a vested right under which they would need not comply with the new zoning ordinance. Generally speaking, "land included in a newly improved plat which has been approved by the planning board and filed in the appropriate office is as vulnerable to changes in the zoning regu- lations as is all other land in the community." 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 19.23. Also, "the filing of an approved subdivision plat does not establish a nonconforming use of the plated land which protects it from subsequent zone changes. 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section•19.23, and cases there cited. .EWING & SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- April 1, 1974 Another zoning authority has stated the general rule in the following terms: "It is generally held that neither the filing of an application for a building permit nor the issuance of a building permit, although valid and issued in con- formity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, alone confers any rights in the applicant or permittee as against the change in the zoning ordinance which imposes further limitations upon the use or structure proposed." Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 57-2. The clear weight of authority indicates that no right to a nonconforming use is established when a land owner applies for a permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.21. Following this one step further, the issuance of a permit adds little to a land owner's case for a nonconforming use. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. It is clear from the case law that in order to establish a nonconforming use, the owner of the land must actually use his property for the intended purposes. Many opinions distinguish between preparing the land for an intend- ed purposes, and actual use of the land for that purpose. See Town of Mendon vs. Ezzo, 129 Vt. 351, 361 (1971). The Mendon case indicates a preparation for a forbidden use is not enough to relieve property from new regulations nor is a substantial investment commit- ed to the project enough to establish a nonconforming use. There is no question that neither applicant in South Burlington has established a nonconforming use. Concerning the acquisition of a "vested right", the majority rule requires the land owner to spend a substantial amount of money or change his position in reliance upon the issuance of a valid permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. Although there are no Vermont Supreme Court cases defining a "vested right", last year, the Chittenden County Court considered vested rights in Preseault vs. Wheel and City of Burlington, Chittenden County Court Docket No. C8 -73CnC. In that case, the Court, by implication, ruled that vested rights are earned if the developer has spent_ a substantial amount of money in reliance upon the issuance of a building permit. I would conclude that the South Burlington applicants have neither acquired a nonconforming use nor a vested right, and both applicants must comply with the new zoning regulations. From the scanty case law in Vermont, it appears that our Supreme Court would side with the majority view on both of these issues. Ve truly yours, Richard A. Spoke~�: S RAr i _ . . 10, MARCH 26. 1974 Kra. Neubert offered to follow up on the appointment by City Council of a member of the three -wan committee on the possible purchase of Mr. Unsworth's land. Mr. Sehuele said he would have a name and give it to Mrs. Neubert. Chairman Maher said she was giving the copy of the proposed By -Laws conveyed by Mr. Unsworth. to Mr. Ward with the request that he give this copy to the city attorney and get an opinion from him. Pine Crook Condominiums Mr, Fred Calcagni said he would summarize their answers to the requests of the last meeting. 40 foot rightof way -- No objection to this. 15 foot essem"t for s" e� -- No objection. Curb at a tra ce -- City manager said it was acceptable, but northern edge of road &fiouIA also have curb. Agreed to do this, Street Lighting -- adequate street lighting will be provided. .14 foot d -- City mulager said acceptable. • -- City manager withdrew his suggestion for these. Drainage for run-off water -- City Manager will review final drawing and Will request curbs where necessary. eon Mountain Power C.r„_ -- the 1952 easement agreement plan is acceptable to the power company. Erosion -- Buildings will be located where they will not cause any erosion. Mr. Caleagni said they had been advised that having power coming up Joy Drive would not be sufficient so they have had to change their plans and have the power brought back down by overhead and then go underground. Lines will be 30 to 34 feet up from the ground and would meet the national safety code. The power company has the right to come in and cut shrubs. Mr. Wessel asked if the Commission could require that the service be underground. Mr, Ward replied the main feeder goes from the poles down to the transformer. but lines to houses must be underground. Mr. Robenstein asked about public vs, private road with power lines going over it and was told by the Chairman a power coapanF official had assured her there was no fear in having residential development near power lines, Mr. Robenstein then'said additional traffic could be a hazard and a reason to waive the public road requirement. Mr. Schmucker thought aA ambulance or fire engine would fare better on a road built to city standards; that he was merely saying there are different reasons for waiving the road requirement. Mr, Ward said it was recommended by the City Manager that it remain 40 feet. Chairman Maher asked Mr. Caleagni if the road could be widened. He said the setbacks would be sufficient to widen and still 'Root the setback requirements. Mr. Robenstein asked about the park and public recreation and how would access for trail system be accomplished. Mr. Calcagni said the trail system as it exists now could be connected in with this property. �� . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 26a_1974 Next question discussed was regarding children having to walk down the road to the bus, a distance of 1200 feet to the cul de sac. It was determined that there was room for a sidewalk. Mr. Page said that could be a condition to be installed by the home owners' association. Mr. Ward said this would mean some sort of guarantee by the developer that sidewalks would be put in. Mr. Robenstein said there are no sidewalks on Farrell Drive or Joy Drive, nor on his own street, Mills Avenue, where many children walk to school. Mr. Schmucker asked if sidewalks had to be concrete to meet city standards. Mr. Ward said there are no strong feelings on type of sidewalks but they do have to be five feet wide and five feet from edge of road to edge of side- walk. Mr. Mitchell said the developers were trying to save as many of the trees as possible -- a question of keeping the trees or having sidewalks. The Chairman said the Commission could require a blacktop sidewalk or they could leave it as optional for the city manager as to whether or not the loss of trees would be too great. Mr. Schmucker suggested that the city manager provide some determination as to how the sidewalk be providedi he would strongly recommend that the City waive the cement sidewalk for a more rural typo of sidewalk so that children have a place to walk out of the highway.. Mr. Robenstein felt the amount of traffic in the development would not generate the need for a sidewalk. Chairman Maher commented that there is a sidewalk on Lakeland Avenue into their property. She added that a landscaping plan for Pine Creek would have to be a condition. Other items would await final approval from Mr. Symanski, which would leave the Planning Commission with only a sidewalk to consider. Mr. Robenstein asked about By -Laws of Association. Mr. Mitchell said he had a draft of a set of By -Laws, Articles of Apartment Ownership, but his attorney wants to go over them. The Chairman stated approval on that a&tter would also be conditional upon approval of the By -Laws by the city attorney. Street lighting was next brought up. Mrs hard said Green Mountain Power sets the standards where they place the poles, etc. Unless the developer had his own source of lighting parts. he would have to g6t Croon Mountain Power lights. If their lights aroused, they service them: if developer buys his own, then he has a maintenance problem. I Mr. Wessel asked why street lights were needed and was told it was required because of the safety concern. Chairman Maher said it should be made a condition of approval that lighting conform to approval of the city manager. Chairman then asked if the sidewalk issue could be resolved. Mr. Wessel said he would like to find a way to leave it up to the owners. Mr. Kitchell said he would like to take the city manager to the site again to really settle it as he is concerned about the trees and the problem of keeping salt from the underbrush. IN !I VUI� -1A ?9RC-H 2J.-IM "2 -The Owixman &gr**d tkW-06-4m _Woolft will:ask the city manager to once again revieK *6 sit* &84 d0t*00*0 104thOr Or not he fools sidewalks are a*odod. "iuckor.09668tsd Saymanaki Ahat Children have to walk to the tin vex this dis tance. No should determine that there is no safety question fe children livin4 in tbst are** notion was then:aado bjW#'"SW that MLO—PUnRISK, Commission aemmt tho -L) ME-1 RrwA1vVW4XI afkIR vtOw the site bemuse of our eonoo= that there appears to 'Wit 1200 foot walk that children mr6t travel to get in and out Of Marc, for sch"I purposes and aW,,Iewcora With tho!�.posslblo, need for aid*. Olk&.%r,r,,7he Commission is also projered to waive the standard sidewalk pro- ;h row, 0. concretoyqv Aomothing, IR""XiastIng " ft, such an blacktopi t adacap* apBppv4,, 1w OwItiawl upon rOselpt of Comments Ik9e& %opt *4 4"Ps" Pun t*,bo 4LIVOL, to the all 'final P"Ved bar` , UPOU 1, Of �V.UWS'q a Copy 00amisslompk` InG, oiloul Upon &W*ftl� OU$tVOwV..f;IISbtIng 6 ea is recommendations by letter, Of Vareh, 26th be-,. . . . . . . . . ..... Ibexrequested to'gj'W* the Planning CO"W- jaQ:jWf the ,.Pr6joC# ',q1&"UOA Of APIR ISP&OG'vag brought Up Again#', bat it remalft in perpetuity. 1%*&J,siggested, Wt tbi#,!4owld be, covered In, the BY41&WS. *ckfx 4ald"MAIA th0doWeloper will deed the land to tow-smoog"ttow a, a , its,; Tbo &MOf open space can be spelled out4wthe MR* 804064tr SU04 sue` 14t, fto, Ki taboll, ask . Ai a local attorm*y, te� consult 4�W$bojjfe ftok ,the qkty Attorneys that tko problem night bars-solvod# dwPoa said she wjshod,;to�,Ssk� Maio* to�61*0�tk4r-:' MAI 2=0 1. P asIGOI: to SwIlto So"I'V9 mootljw with th#, ifaW00461, saw Olt tit the mosti R6 be adjourmodo' ,jOMS"M& -kW UP QAI&Ift.. 16 Mein Qochsed. ad ja►r1 }a! 11815 Pon* PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 25, 1974 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public meeting on Tuesda June 25, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, y, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman; John Dinklage, Ernest Levesque, Sidney Poger, William Robenstein, Ronald Schmucker, William Wessel MEMBERS ABSENT None (Mr. Robenstein left at 10:00 p.m.) OTHERS PRESENT Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Frank Breen, Bill Schuele, Fred Smith, Len Scarfone, Carolyn Scarfone, Ralph DesLauriers, Ruth DesLauriers, Chris Deslauriers, Fred Taylor, Paula Taylor, Kay Neubert, Fred Blais, Jim Ewing, Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Graves, Paul Flinn, Terrance Boyle The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of June 11, 1974 Mr. Poger noted that a sentence should be added on page 3 to read: the re- location of Route 7 might cause the present businesses in that area to decide to relocate; that relocating Route 7 may give us a new business area. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Minutes of June 11, 1974 be accepted with the inclusion of Mr. Poger's correction. Seconded by Mr. Wessel and voted unanimously. Pine Brook Condominiums Chairman Maher read a memorandum from Mr. Ward regarding the power poles on the project. Mr. Ward added there are several different methods of protecting the poles. The Chairman suggested leaving it up to the City Manager as to whether or not there would be protection in this area. Chairman Maher then read a memorandum from Mr. Szymanski recommending a side- walk to extend to the cul de sac. Responding to a question as to the size, the Chairman said the Commission could not require anything more than the maximum requirement. Chairman Maher read a lengthy motion by Sidney Poger recorded in the March 26 Minutes. Mr. Poger suggested eliminating items #1 and #4 in that motion. Mr. Poger moved that the new motion should read: subject to the following conditions: 1 that a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic be constructed to the cui de sac; 2� a e landscape approva s conditional upon receipt of comments of the Tree Committee, with a formal landscape plan being iven to the Tree Committee; 3� that all drainanze be approved by the City Manager; 4 that the power poles be protected as a -5) that approval is also conditional on a Manager; d to by Greer. Mountain Power; val of street lights by Cit_v PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1974 2. 621 that Mr. Sz manski's recommendations by letter of March 26 be complied with; that the develo er be required to give the Planning Comm ss on a me table: 8 that all required bonds be posted as required by the City Manager; that a royal is also conditional upon approval of the com om n um by-laws by the city attorney. Motion seconded by Mr. Robenstein. Mr. Frank Breen, as the real estate agent, said any time table he could give would be purely speculative. It might be feasible to break ground by next spring; would be built as a demand type of thing. Mr. Dinklage felt it important to know what the rate of build-up would be in order to make some assessment of future projects and their impact on city services; that the builder could be required to give the Planning Commission a revised building schedule, or schedules when they occur. Mr. Dinklage then moved to amend #7 as follows: the developer be required to give the Planning Commission a time table of his scheduled building and to inform the Planning Commission when any change is made. This amendment was accepted by Mr. Poger. Mr. Schuele expressed concern over the possibility of all subdivisions being finished at once, putting a burden on the City; that the developers might hold back until there was a demand for housing, then all build at once. Mr. Poger felt this was possible but not probable. Mr. Ward explained that unless certain site improvements are made, the sub- division would be lost in two years; that all the sub -divisions that are now active have been going five or six years. Mr. Schmucker suggested a time table could be a condition of approval; that a time table should be made a part of an application and presentation. Jack Tabaka asked when the permit would become effective if received at this meeting. Mr. Ward said the approval would be effective immediately but they would have to get the 250 approval. Also the project has to wait 21 days after the City Council zone change. Also, the final site plan has to be recorded. Asked about time limits, the Chairman said the developer has actually got to do some preliminary work within six months. Mr. Schmucker added that if every six months he does something that would further the construction, he can delay it for a long time. Mr. Robenstein raised the question of escrow time limits and was asked by the Chairman to get the policy from the City Manager for the information of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wessel said a bond can be required for three years and then be renewed once for another three years. Then the City can go in and do the work itself. Mr. Dinklage suggested asking Mr. Ward to clarify our existing bonding regu- lations and if they can be used to assure compliance with a site plan and with a time table. The Commission voted unanimously to approve Mr. Poger's motion. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Commission request an opinion from the City .��_ Mbtton seconded by Mr. Schmucker and voted unanimously for approval. Ln 00 EIn 0 ,'April 2, 1974 Mr. William Haas " ?.0. 'Box 3.71 Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Mr. hams: Upon advice from the City's attorney, Mir. Richard Spokes, I regret to inform you that the South Burlington Planning Commission hay unanimously agreed to resind its approval of the Pine Brook proposal because it does not conform to the duly adopted 1974 Co;-.prehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Spokes opinion ,-5�4, detailing the basis for this decision. In addition to resinding its approval, the South, Burling ton Planning Commission hereby t'ormally�rejects the Pine Brook proposal on the basis that it does not conform'to the existing .taster Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Article IV, Section 401, of the 1964. South Burl, ington'Subdivision Regulations). Furthermore, please be advised that the Lakelands proposal has likewise been 'denied on -these grounds as well. Sincerely yours, Diary Barbara Maher, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission RECEIPT FOR ,CERTIFIED MAIL-30sl (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR GATE _SI�REET AN NO. —t'_p., STATE AND ZIP CODF OPTIGNAE,SEkVtCECES FOR ADDITIONAL TEES RETURN 1. Shaws to wham and date delivered .— .�- ..150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 ( 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered 350 .. SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 t DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE OhIY'..................................................... so SPECAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) ••................................. 450 1 i 1 1 1 i March 28, 1971+ I Haas P.O. i` o:. 171 Bur lin ;cony VT . 051+01 Dc r, "r . ::aus : 1 Be advised that -the Sputh Burlin,-ton Planning Commission h^s n�_^oved your' application for the construction of 50 co1;do::� ;�iu.�l dti,,cilin., units on a parcel of land located off 1 joy Drive, . as pe,r. ', plans .sub itted on Te'rruary 19, 1974. Approval is conditional on the follows-Lig: 1 1. That the City 1;anager again review the site because i of the concern that there appears to be a 1200 foot walk that children must gravel to and from the cul-de-sac.'That a determination as to how the sidewalk be provided or if*one is needed be ! made by the City Vanager, the Commission is ! prepared to waive the standard cement sidewalk i for a more rural blacktop type. �.' ~hat a formal �la:ic�sca?iin�- plan ' e submitted and revietired by the City Tree Cor•.mittee and also be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That all final drainage details be approved by the ' City '.anager. 4.. That the condominium by-lawd be submitted for approval by the City Attorney and Planning Oommission,. 1 , 1 ~. That all street li�htin be approved by the City I:anager. 6. 1 ^hat all reco^imendutions made by the City Iunaaer n aldata ,arch 26i, 1974 be complied with. a 7.: That tz;a developer subait, in letter form, a timetable for devehopmont for the entire project. 0 I , ,ill , iam iialas A final', 'subd ivis ion plan Must be submitted to the Planning Con.;isslo", in ,1c�o{ dance with the provisions set forth in ',rticle',VI of th City subdivision retulations. The develoner is also' re'cuired • to subriiit 'a performance bond, amount of said bond to �:'Y determined -by 'the ,City. When you have prepared youlandscaping and final plan please, ;.advise ,this offir g; ce and -a meeting with the Planning Commission- gill be scheduled., If you; have. any questions„ Feel .fr;ge to, ca,11 me at 863-2891. Very truly,, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer cc Mr. Alfred Calcagni I 1 � 1 i State of Vermont County of Chittenden City of South Burlington Re: Pine Brook Condominium's Subdivision Application On the 9th day of September, 1975 the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final approval for Phase I, consisting of eleven dwelling units, but excluding the tennis courts shown on the plan, of the proposed Pine Prook Condo- miniums, as shown on a plan dated September 9, 1975 and signed by the clerk of the South Burlington Planning Commission, contingent upon: 1. installation of sidewalks, drainage and street lighting per City Manager's recommendations as outlined in his memo to the South Burlington Planning Commission of September 9, 1975. 2. approval of final landscaping plan by City Tree Planting Committee. 3. protection of power poles as agreed to by Green Mountain Power. 4. posting of all required bonds. 5. approval of condominium by-laws by the City Attorney. f t cr- r C�Yl c5 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI, CITY MANAGER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: MARCH 26, 1974 As a result of the March llth meeting the following three questions were brought up. 1. The 40 foot right-of-way to the development: A 60 foot right-of-way would enroach upon Rice High School b allfield and since it will be a private street maintained by the developer (including snow removal), I have no objection, however, it should be specified that in the future if it is to become a city street, additional land must be acquired and the street constructed to city standards. 2. Sewer easement: The main sewer interceptor, from the cul-de-sac to the development, should be deeded to the city because only the city possesses the equipment necessary to unplug and clean sewer mains. The width of the easement should be 15 feet. 3. Need for sidewalks: I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Respectfully submitted William J'�. Szymanski City Manager architects CALCAGNI FRAZIER ZATCHOWSRI 86 saint paul street burlington, vermont 05401 tel. 8 0 2 - 8 6 3 - 6 8 6 3 March 26, 1974 Re: Project #74-5 Pine Brook Condominiums South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vermont Gentlemen: Following our March 12, 1974 meeting we have met with Mr. Bill Symanski, City Manager and also have reviewed the site plan with Green Mountain Power Corporation. We submit the following items of decisions, approvals and discussion as a result of our meetings. A. Meeting with Bill Symanski on March 18, 1974. 1. Relative to the 40' Right of Way. Mr. Symanski has no objections. This to be confirmed in writing from City Manager's office. 2. Relative to 15' easement for sewer, Mr. Symanski requests that sewer line be `installed to city standards and that a 15' wide easement for the sewer line be given by the Association to the City. This is agreeable by owner. 3. Relative to curve at entrance Mr. Symanski stated it was acceptable, but did ask that ✓the northern edge of the road also have a curve. Radius of inside curve is 1001, which is more than adequate for large trucks and buses of any kind. 4. Relative to street lighting, the Association will provide adequate street lighting for safety and security purposes. 5. Relative to 24' wide road Mr. Symanski stated it was acceptable. architects CALCAGNI FRAZIER ZAJCHOWSKI Wage two South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1974 6. Relative to the sidewalk Mr. Symanski wishes to withdraw his suggestion. 7. Relative to drainage of run off water, Mir. Symanski wishes to review final drawings to insure against erosion of roadway edges and will request curbs in certain areas of curves where he feels it to be necessary. B. Meeting with Green Mountain Power Corporation (Mr. Bernie Brault). I 1. Site plan and easement agreement was reviewed and the revised drawing dated March 26th incorporates a plan that is acceptable to the power company, which utilizes the easement P for the roadway and utilities. C. Relative to Mr. Reay's remark on three buildings, �^ they will be located so that they will not cause ' erosion of the bank. Respectfully submitted, IC GN , F ZIER, ZAJCHOWSKI for B K ONDOMINIUM CORPORATION 11 rt' c AAC/tf F r - •.- a o .rite f o+ Tucsra ' ... T30 p.m. to <on a the following: h March 12, ibi l n #1 .4oneal of Lakeland Corporation, Mr, roymon uns-. ,,th o• of I -J con 0i 1e purposes or co , 'i>> Ili'o units, sa p,rC-_l is I... ne w sherry :..c c. nc �a is bounded by r.� .ant Railroad, boun ':�c' .zn h. :_,u ,,,= Loz.on prop �cn ha north by tho Lo,- if na Airroe properties and o, t vast by lako Chomplo'n, ., r -- pinn of ie in the City H ill 0,;ices. ba?ea' of William Haas of Ticonderoga, Now York for approv A of a parcel of land con�aining oppro>cim n' (1 2) acres, for the purpo;c)s or constructing fifty (:vi .. ominium dwelling units, said parcel is locotod ott Joy Ori, the auth by Interstate 139 an the east Sy prop::-ry of Vermont and the Svrlington Couriry Ci of e t b. the Rice Memorial Hirih Sca:ci and rap o ration VrjOY, as per pion on file in the City HaJ 0, ,cos. Mary uorh.ra \:char, Chairwoman {' t 17, South a train,. o-n l .::rite:) coi.un.,.iaa , SOUTH SURLINGTO SUBDIVISION NE4urlington Rf��ICE Commission hwilSouth l old, publicPtanning / at tie South Burl;tgton C}hearing Conference RRoal, South Burintor) Williston 0o er tn, rune r it at) 3 mOnt on peat-.'cowinj. P. rit, to Ajero of Willie Haa Tirsubd9a' New York for aFnProv vison s of, raining a al �_res PProx. P Parcel of P6 BLII,& SOI,TH<"'@ING PLANNIt GTON ' i PROF OSf MISSION lDMENT sou7H B ZON NGoRCn,,Tom TUESigYrAPRiLCE. CiTY ' 30 P,M, 1974 Notice IfALLCONFEREN(:' hearing Is} herebheldv by a,f Public If ues ay.A Sab30,ii974,at7missSouon hat H located of 1 p5I Conference R ' City of South Williston Road foam following; Burlington, on tee PROPOSED AMENDME,tlT SOUTH I BURLIN TON ZObIINGRDINANCeThe official In Section toning ingMao referred to regulations, and 0 the zoning reference, adopted there1) b the boundarhesl e t mended sr, that District are extended Residential following pr0pirtvc ed to include the "Cam,e nencingr__•� so -tali: southeastcorner ut wr• erf as j.�/He High School Burlington ,.•N•. on the South thence proce, Zoning Map; dlreclicn along t a northerly and Burlington i„ rice Htgh School boundaries entry Club easterly more a distance of 536 feet, or less; fl:ence Proceedin easterly direction atop (lin gin an bb �rsitY nof�ountry Cluti and s�idariI a ,,ist neoM of southern �rlY dire'ctiion-Ince Proceeding inea elan C -lary of the Universit stern 1 im. in a feet, mo more less; thnc of ence proceed n9f imafely twely land Nifty (50r the Purpose a (12) a ` southern boundadirectlon along the said pa �Cl is I niumof Conslruclin J1 Stare Highway De Y of the Vermont 189unded °n tine dated off suing units, / F ' yr distance of 690 feetrf ment land for a south b , Drive ih 6 e °n. the east by proper} Interstate r U9tonrC ntr moot anddby 'versify Y oTYVC�u and and nedhe !f 9V�6r198 ®i west iCe plan aned in radio statcityion Hi fileon the High onfilfile n Mary arbara Maher, -hair ces' r „ GU. ann MaY27, 1974 PlanningT('0mmission ence turning in a portheole or less, along the easterly boundfrection Ii Vermont Broadcast' distance of g Inctlafor of the PolnT 0r 260 feet, more or less, to (The land end of beginning.11 i above are Premises described lBusiness Presently located i;: the District), Planned Develo COPIES AMENDM P+Went OF PROP'NTT O THE 19OSED 7q SOUTH BURLINGT NING AT THENOCFF I BE EXAMINED CLERK, 1175 ICE OF THE CITY t()UTH BURL4NGTO ISTON ROAD, DateiyOf ls 12th da N• April, 197q. �PUTH BURLIN G PLANING TON April 13, 1974 COMMISSION -- O�3a Vo u• v ��c�� ri` off.=e"a H maw `� �L."e O a.1Aew�-N wCe. W-O O� wNGC w OP Otw`�HC•r z zW^ zwwo A O Looyc w t2 ro �...i° W ,mLV°•'c°' U' O -0V� W r� "ao F--1 w H w4a o y a v oz ME-y`. __ - ~2 Uo"o m��_.a Z.OUdwt wDc '^j- cw`C `�..� �COQY= Z_� 000OwO FO-V I -0-0 cc�°'vMicc�oi. 5 ,wu u�E N N y L w C ,_L T W� � E u ij S 0< cL - N 0. �a >� D>. C a N : jJ J� � e� W .V <W O w� O N=� O y 10 1.t G r° w. eJ G p1 D� W N ��?�W•O,'O ?O Er O�J Z�9+d EL,� rW3iJc u`w� �o.O O�.CN� ty. s— _C '6> °tea �cwjp ^ O On '}. P— 1F-O JV C 0. rn o� O om�. ._ c� w C o'er cE°''�OO `y�m0u'�cy_m aW2 mOy",�',i2 y•cu��ca,wjO�.�o'a°ao� '°mow mo, wm?.,or�oE� + St? n0 a, mC! am-.-._ o .a- w.• uc.cov,cu >"„cc �� c do �.h,.. a'T >,u0 '°OF - 1L=Ow W� �.=V ZQ Uw >• a _u c>.'N who aCi py F- F-ON�t~iz Oz0 _I,noV^o, F-Z�.c`°.N�wnut�ovcic oN`o u+a`,wD'vOc c'�" wyaN� O 000 . Q •- c a W 2 'u o ff m v: c •.- w u o ,- v m •, •� o.- c c ooti-7rjb cTN aO. �.. 0rn00.-•-c a mw prep-oi v. a�m�`,q 0.. UO, prri pp 0l�rnNwV OVCO�E�O.O 40 CNW�o. �. W� QO Nno;•r-C Nd O.1^ iy l-z 00 ZO'`tL 1 OWF- �o`cwv=ca ww,eyb'U �E. _amo�� -rnN` �.`.-aw LouLm.Opcw ieam'or `o 3e�w I` -w _NZt V ..�z liy ouwo_cuumvf0owr=w.m ew - Vzami.�em=�� .e y`�oo tm•'r23ma ~cw`m w'"_z ct `c.w.a� ���>a w.c a E E t=cw ou.=v wuW `ou or._coom�•cao .m�a+ocaE.�nrwc -rw. JU0 � o unm�v oa Ewm OaE�ajdcN;°+-c�v'^w~off„a�j`u - ro >i end WIEMANtI - L.AMPH ERE, ARCHITECTS 346 SHELBURNE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-5056 RICHARD H. WIEMANN A.I.A. DAMES A. LAMPHERE A.I.A. July 30, 1975 Mr. Curtis Carter, Coordinator Environmental District No. 4 State of Vermont 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Meadow Brook Condominiums - Formerly Pine Brook Condominiums Dear Curt: I am writing on behalf of South Burlington Realty and would like to re- quest an amendment to the original project mentioned above. As you will note on the attached Site Plan the Buildings and Units vary slightly to the original site plan developed by Calcagni-Frazier and Zajchowski Architects, Inc. The garage building has been placed nearer to the road and the buildings have been placed in an effort to make better use of the site and save more of the tree areas from demolition and construction damages. In addition to the above we have added a swimming pool and two tennis courts to the project. These were requested by the lending agency and we feel will help the marketing of these units. The tennis courts have been placed on the east side of the brook and will require a small gravel path and bridge to get to this area. We intend to keep this area as natural as possible. We would also like to make you aware of the fact that the original Pine Brook Condominium project was purchased by Munson Earth Moving Corp. of South Burlington. The Owner, Mr. Randall Munson intends to construct them under South Burlington Realty. Mr. Munson is Owner of both Corporations. As I understand from our conversation this A.M. we have approval to start construction on the Units, however we must hold up until the District .Environmental Commission can review the pool and tennis court additions. If you have any questions please call. Aam ruly yours, A. Lamphe e JAL:jd N-LAMPHERE,ARCHITECTS enc EXHIBIT B State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Interagency Committee on Natural Resources Natural Resources Conservation Council AU6 I a, 19,75 AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 111 Jest "treet Essex Junction, VT 051452 Aizust G, 1975 P E/13 MUP1 TO: Parties to rand Use Permit YlIC0154 FR 4: District #11 Fhvironmental Commission �.� �O—C"'Lw.-- SUBJECT: Amendment to Permit P4unson Earth r4oving Corporation has requested that band Use Permit #4CO1511 be amended to reflect the revised site plan. Attached is a copy of the plan and letter of explanation. It is the initial impression of the Corrndssion that the density and basic confi;,u ation of the buildings has not chaR(((-d and, therefore, the applicant should not be held up from commencing- on Phase I. The addition of Vie swimning pool and tennis courts do, however, constitute a change that will need to be fully reviewed. As nart of this review, the Commission will consider the proposed total layout of the development. _.. ,..yam.,. .. party wishing to comment'-. n __.: "the prop...os...:, _. ed revisfon1`or request a hearing should do so within 15 days of receipt of this notice. All parties will be notified of any hearing or meeting, of the Cor::Inission. AGENCY OF NATURAL RFSOURCFS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD PROJECT REVIEW SHEET C District 0 -- i I ins ��ri� 1 Applicant A� ication M THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Town On—L / 14/ 19 1 reviewed ' formation concerning a prof on a attract or tra of land of acres• proposed by " The project will be on lands owned by n V i ! t 'n ✓ 1 1n �, %1A� Vermnnl a (/ 0d is generally described as: L r C D 11'C Jv%1^W C �eKl u' Tz� �v l (d �Jpt 4" e"I 0/►•t mot► �.-."S J �(XJ (N btAv1. 1i esaM be obtained for this project Mnder the following permit pm%rams which I have ellweked`((1.{t(f S11 !4 t U)�k' 6CA,G- Nbpt -11 ACT 250 PROTECTION DIVISION PERMITS: Deferral of Subdivision; ILA Pb1+Fc�u,id«r8 / Subdivision; Tent and Travel Trailer Mobile Home Park Law; Stream Alteration Law; Municipal Sewer Line Extension; FISH AND WILDLIFE DEPT. PERMIT: Stream Obstruction Permit Prior Permits from this e>frtx. nn The above utistiXi ltsl der"minat('onl+is based information provided and the fdlpwing: �U�" 1s.a6/4(/1�aC tii S rli•�'[t�C C �1��1� -CX ram, r^FR T y� w4rU� (,�.cc�ld "Ju t- r� r Ns/t,; �rd '� 10 THESE A E THE ONLY P . M7 S O TAINABLE FROM THIS OFFICE. NO CONSTRUCTION OR SALE OF LOTS IS PERMITTED UNTIL ALL PERMITS CHECKED ABOVE HAVE SEEN ISSUED IN WRITING. THIS IS AN ADVISORY OPINION AND MAYBE APPEALED. ANY PARTY WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS OPINION MA Y IV REQUEST A REVIEW BY THE EXECUTE OFFICER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, (ACT 25(), OR THE DIRECTOR OFTHEPROTF.CTI DIVISION, AS AP PRIATE. ANY SUCH REQUEST MUST BE MADE IN WRITING THROUGH THIS OFFICE BY / /19L 1 also recommend that yob contact the (Blowing Vermont State Agencies because this project may need approval under their programs: I. AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Waterbury, C VT 05676 Air Pollution Control (244-8731) Hydro Electric Projects (244-7347) Waars OurlityCertificate f Fednil permie req (244 hot I 1 Use of Chemicals in State Waters Dam Operations R Review (244-9755) (244-561R) Management of Lakes and Ponds (244--695 11 BAFud/ChernidSkxage/Jt%nuT nus Waoe,(244J97M) Discharge of Temporary Pollution Storm water Permit 244-5674) Industrial Process Air Emmions (244-97i1 ) Indirect Discharge Waste Management Sanitary Landfills (244-9702) ("ierthan 6.Wgpd)(244-5674) Indtiorial Furnace/Boller Conversion/Installation (244-8731) 2. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR A INDUSTRY, Montpelier, VT 05602 - Tel: 828-2106 Electrical Wiring Approval Fire Prevention Approval Storage of Flammable Liquids, Explosives �— Access for Handicapped Approval Tramways and Ski Facilities Elevators Plumbing in Public Buildings Boilers and Pressure Vessels Plumbing in Single Family Residence served by 3. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Burlington, VT 05401 - Tel: 863-7220 (Contact: Public Water/Sewer w/ 10 or more customers ) Food, lodging, bakeries and children's camps Protection of Public Water Source �_ Nursing homes, hospitals and homes for the aged 4. DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR (Consult Externion of water linen nvn 50(y the telephone directory (Contact•. under VERMONT, STATE OF,Ilighways Access to State Highways (Residential Driveways) 3. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION, Montpelier, VT 05602 ) Development within 500' of a limited access highway Signs (Travel Information Council) (828-2651) Airports and Landing Strips (828.2828) Construction within a state highway right-of-way (Utilities, Signs, Junkyards (828.2587) Driveways) (828.2653) 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Montpelier, VT 05602 (Contact: ) • Use of Pmtlddes (828-2428) Slaughter Houses (828-2426) Milk Praceraing Facilltles (828.2411) 7. AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES, Waterbury, VT 0%76 - tel: 241-2158 (Contact: Animal Shelters/Kennels (828-2421) ) Day Care Pacili6es Residential Child Care Padlities Community Care Homes B. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD (828-2359) / PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT(828-2811) Hydro Projects 9. Altemative Sources of Energy DIVISION OF Hi3TORIC PRESERVATION, Montpelier, VT 05602 - Tel. 828-3226 10. LOCAL PERMITS - Contact your town officials 11. OTHER: B - IL ,J� - t ;!r x i = S 4 IL roll .In ivtswnho,men. ar ce rm% & I c cp cane Number 1� -G 6 3/88 Whitt emy - Applicant Yellow copy - F File Pink Pink Dopy -Protection Division (Waterbury) Distribution List Land Use Permit Application 4C0154-5 South Burlington Realty Company by Dale A. Rocheleau, Esq. Downs Rachlin & Martin P. 0. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402 Gregory A. Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street P. O. Box 2267 South Burlington, VT 05403 Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc. by Douglas K. Riley, Esq. Lisman & Lisman P. O. Box 728 Burlington, VT 05402 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chuck Hafter, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P. 0. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street, 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 2 - Brian Burns, Owner of Unit A-1 Gail Nicolas, Owner of Unit A-2 John Baker, Owner of Unit A-3 William & Nancy Jacobus, Owner of Unit A-4 Stephen Hegner, Owner of Unit A-5 Stephen Furkay, Owner of Unit A-6 Remi & Rhonda Gratton, Owner of Unit B-1 Julie Bonano, Owner of Unit B-2 Robert & Jane Schultz, Owner of Unit B-3 Mary McGinley, Owner of Unit B-4 Charles & Catherine Schirmer, Owner of Unit B-5 Chad & Eva Walsh, Owner of Unit C-1 Albert & Barbara Verrett, Owner of Unit C-2 Hope Riehle, Owner of Unit C-3 Peter Salzburg & Michelle Hadeka, Owner of Unit C-4 Leslie Larrow, Owner of Unit C-5 Joe & Julie Sopher, Owner of Unit C-6 Lillian Gladstone, Owner of Unit C-7 Ginny Flieschman, Owner of Unit D-1 Catherine Debo, Owner of Unit D-2 Howard Klein, Owner of Unit D-3 Alan & Linda Elrick, Owner of Unit D-4 Robert & Audrey McGregor, Owner of Unit D-5 Jack & Marge Stanton, Owner of Unit D-6 Deborah Spurlock, Owner of Unit D-7 Hal & Diana Kemp, Owner of Unit E-1 - 3 - Bruce Albee, Owner of Unit E-2 Vince Koehler & Neeta Kataria, Owner of Unit E-3 Lew Gordon, Owner of Unit E-4 Laura Stephens, Owner of Unit E-5 Arthur & Joan Balfe, Owner of Unit E-6 Tom & Muriel More, Owner of Unit E-7 Helen B. Mann, Owner of Unit F-1 Miles & Eleanor Weidner, Owner of Unit F-2 Herbert & Helen Harrington, Owner of Unit F-3 Sheila M. Geddes, Owner of Unit F-4 Barbara Erickson, Owner of Unit F-5 Roger Waters, Owner of Unit F-6 Larry & Marge Simmons, Owner of Unit F-7 B4.37.0901.2 MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. 366 DORSET STREET - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE 863-6391 September 9, 1975 Dick Ward Zoning Administrator 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Headowbrook Condominiums Construction Timetable Dear Dick: If a building permit is granted as of September 9., 1975, we plan to start construction on Phase I, September 10, 1975. Phase I consists of 11 Condominium units in two buildings. Phase I is planned to be complete by early December 1975. Phase II will not start until early spring Of 1976. Further construction will depend on sales. The total project is expected to take three years. Very truly yours, 1w1UiuS01i EARTH 1-10VINa" CORP. JBv,'/nd �James B. Wallace "'Project Manager eA INTEG*ITY 4o HEAVY CONSTRUCTION e ROADS * WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS e SITE WORK - EQUIPMENT RENTALS NOTICE OF CLAIM The City of South Burlington, County of Chi.ttenden, State of Vermont, files the fallowing Notice of Claim by authority of 27 V.S.A. Chapter 5, Subchapter. 7. This Notice of Claim 'is filed in relation to certain real property located in the City of South Burlington, Vermont which is known as "Meadowbrook Condominiums," a residential development owned by South Burlington Realty Corporation and developed by Munson Earth -Moving Corp. Said real property is more fully described as a portion of the land and premises conveyed to South Burlington Realty Corporation by a Warranty Deed of Munson Earth -Moving Corp. dated September 12, 1975 and recorded in Volume 126 at Pages 7- of the South Burlington Land Records, and also being a portion of the land and premises conveyed to the South Burling- ton Realty Corporation by a Warranty Deed of Vermont Broad- casting Corporation dated December 1, 1975 and recorded in Volume 126 at Pages 225- of said South Burlington Land Records. Said real property includes the condominium development which is more fully described in the declaration establishing a plan of condominium ownership of certain lands and buildings in the City of South Burlington, said declaration being dated October 13, 1975 and of record in Volume 123 at Pages 15- and in Volume 1,23 at Pages 194-, and in the supplementary declara- tion dated duly 6, 1977 and of record in Volume 131 at Pages 404- and its amendment dated September 29, 1977 and. of record in Volume 136 at Pages 38- of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, and in supplementary declaration dated February 17, 1978 and also of record in Volume at Pages v 1 i of said Land. Records. The City of South Burlington asserts the following claims in relation to the above -described real property: 1. The owner and the developer have failed to secure certain certificates of occupancy as required by Section 41.1.01 of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance and 24 V.S.A. §4443 (a) (2) 2. The owner and the developer have failed to comply with the terms of an Escz;ow Agreement which is dated June 16, 1977 between Munson Earth -Moving Corp. and the City of South Burlington. The owner and the developer have further failed to comply with the terms of an agreement with the City of South Burlington executed June 16, 1977, the terms C- r_ .__Ss�tzth_ F3urlring_ p11_sec.1z. d_._0-une._..16.,.._.-.1-9-7.2.,_- the -ems of which agreement. are incorporated by reference into the above -mentioned Escrow Agreement. 3. The owner and the developer have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of Land Use Permit No. 4C-0154 which was issued in regards to the Meadowbrook Condominium Development pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151. The owner and developer have_ violated the terms, e � d pe11 11 by their failure to secure approval for the condominium water system from the South Burlington City Engineer and from the Agency of Environmental Conservation. The claim of. the City of South Burlington arises under Sections 14.10 and 14.20 of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance, Section 404 and Section 604 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, 24 V.S.A. §§443, 7" / "�"�.. d d-+. C °ul. •a�R+`C°" I, ' r} 4'a..: f j I f..� ++ �• ���` y` June 25, 1974 State of Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation State House Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Re: Pine Creek Condominiums Joy Drive, South Burlington, Vt. Water and Sewerage Facilities To Whom it May Concern: The proposed development will be connected to the city water and sewer systems which are adequate to handle this development. Very truly yours, William t /zyvCm&nski City Manager WJS/h ±Tl lL _ Yuan o� )4Pm mi auze"up Section /. AiIR M _OCU4'!?E% The pw jec# .loaa iE in Joint &&l ion, VeAMM4 loan ae ?4 a BMOo , heneina fte c )teemed to ad kie pao fec4 .ij .dubnitiea t» die pova ewno of an 'Act Re.lutireg tv Condominium 6cne4Aipd" No. 228, /8, paaeed 6g the yenP.wl Aaeen64 of adze State of Vewvnt, and any 4u6eejuent Section 2. N-LIMS A/`'Y'LILI I 7 The awvi diow of theee ey-Lmm a4e appacable zo Ae pwieci. The tem "pofect" ae weed Aenein .shall <ncbade Ae .land and A4Ai-o�-say, Section 3. Y'2KON L Ai%LIC4TION AG! paeae+rt o f jutlute ouneAd, oa o;&ea a p&yeea, os any oAeA pe zdoa that might we Ae jaa&&! iJm of the pvaofect .in any mannez, a4e 4u6fect ;& the lmyu diorw oet Jostfi..in theee By-Lmw. The metre acquisition of any of Ae j unite �Neaeina j_&4 ae f ea4erl to as "unite ") of the lavf ect oa the meae act of occupancy of any of .said unite uALU dign4y A t Ae4e 6y-.6ue and Ae pvaov,i eion e of the negulato/W agnewwnt aae acce/ #- mliti.ed, and usi U 6e aompied wiA. ,4�21I III Aaeociiaton of ounene Section /. ASSOCIATION f SX` SIBIL17 S The ouneu of the unite" mndtc torte Ae Ad-dociation of Omem (heneim lgetited to ad 'l"ciation") who uo U have the teapona- irbi,04 of cadmini.et" h6 pao feet, appwvinq Ae mm a-Z &4e4 eot26t4o ing and wZlec" wn Zy ajeeemwz;fe and a4eaV4N Ioa managenez t of Ae p r feet, 6xcepi ad oth P. mwr de pwvidsd, decisions avid aeeoZztioru o� the. A wciation Ai&U requite appawva l by a mxfoniy of ounew. 2. Section 2. MCIr4L dff7M5 The anAmd meei ng a o� Ae Aaeo ci ation .oha U 6e held in Ae CUY o� Sour. &tb:V;Ivn, Vemavnt oa a# .4ua oAeA place mnveru,,e't jo Ae ou ,-,u ad may 6e Adig fated 6y 'die &aid o� D.i4ec&,w dmina Ae nvn;& o4 %nueaiuy eaa ymcu at juafc time and on .dua day ae Ae &Aec6m AAa-U deter mine. Section 3. SPffIAL AL71Y Special meet veg a of fee omem may 6e a xUed by the PA widen4 on. ; e SecwfriV, oz Ae 66alzd o f bi4ectvire oa upon a petition .eigned by a mafo of- Ae oune,44. Section 4. LOLE Notice of a.Gl ouneaa I meetinr},e .e6U 6e given 6y ire Seaw&,uy, eking hre Pt�,d ee &e vwf and #Lie time and place uheae a i.4 to 6e held 6y mail not .leap Am ten (10) noa mire Am Ainty (p) day° pt o,% ;6o ;Ehe date of ire meetin," io eao� ounea of aemad. Section 5. VOTE Voting .shall be on a peacen.Zage 6cwie and Ae peRceniage of the vote * uAicA ice ounen id entc� .i.e Ae pencenntage a m igned to Ae f arci,.Gy unit oa units in Ae Laec &w tion. Section 6. CF OukcpS Ad teed in Aeee By -Law ire &,vn '*OALty of ounevre" .elxaU mean ;hone ounce holding 14-4"ne peAze t (5/%) of Ire voted in acmndanae UMA Ae peitcM&yee MMigned in the Oeo4vud-ion. Section 7. 1!2W 6xcepi- ad otkemviAe p wvided .in #%re..oe Li -Lau d, #lie /xr Bence in pelwa on 6y pvaoxy o/ a 'iraJout# of ouneu " 4ha U aonetUute a quomm. 3. Section 8. Section 9. Semen /. Section 2. P/VXII-CS Voted may be awe, ,in pe4wn oit 6q proxy. %aoxcee m ;t be Ci ted miA Ae Secw-tovwy 6eloze ;Ke apM hied time of eaa meeting. At Ae an uea f meeting4 Ae ourze u udU e.Lec.4E Ae Powad of Di itecibiw, and at bo;i the anru l meeting and .o pec a.Z mee t inr�,o Ae ouaor a may tie ma.c,i dua olAea bueinem of a'he Ad vciation ew may pwp eA4 ame 6eloae Aem. ARTICL,f III Loaiad of Di�rrec&lw �i�l�/-G 11I0/VS The a�� of Ae Adw atian .shall be goveitned 6y a Loa>ad of &Aec&ae avp,ded of VzAee pe4wrw, a-U of uAom mot be ou e w of unite in the pwiect. Lwvided, ho eves, h6i unti,C Ae Developed. of Ae pwiect hay comp& -tied and .do. d a U Ae fxmi ly uni;t4 at .( l a w Duxectnae .eha l l be d w ignuted 6y Ae Oev"p" OTN i? XT1(S In addition A) du&ea im�woed 6y h we By -Laud oa 6y zedoZztiow of Ae Aaevciation, the (6add of D wcty w Aid. l be 4a4fvrwi.6.Ce lost Ae fio-lloWiJV (a) Cane, upiteep and dudvei.Llance of the project and hie awmvn a4ea4 and (izci.&i . (6% (0,Uec Lion of monhij mme&wwn is Lwm Ae oun&w. (c) Deeiynation and di&Ai4da.0 of Ae peawnne l neceaeaiuj fon the maintenance and opedativn of Ae awjec4 the wm vn anew and (aci..Ci;� and a%e aed#rurted comm aAeaj and faci,lULw. Land- .eaape aade. 4. Section 3. l Mwj2EAT rlCiclff The Boa ad of Di ecivlo maay en*,,)!/ Pa Ae Aaeoccat<on a mrr wponent agent at a conyaerwation eeta626 ed 6y ;&e L6a1ad to pe foram euo� dutied and .denvi.cea aW Ae &a/rd 41w. l au ioAie and nVy mate .eudi contWC;te AM the pe�rrmance of dj� and 4e .LceA necrea" oa appa p iate in, connection uZ-& &e i%aad'.e cLiiea. Section 4. SON AND / /-J OF OFFI tit the fZ"t annual meeting of die Aaweiation a team of oAAice of one Diaectva 44,al,l be fixed Pt &we Beam. The temn of o�ji.ce of one Dilzec )A zha U be Pxed at ;tw eyeazo, and the terarye of o f p" of one DiAectoa Aia U be fixed at one gecu. At the expilwdion of ;&e if� to am of o f f i..ce of eao� Awpective Ducec &t, hi a .duccehoz Aha U be e. ected to .jeave a team of iluee yeww• The di,icectv," 4/uz. C held off ice un,&, Wmin .ouccedjolw have been elected and hold Wzeilt f i�cat meeting. Section 5. �t� C S Vaaund" in i1w Boaiul of DiAec vlw calmed 6g any Aea4on oafheA Am Ae Ae w mZ of a Di,%ec-&n by a vote of Ae A4eo ciat i on .afwV be fU, ed 6y vote of Ae majozity of Ae aema.i.ning DiAe-ctv1w, even Awuph m¢g aorvd&&cte .Zero #hat a gwAtan; and eao� pe,%wn 4o elected .eha,U 6e a &Aeciva unia a .jucceAjoA .iA elected at the nett annual meeting of the Add ciation. Section 6. / d2AL OF Dl /2S fit any negula c opt .specia l meeting d«GJ a .Ued, aruj one oa mone of Ae Dtzecto w may be te►noved uaiA oz uxAout aw,ee 6y a ma fora i;�t of the oune A and a .4ucceaw)t may abien and there be ,elected ;fv �W ;.e vaavt- ci.,ea &m c4eated, &,I D.inec60n uh04e Aowva-1 1w been paop ded by the ouneae 41w U be given an ophvntuni taj h2 6e hevad at Ae meeting. 5• Section 7.I�t Meetings i of the fared of Ducec;&ItA A4a U be held at my .location ae Ae DtAectvtra on the OfjtceAcaVuV Ae mee" A aU deie/encine. Meeiinp of Ae &alsd of &4ectn,w .oluz,Gl be held irmeecUa t 4 upon iAe add wament of adze annuwC meeting of Ae ounem and may be caVed at any o&ea time 6y Ae Pnedtden4 Secwdwuy of any iuo of At Di/cec;&,w by ma,i l ing oa de tive" atv eac k Dineci A wt .leadat 48 houroo 6e fvae i ie ; me of .ouch meeting a uvuft'n notice-.d&ting Ae time and dace of Ouch meeting and Ae, purw4w theaeo f. At .leaeat foul meeiinj o ,anal.( be held cIvA ng eaoff. J fAna l yeaa. Section. 8. G0t?D Of DID �OI.S qC P) At aV m� of- Ae i%arrd of DinecaEorae, a mapmapAity of Ae Qi aecinir a zh &U mM&htte a guoiuere foa the btaneaction of lwineao, and adze acto of ilm mayonity of DiAec tom pceoent mt a mwlij g at uAi dt a quoAm i s plw,demt .ahaU be the acts of Ae Pvaad of D.inectnze. I f, at any meetiV of Ae &amd of Dinectolw, Aeae be -lem Am a quomm p2eoen4 Ae- majoAay of Ao.ae lwaemt may ad dowcrz aElze mee" wtafi,C a fu*ute time. At any .juc� acly wmd meeting, arty &zjtne-m uAuA might have been a wn.dacted at the meeating ago oaiguxdZj caned may be ttmmwacied wLA- ouat flvcAea notice-. A?7ICq IV Wilma" f ilma" Section !. SI W" The pun.ci pax of f i..mw of Ae A4wciat on .AaU be a Pleeai,devt, a Secw-&Ay and a 74mdwre z, a4 of uhom 4ha.0 be e,Gected by die &m d of DVAec&,w. The Pnea.ident Ax.0 be elected �wm Ae pwAeimt mon6e&d of iAe &aad of Dineciom. The Ditectoaa may appoint a Vice Pnea.iden�, an Aaoij& t 7Amdu"A and an /Wid&ni Secw&,uf, and oudt oAeR o f f i.cem cw to afli.e..a p4ernamt mi�tht be nece. d&vty. Section 2. LLELN The o) jUze u of Ae A-Aw c i a.tcon Aa,U 6e elected aniuzaV y 6y the d6aad of &4ec&ae at the anmml meeting of each new 6oaad and j a,U hold o�Ace unli,l Aei4 .eucceaaoae ane dtly elected and qua.lijied. Section j. r? /OVAL or 0+�'Fuz Upon an a f4,%mative vote of a mayo4iity of #fie membeice of i e 6oaAd of Di tectom, any ollicea mays be aeraved, ei tfr.ez uAth os rai;tout aauae, and hid duccemolt elected at any aeyu.laa meeting of Ae Boald of Diaectom, on at any special meeting Of iAe &aad a llZt-d Pa such Secuon 4. IWSILVA7 The p ieaident .eha.0 be ;Ihe chief eacea ti.ve o fAcea of the A:tociaiion. He 4ha.0 f-weaide ai a-1 l mee#inrg.a of Ae /" ciation and of #fie 66aAd of Ditecio w. He 4ha U have a.0 of Ae yenem-Z lx'wem and dutiee of for ane uduaVy vented in the office of %Reaideni of an A.aeociaiion, inc6zd ng but not-Ci� to tie pouvc ;to appoint commilieea win among Ae ounelw tom time .time as he may in hid di cAetion decide i4 gnawpA ate & adwidi in Ae conduct of .the allai�w of adze Aaao ciation. Section 5. S�/lJ The Seace&V dhaU keep Ae minutes of GU meetinge of #fie &and of Dinecio,w and the minuted of a.Gl meettnp of Ae Aeao ciation. He Aia U have danye of the 11&wte Loft uhenein Redo-luiiona ,Aa,ll be new4ded and he .eha,C ,in g ene wU peAlo,un a U Ae datiee .en ciden,&l & Ae o#ice Of SeCAetany. Section 6. T?/�MLR The Taeaeunea 4h t.0 have zedpondibi,&4 Pz Addociation /ands and .oea&u:ti.ea and 44a U be 4e4Pvrw" lot keeping faU and acauzate acaouai4 of a.0 teceiptd and di d"emPnta in bw4d belon.Qing io the A,wociation. He AAa U be zedp wiUe jolt Ae depua.ct of a.0 moncee -7• and otAen va,GmUe of f eate in ;64e name, and io the c4edi i of the "ciation tn. euai depv4aa4ieo ad may lAom .time io time be deo- .i9mied by the 66aad of D.iaecioze. ARTICq VI 06,figaiione of the Ouneiae Section /. (A/? l/K MW S Cowtencing on ike filwt day of eack mnih, the mern6e4.ehaU pay io the Aaeociation a mon.#i:4 cane ae f"4ed to heaein ad "Ca"y ng Chaage7 egua. to one-te.Cfih of the Aemben',j p1wpo4iionaie ehane of the .oum ne6 � the A4wciation a� eetimated by.�i;td Boa4d of �cu-'ted y Dinec;6olw io meet c to annua,L expewea, .cn d ad ing but not limited to the fvUnuunrg i terra. (a) The codt of aU operating ex/need of iAe, pwiecf and deRvice (6) The amount o f a U 4mee and aaeeaemen.;t .Ceve fed agaimi th.e Proiec t on uAjok ii i4 aegu.iAed iv pay if any. (c) The mdt of fine and extended covewge inauwn.ce on the Pwiect and .duck o iAe2 iwaltan ce ad the Aaao ciation may AegUiAe. (d) The mat of 1"miiAUngsewage deavice-, d;&weticgh#w, ga46ve and iWA wt&c�ion, .ia vane, jrtow r.emvva� and other .juos util�. (e) W zeeeaved det up by the &" of Ducecivre ino&dinq aWe genem l ope4a" zeeeAve and the aewerve fvr aerAlacemente of ih.e /Pico f.ect to be made by the Aeeociaiion, and .cud+. oAe-4 imp wvemm;6d it autA- olti5ed by the board of D.ihec%aa and made by the Aaoociation. 7hi4 .inc,ZuAd bath ini"uoit and exieAuoz aepailw, except iniehioA demra". AU funde foa ike merdacpmeni aeeeicve 4hv U be placed in a deiaara& immi account in the and AiaJL no# be aa-ming.Led iuiA the Aaevciation �e aequ &A acaoun4 The 66a4d of DiAec;toaa 4ha U deiemnine the omV ng dwAge f wm time io time. Said .event 4haJU be eatimaied on an w uca,C 6a4iA and divided 6y#he num6ea of monih a AOMiR ing in ih.e then curaeni f ij aa,C year,• but .in no event .eha.0 ih.e dkmbea be d"ed uZA moire x 6zh-i4 p wportionaie 4hane Aeaeo f ad de&wzined 6y Ae Declawiion. UnbU fax&em notice from die Aaeoccativn the /wnkVy camying o4AVe foie the above mmiioned dia.CCing uni i ehaV be S-___-___. AU otheR mw;t o t heat, domee#,i.c -8- .fighting and coo4inq 4hoU be paid by m m6erw on Ae.in owe. meteae. (1) 6veay ounen mtit pelr/omn pwmpt l y a,U ma.i.niman.ce and Zepauc uvirft a ilAin h.ie oun unite, u icIL if omi#ed and affect #lie P/zo eci in i.;6d ea6Aety oa in a pant be longing & o;&ea owteu being expne.44 AeApon4 ib le Pa :the damaged and -&a6i ii ee #hat file fai,6u e & do .so may engend" �g% AU A-e aep i4d of cntemw l cnota Ua;tiono of #fie un U .euof ad u,czie,,, -�iqht, ga4, fog, -4"e, te&Pe onee, avc conditioneae, .oantl arty 4jw, &Ua bone, doo1w, wthdowd, Jx fro and a,U o #hea acce.oeoueo be longing 4) the unit area 4ha,U be ai ae oune44 ex- pecwe. (h% AnvwLen ofw,l,L zeimbuiroe Ae Aiociaitva lot any expeRdUyAea in.cu44ed in lz"iA ng oa neplaccng any wnwn aaea and faciJ-i_ty daff�el &WLIA &A Section 2. lATViV - U DS Ae Amo ciai ion wi U ael id oa credit iv #fie /16,6e4 uu.#hin go dayo apeA Ae end of eaoe f i jea.0 yeah, .euod 4umo co have been coVecied in aniicition of expended uAic L a/te in ex ceaa of the amount needed /oz expemed of a U hindo, .inclurbiru} ne4eizvee, in Vie diecrzetion of Ae Roaltd of D ae-ciolo, .in acmltdance uAifh a financial j,&& e d .ieeued io eac6 mem6" Section j• // MIS S TO ��D FOR ? SI IIAL ?YES S Oh'Ly (a) The Mem6ea dha U occupy the &je� unit a-i a P Zivate du,p U ng Pn himee. / and hi4 jami,4 y, The mem6eR 41a,U ocacpry the dulling Pa no othez p t4f-v oe and may end y the L,4e, .in w meon uaith o#h" man6em of the Adwciation, of a-U community [Awpe�rbr and Aci.lit u of the Pwject, do -long ad he eoniimee tv be a d6n6ea, occupie4 Ai4 dcaet&ru; unit, and abided by Ae &-mw of i/Leee Lx -Latw. (6) Aa oun ea .hall not mane .i tau cAmw mvdil i.caiion a on a-Uewiiona in hie unit oz .vnotezUationo ZOaied Aeaein uihout pvrevioue.Gy now i4dng 6J a A000 ciation in uni". The AUo cia&on jha�U have die -9- oUigation #o anewrm u .�.n ien (lave wed /a�.ae fir) do .ev ruiafh in j&e ,otiyxda#ed time A4a.0 mean, that .Ae4e id no o6Aection ip Ae pwpoded modiAc ation oa a,&e wiion. Section 4. KLL Ct �hQ/ (a) No ite diden t of the pwiect .ahojL cv j i any adven ti.ee w ttd. oa p 4ieu of any hind in oit on the pwjec# except ae wiMoiri_ged 6g ate Add ciation. (6) ?mident4 41 aU exe/tci4e extnene aaite a6out nnQng no.i,eee oa ae u4e of mu4ioa, in dt uanenti, aadio4, to Lever con and a�p(i ie�a that may dietxuib othea ae.�idento, (c) I # i4 piwW iced & hang ganmentd, mr94, etc. jiwm the wjncdou+d o f fiwm ang of the faaade4 of hhe pwjec4 (d) I# i-d prohibited to thiww ga/t6age on t&wA ouidide the Adpv4a l 'rwi ,C it orw pvwvided #oa .aua P.,wpodee in the de4vice azeaa. (e) No ounea, /resident oit la"ee 44a.LL ,inazhaV wining 14a e,leciiuCa,C on #e,Leprwne .i.n4idVativn, &&vision antennae, machine oa aiA mrt- ditionuug unite, etc., on the ex&-iioa of the pwject on 66t pia btalue &wugh the w.UA 02 the i100i of the pwiec# except ad au#hoai jed 6g .the I" cc ation. Section 5. 7AVS AVD IA 1*Lv(z The Aeaociation J&-&U pwvide nece44ang mxrzagenent, open b:on and adinini4iwtc:oa of the pwjec;4 pay on piwvide Jos ate pagmenf of a.0 taxes oa ame447wmte-Ievi.e agaimi the pywiec;4- pwame and pay oA pwv.cde Pa ate pqr m;t of Mite imu mice and ex#ended cvve/w9e, and .eudt oAea in4uzance ad the Association may deem advida6.Le on the P1dDp`4'Y <n. the MOjec.4 The Addociativn uzu no#, iwuevea, provide iiwuAance on the Mm6e44 inteaeo# in the au� unit opt on U4 pemona.L pwf)e ;& Seciivn 6. O ILIEL Ahe w4i of the IroueehoJd .Cigh.#j%, cooh.ing and AaEi ng and uate c .eha l.L 6e Mete red on #Ae Man6ea'.s oun meter. -ia Section 7. /? /(IL U (a) LVj llkW4 a - The /�lemben agaepa tv aepzc4 and ►n amain the /)6nbeA re due-l&nrg wti t ai hie ocut ccpenee, ad lo-!.Lowe: N Any it"brd oa maintenance neceaei;6mied 6y h.iA ours ne;igence (2) Any inter OIZ demisting. (6) &j 1"ciation - The Amoccation ell,,U pvvi.de and part' Am aU nece AY zepa'44, ma,uttpnance, and aeplacenen to of- paoleet p w peAV .inC&dinq the Alem6ea�e dU*- Cing unit, except ad epeci Pied in c,"e (a) ic% Righ-i o� I"Ciation io ma%e zepa� at dlon6e.44 expense. In rn se ire Alenben eha l,L fa e/- Cect iAe tepaim and maintenance -jpecc-�`-i_ed in C&u4e (a) of VLia AziicCe in a nnnne4 .oatidpcctov the A.e., uatioa and pzry A" came, the 4WeA- may do eo and add the met Aeaev� to the Mem6ea re next month re Cai AyinS ChaVe past. (d) The Deve. open gwmnieed a U uvirh agatnet de- jeetA cn ma&-Icir and uvir4?wwhip foa a pe4iod of- one gealtt dram date of ceati -icgie o� occupancy. Section 8. ALT !?ATIONS AND >UDITIONS The Mm6e2 jAaU not, wUhout mitten enneent o1- the Aavociaiione, mahe arug 4,twciuAa l a lteaatione oit additions in Ae pzcnieee o t in the ueztea, e.LecfAi a2,/ conduits, p.Lto tnq oa othea jixtwtee mnrtecied tAea.aa:Ih, oA Rewve any caYcl horn, cmpwvemenj4, on lixbjAee I the pAcni sea. (a) Death o� l kw6e4 - I� urn death o� the mon6eA h,ie u:tenest in Ae fmi,Gy writ padded by UJW on intestate Alit 6ution to a men6e4 o�- h.i,e iamediate /omi ly, euot .Legatee oa dj4t4j6utee may, i4 he oa 4he can. qiw L (y fan ouaea eh,i p mndi;&,orw uLU&n 60 days a/fez men6en % death, 6emme a men6ea of Aid- Ad v ciati on. 1� the me nbea died anal hie inteAest i.e not amumed in acwma an.ce u iafli. the Pleerw ng, Ae Aaeociation eh .0 have an option ;& p 4oit ee tiie equity Awm ;het de- ceae ed monbe�t re estate in the manne A p w vicded to p��, �(6 ) o th.i e section, uni;Uen no,ti.,ce of the deaA being equi.valeni #v notice of inten.#ion iv .leave the poyecl. 1� the Aaeoctat ion doe4 not exeaci.ee .euda option the PWV i e.ion o o f MAagwpA %c) o� Vti.e .eection .char U be appCicaUe, the nelezence to 'inen6e2" theaein to 6e wrwtwed ad ttefeaencea & the legal neMe4en.tati.vea of the deceased men6ea. (6) Option of the Aeeocial on tv pjAotcwe. If the mesn6ea dwitee to -leave the pw jec;t he 41w U not4y Ae Ae eo ciation in uniting o� .euo6 intention and the t" cia#ion 4ha U have an option Pa a peiciod o� ,V daye Aezeaftea, but not an oUlirgation, tv piAo. owe Ae menbe 4 inteae44 at any afwunt & 6e ag. eed upon 6y the mem6ea of #lie Adw u:01E n. %cuco*e 6y #fie /144o ciation of the me n6ea'e in tenedt ui U 41 z terse the mem6ea'.o night hezavu&?, and the mem6ea Oho U fonhuaith vaatie #lie pnenu aed. (c) %WceduAe uheae Amociation c6e4 not oceaciae option. 1, ; e A4ao c ,Lwn ua,ive-i in u t." tIA Atg to to pt44o ee the men6ea'.e i.n zwAt undea the Paegoing option oa if th.e Aejociation fails tv exeaci4e .duoh option uK-Yf the ,o da 4, the manbe2 may 4eU hie Zaieaedt to aruy peadon ufzo gua.li fi4 /on me7,6evdluP6 idl /U40 ciation to Co-olvmte in -locating, pnonW W. 11 the mem6e4 notil-iPA the 1" ci.ation o� hiA uLiention to eve �WM hie daA"-� unit and to eeU ht j inlezeet and #fie Association ua.cvea on fails to exeaciAe .c 4 option fo/I pt�Ch ue .same, the mem6e4 may aeque4t in uniting the a44i4�iance of Ae t"cia.tion to oe,Cl lu4 ja7" uni4 %he t"ciation will #heaeu (.vn, uxtfwut v6.Cigation, howevea, neajonab.by aaMiAt the mem6ea to a punduzaea at a puce dwignated in uniting 6y the men6ea. %he Adaociat n .shall be enjit led to d:aVe the me76ea a fee of -% of tots, 4alee av et 6ut not &e Aan 41 _- fon thi s -Jenv.ice. It i4 unde44tv04 howevea, that the mem6ea .ohZU not be ae- .le"ed f wm h"-ba6iAi ( & A.e A"ociajion undea jAede 6y--1 wljU -4u o t time a j a .gale has 6eea et f ected..to a p iAoltw ea uho qua.(:J. The 119 ea -jAo U not, wi Aout the pa.coa avrw en;t v f the Adao ci ation, .cn. &JU oa we in hZ4 dv e Ujng unit any aix avndi.tion.cng eguipnea4 ueze/wtg ►mcfune, clothe, diuyea, e lectlr.i.c healer, oa powers tvo.le, a U of uAior aae exMeaa.by excbcded �wm the ocaa4ionac' uee 6y the Ajenbea W1,1" ZAe negui/r.ed uni;Uea con4ent of ;&e Aaaociation hay been o64iinec. _ /IX The Mmi6e4 aga.ee4 #hat Ae A"cr a;t.con my A&jui/ce the panmpi ova l of any Ouch equ<.pnent at any ;time and that Aid jai ae iv Aowve upon ne$ue4t jha l.0 mn dti ie a fail. w ;tO z"i/z uvth c;rt .dectivn 8 of the 5pLatw. No i4eea .dfwV he planted 6y a Men6e4 r d,&ut %cpwva l 6y Ae A&wciation; ceA&tn -dpeci.e4 being ,tnjuAioud to a panfect of a6W type. No o64tzuction4 cnc(ud ng tzeed, dlz u &d, ual%te, mcdonAy 6olad" ma&ua4 etc..d/UzU 6e placed in Laun Azea, ma ninined 6y Ad4oc Xttiod, except 6y dpecial pemnimion of afire Lund o f Di4ec,& Iw. Uwe of ua&4 IVA MY p ee jha. 6e 2edbzicted by Ae Aaeoci.ation ad jAe need ocaww. AV twee, .oh:u 64, etc. planted 6y men6ez 41wU 6e wndtdeted a pez w ent inA& Liion and nwt Aem on the pro eet cn AR event the memliez .(eavea. in Section 9. / / AT ION AND N/ Y?TAIj N% AU ude of zec4eationa-I equi.pnent and buildcngd .dha.0 6e fetee foa the t44e of a U me►n6e w, ad Qovewwd 6y the i%a td of Dutectolw. Specia l g'Wupd 02 0&6" aze paohtbitedtr, ude faci.litied on ice xec,4eatZon pzeni4ee of %ine 6wO4- lei w:44.con folt pazt:ed oven /0 pea.done iv ude Ae facili; .,e4 mcvdt f zdt 6e appaoved 6y Ae Laird of D.i,%- ectonra. The ude of Recaeativn Fac biti_ee oz equ.ipnent i4 .Ctlnited tv Ae►n6eu on,&j. Chi Lien oit gue4#4 ude if PA6.idden. The fai -uAe on Ae pxr/t of ire Ad4ociation .4v avail itdelfv f any of the zemediee y.i..ven undew " agreement 4haU not uatve non deetno j ;dte ziPA;t of Ae Aiwciaiion & avail .itde.L f of -duos lwnedied fn2 .d.intilzm oz oAe2 6zeaclted on Ae part of &e mem6ea. Section 10. _ /? TO �GNi%Ly WITH r�LL r�S IATION / LATIONS The mern6ez mnvenant4 that he Wi U p4eeLdezv9e and pwnvt d'&e Ae mndo- flaQn oune44A'p lazincip-Alea On uh-iCh the rZid Cia; LOn has been, founded, a6.ide 6g .the 4z#t.c,&4 Of Aa.�ociatton, LirPLMWr wee and %?eguCationd Of the Aaeociation and any Wnmjnentd thew&, and 6y Vti-d act of COOPewtion wbyt ite ofhe,% men6em 6n,ing about foa hindeq and m- men6em a high. e*vkdajd in home and mwwaiy C0ndLt&nd. Any act oa owni 4ion by a men6en, de;6ti emia,/ to ;t e peace and occuptiar:.cy of o thea menr6em .eha U 6e ne f e"ed &the &a/ad of D.inechom, fvz de&"wj`atiun. A mad' vote of .chid L%az d .eha,U cawe a member to be deemed be pe�en l,� di4qml, fied 10„t men6e hE r\s ax-, - NVew<L�b re o I<- GtN-\& o% Meadowbrook Condominium Association • Joy. Drive . South Burlington, Vermont 05401 April 15, 1988 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward, It is my understanding that .John C. Giebink,Green Mountain Development Group, Inc., is purchasing the balance of the land owned by South Burlington Realty Corp. at the Meadowbrook Condominium Project on JOy Drive. The Board of Directors of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association has met with Mr. Giebink to preliminarily learn of his development. plans. During these discussions, it was learned that the proposed two buildings, which he desires to build, *may be substantially different from those con- structed under the Declaration of Condominium and the proposed buildings are larger than the footprint approved and on record with the City of South Burlington. We are deeply concerned with these variances -since the Declaration of Condominium for the Meadowbrook Condominium, which is on file with the City of South Burlington, states with respect to Additional Construction in Section 7: "Declarant shall have the right to construct..... Buildings upon the remaining portions of its land hereby dedicated to the Condominium ('the remaining land') on the follow- ing terms and conditions: a. Additional Buildings and Units. Each Building shall contain either five, six or seven Units. Said Buildings shall be similar in configuration, layout and exterior design to the two Buildings described in Section 3, subject to Declarant's rights to make such modifications as it deems appropriate consistent with view, site and terrain conditions." (underlining added) Although Mr. Giebink has agreed to furnish sketches and additional information, because of these obvious variances we request that permission for Green Mountain Development Group, Inc. to proceed be withheld until we have had an opportunity to resolve these inconsistencies. We also want to further investigate his proposed changes in location of the carports from those set forth on the site plan. Thank you for your consideration. cc: John C Giebink --� Jane Lafleur, City Planner Carl H. Lisman Sincerely, Mil P. Weidner, President M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNIIZ COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: PINE BROOK DEVELOPMENT, JOY DRIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 89 1975 This development received conditional approval on June 25, 1974 with the following conditions: 1- that a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle affic be constructed to the cul-de-sac, o e City 2- that a landscaping plan be submittedt th ty Tree Tanning Committee for review and comments, 3- that all drainage be approved by the City Manager, 4- that the power poles be protected as agreed to by Green pp��o untain Power, f. that street lighting be approved by the City Manager, 6 that recommendations regarding the 40 foot right-of-way and e sewer easement as spelled out in a letter dated March 26, 1974 by the City Manager be complied with, 7- that a time -table regarding a building schedule be sub mitted to the Planning Commission, 8- that all required bonds be posted, 9- that the condominium by-laws be approved by the City Attorney. The final plan differs from the study plan in that the develop- ment has the addition of a swimming pool and tennis courts. The plan shows the tennis courts in that area which was to be considered open - space. Because the center -line of the stream has not been estab- lished, it is not known whether the courts are in conformance with the required stream and interstate set -backs. The plan"do`16t not,._.show a sidewalk. ine Landscaping plan has been submitted, however the Tree Planting Commission has not reviewed the plan because of a problem with regard to the scheduling of an on -site inspection. See- Mr. Szymanski's memo regarding the drainage. No communications from Green Mountain Power regarding protecting the poles. See- Mr. Szymanski's memo regarding the lighting. Believe the right-of-way and sewer easement are being discussed. No time -table presented as of this date. No bonds posted as of this date. No condominium by-laws submitted as of this date. Because of the addition of the swimming pool and tennis courts, and also the fact that the water line will come from Spear Street and cross the stream, the District Environmental Commission may require another meeting. -2- M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI RE: Pine Brook Condominiums Site Plan Review Phase I ONLY) DATE: Septem er 9, 1975 1. Plan showsa sidewalk as recommended in conditions dated 6-26-74. 2. Drainage inlets should be included on both sides of the entrance drive. 3. Street lighting appears adequate, however developer should consider lighting within the complex. 4. Original recommendations were for acquisition of a 60' road right-of-way, however only 40' was available due to infringement on ballfield. 5. Development will be served with ranter from the east via the 8" main serving the Maple Lab. Respectfully submitted, William J. Szymanski City Manager JOY DRIVE, BROADCAST PARK, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 • 802/658-1230 November 10, 1975 O G1TY So. JRL-ING�oN z U ¢ O m Planning Commission Z City of South Burlington o Vermont 05401 w ATTN: William B. Wessel, Chairman Re: Vermont Broadcasting Corporation Dear Mr. Wessel: In February, 1968, the Planning Commission approved the proposed road known as Joy Drive by Deed from the Pizzagalli Corporation. Reference at that time was made to a proposed right-of-way that was to be designated through the northeasterly section of the pro- posed cul de sac. It was our understanding that this right-of-way would be used if the City at some future date wished to continue Joy Drive through to Spear Street. Nothing transpired in regard to this until recently. This Summer a roadway has been cut across our land and utilities installed in connection with the development occuring easterly of Broadcast Park. We have been contacted by representatives of the new development and have been asked by them to deed this 60 foot strip of land to their company. It is our belief that the original commitment to set aside this right-of-way was for the purpose of a city street. We of course remain willing to deed the land to the city for that use. We do not however feel that we have an obligation to deed any of our land to a private developer for private use. We are soliciting the advice of the City on this matter and would request that your board or the City Attorney advise us as to the position of the City in this matter. C&A4�� t� Cr4.I G WQCR - STEREO 99 • JOY MOTIVATION, BACKGROUND MUSIC • WJOY - 1230 KC CBS RADIO Planning Commission Page 2 November 10, 1975 FAB/11 i Sincerely yours, Frank A. Balch President & General Manager a M ALAN PALMER 2071 Williston Road Area zoned Industrial District. Section 10.00, Permitted use, allows both uses proposed. a. contractor's yard b. repair shop Section 11.15, Multiple use, provides for one use per one lot. Existing structure is 401 x 601 steel building constructed in 1973. Building has been used for dual use in past, welding shop and contractor's yard. Dual use has expired, abandoned over six (6) months ago. Lot contains 1.2 acres, approximately 1(`:0 foot frontage. SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY Meadowbrook Condominium, off Joy Drive Area zoned Conservation -Open Space District. Section 13-70, District Boundaries Ila strip of land 150 feet in depth on both sides of 189 & 1189 right of way. Section 3.10, 3.20 and 3.30 prohibits structures such as tennis courts. Request to construct two (2) tennis courts to within 40 feet of the I-189 right of way - 1+01 x 201 swimming will be outside the C-0 District. COTTMIAN TRANSMISSION CENTER 1301 Shelburne Road Area zoned Business Planned Development District. Section 8.10, Conditional uses applies: Automobile repair shop (transmission repair). Section 11.15, Multiple use. Existing on second floor are apartments in addition volkswagen will use a portion of the building for storage. I - 2 - a TIMOTHY HAYES 56 Dumont Avenue Area zoned R-4 District. Section 1.3.00, Non -conforming uses and structures. Existing dwelling is non -conforming. Front yard. is 24 feet required is 30 feet. Side yard. is 10 feet required is 15 feet. Rear yard is 28 feet required is 30 feet. Proposal is to add a full second level. Fair Market Value $19,700 - proposed addition estimated cost of $6,000. PHILIP BOUTIN 18 Heath Street Area zoned R4 District. Section 11.00, Dimensional requirements Rear yard 30 feet. Side yard 15 feet. Proposed 241 x 221 garage to be constructed to witbAn 5 feet of the rear yard line and 3 feet of the side yard line. Lot set-off in 1953 is 501 x 1251. MILTON KUTNER 22 Cottage Grove Avenue Area zoned R4 District. Section 13.00, Non -conforming uses and structures Existing dwelling Is non -conforming. Front yard is 15.1 feet - required is 30 feet. Side yard is 8.0 feet to rear and 12.10 to yard of structure, required is 15 feet. Proposed is to add 'a full second. level. Fair Market �falue $lF.300 Proposed addition $17,000 estimated cost. 100 ` e �Z /.r � (ems, NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance, decision -of administrative officer. Property Owner_- Property location & description___'_ o��l� � 1") c� (.. J)r.... i'�'.^!i � <�/. xJ �- /d/-: ./l /' L./ 6• .f Q � /'� .�/� /(/ L.. Variance of Section i(n ber) (title of section Basis of appeal I understand the regular meetings are held twice a month on Monday at 5:00 p.m. at the City call, Conference Room. The legal advertise- ment must appear in the Burlington Free Press a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing, I agree to pay a fee of $30.00 which fee is to off -set the.costs of adver sing and -the hearing. �:eari g Date Signature of Appe lant i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 91, Title 21- V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on at to consider the day of week month and date time following: Appeal of seeking a , from Section ,- of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for permis ion .to I .'.Pr i.l F , 1976 : , South � E urlingtor. �i �,._,.ty .r . Jam--s 7 "allace 366 Dorset :street 'outh Turl.inCton, VT 05401 ;dear 'r . ..11G,ce =.e advised that .he '(-,.uth fur" ink tcn . onin I oars of Ind just- �� ment will hold a public hearing, at the City hall, Conference 'oomg 1175 '^'illiston '.oad on T-',onday, April 19, 1976 at 5:00 p.m. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard it"ard Zoning Administrative Officer R?,,/3 r11, YJ( ":pr it 22, 1976 >outh url_in ton .realty p r . James '.,,allace 366 '::orset treet ,youth Burlington, VT 05401 :Dear l r. '.�.Iallace: Be advised that your recu-st for a zonin variance was tabled by the %oning; !~oard o`' Adjustment until the next reular meetin;�7 cheduled for 'cnday, '`ay 39 1976 at 5:00 P.M. .'lease plan to attend. Very truly, ichard ",rd 4 oning ^administrative Officer SOUTH BURLING-TON ,29NI NG XO t iCE In uth accordance with the BurlingtonBurlington Zoning the Sth Chapter 91, Title 24 V.S.A.BoardWof Burlington 'Zoning Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlingto 175it offices, liston Conference Room, Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, April 19, 1976, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the following:' No. 1. Appeal of Alan D. Palmer seeking a variance, from Section 11.15, Multiple uses Re9he ulat onsh - Burlington Zoning Request is for permission to operate an automobile repair- shop ln- conjunction with a contractor's yard, at2071 Williston Road. - No. 2. Appeal of South Burlington Realty, James Wallace seeking a variance, from Section 3.10, uth Permitted Uses °fRegulati he ions. Burlington Zoning Request is for permission to construct i ithin forth (40) Pwo lennii courts to"feet of the boundaries of thh e I II Conservation and openSpace I District, at Meadowbrook, o Drive. No. 3. Appeal of Austin Devine, d-b a Coltman Transmission Center seeking a conditional use, Section 8.10, and section 11.15 '( Multiple Uses of the South Burlington ( Zoning Regulations. Request is for l permission to operate a transmissiuse on repair center, existing l apartments on upper level, at 1301 Shelburne Road. No. 4. Appeal of Timothy & Dfon a i Hayes .seeking a variance, Section 13.00, Non -conforming Uses 1 and Structures of the South Burlington I Zoning Regulations. Request is for an permission to add a second ledevelling.I existing 24' x 38' ranclrtYpe unit, at 56 DumontaoAfvenue. Ph and Dale Boutin S• seekApping a variance, from Boutin seeking Dimensional Section 11.00' y Requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 24 ft. x 22 ft. garage, to within five (5) feet of the n required rear yard and three (3),feet of the required side yard, at 18 Heath Street. No. 6. -Appeal of Milton Kutner seeking a variance, from Section 13.00, Non -conforming Uses .z: nd Structures of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permissto an ion to add a second Qedwelling existing 24' x 38' ranctrtyP unit, at 22 Cottage Grove Avenue. Richard A. Myette, Chairman South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment ADril3,1976 3; L v Tj 7"T"-; 2. BONDING OR ESCRC)*,' :_(S7-L7-E,ENTS ING _`RY D.R rG E M_ "r�' rp- n CT�'V 7_7 r.)7'� 7) I �'T - 2 7 117 7 T_ T t -7T' ' rn e, r..n r 7� -TM "'CID C` D C CTIT 7 I -T Ll a3u4> cNt!5'.. 4f Tbex- hppAwRv> soaarz� 24 S- =:�4 AmKllb tim 'Sll 6_1 10 77 - �7t j8.7.7 November a, 1977 Mr. Louis Tessier South Burlington Realty Corporation Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase IV Dear Louis: This is to formally confirm the South Burlington Planning Commission's approval of Phase IV of t-be" Meadowbrook. When the required plan has been recorded, building permits may be issued, provided the terms of the agreement on the water line are sat- isfied. Yours truly, Stephen Page Planning assistant SP f mcg SSP 1t. `N�!:.N. ice! Id CS Suggested Lotion of Approval Meadovibrook Cc,ndominiunio I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission appDve the site plan of Meadowbrook Condominiums, as depicted on a plat entitled "Site Plan - Phase T.i .e�e, 14eadowbrook Condominiums, South Burlington Realty Corp.", dated , drawn by ., subject to the follovring 's ipulations: 1. This plan is considered to be a minor Modification (under section 301.3 of the South Burlington,Subdivision Reg- ulations) to a subdivision plan previously, approved b-, this Commission on 6/25/74 *W) 5/11/76).,,5��a�r7� A plat depicting has built or approved, shall be recorded. J„ . c1t Gr.� �4�� `•+I �.'/ �L O // •�,y IN=RCNANDc NUMBER 127 .";'.-- •x i �� a -1. .Ac[ BETWEEN ARiows F z °'' � )Ot OR CULVERT I4E33 THANV'SPANI 1 * p ��` jA ✓' y� )G 14 [ OR CULVERT ( a' TNdU 10 7iAN1 IID.I' THOU 20 G?AN) i, DO[ (OVER [0 s'.N) TA 14� ..� G 'V IIII TRUSS RAIDGE z o3 �e +`� .y ". / N a� gUaL�a TCh — COV[R[D $REDO[ �I / Ln _ /y MiINIC IF'AL :.a JSEWAY :'�7LE PASS S4. •� \ yFJ rf�r' N Ala La, .i C"" 7 '.� ..LADE CROSSING A\\ < ��p' ji3 y cyli +c Se E I`f'j• i ... cnrA33 SURFACE TYPES \\ SO 1T4 3JJRUNGTQAi Aa "° ""- 1 •Q I ' 4.. z L CAOAM PEN iv ATIO N, CONCRETE, BITu- '� IS '1 a_SEC Y10W 4 NINOV5 CONCRETE, SR LK OR BLOCK •. T Jl ..,v W Y , E - UMINOUS MIX OR MACADAM .,A Z, J,yy�� IC i"'�4 A.r ! R ALE TREATED GRAVEL < �j 3 r� IL SURFACE 12N0 CLASS GRAVEL) ;.9, `? .j y - ADEO AND GRAINED EARTH i1APROVEO i II MITI4C �.1.r�, �.,W!' l! ";�• / �'� �". OL D[R iNSE r k jRANSPORTATION a ,+'�M 11LROAD AND 57ATION S E.Sµ E r 1 Rc'4 _ .lam' �• ' Y/� >' ylV Y d •.,, :MPG AT ICOUPLETE FACILITIES) '•�{V •I� -. ' RPORT (LIMITED FACILITIES) `\1;` `J . Y R 00RT (YIL ITARTI ` P o F R;/+' .E. t`7 0 ICY , Y• \LADING AREA 2 ' 1I EA PLANE BASE r•'�y "° you H p' rJ EAPLANE ANCHORAGE EET BURL IPIfTOAJ�. 9 J ,IRwaY BEACON l,. 7 ` ADIO RANGE STATION y 7 a JEC TiI, GHTHOUSf 1—I% a• / ti \ �• i i '' '^ EAD OF NAVIGATION ESE tSONALI J. 4. LlIT!a �I - F i `fr {I 1 If // / t T E L: a F G OF ^ Y # N' J �n based On L, 5 'ale p/one COOrdinole nsverse merColor of oerio/ photography ,ol features ys /956 for '956 for sfole highways. vpes os shown on OTN[R EDUCATIONAL INSIIIU' aR d3 COURTHOUSE G HALL (T TOWN C GOMMUNITI G-EAANOE F-f RATERNALI Rit 70WH CLERK OFf IG[ 3S HIGHWAY GAAAGt (I —STATE. I -TOWN. NF-NATIOMAL FOREST 1 BI FIRE ENGINE House. + POST OFFICE PU$LIC L1/AARY } HOSPITAL O REST HOME W U S $ORDER CU5TOMS "",ON A, STATE POLICE IF FILLING STATION O POWER PLANT -. POWCR SLI3S1A1 PAN j RADIO STATION 1 SUGAR HOUSE A MILK DEPOT, GREAMER, OR CHEESE FACTORY Y FRUIT OR PRODUCE PACKING HOUSE L SEASONAL NDUSTRY o WAREHOUSE A ROADSIDE STAND eI, GREENHOUSE 3 N-1 GROUP OF M aED CULTURAL FEATURES (F,Gu.RA •-•P, Ou Id ng EyO D01� indicate numbe, ..� Is nc laded iYI a gFOup ) MISCELLANEOUS a TAIAN4ULATID4 STATION WATER SUPPLY STAHDPIA4 1® - PUMPING STATION ONATEA) x MINE OuAAAT T9 rSRAVEL PIT DUMP GE METERY [ DAN DAM WITH A010 T— TREE MVAS'e RY [ SPdING o TOWN FARM ?In LINT, OIL FERRYITOLLI y r MARSH MOUNTAIN MANSE !/30 PROMINENT [LCYAT ON I z J i3'.'1.L " wCwg CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NATIONAL, STET[, TOWN OM NYNICIPAL OR PARR �. .11IIE RT MILOUPL R[FU$[,. ETC. MLS[RVATION, ETC. SP SMALL PARK © GOLF $ROUND AR tour TRY CLU$ © AMUSIVE14T AREA OF HALL RC' RIFLE GLUS $0.1 SKI AREA GYM GYMNASIUM A PICNIC [ROUND A. PLAYGROUND, $ALL FIELD, ETC. A BATHING SEACH ON SWIMMING POOL C7 MONUMENT ON HISTORIC SITE m HISTORIC BUILDING 13 SCENIC SITE FAIRGROUND OR RACETRACK a TOURIST COURT ON MOTEL(R0. UNITSI LODGE ONBOYS/GIRLS CAMP •'+ DRIVE IN THEATER O MUSEUM 0 OBSERVATION OR LOOKOUT 70WE4 E+] FISH HATCHERY 4 GAME 1111E SA`/E A CAMP SITE 00",?I:A Od MARINA FISHING ACCESS AiIEA ORLEANS I% \ _ ) fR4NKL N [ ESSEA !• 2 �,CALEDONIA \ 1 5 WA9NINGTON / ADD13ON ` N/ ORANGE J ` T/ t 2 n RUTLAND s 1 �WINOSOR I aKEY MAP i r TO s�I wIMDNAM S COUNTIES L. f' AND SHEETS �H •s3ac P„sEl s GENERAL HiGI-PAIAY POMP 'aI rO U ,rl 11i E N 'U", L 1 i � PREPARED OY TH -1WAY PLANNING DIVISION IN COOPERATION WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF t O','.I +i ERGE �I N7 N 70 OCO a4* as' 2C s o r i iz ly c n iC iri t h C, ZI c t n o' tip U -'Ur tcn s y 10 izl n 7, 1: V 0 r! jun.." 1,, T� p 'Vj 7 1 i c -',- i rl- t.,. ont'l-C 'nrojcct, as uodi"ic,d anc! arr)- `f7sl�ancc, of Inlilr" r 1.) v C., bc recon"I'l.cd r-rior L ing r, %;,-Iy n C c''S cl r Y 0 Yours trilly, Z", c S 4, Z, r. t 5/10/77 SS Su22ested !+,Iotion of Approval Moe �:&11 757c�AC ncram-11—n—lum I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission appDve the site plan of Meadowbrook Condominiums, as depicted on a plat entitled "Site Plan - Phase Three, Mleadowbrook Condominiums, South Burlington Realty Corp.", dated 4/6/77, revised 4/14/77, drawn by I.P,., subject tj the following stipulations: 1. This plan is considered to be a minor modification (under section 301.3 of the South Burlington,Subdivision Reg- ulations) to a subdivision plan previously approved b- this Commission on 6/25/74 and 5/11/76. 2. Provisions for water supply shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Performance bonds, in an appropriate amount as determined by the City Engineer , shall be posted for installation of ut,41ities. 4 4. A plat depicting phases I. II, and III.} as built or approved, shall !,�,e recorded. w 4. PLANNING COMKISSION MAY 10, 1977 Mr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan of David and Edwin Hershberg for a produce business, as depicted on a plan entitled, "Site Plan. . . Proposed Produce Facility. " dated 2 21 71, revised 4 22 77, drawn by F. H. Spates, subject to the following_ stipulations: 1) existing curb cuts be closed and curbing be installed. 2) provisions for storm drainage shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 3) a sidewalk (to City standards) be extended across the frontage of the property. 4) bonds, in an appropriate amount to be determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be posted for closing the curb cuts, landscaping, and other necessary site improvements. . 5) the applicant shall execute a suitable legal instrument to permit access from the rear of the adjoining properties to the north and south. This instrument shall be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and approval, 15 days prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) the landscaping plan be revised to show a gravel access to the Holmes property in the rear. Air. Ewing seconded the motion. 'Mr. :Lash asked that -the Commission -.not require a 15 day waiting period for a building permit, but Mr. Page said that Mr. Spokes had requested that because he sometimes receives a lot of pressure f rom people and needs time to consider the instrument. The motion passed unanimously. Amended subdivision, Meadowbrook Condominiums, and of Joy Drive, Fir. Louis Tessier Mr. Tessier showed the Commission the original plans and the proposed changes. Basically, he wanted to move some building sites and condense three buildings with 15 units into 2 with 14. This would still adhere to the regulations and would cause very little change. Mr. Morency asked the reason for the change and was told that it is esthetic. The new locations of the buildings would give them more privacy. Mr. Ewing asked how long the present buildings are and was told that they are about 140' each. They hope to have 14 more units completed by September 1, 1977, and 25 more than that by August 1979. These last 25 will probably be done in two phases. At present 11 are complete. Mr. Wessel asked if they were on the Bartlett's Bay sewer and was told that they were. Mr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan of Meadowbrook Condominiums, as depicted on a plat entitled_ "Site Plan - Phase Three, Moadowbrook Condominiums, South Burlington salty Corp.", dated 4 6 77, revised 4 14 77, drawn by I.A., subject to e following stipulations: 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1977 1) ,this plan is considered to be a minor modification under section 01.3 of the South Burlington Subdivision Re lations to a subdivision plan previously approved by this Commission on 6 25 74 and 5 11 76. 2) a plat depicting all phases (I through 5) as agreed by the developer and the Plannin Assistant shall be recorded The motion was seconded by Mr. foolery and passed unanimously. Public hearing on preliminaryplat application of Flanders Lumber and Hickok and Boardman 160 condominiums at 800 Dorset Street Messrs. Curtis and Lamphere Ramon Lawrence represented the developers, and outlined what they wanted to do. These will be 2 bedroom units in the $25-27,000 price range. He then went through a memo dated May 6, 1977 from Mr. Page. Mr. Leonard Lamoureux discussed traffic with the Commission; saying that the people living in these units would probably only have one car, and that he thought that there would be .78 cars per unit going in and out in one peak hour period. Mr. Morency said that that would be 120 cars per hour in that period, but Mr. Page pointed out that these numbers coincide pretty well with other projects in the area and that in the evening peak the traffic would be more diffuse. He hoped that Bruce Houghton would be able to look at the project. Mr. Lawrence said that they have moved some things and put some others in in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Chief and that the distance between buildings is 30'. Mr. Rozendaal raised a question about the building type, saying that he had never seen condominiums in this price range and was not sure that they would be kept up. Mr. Lawrence said that they will have an Association and that others in this price range have worked. Mr. Peter Collins pointed out that these are aimed at the blue-collar market and that these people have a great pride in ownership. As far as recreation, Mr. Lawrence said that they will have a sliding area and perhaps a ballfield. He pointed out that a tennis center was next door. The possibility of putting a baseball diamond on this land was discussed. The phasing schedule would be basically 40 per year. Mr. Lamoureux discussed the possible erosion problem, saying that the soils here are predominantly sandy loam and well -drained. The USDA says that this has slight limitations for construction but they would not build on steep slopes, so he sees no problem in erosion assuming that storm drainage is properly channeled. A closed system would take the water to the stream where there would be a headwall or end section. 6 yards of stones would be placed around the pipe and the stream as energy dissipators. Mr. Page asked what would be done to prevent erosion during construction since some of the units are close to the slope. TIr. Lawrence replied that they would use the standard measures required by the State of Vermont. Mr. Ewing asked how they were going to get the retaining walls in and Mr. Bob Methot explained it, adding that they were planning to remove the present unsuitable fill and replace and compact it. Mr. ioolery moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Preliminary Plat approval for Flanders Lumber and Hickok and Boardman the Brand Farm to the next regularly scheduled meeting which is Yav 24_ M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Meadowbrook Condominiums, Joy Drive Date: May 9, 1977 1. Complete the engineering on the water system. 2. Post bond for the improvements. Respectfully ubmitted, *4�4- Z, William J. Szymanski City Manager M E M 0 R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant Re: Next meeting's agenda items Date: November 4, 1977 Meadowbrook Condominiums - Final Review Phase IV This is the next to the last phase of this 50 unit project, consisting of two buildings totalling 14 units. The previous phase was reviewed and approved by the Commission in May of this year. Layout is fine with the exception of one building which must be shifted away from a drainageway. Brand Farm Condominiums - Final Plat I have no further comments - the report of the applicant's engineering consultant was sent to you last week. Presumably, this report and approval for additional phases beyond phase I will be the only discussion items. Smart Associates - Preliminary Plat Engineering has been reviewed by Bill Szymanski - see his memo. With regard to the proposed intersection with Route 116, a State Highway permit will be required. The District Highway Office has indicated that adequate sight distance and proper approach grade among other things, must be demonstrated before such a permit will be issued. There is a narrow roadway at the southeast corner of the property, extending northward from VanSicklen Road across Smart Associate's land leading to an active hayfield, owned by Mr. Mikell. This roadway is relatively high and dry for the most part and has high potential for a pedestrian trail; this roadway could also be used for access to the hayfield by farm equipment and also possibly by the owners of lots 1 - 4 for access to the wooded, rear portions of their lots. Econolodge revised access With regard to the connection to the Gulf Station, I recommend an approval for the connector as is, conditioned on a review in 1 year's time by the Commission. This is based on the fact that Chief Carter could attribute no increased traffic hazards to this drive- way and the alternatives, such as a speed dip or placement of bollards have the disadvantages of increased maintenance and possibly greater hazards to moving traffic. M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: AMENDED SUBDIVISION, MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: MAX 6, 1977 A This proposal iSaminor modification to the layout of'F6-aw-14d. spaces and buildings. The total number of units remains the same (50) as approved. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 94 to 89, but still exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance (77). Layot (revised) of buildings and parking areas is O.K. I suggest the applicant be required, as a condition of approval, to: 1) record a plat depicting phases I, II, & III, 2) submit a building timetable for the entire project. State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Engineering Division of Environmental Protection Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council MEMORANDUM ) �� s-/& //7 7 AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 4, 1977 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 051152 TO: All Parties to hand Use Permit OIC0154, Meadowbrook Condominiums, South Burlinfton, Vermont M, OM: District ##4 Environmental Commission SUBJECT: Extension of construction completion date Attached is a Land Use Permit Amendment which extends the construction completion date on the Meadowbrook Condominiums until September 4, 1979. Any party objecting to the proposed extension, or wishing; to respond to the Commission regarding this extension, shall notify the District Office prior to May 11, 1977. State of Vermont LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE No. 000154-1 APPLICANT r,Iunson Rarth-Moving; Corporation ADDRESS South Burlington, VT 05401 DISTRICT COMMISSION # 4 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED 10 VSA, Chanter 151 (Actr?50) and Vermont Health Regulations, Chapter 5, Sanitary Engineering;, Subchapter 10, Part 1 Subdivisions HEREBY GRANTS THE REQUEST TO AMEND LAND USE PERMIT # 14C01514 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF extending; the construction completion date from September 4, 1977 to September. 11, 1979. THE APPLICANT IS REMINDED THAT THIS PERMIT IS BEING ISSUED ONLY FOR THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS STATED ABOVE. ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL PERMIT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE MUST BE OBTAINED IN ADDITION TO THIS PERMIT. rONnTTT(1NC 1. All conditions on the original plans not amended by the above remain in full effect. For the District 711 Environmental Commission Curtis W. Carter, Environmental Coordinator Dated'at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 14th day of May, 1977. EB-A-11/3/75 1118 /7? ) FISP SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL Meadowbrook Condominiums - TIH,SE IV T move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan of Meadowbrook Condominiums, as depicted on a plat entitled "Site Plan Phase four, Meadowbrook Condominiums, South Burlington Realty Corp.", dated 10/77, drawn by P.D., subject to the following stipulations: 1. This plan is considered to be a minor modification (under section 101.1 of the Louth %rlinpton Subdivision Regulations) to a suhdivision plan rrevi.ously irnrovpd by this Commission on 6/25/74, 5/11/76, q.nd 5/10/77. 2. A nlnt !e-l-ti.nq the entire nroJect as built or annroved, shall be ranr)rripri. PLEASE 00 NOT WRITE IN 1HIS SPACE (I ocdtion) (Date) Signature of Coordinator/Com. Member Name, address and phone number of the Person seeking this p"'rmit? S7�U_ai�e_, 7_6i1_tU_1'U__r_1117ngton ' Vermont. -)e contacted regarding this 2..1 and phone number of the person to tt application? /C0mplPt2 this only if different from #1 above.) _- Calcagn", 66 St. Paul Street, Burlington, Vermont C6'_1)-6863- 3. Describe the proJect u,/=..y ..`.._.n= its- lots, etc. Indicate the high and low elevations and outline the tract of land on a county highway map and attach the map to this form. The land is located in South Burlington adja2ent to Rice H_igh Schoql a assoclation. Project is to be builtin hases. Land is completely —1-11011 excpp j_for area -of Green Mt. Power easemeni elevation is 2 0'. 4' Give the address of each of the applicant's 8iob elevation offices in Vermont, if any' ----- 5. Does the applicant own the tract of land in fee simple? if not, what is the applicant's legal interest in the land, *hat is the name and address ME 21 of the owner? _jgX, William Haas b s option on the land with Mr. Blais When did the applicant acquire ownership or control of the land? Febnma 11 1914.If the applicant is not applying as an individual, what kind of legal entity is the applicant filing as, e.g. partnership, corporation, etc., and the date and place the legal entity was formed. (Foreign corpora- tions must supply the date they registered with the Secretary of State for the'State of Vermont, and the name of the person upon whom legal processes are to be served.) Pinebrook Association Inc., corporation 1. a. How roany acres are in the entire tract of land? In answering this, include the total acreage of the landowner. 12.5 b. How many acres are directly involved in this project? 12.5 8. On the back side of this page, write in the names and addresses of all adjoining property owners. If you are not the landowner, list the names and addresses of all property owners adjoining the landowner's tract of land. State of Vermont & Federal Bureau of Roads; University of Vermont, Rice High School, Burlington Country Club, Vermont Broadcasting. 9. When do you plan to begin this project? Fall 1974 _ When will this project be completed? 2 years 10. Attach, when applicable, a copy of: restrictive covenants to be used in deeds, restrictive provisions set forth in leases, bylaws of condominium associations, or any other restrictions. 4 -9- 11. Financing: a. Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project? $1,385,000.00 . Applicants for subdivisions should include cost of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc. b. Now will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and what additional financing will be necessary? Local banks with participation, contingent upon Act 250 approval. c. If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details of the bonds. 12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? X police; __c fire protection; X solid waste disposal; road maintenance; X sewage disposal; X water supply; other. (explain). 13. Will this project involve any of the following: (check those that apply.) a. Fuel burning equipment X b. Process equipment c. Incinerators d. Air pollution control equipment NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to do so by a district coordina- tor. 14. I/we hereby certify and affirm under oath that I/we have notified by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled to notice of my/our application pursuant to Title 10 VSA, §6084, as follows: (Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans): City of South Burlington, Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont Tflame and Address of ,unicipa ity South Burlington Planning Commission, City Hall, South. Burlington, Vermont ame -and Address of MunicipalPlanning Commission Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Essex Junction, Vermont Name and Adaress of-RegionalanningCommission) ignature M 15. I/we have arranged for a notice of application to be placed in to be published for one day on ewspaper (Date) under legal notices, and I/we have given a copy to the Town Clerk of and requested that it be posted. MASTER APPLICATION SCHEDULES TO BE ATTACHED: The checklist of schedules below refers to specific application material described in pages 11 through 15 of this manual. Before completing any sched- ule, call the district coordinator for your area. His address and phone number is on the map on page 5. The district coordinator will tell you which schedules to complete and the number of copies to file with your application. [� A - Plans and Specifications copies [� B - Act 250 copies L C - Sewage Disposal copies Q D - Water Supply copies �7 E - Public Buildings copies F - Air Pollution Control _ copies LISMAN & LISMAN RECEIVED ATTORNEYS AT LAW 191 COLLEGE STREET �� j) `� �� BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 ~ r 87 MANAGER'S OF-FICC BERNARD ROBERT ELMANCHESTER ISMAN (� 'Y rJ o* �I.I R [.,f9,i.,��6 MAN CARL H. LISMAN September 3, 1981 COUNSEL ALLEN D. WEBSTER 602-B64-5756 Mr. William Szymanski City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Meadowbrook Association v. South Burlington Realty Dear Bill: In connection with this matter, ,I am enclosing a copy of the complaint, together with an am 6'z,ent thereto, setting forth the basis of the Association's cla:,' Very tru;A��\ yours, Carl H. Li, CHL/ddp Enclosure µ, y.. Y . .y�rA•ciani`rx;� .. }, q so'iw'R y4. (.ISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW dt,gp LLFGE STREET STATE OF Vf;FtMONT CHITTEDIDEN COUNTY, SS. MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM :. ) ASSOCIATION ) ., -Plaintiff v. ) CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT •UU1"iI BURLINGTON REALTY ) DOCKET NO. S880-80CnC CORPORATION ., ..[ •. :.• a .._. . Defendant 'MOTION COMES NOW the plaintiff in this natter, by and through its attorneys, uest thatthe . Court y , and rec � , permit the plaintiff to arL end its com lain"; "datei. 4iOctoLc.r' 8, I900 "to add the "following nunZered paragraph 9. (a) The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condominiums, caused to be constructed certain road: and roadways. The: roads and roadways were warranted and repre- sented„by, the defendant, expressly and implies ly, to be of merchantable quality and fit and proper for the purposes for which they were designed, constructed, sold and .,.used,,,,, and free of all defects. .t.r The defendant )�', has ..Preached its express warranties and "11# , iidpT:£ed'warrantiesof--me.tch4ntability'`-an _that the roads and roadways, now and'proviously,, were defective in design, and construction,. and the defendant knew or should have known its representations were anise and .:ere false when made, and nonetheless made such repre- sentations to induce the owmers of apartments to purchase. In reliance on such represen- tation, the owners did in fact purchase apartments. Furthermore, defendant's con- struction and installation thereof was negligent. 9. (b) The defendant, as developer of ,the Meadowbrook,Condominiums, caused':the"-natural = „w•.r contours of the lands at the Meadowbrook Condominiums to be altered by erecting buildings and,:; improvements,. and cased, the., area to be , redefined. 'gilch actions were undertaken by the defendant, and by undertaking such work the defendant warranted and represented, expressly -and impliedly, that such work was fit and proper for the purposes for which such work was designed, constructed, sold and used, and free of all defects. Nonehheless, '71--the grounds'are such -that they drain'poorly causing water to seep into the buildings, and puddling and water accumulation occurs outside and around the buildings. Such work was negligently undertaken.and performed. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this day of August 1981. ISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW ­1 COLLEGE STREET t STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. i MEADOWBROOK CONDOMINIUM ) ASSOCIATION, on behalf of ) its individual members ) CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT V. ) DOCKET NO. SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY ) CORPORATION ) I COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY COMES NOW the plaintiff in this matter, by and through its attorneys of record, and complains as follows: 1. The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Vermont which, by statute, represents all of the apartment owners of the Meadowbrook Condominium Association acting as a group pursuant to its I Declaration of Condominium as amended, and its Bylaws. Each of the apartment owners is a consumer as defined in 9 V.S.A. §2451a. 2. The plaintiff administers and cares for the Common Areas and Facilities, as defined in the Declaration of Condominium for the Meadowbrook Condominiums, as amended. 3. The defendant is a Vermont corporation and was and is the developer of the Meadowbrook Condominiums. 4. In its capacity as developer of the Meadowbrook Condo- miniums, the defendant caused the apartments in the D Building, so-called, to be connected to a water main. The water main, and its component and appurtenant parts, were warranted and _ISMAN & LISMAN TTORNEYS AT LAW represented by the defendant, expressly and impliedly, to be 'I COLLEGE STREET II �RLINGTON, VT, 05401 4 i...ISMAN 6 LISMAN TTORNEYSAT LAW 11 COLLEGE STREET I RLINGTON, VT. 05401 of merchantable quality,and fit and prope.L for the purposes for which they were designed, constructed, sold and used and free of all defects. The defendant has breached its expressed warranties and implied warranties of merchantability in that the couplings and other parts were and are defective in quality and installation, have broken and caused damage to the Association and its members, and the defendant knew or should have known the representations were false and were false I when made, and were nonetheless made to induce the owners of i the apartments to purchase. In reliance on such representations, i the owners did in fact purchase apartments. i 5. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook I Condominiums, caused to be installed certain sewer pumps under or near the carport area for the benefit of the C and D Buildings, The sewer pumps and its component and appurtenant parts were warranted and represented by the defendant, expressly and impliedly, to be of merchantable quality and fit and proper for the purposes for which they were designed, constructed, sold and used and free of all defects. The defendant has breached its express and implied warranties of 1I merchantability in that said sewer pumps are and were defective, I, ij either in quality or installation, and the defendant knew or should have known its representations were false and were false i when made, and nonetheless were made to induce owners of l I the apartments to purchase. In reliance on such representations, the owners did in fact purchase apartments. Furthermore, �jthe defendant's installation thereof was negligent. 6. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condo- I I iminiums, caused to be installed certain tennis courts, as well I USMAN & LISMAN TTORNEYS AT LAW .ICOLLEGESTREET IRLINGTON. VT. 05401 as shoring and embanking thereof. The tennis courts were warranted and represented by the defendant, expressly and impliedly to be of merchantable quality and fit and proper for the purpose for which they were designed, constructed, sold and used and free of all defects. The defendant. has breached its express and implied warranties of merchantability in that the tennis courts are defective, not fit and proper for the purposes for which they were designed, constructed, sold and used, and are not f--ree of defects. The embankment has collapsed, causing damage to the tennis courts and other lands administered by the plaintiff. The defendant knew or should have known its representations were false and were false when made, and nonetheless made such misrepresentations to induce the owners of the apartments to purchase. In reliance on such representations, the owners did in fact purchase apartments. Furthermore, defendant's construction and i installation thereof was negligent. 7. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condo- miniums, caused to be constructed brick walkways and entryways. The walkways and entryways were warranted and represented by the defendant, expressedly and impliedly, to be of merchantable quality and fit and roper for the P P purposes for which they were designed, constructed, sold and used and free of all defects. The defendant has breached its express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability in that the walkways and entryways, now and previously, were defective in design and construction, and the defendant knew or should have known its representations were false and were false when _ISMAN & LISMAN made, and nonetheless made such misrepresentations to induce j the owners of apartments to purchase. In reliance on such representations, the owners did in fact purchase apartments. Furthermore, defendant's construction and installation thereof was negligent. 8. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condominium, represented to many purchasers and prospective purchasers that the apartments would be serviced by cable jI television. The defendant breached its representation because the apartments were not then, nor are now, serviced by cable �I I I1 television, even though cable television was accessible to the 'I ' developer in the original development. p of the project. In i II reliance on such representations, the owners did in fact I' purchase apartments. ;I 9. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condomin- iums, caused to be constructed a garage building, known as the C Building garage, and the defendant warranted and represented, II expressly and impliedly, that the building, including all materials and components used therein, and all methods and manner of workmanship, were of merchantable quality and fit and proper i j� for the uses for which they were designed, constructed, sold i I� I and used, and were free of all defects, and further warranted h and represented that the plaintiff, and its members, could occupy it � l said building; and the plaintiff, and its members, relied upon � such warranties and representations. The defendant breached its express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability in that the garage building, as of the date of delivery of the 'TORNEYS AT LAW 1 COLLEGE STREET RLINGTON. VT. 05401 • I MW _ISMAN & LISMAN iTORNEYS AT LAW ICOLLEGESTREET RLINGTON, VT. 05401 Ibuilding to the Association, was defective in design and con- ! i struction, and the defendant knew or should have known that its I representations were false,and were false when made, and ! I li nonetheless made such representations to induce owners to purchase apartments. Furthermore, defendant's construction thereof was negligent. ! I 10. The defendant, as developer of the Meadowbrook Condominiums, caused the natural contours of the land at the rear of the D building, so-called, to be altered by erecting a t steep embankment; and caused the area around all buildings I to be redefined. Such embankment and ground redefinition were undertaken by the defendant, and by undertaking such work the defendant warranted and represented, expressly and impliedly that such work was fit and proper for the purposes i it for which such work was designed, constructed, sold and used, IIand free of all defects. Nonetheless, the embankment is crumbling and there is water in the basement of various buildings, including the B and D buildings, and puddling I� and water accumulation outside buildings. The work was it negligently undertaken and performed. I 10. As a proximate cause of the defendant's breach of I; various warranties, express and implied, and breach of its I, !i it representations, and of its negligence, the plaintiff, on 1' II its behalf and on behalf of all apartment owners, has suffered damage for breach of contract, including loss of value to the Common Areas and Facilities (and thereby causing loss of value to each apartment) and incidental and consequential I.da includingexpenses p enses proximately caused as a result of i ) said breaches. I� WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the I, defendant in the amount of $75,000.00, together with attorneys l g Y fees, penalties prescribed pursuant to 9 V.S.A. 52461 and I such other relief as the Court deems just. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this () day of October, 1980. I LIS I I BY: i I DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL it I I I l I� The plaintiff demands a jury trial. DATED this day of October, 1980. .I Y I' it �I �I I �I I� I� I _ISMAN & LISMAN aTTORNEY5 AT LAW - COLLEGE STREET VRLINGTON, VT. 05401 LI BY iJc:° "Ir OF APPLIC ATITi", IL?r 1.7EA IENG ? J V SA, Ch-apter 151 (Act 250) Pursuant to 10 VSA, 9 6034 (b) notice is hereby made that p; nehrcxnk ASRociati_on In.orporated POB 171 Burlina�o Vermont (applicar-t ° s name and address) filed an application with District Commission # 4 , on July 1, 1974 (Date) for a land use permit for 50 townhouse condominium located off Joy (;Mature and location of project) Drive in South Burlington, Vermont Pursuant to 10 VSA, 9 6035 a he3rinv will be held on July 24, 1974 (Date) 1:30 p,m, at Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, POB 108 (Tine) (Location) 58 Pearl Street, Essex Junction Parties to the hearing are the applicant, the municipality, the municipal planning commission, the regional planning commission, state agencies, adjoining property oc-mers who request a hearing, and such parties as may be designated by the cornission< If no party appears in opposition, inforria.l disposition of the case may be made by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default as specified in 3 VSA s 309(d)a District Con ission # 4 PO Box 108, 58 Pearl Street (Address) Essex Junction, VT 05452 658-3006 Distribution: Applicant City of South Burlington South Burlington Planning Commission Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Environmental Board Agency of Environmental Conservation Adjoining Landowners RECEIVED SMOKES, FOLEY & 01BUUCH0W$f ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE MANAGER'S OFFICE "sTY $A. BURL.INGTON P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SPOKES (802) 862-6451 JAMES D. FOLEY (SO2) 863-2857 JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI ISAAC N. P. STOKES STEVEN F. STITZEL COUNSEL August 20, 1981 Mr. William Szymanski City Manager Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Munson Earthmoving - Meadowbrook Dear Bill: I received a telephone call from Susan Haitsma of the Agency of Environmental Conservation Protection Division regarding the above. As a follow-up to this call, I re- ceived a letter, a copy of which is enclosed. It does not look like the Protection Division will be pursuing this matter. It is possible that the Attorney General's office will pursue it on behalf of the Depart- ment of Health. Meanwhile, it appears as though Munson will be con- tacting the City to try to resolve the situation so that he may construct the next phase. This should be our best handle on solving the remaining situation. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Very ruly yours, Josep F. Obuchowski JFO/gmt Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator State o carTyi()n t. Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks, and Recrr,,ation Department of Water Resources Division of Protection Natural Resources Conservation Council Department.of WaterResourct•.s & Environmental Engineering Kenneth Stone Technical Services Department of Health 60 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Ken: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF PROTECTION TEL: 828-3341 State Office Buildi Montpelier, VT 0560 August 18, 1981 RE: Munson Earth -Moving Corporation Land Use Permit #4C0154 Meadowbrook Condominiums South Burlington, Vermont Canute Dalmasse and I have reviewed the file on this case once again. We intend to take no further action on it violation of the Act 250 permit relates only to approval because the South Burlington and to your approval. The City has taken action since it filed a Notice no further of Claim. Please Wright, Esq., Environmental Division of the Attorney contact Merideth General's office, if you would like her to pursue the case We are not comfortable doing so, on your behalf. especially when Environmental Engineer, apparently signed off on William Duffy, it for of Environmental Conservation in a Certification dated 11/25/74. the Agency of Compliance I understand that Mr. Munson may be attempting to resolve the problems shortly because lie would like the final phase of units, Please let us know if our continued involvement. to construct you would like SGIJ : lig CC: Merideth Wright, Esq. Joseph Obucliowski, Esq. Very truly yours, �L Susan G. Haitsma Permit Administrator SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SPOKES N 177I WILLISTOROAD JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI TELEPHONE (STO ROAD S7 March 6, 1979 Mrs. Margaret Picard Clerk, City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Meadowbrook Condominium Development Dear Peggy: In response to Munson Earth-Moving's failure to provide an adequate water system in the Meadowbrook Condominium Development, we have decided to file a document entitled "Notice of Claim." In short, this document constitutes public notification that the City asserts certain legal claims against the owner and developer of the Meadow - brook Condominiums. claims are based upon City ordinances, Act 250, and Department of Health Regulations. We have gotten Bill to sign the Notice of Claim on behalf of the City of South Burlington as its City Manager. The process for filing the Notice of Claim is as follows: The Notice should be filed in the "Claimants Book" which is required to be kept in the City Clerk's Office pursuant to 27 V.S.A. §605. The Notice should be indexed under the City's name as Claimant. Second, the Notice must be recorded in its entirety in the City of South Burlington Land Records and indexed in the general index for deeds under the City's name as Grantee and under the name of South Burlington Realty Corporation as the Grantor. Please give Gil Livingston of my office a call once the Notice of Claim has been filed in order that he may forward copies of the Notice to Munson and South Burlington Realty. Thank you for your help with this matter. Very ydurs�,, Richarr--A. Spokes RAS/ccb Lnclosure cc: ,'William Szymanski ��•�p t� c�i `� �' %'f"7 /i";i I � td I'►7.,�' f� r �'�a"i°4''� ..'i �1 a ",Y u� c!,.� � � - — -- � �� - 'tom"`' -`' 1��,� 4:. �•-•`L.^"! i S. ' A�''i � 4i0"�, ,j �� �+°'+�'.0 �I S �"" .�''� !,+� i .'O•% c%-A^'�"+,�� fr� ,s✓ 41 .1411C ;se Vol - - - -- V G/� ? dye .«r '�•" . Gi /'� ��� �..• �° `� el ��+''.e ✓"� e.�''°f ral MUNSON EARTH-MOVI NG CORP. 366 DORSET STREET *SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 *TELEPHONE 863-6391 May 9, 1977 Mr. Stephen Page, Planning Assistant South Burlington Planning Commission Municipal Office Building South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Steve: Re: Headowbrook Condominiums South Burlington Realty Corp. Your memorandum dated May 6, dictates certain require- ments to be fulfilled by South Burlington Realty Corp. As to your first suggestion, today I will personally have the plat showing Phases IIII and, III recorded as requested. Our timetable for construction naturally is tied very closely with sucessful sales. However, I envision 14 units to be constructed and completed by September 1, 1977. Our best esti- mate for the near future is for the remaining 25 units to be completed by August, 1979. The last 25 units will almost cer- tainly be done in two phases. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to cont-act me. Siacerel LCT/bg ( Louis C. M Louis es c t Si sr I I. L . . . It I . . HEAVY CONSTRUCTION I, ROADS WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS * SITE WORK • EQUIPMENT RENTALS 11�11 rw� A4-4-�, I avv� 3-3-6 WA44- tU sf�s�y�, ���1�q1?.�' IA-V - ------ 177 14,7 ��1� �c � � "s rah 7 Sk4JW S 4t4 (7 �UA# uA L-A) 3 ,�.- W-V L) IU (VI L4 nis Ao A41W -S l MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. V . SOUTH BURLINGTON, ' ''T 05AO1 TELEPHONE 863-6391 September 9, 1975 Dick udard mooning administrator 1175 4illiston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Neadowbrook Condominiums Construction Timetable Lear Dick: If a building permit is granted as of September 9, 1975, we plan to start construction on Phase I, September 10, 1975. Phase I consists of 11 Condominium units in two buildings. Phase I is planned to be complete by early December 1975. Phase II will not start until early sprint; of 1976. Further construction will depend on sales. The total project is expected to take three years. Very truly yours, 1,iUi�60N EARTH MOVIN'T' CORP. James B. aallace JD:�/nd rroject 1-iana ) OF IMEIE��',. $[ 1 L 1N140KITY HEAVY CONSTRUCTION • ROADS • WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS • SITE WORK 9 EQUIPMENT RENTALS M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: PINE BROOK DEVELOPMENT, JOY DRIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 89 1975 This development received conditional approval on June 25, 1974 with the following conditions: 1- that a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic be constructed to the cul-de-sac, 2- that a landscaping plan be submitted to the City Tree Planning Committee for review and comments, 3- that all drainage be approved by the City Manager, 4- that the power poles be protected as agreed to by Green Mountain Power, 5- that street lighting be approved by the City Manager, 6- that recommendations regarding the 1+0 foot right-of-way and the sewer easement as spelled out in a letter dated March 26, 197�+ by the City Manager be complied with, 7- that a time -table regarding a building schedule be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission, 8- that all required bonds be posted, 9- that the condominium by-laws be approved by the City Attorney. The final plan differs from the study plan in that the develop- ment has the addition of a swimming pool and tennis courts. The plan shows the tennis courts in that area which was to be considered open- sj)ace. Because the center -line of the stream has not been estab- lished., it is not known whether the courts are in conformance with the required stream and interstate set -backs. The plan does not show a sidewalk. The landscaping plan has been submitted, however the Tree Planting Commission has not reviewed the plan because of a problem with regard to the scheduling of an on -site inspection. See- Mr. Szymanski's memo regarding the drainage. No communications from Green Mountain Power regarding protecting the poles. See- Mr. Szymanskits memo regarding the lighting. Believe the right-of-way and sewer easement are being discussed. No time -table presented as of this date. No bonds posted as of this date. No condominium by-laws submitted as of this date. Because of the addition of the swimming pool and tennis courts, and also the fact that the water line will come from Spear Street and cross the stream, the District Environmental Commission may require another meeting. -2- M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI RE: Pine Brook Condominiums Site Plan Review Phase I ONLY) DATE: Septem er 9, 1975 i 1. Plan show$a sidewalk as recommended in conditions dated 6-26-74. 2. Drainage inlets should be included on both sides of the entrance drive. C 3. Street lighting appears adequate, however developer should ! consider lighting within the complex. I 4. Original recommendations were for acquisition of a 60' road right-of-way, however only 40' was available due to infringement on ballfield. 5. Development will be served with water from the east,via the, 8" main serving the Maple Lab. Respectfully submitted, William J. Szymanski. City Manager State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Alfred A. Calcagni 86 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Fred: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PO Box 108 Essex Jct., Vermont DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 658-3006 July 31, 1974 Re: Pinebrook Association, Inc. --Application #4CO154 The hearing held July 24, 1974 on the application of Pinebrook Association, Inc. was recessed pending submission of additional information by the applicant. It was determined that the Commission required this information prior to adjourning the hearing and making a final decision. Additional submissions requested were as follows: 1. Statement as to the impact that the salt and oil in the storm water discharge will have on the brook. 2. Plan to be utilized for control of soil erosion. 3. Description of how the drainage flow on both sides of the proposed road will enter the Joy Drive cul-de-sac without being discharged onto Vermont Broadcasting land: 4. Detail of rip -rap to be installed at the outlet of the two storm sewer systems. 5. Provision to be inserted into the Condominium Bylaws to pro- vide a mechanism for upgrading the proposed road to city standards in the event the city is requested to take over maintenance. Provision should assign the responsibility to the association and provide for assessment of costs. 6. Letter from the fire department stating that they have reviewed the plans and feel that they can cope with the road pattern and power line. 7. Description of the insulation standards to be followed in the construction of the condominiums. ! RECEIV j �+' Calcagni, frai:r & Za;chawski Mr. Alfred Calcagl* -2- July 31, 1974 The above information should be submitted to all parties to the application. If, upon review by the Commission and the parties, the information submitted is satisfactory to enable the applicant to fulfill his burden of proof, the hearing will be automatically adjourned] and the decision of the Commission will be issued. It is not anticipated that another hearing will be required. sincerely, l.lL�v CURTIS W. CARTER Environmental Coordinator CWC/dem CC: All Parties 405111 MA *41 IP -V "Icyaly swulo4jv 'x� OWNIq 0ATIVIMUMV MUM PIMM pawqapl- 181nox x1nal VaL -XIVSSM001 040sp at! UOUOV TV50T aeallvl* PIV"Ola"OuaMlY 44TO W 0-4 a040' aq MIX lalltir'!T, Oti4 ONTIAIMO *1014"IT STfTl ;'-) '4d;vD',llA U04t "00=11CUOP 00"t W IM WOO 00"y 10=0 STAt UOA x4vp NIP4 OM4 W""A ® ' � '' moPie axn5yj p"n- puoq MewsenrN 7-- nullsoo oql. �z hulwq WO 'SUOTU�:On MUM uOdn luV611"0- 1 "6 =001M, "t 11 UO OMM44 ZO; HAWAV MUMB SIT�� VtTl I DO 1 1 1 Wl - - v- v w � 10d v MUM 10 MY17 ZnOqq V� smuld sW 110140 M Ou Wul SOPTAM qU E. Q U01101010 PMw'- L NUDD ISPUr Or ;;0 PO4pool 1001014 Napan �' va"I nox M201— �p n v - " � 1 7- JVQQ VU0lv ., . jw-; uOIBUTTxng qI009 I= V � '"r UOTIOW' ;0 uuyvjaT� ;a Malzol iw,:; quonawA lUO&UT1200 44nas 451143 WSJ% 59C OMPTIOV SPsvr -XV VUOTIUOIT,7 UOTIVIOV01 BUIAON-111W UOPURP WT JOT 10901W At 4 s r Yt1 � Y Y prJ Y M1 a: 3 itl ib 1d F r� bT � 1 ! ,r ��' lAfi" iifiz jS.f^{t�� �` x •�dt mY �- Yy A. vt�. j'�,� dv s4 �! r �Y �� � d I + } a f rw�A R �, i At A Y r• 1, + JR! 9 t u fn+ 7 :Yir r 1u� � � 1 *p J� VERIVONT DEPART"?ENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF ENViE Oi,,'N`11-'aT.f1 HEA►_1 H 115 COLCHESTER AVENUE BURLINeTON, VERMONT 05401 Richard P. Trudell, P.E. Willis Enyi tioeri ng Associates 29!j Shun Pike Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE. Pine. Brook Condominiums Water System South duriington, Vermont War Mr. Trudaell We have completed our review of the pi on behalf of Munson Earth -Moving Corporatip ington water system to serve the Pine Sr Ing comments and qucastions. December 19, 1974 she ficationskG submitted ,ton" of the South Burl - Mums. We have the foilow- 1. The hydraulic calcul s do,�xst appear to adequately justify that sufficient pressure will be avai ab .,a t ndominiums under all flow ccadi- tions. A static pressure of $" i at h h rant on Farrell Street was assumed for all calculations. In actuaali y, and r maximum flow conditions there was measured a residual of 27 psi at this by r t.refore, there would not be sufficient pressure under max imi= f nd ttonsl< o serve the condominiums. Perhaps a net- work analysis using ad oral d,,4ta on the service from Hadley Street would be able to justify the re u red fl s. Does a fire flaw of 500 gprr. satisfy the ISO requirements for the t of cgn#truction proposed? Please advise. 2. sheet i show'rthe' location of the water line within 101 of manhole b and crossings without sufficient vertical separations as specified. Plans should be revised to meet the 3POC i f i cations . j. Sheet 2 and the specifications should specify the minimum depth of burial for water mains. 4. The air release detail on sheet 3 shows a discharge below grade. The open end of an air releases valve should extend at least one foot above finished grade. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincereiy, Kenneth M. Stone P.E. Chief of Sanitary Engineering Division of Environmental Health KMSIsm cc: Lloyd Trombly, Munson Earth -Moving Corp. William J. Szymanski, City Manager, S. Burlington South Burlington Water Department District Environmental District 14 Benson Sargent, Division of Environmental Engineering qSU;K,V ?90�MW njAj;?!0U Ot. FWAILCIVIOUC511 F,#j0jv0QLjUa qnL UF�WU CC- I Lot$ ;-001 pjX � I tice Lv It ;�On PSA5- 90 1nVRrjs"�1UP,* J.'c'st absu GUcj 911- aponiq r.,-,rnuq tqg,?r Otto 1,00f iprOAQ ifeleveq 0 tj a V oqg Q I OM "' V9 q1V Ok P"L191 M.Vf(4L V!910a- 211mat -5 quo ruo ebac S "Icot joue LSAT *CC CC MCI rlf r I b op 410 pc ro Ine r I tA rpo, tLOW it'"01kA Z!�1-60r MCM11-3, bLQV,1nLG nU,-I%L 0_.-t9WIJ-f or gj)17 t.W LqZ LT; w rVoLo mefw CA Jr III " 'IJX ctwqjcjeu2 p m?, r LO Ot URI LoUf 3W L9LLVjj 24MOW9 4A%? 1-42M1wtMq il CIVU9 Lr, P I I I I MW PT "t L f3 ficIednWre f I ;JxqLsnf It, cs I crT 14rf qou mg.r,-J. ot VtntfeOtl F9L9P-tf0Aj0A- COOOLV�`J"DU -t'6L 191XTQ40'jtU Ot, rVQ 1, ,Ong? Q"Lj- we... piAa cqwbpzni am LGA14P, Ot rpo bj 7*ngp pPLjjU3r0U' A-111VI.I(xic SIP PP"U birG illo"q nQC%tW,,9L 1' ItIlf December 6, 1974 State of Vermont Health Dept. Colchester Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Gentlemen: The following letter will serve to explain the proposed water line extension from Joy Drive to the proposed Pine Brook Condominiums. My calculations take into consideration the plans that the city of South Burlington have for discontinuing the use of Burl- ington water on Hadley Street and of supplying this area from the Farrell Street Extension. The present peak demand for this area was given to me by the South Burlington !,!ater Department. At present there are 145 users, with no planned development beyond Hadley Street. The total peak daily consumption in this area is 33000 gpd. There are four other areas of potential commercial development and I have assigned a total of 8500 gpd expected flow to these areas. It is our understanding that the City of South Burlington intends to extend an existing line on Farrell Street to connect with the existing 8" line on Joy Drive. Ve further understand that this extension will be made within the next 7 to 8 months or prior to the completion of the Pine Brook Condominiums. I ' 'e are, therefore, basing our hydraulic design on hydrant tests on Farrell Street. This hydrant is located near the underpass for the interstate. V,Then the hydrant was flow tested by the fire underwriters, they showed a static pressure of 82 psi. At a flow of 935 opm, the residual press was 27 psi. Based on this figure, adequate water pressure and sufficient fire flows will be available by the time the condominiums are completed. An 8" stub has been provided within the development for a future cross connection between our 8" water line and the present 811 system serving the Maple Sugar Research Building. li�`e are, therefore, asking acceptance of this design with the understanding as mentioned above. Very truly yours, =SON EARTH, -MOVING CORPORATION Lloyd Trombly Engineer dd WILLIS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES December 6, 1974 Mr. Lloyd Trombly Munson Earth Moving Corporation South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Pine Brook Condominiums Water System Dear Lloyd: CONSULTANTS 295 SHUN PIKE AOAd BO. BURLINOTON, VEiiMONT 864-0777 I have reviewed the information that you have given me concerning Pine Brook Condominiums. Based on the calculations that you made and hydrant tests that were conducted, I have certified your work with the following observations: 1. A letter from the City of South Burlington regarding their intentions on the new 811 line should be obtained. 2. It is my understanding that the upper hydrant is the high point on the line and that it will be used as a blow off for the line. 3. Mr., William. Szymanski, City Manager, has requested that the water main be sized 811 at the dead end for possible future connection to the Spear Street main. 4. The vent for the air relief should be 24 to 36 inches above: the ground. Very truly yours, WILLIS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard P. Trudell, P.E. RPT/slp plugs, seals, or by other suitable means to prevent the entry of animals, foreign matter and trench water. Trench water shall be pumped. out before the seals, plugs, or other closures are removed. Before being placed into service, all new public water systems, and repaired portions of, or extensions of existing systems, shall be adequately flushed and then disinfected by the use of chlorine gas, clacium hypochlorite, or sodium hypochlorite in such manner that the water and chlorine flow used for disinfection shall be controlled and uniformly maintained at 50 ppm residual chlorine for a minimum of 12 hours. All valves in this portion of the public water system shall be operated during the time the section is filled with the disinfection solution. The point of application of the chlorine or chlorine -water mixture used for disinfection shall be at the beginning of the new line, repaired po:°tion, or extension, or any valved section of it, and. through a corporation cock inserted into the top of the new line, repaired portion or extension. The water injector for delivering the water -chlorine mixture shall be supplied from a tap on the pressure side of the gate valve controlling Moe flow into the new section, repaired portion or extension. Following disinfection, the new system, repaired section or extension shall be thoroughly flushed until the excess residual chlorine has been removed. If bacteriological tests show the treatment to be unsatis- factory, the d s:i,nfecti on procedures es shall be repeated until satisfactory bacteraolwogi.cal sample results are obtained. When necessary repairs are to be made, or are made, or cutting into existing ;pains is necessary, a competent experienced person representing the public water system shall be on hand to institute the best method feasible for preventing contaminated or polluted water from entering the main and to take the necessary steps to assure disiiifection of the main prior to being put back into service:, 6. Valves & Fittings Valves shall be 5" Darling gate valves or approved egnal. Valves shall be 150 psi working water pressure with mechanical joint connections. 7. Hydrants The hydrants shall be Darling B-62-B or approved equal as specified by South Burlington. The hydrant size should be 5" with two 236" hose connections and one 4)r" steamer. Drains will not be installed in these hydrants as the water table will be at hydrant base. 8. douse Services All individual ?douse services shall be 'I" dia. with curb box and non draining curb stop. All connections to the 4" pvc line will be made by using a transite heavy tapped coupling as manufactured by Johns -Manville. 9. Saddles All saddles shall be of either bronze or stainless steel. 0 Protected Water Consumption Existing water usage 145 dwellings using peak 33,000 gpd. Information furnished. by City of South Burlington. Future development expected 4 commercial lots assume 240 persons at 35 gal/day or a total of 8,400 gal. fully developed. Water Consumption New Development Luxury residents or estates As per U. S. Dept. of Health Publication No. 526 150 gpcd/apt 4 residents/apt x 150 - 600 gpd/apt. 600 gpd/apt x 50 apt -. 30,000 gpd total Total Flow at Intersection of Joy Drive & Farrell Street Existing 33,000 Future 8,400 New develop. 30,000 TOTAL 71,400 gpd Peak Flow at Joy Drive and Farrell Street 10 x 71,400 gpd +, 1440 = 495 gPm The system at this point is almost equal for 500 gPm fire and 495 peak. domestic. Friction Loss on Farrell Street and. Joy Drive 4,000 ft. Q 500 gpm peak fare flow 4.4 ft. /1000 ft. nomograph based on Hazen & Williams formula. C value in pipe of 140. 4.4 x 4 = 17.6 ft. dead loss at condominiums 17.6 x .433 = 7.62 psi total head loss from friction. Static Head Loss Elevation top floor condominium Hydrant elevation Farrell Street Elevation difference 103 x .433 = 45 Psi 501 feet 198 feet 103 feet im Pressure at Peak Flow domestic or 500 gpm fire flow, when fully developed pressure initially at hyd 82 psi static loss -45 psi friction loss - .6 psi 29.4 psi Velocity Hazen & Williams nomograph = 3.2 fps Pressure at Peak Flow through 4" line 12 units x 600 gpd = 7200 gpd 7200 x 10 + 1440 = 50 gpm peak flow Friction loss due to this flow is as per Hazen Williams formula C value of 150 = 1.6/1000 feet x .87 = 1.4 Using our longest run of PVC 4"240 feet 240 x x •433 = .15 psi friction loss 1000 �. + _ . 336 30 psi- .2 = 29.85 psi at buildings 500 gpm is based on fire underwriters minimum flow. WHAT IF PEAK WATER & FIRE AT SAME TIME C Friction Losses A Farrell, St. future 8" connectio ... ....... ... . — --- - - . n iOOO Industrial area expected future loading 84�00 gpd M. Hadley Street ting demand Hadley Street users total usage 00 g.pd New Project projected use 30,000 gpd C Friction loss A to B Peak flow with fire 495 gpm + 500 gpm = 995 9Pm At 1000 gpm friction loss in 81, pipe is 15' head/10001 Total 15, x 6.4c _) psi Friction loss B to 0 30,000 + 1440 = 20.8 gpm x 10 = 208.6 gpm Peak flow with fire = 208 + 500 708 gpm .At 708 gpm friction loss 8" is 8.6' per 1000 3 x 8.6 = 25.8' .x .433 = 11.2 psi Total Loss to Friction peek flow with fire A to D 6.5 B to C 11.2 Static 2 62.? 82 psi e 62.7 psi = 19.3 psi Under worst condition Velocity = 4.1, fps nomograph So. Burlington Planning Comm. May 23, 1974 Subject: Pine Creek Dev. _Attention: Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher Chairman Dear Mrs. Maher: This letter shall serve as an application and request for a sub- division hearing of the above development subject to the zone change recommended by the Planning Commission on April 30, 1974. Formal application and plans accompany this letter and remain the same as approved in the prior hearing. Please advise me of the date that your commission will hold the hearing required under your adopted zoning laws. Re spe ctfully, September 10, 1975 'r. James P. Wallace ,unson Lj Larth "ovir.7 Corooration 366 ...orSE-t Street S c )uth ".'Furlington, WE' 0 -54Cl Dc-',ar 1,1.r. ',%,'allace: This is to confir:i-, the action of tl-c. ' ou'L-,IL ' urlim1ton Planning Commission in approving the-.- First phase of 11 units of :'rooky Con(lo�,iniura's` (excluding tennis courts) in the form of the following motion: i1'RC sr '°ai ` th, �, �) .1 -4t "h, PlanrinF,-. ',orxnissaon ,iv<. approval to 1.1ri-a ccnstru-t-ion o-f the first phase, of eleven units to th2h llinu ium, Develop- -ment contingent utdon final approval of the land- scapin�,- plan and the posting of all necessary bonds. She -lu t�,P-r movcdi. thc cond-itions outline6. i.� A. re in the cond-Itional approval given on Jung: 25, 1974 will still in force. lso that this is given witri the understanding that the tennis court as on -i"i-I not bc, or in that Also What n.i_rt,ov-ai is ,at a—,,licn�4�lcn will with t,,,, unde,:,stitn6.no th- 1� e a d e for zany al, ,. i t ' on a 1 T) ase ti n t 11 t'n has. ap-prov, (3 the C")ndoml nium lav;s Also, pL)ase be i adv i s a d that the r -a c or di n z: of th, i plan is --equirfid', In confor,r-7.nro 7itl- "71 C',anter 15, ;ecti.:-;n 'LG'� of Vermont Statutes ijnnotated. .L I - Yours truly, .itephen Page .--Tanning Assistant SP/j United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service AND OCCUPANCY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Act of June 4, 1897 This permit is revocable and nontransferable (Ref. FSM 2710) a. Record no. (1-2) b. Region (3-4) c. Forest (5-6) 70 09INEFES 23 -i District (7-8) e. User number (9- 22) f. Kind of use (13-15) g. State (16-17) h. County (18-20) k. Card no. (21) Vermont __ Chittenden --- 1 Permission is hereby granted to City of South Burlington Water Department of South Burlington, Vermont hereinafter called the permit tee, to use subject to the conditions set out below, the following described lands or improvements: A 10 foot wide strip of land along the North boundary line, of the George D. Aiken Sugar Maple Laboratory site at 705 Spear Street, South Burlington, Vermont, to construct and maintain a water line. Said land is leased by the United States of America, acting through the U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station and recorded in South Burlington, Vermont, Land Records in Misc. Vol. 69, page 237. This permit covers •3(+) acres and/or _ __—miles and is issued for the purpose of: Concurring with and joining into the water line Right -of -Way Grant from University of Vermont to the South Burlington Water Department and recorded at the South Burlington Land Office. 1. Construction or occupancy and use under this permit shall begin within months, and construction, if any, shall be completed within _ months, from the date of the permit. This use shall be actually exercised at least 365 days each year, unless otherwise authorized in writing, 2. In consideration for this use, the permittee shall pay to the Forest Service, U.S. De�-a'f Agriculture, the sum of Dollars (8 ---" ) for the period from -_ _ 19 ..------ 19 and thereafter annually on _ Dollars ($ ) Provided, h,ow­ever, ­Cliarges for this use may be made or readjusted whenever necessary to place the c4arg6s on a basis commensurate with the value of use authorized by this permit. 3. This permit is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions 4 to 22 attached hereto and made a part of this permit. NVTliiFPam "'ER TT�SyEmanski, Manage . SIGNATURE OF AUT ORI D OFFICE DATE PERMITTEE City of South Burlington, Vermont ,....._�_...—_,� TITLE ISSUING NA D S URE TITLE DATE OFFICER_ Jr� F, ark Station Director, Northeastern Forest Exp. Stal. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) 2700-4 (7/71) 4. Development plans; layou),ans; construction, reconstruction, or Jration of improvements; or a ` revision of layout or construction plans for this area must be approved in advance and in writing by the forest supervisor. Trees or shrubbery on the permitted area may be removed or destroyed only after the forest officer in charge has approved, and has marked or otherwise designated that which may be removed or destroyed. Timber cut or destroyed will be paid for by the permittee as follows: Merchantable timber at appraised value; young -growth timber below merchantable size at current damage appraisal value; provided that the Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the per- mittee at no stumpage cost to the permittee. Trees, shrubs, and other plants may be planted in such manner and in such places about the premises as may be approved by the forest officer in charge. 5. The permittee shall maintain the improvements and premises to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the forest officer in charge. 6. This permit is subject to all valid claims. 7. The permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit, shall comply with the regulations of the Department of Agriculture and all Federal, State, county, and municipal laws, ordinances, or regula- tions which are applicable to the area or operations covered by this permit. 8. The permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent and suppress forest fires. No ma- terial shall be disposed of by burning in open fires during the closed season established by law or regula- tion without a written permit from the forest officer in charge or his authorized agent. 9. The permittee shall exercise diligence in protecting from damage the land and property of the United States covered by and used in connection with this permit, and shall pay the United States for any damage resulting from negligence or from the violation of the terms of this permit or of any law or regulation appli- cable to the National Forests by the permittee, or by any agents or employees of the permittee acting within the scope of their agency or employment. 10. The permittee shall fully repair all damage, other than ordinary wear and tear, to national forest roads and trails caused by the permittee in the exercise of the privilege granted by this permit. 11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise berefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit, 12. Upon abandonment, termination, revocation, or cancellation of this permit, the permittee shall remove within a reasonable time all structures and improvements except those owned by the United States, and shall restore the site, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing or in this permit. If the permittee fails to remove all such structures or improvements within a reasonable period, they shall become the property of the United States, but that will not relieve the permittee of liability for the cost of their removal and restoration of the site. 13. This permit is not transferable. If the permittee through voluntary sale or transfer, or through enforcement of contract, foreclosure, tax sale, or other valid legal proceeding shall cease to be the owner of the physical improvements other than those owned by the United States situated on the land described in this permit and is unable to furnish adequate proof of ability to redeem or otherwise reestablish title to said improvements, this permit shall be subject to cancellation. But if the person to whom title to said improvements shall have been transferred in either manner provided is qualified as a permittee and is willing that his future occupancy of the premises shall be subject to such new, conditions and stipulations as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant, his continued occupancy of the premises may be authorized by permit to him if, in the opinion of the issuing officer or his successor, issuance of a permit is desirable and in the public interest. 14. In case of change of address, the permittee shall immediately notify the forest supervisor. 15. The temporary use and occupancy of the premises and improvements herein described may be sublet by the permittee to third parties only with the prior written approval of the forest supervisor but the per- mittee shall continue to be responsible for compliance with all conditions of this permit by persons to whom such premises may be sublet. 16. This permit may be terminated upon breach of any of the conditions herein or at the discretion of the 5xxktamm or the Chief, Forest Service. Station Director 17. In the event of any conflict between any of the preceding printedclauses orany provisions thereof and any of the following clauses or any provisions thereof, the following clauses will control. GPO 914fi73 18. All forgoing references to Forest Supervisor or Forest Officer is intended to mean the Director, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station or his designated acting. 19. All forgoing references to National Forest is intended to be this site. 20. The proposed water line extension shall not decrease the water pressure to the Forest Service site in the amount to affect fire rating. 21. The proposed water line extension shall provide two (2) 4" taps and one (1) fire hydrant at no cost to the Forest Service and at a location determined by them. 22. The Forest Service shall be allowed to use the area for agricultural purposes as long as this use does not interfere with the construction and maintenance of the water line. FORM AD-107 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORT NO. REV. S-En ) ) 23-48-76 REPORT OF TRANSFER Oh ✓THER DISPOSITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY DATE 6/22/76 1. TYPE OF TRANSACTION (REPORT EACH TYPE SEPARATELY) 2. AUTHORIZATION REFERENCE 1PK GSA letter 12/12/75 3. PROCEEDS RECEIVED TRANSFER a SALE o TRADE IN ®DONATION authorizing the follow- CONSTRUCTION ing donation: s 4. REPORTING AGENCY: 5. RECEIVING AGENCY (OR NAME OF PURCHASER OR DONEE): USDA -Forest Service William J. Szymanski A. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT A. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT (OR ADDRESS OF PURCHASER) Northeastern Forest Experiment Station City of South Burlington Water Department B. LOCATION B. LOCATION Burlingto ,Vermont ' South Burlington, Vermont C. S(Gf7q�U�#E _ , L C. S,I G'N�ATQ /� J;/ / D%TITLLE /Property D. TITLE E. DATE Management Officer -city Ma ger 6-25-76 5. PROPERTY ITEMS QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION INVENTORY IOR PROP. N0 .1 (GIVE FULL DETAILS INCLUDING SERIAL NUMBERS. IF ANY. AND CONDITION CODE) VALUE 1 I WATER LINE, part of property capitalized to 1218 Burlington Laboratory. This donation agrees with the License Agreement and Special Use Permit for the water line right-of-way. cc: J.Herrick, Engr. M.Mancini, B&F AFSO, Burlington File Original and 1 copy: South Burlington Water Dept. Estimated $6,000.00 CERTIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICERS 7. PROPERTY OFFICER: THIS TRANSACTION IS COMPLETED AND 8. FISCAL OFFICER A. THE SUM INDICATED BELOW HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN PAYMENT FOR THE NECESSARY ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE TO ADJUST THE PROPERTY THE PROPERTY DISPOSED OF. RECORDS. PROCEEDS. IF ANY. ARE TO BE DEPOSITED TO: B. THE NECESSARY ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE TO ADJUST THE AC. COUNTING RECORDS. AMOUNT Is) ISCHEDULE NO SIGNATURE(DATE (SIGNATURE IDATE (OVER) City of South Burlington 1175 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 VERMONT'S NINTH AND FASTEST GROWING CITY U . S . Forest Service Maple Research Laboratory Spear Street South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Attention: Robert Lafayette Dear Bob: OFFICE OF CITY MANAGL:R WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI November 26, 1974 The City of South Burlington would like to provide water from our high service to a housing development west of your maple lab property. The best route is from Spear Street. Your building is serviced by a 8 inch main along the northerly property line. The City would like to extend this line westerly to the proposed housing development. This extension would require a 10 foot easement and we would assume all maintainance of the 8 inch line which was installed to the lab, including the fire hydrant. I feel the lab would benefit in that future expansion could use this line. Your prompt attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON lJ t William J.11 Szymanski City Manager WJS/gmy State Of Vermont AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Interagency Committee on Natural Resources Natural Resources Conservation Council TUVRANDUM DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 August G, 1975 TO: Parties to Land Use Permit VIC0154 Y FMM: District #4 T11vironmental Commission e U `" �- SUBJECT: Amendment to Permit Munson Earth Moving Corporation has requested that Land Use Permit #4C01514 be amended to reflect the revised site plan. Attached is a copy of the plan and letter of explanation. It is the initial impression of the Commission that the density and basic configuration of the buildings has not changed and, therefore, the applicant should not be held up from commencing on Phase I. The addition of the swimming pool and tennis courts do, however, constitute a change that will need to be fully reviewed. As part of this review, the Commission will consider the proposed total layout of the development. Any party wishing; to comment on the proposed revisions or request a hearing should do so within 15 days of receipt of this notice. All parties will be notified of any hearing or meeting of tale Commission. WIEMANN - LAM PH ERE, ARuHITECTS 346 SHELBURNE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-5056 RICHARD H. WIEMANN A.I.A. JAMES A. LAMPHERE A.I.A. July 30, 1975 Mr. Curtis Carter, Coordinator Environmental District No. 4 State of Vermont 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Meadow Brook Condominiums - Formerly Pine Brook Condominiums Dear Curt: I am writing on behalf of South Burlington Realty and would like to re- quest an amendment to the original project mentioned above. As you will note on the attached Site Plan the Buildings and Units vary slightly to the original site plan developed by Calcagni-Frazier and Zajchowski Architects, Inc. The garage building has been placed nearer to the road and the buildings have been placed in an effort to make better use of the site and save more of the tree areas from demolition and construction damages. In addition to the above we have added a swimming pool and two tennis courts to the project. These were requested by the lending agency and we feel will help the marketing of these units. The tennis courts have been placed on the east side of the brook and will require a small gravel path and bridge to get to this area. We intend to keep this area as natural as possible. We would also like to make you aware of the fact that the original Pine Brook Condominium project was purchased by Munson Earth Moving Corp. of South Burlington. The Owner, Mr. Randall Munson intends to construct them under South Burlington Realty. Mr. Munson is Owner of both Corporations. As I understand from our conversation this A.M. we have approval to start construction on the Units, however we must hold up until the District Environmental Commission can review the pool and tennis court additions. If you have any questions please call. JAL: j d enc Ver truly yours, games A. Lamphere WIEMANN-LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION P.O. BOX 968. 705 SPEAR ST BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 ATT: William J. Szymanski Dear Mr. Szymanski: Wecember 10, 1974 �oP��SVSStM [OOpf�9T i AO�FJIRY RESEPR'� We regret the verbal information from you today concerning the the city's decision on the water line. It is our understanding the housing development will be furnished water by another route, west of our property. Upon receipt of your letter of November 26, 1974 and subsequent visits, we conducted a preliminary investigation relating to the rights for the water line. Approval has been received from Forest Service officials. We could obtain an almost immediate agree- ment for the line. We will be happy to cooperate with the city for extending the line anytime in the future. Sincerely yours, Robert Lafayette Administrative Field Support Officer RL/djl RECEIVED IU'El� 11 19/4 O. EJURLI1V0;a5�1 LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 u C E D NOV 171975 November 14, 1975 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY Br 7RLINGTON Lloyd A. Portnow, Esquire Samuelson, Bloomberg # Portnow & Schuster 1.17 St. Paul Street Durlington, Vermont 05401 ,)ear Lloyd I am in receipt of a copy of your letter to Jim Wallace mated November 13, 1975. I have conferred w the City manager in regard to the controversy between Munson Earth Moving corpora- tion and Vermont Broadcasting Corporation. it is the City's position at this tier that it will not accept any proposed dedication of the right-of-way unless and until such time as the right-of-way is upgraded to City standards and specifications. This, of course, could not be accomplished until the Planning Commission approved certain revisions to the subdivision 01an. Me original approval provided for a private street to be main- tained by your client or the owners of the condominium units. If the street is to remain private, we feel the matter should be resolved between Munson Earth Moving and Vermont Broadcasting. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RASact cc: Honorable L. John Cain William J. Szymanski, C:i Manager! William Wessell, Chairm South Burlington Planning C ilsecion Au.-Ust 22, 3975 Curtis 1",:rter -Irvironmental !omyriission 111 est �tl,eet 11 asex -.7 c t a $ ITT 05452 Turiin,�_�rton 1will require that 1111r. T"andly ',junscn submit a rinc1 plan for approval of iiis Fine I rook Condom-iniiAm project, locate,! o".' Joy Drive. 71k_�"J, Cit.y will delfinitely be a party to any h9,,,,rin;--,s which are to take place ',-r,,:'or- the ­nvironmentz:.l Ine,(I t,e opportuni.ty to revicvj those plans comi)letcd 11j �'..rcliitocts '."iemur.n C. Tjariwhere-, I :Vint} ProbIrrris with the lo-ation of two (2) o" the clus-.:.ers an(' the proposed tennis courts. "lie :south Purlin,-,ton 2.on4nc .7 e,­uL.itions -a Uonse-rvation- Cnen "-pace -listrict which is flL'ty (50) 7e t f r o rr the canter etc. I i,,,ithiri this district no line of any stre;ai-,i, drainagel structures are allowed. It app(,1?z_rs that those are withJ,,r I-,hc..,, fil'ty (-)C) foot Set b,-jC],C. 1 have not discussed this with _•,r. Yunson or. ",r. Lamphere as of this date, my only intent is to infcr-n your office. Please keep ne in"'ormed as to the hearing date. Very truly, 7:Licharc3, Zoning dministrative f icer cc Mr. James Lamphere CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number William Haas P. O. Box 171, Burlington, Vt. (518- 585-6060- Ticonderoga, N.Y. ) 2. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application William Haas P. O. Box 171, Burlington, Vt. Ticonderoga, N.Y. - (518- 585-6060) 3. Nature of the Development or Subdivision Condominiums or Garden Apartments 4. Location of Development or Subdivision City of So. Burlington 11.6 acres - on South by interstate I-89, East by University of Vermont, and Burlington CountrZ ,Chjh and Wpsf. h�L R.i(-a NfPynnrial T-T 4 ,Rphnpl and radio station W. J. O. Y. - Joy Drive. 5. High and Low Elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision 290'- 250' 6. Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont P.O. Box 171, Burlington, Vermont 7. Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) MW 8. If the Applicant is not an individual, the Form, Date, and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM: Corp. to be formedDATE • PLACE: Burlington, Vermort 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not Lswer) ----- 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any Deed(s) to be issued? Standard articles of association for condominium project. 12. Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. (4) Include a contour mazy of the land involved drawn on a scale of 5 foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and width of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision or Development? R.P._sMPnflgl onncinminium cluster 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development orr Subdivis- ion including information, if available, oo�ed site trpams or Other bodies of Water, Bedrocks, Etc. natural drainage to Potash Brook. See plan and soil map. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest 12 B. Number of acres in this project 12 C. Number of acres previously developed none D. When do you anticipate beginning the project Within reasonable time after receiving planning, and environmental approval. E. When will this development or subdivision be completed As market demands 16. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. Municipal system B. Where is the nearest municipal water system and is it available and feasible to use it? Joy Drive. Yes, It is feasible. 17. Sewage System: A. What type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, or municipal system? Municipal system - 4 - B. Where is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? To,Z Tyr;gP_ Yes, it is feasible C. If the sewage system is other than a community, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching field, include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. Not applicable 18. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. Burlington Country Club and University of Vermont, Race High School, and Radio Station W. J. O. Y. B. What is the adjacent property used for at present? UVM - Agricluture - The rest self explanatory C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? See no change in use in forseeable future 19. Zoning: A. Which'District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? Planned District DATE February 19, 1974 SI EGNAT tT� -.00 11 F jo -000,� a.ri .o 411.7 &0, o I f- I 47- ,vNa 160 2 A'/ f a-A-0— '. r �,�'w�•- ; ,de�„+�. eat - Lu.� t pEe a 1 GoP{' CeNA tT iDNs 'F00� '"�tt=2_ No Text M fl- Yay 5, 1976 out'h _i.zrllin'_-tor. 1n �alty S "- -2- --,Ce - ors-t T S t -,Or a use wIs a- on ing (],.-lustment at ti-; =!.r ".ay ­eetj_n-. s- J on ,our n.lan reou a­lproval b,, the 'tan - in 1� 1,_ve sch-�,Ule6 -,-o.0 to a--,Pc--r on 7-u'esday, May 11 1 c t 7 P.m. the strf=et name, a,reps -with Joy 11.1-1 documerts will. chanC- however, the �l Wl'- 'ecui-re a:,nroval b th,--.. Plan ing Commission. wry truly, i(hard 6 Zoning Administrativ- O-Pricer June 26, 1974 Mr. William Haas P. 0. Fox 171 Pvrlington, VT 05401 OPar 11r. Haas: ?e advised that the City Planning Crmimission has approved your request for a subdivision off Joy Drive, as per plans submitted on :-'cbrurLz,y 19, 1974. pproval is conditional on the following: 1. that a sidewalk to accommodate Dedestri:and bicycle traffic be constructed to the c- de sac, 2. that a landscapin;_- plan b, submitted to the "i t� Iree Plantin ; Committee for review and comments, 3. that all drainage be approved by the City .Tanager, 4. that the power poles be protected as agreed to by Green 'Mountain Power, 5. that street lighting be approved N the City ' `ar;ager, 6. that recommendations regarding the 40 foot right- of-way knd the sewer easement as spelled out in a letter dated ',larch 26, 19?4 by the City p.ran ager be complied .;ith, 7. that a timetable regarding a building schedule be submitted to the Planring Commission, F. that all required bonds be posted, 9. that the condominium by-laws be approved by the 'ity Attorney, and 10. that a final subdivision clan must be submitted for recordin€- in accordance ':with Chapter 15, Section 1403 of V.S.A. Then you have prepared your landscapin:- and your time -table for building ple:�se advise this office. Very truly, ichard `2;ard Zcnin- Administrative 01ficer PAN,, '04 PAW "WOW rV 'Mli I N 00 1� t z0 a I 1 ,'April 2, 1974 ' . r. William Haas ?.0. Box 171 Burlington, VT 051+01 Dear Mr. Haas: Upon advice from the City's attorney, Yr. Richard Spokes, I regret to inform you that the South Burlington Planning Commission hay unanimously agreed to resind its approval of the Pine Brook proposal because it does not conform to the duly adopted 1974 Co::prehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed is a copy of 'Mr. Spokes opinion 4154, detailing the basis for this decision. In addition to resinding its annroval, the South Burlington Planning Commission hereby Formally rejects the Pine Brook proposal on the basis that it does not conform'to the existing 'caster Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Article IV, Section 401, of the 1961+ South Burl, ington'Subdivision Regulations). Furthermore, please be advised that the Lakelands proposal'has likewise been denied on .these grounds as well. 1 Sincerely yours, I , Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission w REC"EIPT FOR ,CERTIFIED MAIL-30(I (plus posta;e) SENT TO ---t._-��.�-� ' �-u�.�a.�„_-I-�-l-«i.l�•_/J POSTMARK OR DATE _41,REET Ay NO. P-D., STATE AND 41P CODE o A_ ' / X AL,SCRVICES FOR ADIbITIONAL FEES OPTIONAL, _ RETURN t. Shaws to whom and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 >2., Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35t .. SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 85C 1 TO ADDRESSEE ONLY " ..................:..............:. ................ ... 500 _DELIVER SPEC(AL DELIVERY (2 Pounds or less) ................ .................... 450 POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) 1 y, March 28, 1974 :,r. :eilliam Naas P.O. r o:c 171 Bur lin;ton, VT, 051+01 Dear, :s. ••aas: Be advised that the South Burlington Planning Commission 'pas a nnroved your' applic'a tion for the construction of 50 condo..,iniu.,l d�,rcllin�- units on a parcel of land located off joy Drive, . as pe.r '. plans .submitted on ?e'rruary 19, 1974. Approval is conditional on the follottn—: 1. That the City Manager again review the site because of the concern that there appears to be a 1200 foot walk that children must t ravel to and from the cul-de-sac: That a determination as to how the sidewalk be provided or if'one is needed be made by the City Yanager, the Commission is prepared to waive the standard cement sidewalk for a more rural blacktop type. Z.­ That a forria7. �laric�sczp'in�- -61ari •be submitted and reviev,ed by the City Tree Cor�..mittee and also be approved by the Planning Commission. 3.' That all final drainage details be approved by the ' City i•:anager. 4.. That the condominium by-law8 be submitted for approval by the City Attorney and Planning Onmmission. ~. ?'hat all street lighting be approved by the City Manager. 6. ^hat a'! 1 recommendations made by the City :Manager in a letter dated `•:,arch 25, 1974 be complied with. 7.; That th..e developer - submit, in letter form, a ti©etable for developcont for the entire project. I ' , i Ir . ,,"i11'iam ilalas i Page 2 . -larch' ": final','�ub6ivis on plan rust be submitted to the :Tanning Com- ssion in ac�o{ dance with the provisions set forth in '.rticle',ti',i of th4 City suodivision regulations. The developer is also rd uired-to submit'a performance bond, amount of said bond to! b:'Y aetermined ' by the ,City, ?:'hen you have prepared) your -landscaping and final plan please, advise ,this office and -a meeting with the Planning Commission till be scheduled. If you; have. any questions,,: .fr.ge to, call me at 863-2891. Very truly,. • I , ' j I Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer cc Mr. Alfred Calcagni I , 1ii i it � •• it State of Vermont County of Chittenden City of South Burlington Re: Pine Brook Condominium's Subdivision application On the 9th day of September, 1975 the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final approval for phase I, consisting of eleven dwelling units, but excluding the tennis courts shown on the plan, of the proposed Pine Prook Condo- miniums, as shown on a plan dated September 9, 1975 and signed by the clerk of the South Burlington Planning Commission, contingent upon: 1. installation of sidewalks, drainage and street lighting per City Aanager's recommendations as outlined in his memo to the South Burlington Planning Corrmission of September 9, 1975• 2. approval of final landscaping plan by City Tree Planting Committee. 3. protection of power poles as agreed to by Green Mountain Power. 4. posting of all required bonds. 5. approval of condominium by-laws by the City Attorney. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number William Haas P.O. Box 171, Burling -ton, Vt. (518- 585-6060- Ticonderoga. N. Y_ ) 2. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application William Haas, P. O. Box 171, Burlington., Vt. Ticonderoga, N. Y. - (518-585-6060) 3. Nature of the Development or Subdivision Condominiums or Garden Apartments �+. Location of Development or Subdivision City of So. Burlington 11.6 acres - on South by interstate I-89, East by University of Vermont, and Burlington CCrnmtry _ 1ih and W6I st hjZ R.ina A/fzmnrial Ni4 .Robnol and radio station W. T. O. Y. - Joy Drive. 5. High and Low Elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision 290'- 250' 6. Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont 7. P. O. Box 171, Burlington, Vermont Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) 2 - 8. If the Applicant is not an individual, the Form, Date, and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM: Corp. to be formedDATE : PLACE: Burlington, Vermort 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not 4nswer) ----- 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any. Deeds) to be issued? Standard articles of association for condominium project. 12. Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. () Include a contour man of the land involved drawn on a scale of 5 foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and width of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. J -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision or Development? RP�ij-dial r-nr,(9r)Yni11ium cl ist _r 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development orll Subdivis- ion including information, if available, ooc�ed site trgams or Other bodies of Water, Bedrocks, Etc.with natural drainage to Potash Brook. See plan and soil map. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest 12 B. Number of acres in this project 12 C. Number of acres previously developed none D. When do you anticipate beginning the project Within reasonable time after receiving planning, and environmental approval. E. When will this development or subdivision be completed As market demands 16. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. Municipal system B. Where is the nearest municipal water system and i5 it available and feasible to use it? Toy Drive. Yes, It is feasible. 17. Sewage System: A. Unat type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lots community system, or municipal system? Municipal system - 4 - M B. Were is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? Inv Drive_ Yes, it is feasible C. If the sewage system is other than a community, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching field, include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. Not applicable 18. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. Burlington Country Club and University of Vermont, Rice High School, and Radio Station W. T. O. Y. B. What is the adjacent property used for at present? UVM - Agricluture - The rest self explanatory C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? See no change in use in forseeable future 19. Zoning: A. Which'District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? Planned District DATE February 19, 1974 SIGNAT'ORE r MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM, MR. WILLIAM HAAS DATE: MARCH 6, 1974 Proposal is to construct 50 condominium units on a tract of land containing approximately 12 acres. Parcel is located near Rice High School and W.J.O.Y. A private road will be constructed entering off from the Joy Drive cul-de-sac. 1. Area is zoned Planned District. The 1972 Comprehensive Plan projected Central Business area. The 1974 ordinance is B.P.D. 2. Minimum lot required 7 acres. 3. All yard requirements are in conformity. 4. Height of units are 2 story. 5. Units are two and three bedroom that are being proposed. 6. Off-street parking conforms - garages are proposed. 7. No accessory buildings other than garages. Development has 1001 power easement, all building set -backs to conform with easement. Buildings also set back 150' from Interstate R.O.W. MEMORANDUM TO: MARY BARBARA MAHER, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRWOMAN FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS PROPOSAL AND REQUIREMENTS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DATE: MARCH 6, 1974 Section of Subdivision Regulations Study Plan 401 Conformity to Town Plan - residential use proposed for an area designated as "Central Business" in 1972 Plan. 403 A & B Street Requirements - 405 Dead End Streets 408 Parks and Playground Sites 503 C,D,E,I & J Plan Data �zyj proposed "Pine Creek Drive" is 24 feet wide - under A requirement is for minimum width of 60 feet; under B, no private drive, such as Pine Creek Drive, may serve more than one dwelling. insufficient turnaround radius no such area is shown - as required under C, ownership of property directly adjacent to the south is not shown; D requires endorsement of Commission Chairman of plan's submission date; E requires approximate width and location of all easements, i.e., sewer, water, utilities, etc. - these are not shown on this study plan; I relates to parcels which are to be dedicated to the City for public purposes and refers back to sect. 408 above; J requires complete plan and profile of each public street, which are missing in this study plan because developer proposes a private street to serve the development, in conflict with sect. 403 (B) above. M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI, CITY MANAGER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: MARCH 26, 1974 As a result of the March llth meeting the following three questions were brought up. 1. The 40 foot right-of-way to the development: A 60 foot right-of-way would enroach upon Rice High School b allfield and since it will be a private street maintained by the developer (including snow removal), I have no objection, however, it should be specified that in the future if it is to become a city street, additional land must be acquired and the street constructed to city standards. 2. Sewer easement: The main sewer interceptor, from the cul-de-sac to the development, should be deeded to the city because only the city possesses the equipment necessary to unplug and clean sewer mains. The width of the easement should be 15 feet. 3. Need for sidewalks: I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Respectfully submitted, William Szymanski City Manager architects CALCAGNI • FRAZIER ZAJCHOWSKI 86 saint paul street burlington, verm ont 05401 tel. 8 0 2 - 8 6 3 - 6 8 6 3 March 26, 1974 Re: Project ##74-5 Pine Brook Condominiums South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vermont Gentlemen: Following our March 12, 1974 meeting we have met with !Jr. Bill Symanski, City Manager and also have reviewed the site plan with Green Mountain Power Corporation. We submit the following; items of decisions, approvals and discussion as a result of our meetings. A. Meeting with Bill Symanski on March 16, 1974• 1. Relative to the 40' Right of Way. Mr. Symanski has no objections. This to be confirmed in writing from City Manager's office. 2. Relative to 15' easement for sewer, Mx. Symanski requests that sewer line be installed to city standards and that a 15' wide easement for the sewer line be given by the Association to the City. This is agreeable by owner. 3. Relative to curve at entrance Mr. Symanski stated it was acceptable, but did ask that the northern edge of the road also have a curve. Radius of inside curve is 1OC', which is more than adequate for large trucks and buses of any kind. 4. Relative to street lighting, the Association will provide adequate street lighting for safety and security purposes. 5. Relative to 24' wide road Mr. Symanski stated it was acceptable. architects CALCAGNI FRAZIER ZAJCHOWSKI Page two South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1974 6. Relative to the sidewalk Mr. Symanski wishes to withdraw his suggestion. 7. Relative to drainage of run off water, Kr. Symanski wishes to review final drawings to insure against erosion of roadway edges and will request curbs in certain areas of curves where he feels it to be necessary. B. Meeting with Green Mountain Power Corporation (Mr. Bernie Brault). 1. Site plan and easement agreement was reviewed and the revised drawing dated March 26th incorporates a plan that is acceptable to the power company, which utilizes the easement for the roadway and utilities. C. Relative to Mr. Reay's remark on three buildings, f they will be located so that they will not cause erosion of the bank. n Respectfully submitted, SAZPLI -F OZIER, AJ , CHOWSKI for B K1 DOMINIUM CORPORATION Y./A. A. Calcagni AAC/tf r DRAFT ONLY Section 1. Section 2. ARTICLE I Plan of Apartment Ownership APARTMENT OWNERSHIP The project located in South Burlington, Vermont, known as Pine Brook, hereinafter referred to as the project, is submitted to the provisions of "An Act Relating to Condominium Ownerships" No. 228, 1968, passed by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, and any subsequent amendments. BY-LAWS APPLICABILITY The provisions of these By -Laws are applicable to the project. The term "project" as used herein shall include the land, and wAight of way. Section 3. PERSONAL APPLICATION All present of future owners, or other employees, or any other person that might use the facilities of the project in any manner, are subject to the regulations set forth in these By -Laws. The mere acquisition of any of the family units (Hereinafter referred to as "units") of the project or the mere act of occupancy of any of said units will signify that these by-laws and the provisions of the regulatory agreement are accepted, ratified, and will be complied with. ARTICLE II Association of owners Section 1. ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES The owners of the units will constitute the Association of Owners 2. (hereinafter referred to as "Association") who will have the responsi- bility of administering the project, approving the annual budget, es- tablishing and collecting monthly assessments and arranging for management of the project. Except as otherwise provided, decisions and resolutions of the Association shall require approval by a majority of owners. Section 2. ANNUAL MEETINGS The annual meetings of the Association shall be held in the City of South Burlington, Vermont or at such other place convenient to the owners as may be designated by the Board of Directors during the month of January each year at such time and on such day as the Directors shall determine. Section 3. SPECIAL MEETINGS Special meetings of the owners may be called by the President, or the Secretary, or the Board of Directors or upon a petition signed by a majority of the owners. Section 4. NOTICE Notice of all owners' meetings shall be given by the Secretary, stating the purposes thereof and the time and place where it is to be held by 11 mail not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meetings to each owner of record. 2. Section 5. VOTING Voting shall be on a percentage basis and the percentage of the vote to which the owner is entitled is the percentage assigned to the family unit or units in the Declaration. Section 6. MAJOR.ITY OF OWNERS As used in these By -Laws the term "majority of owners" shall mean those owners holding fifty-one percent (5lolo) of the votes in accordance with the percentages assigned in the Declaration. Section 7. QUORUM Except as otherwise provided in these By -Laws, the presence in person or by proxy of a "majority of owners" shall constiture a quorum. Section 8. PROXIES Votes may be cast in person or by proxy. Proxies must be filed with the Secretary before the appointed time of each meeting. Section 9. DUTIES At the annual meetings the owners will elect the Board of Directors, and at both the annual meeting and special meetings the owners may transact such other business of the Association as may properly come before them. .11 ARTICLE III Board of Directors action 1. NUMBER. OF QUALIFICATIONS The affairs of the Association shall be governed by a Board of Directors 4. composed of three persons, all of whom must be owners of units in the project. Provided, however, that until the Developer of the project has completed and sold all the family units at least two Directors shall be designated by the Developer. Section 2. OTHER. DUTIES In addition to duties imposed by these By -Laws or by resolutions of the Association, the Board of Directors shall be responsible for the following: (a) Care, upkeep and surveillance of the project and the common areas and facilities. (b) Collection of monthly assessments from the owners. (c) Designation and dismissal of the personnel necessary for the maintenance and operation of the project, the common areas and facilities and the restricted common areas and facilities. Land- scape care. Section 3. MANAGEMENT AGENT The Board of Directors may employ for the Association a management agent at a compensation established by the Board to perform such duties and services as the Board shall authorize and may make such contracts for the performance of duties and services necessary or appropriate in connection with the Board's duties. Section 4. ELECTION AND TERM OF OFFICE At the first annual meeting of the Association a term of office of one a Director shall be fixed for three years. The term of office of one Director shall be fixed at two years, and the term of office of one Director shall be fixed at one year. At the expiration of the initial term of office of each respective Director, his successor shall be elected to serve a term of three years. The directors shall hold office until their successors have been elected and hold their first meeting. Section 5. VA CANCIE S Vacancies in the Board of Directors caused by any reason other than the removal of a Director by a vote of the Association shall be filled by vote of the majority of the remaining Directors, even though they may constitute less than a quorum; and each person so elected shall be a Director until a successor is elected at the next annual meeting of the Association. Section 6. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS At any regular or special meeting duly called, any one or more of the Directors may be removed with or without cause by a majority of the owners and a successor may then and there be elected to fill the vacancies thus created. Any Director whose removal has been proposed by the owners shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting. Section 7. Meetings Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at any location as the Directors or the Officer calling the meeting shall determine. Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held immediately upon the adjournment of the annual meeting of the owners and may be called Lei at any other time by the President, Secretary or any two of the Directors by mailing or delivering to each Director at least 48 hours before the time of such meeting a written notice stating the time and place of such meeting and the purposes thereof. At least four meetings shall be held during each fiscal year. Section 8. BOARD OF DIRECTORS QUORUM At all meetings of the Board of Directors, a majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the acts of the majority of Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the Board of Directors. If, at any meeting of the Board of Directors, there be less than a quorum present, the majority of those present may adjourn the meeting until a future time. At any such adjourned meeting, any business which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally called may be transacted with- out further notice. ARTICLE IV Officers Section 1. DESIGNATION The principal officers of the Association shall be a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer, all of whom shall be elected by the Board of Directors. The President shall be elected from the present members of the Board of Directors. The Directors may appoint a Vice President, an Assistant Treasurer and an Assistant Secretary, and such other officers as in their judgment might be necessary. Section 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The officers of the Association shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting of each new Board and shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Section 3. REMOVAL OF OFFICER'S Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Directors, any officer may be removed, either with or without cause, and his successor elected at any regular meeting of the Board of Directors, or at any special meeting of the Board called for such purpose. Section 4. PRESIDENT The president shall be the chief executive officer of the Association. He shall preside at all meetings of the Association and of the Board of Directors. He shall have all of the general powers and duties which are usually vested in the office of President of an Association, including but not limited to the power to appoint committees from among the owners from time to time as he may in his discretion decide is appropriate to assist in the condl of the affairs of the Association. Section 5. SECRETARY The Secretary shall keep the minutes of all meetings of the Board of Directors and the minutes of all meetings of the Association. He shall have charge of the Minute Book wherein Resolutions shall be recorded, 8. and he shall in general perform all the duties incident to the office of Secretary. Section 6. TREASURER The Treasurer shall have responsibility for Association funds and securities and shall be responsible for keeping full and accurate ac- counts of all receipts and disbursements in books belonging to the Association. He shall be responsible for the deposit of all monies and other valuable effects in the name, and to the credit, of the As- sociation in such depositaries as may from time to time be designated by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE VI. Obligations of the Owners Section 1. MONTHLY CARRYING CHARGES Commencing on the first day of each month, the member shall pay to the Association a monthly sum referred to herein as "Carrying Charges" equal to one -twelfth of the Member's proportionate share of the sum required by the Association as estimated by its Board of Directors to meet its annual expenses, including but not limited to the following items: (a) The cost of all operating expenses of the project and service furnished. (b) The amount of all taxes and assessments levied against the Project or which it is required to pay if any. (c) The cost of fire and extended coverage insurance on the Project and such other :insurance as the Association may regti*Ire. (d) The cost i_ furnishing sewage - �rvice, street lig'r; garbage and trash collection, lawn care, snow r`R_.moval and other such utilites. (e) All reserves set up by the Board of Directors including the general operating reserve and the reserve for replacements of the Project to be made by the Association, and such other improver, --tots if authorized by the Board of Directors and made by the Association. This includes both interior and exterior repairs, except interior decorating. All funds for the replacement reserve shall be placed in a separate trust account in the , and shall not be co -mingled with the Association's regular account. The Board of Directors shall determine the Carrying Charges from time to time. Said sums shall be estimated on an annual basis and divided by the number of months remaining in the then current fiscal year; but in no event shall the Member be charged with more than his proportionate share thereof as determined by the Declaration. Until further notice from the Association the Monthly Carrying Charge for the above mentioned dwelling unit shall be $ . All other cost for heat, domestic lighting and cooking shall be paid by Members on their own meters. (f) Every owner must perform promptly all maintenance and repair work within his own units, which if omitted would affect the project in its entirety or in a part belonging to other owners, being expressly responsible for the damages and liabilities that his failure to do so 10. may engender. (g) All the repairs of internal installations of the unit such as water, light, gas, power, sewage, telephones, air conditioners, sanitary installations, doors, windows, lamps and all other accessories be- longing to the unit area shall be at the owners expense. (h) An owner shall reimburse the Association for any expenditures incurred in repairing or replacing any common area and facility damaged through his fault. Section 2. PATRONAGE REFUNDS The Association will refund or credit to the Member within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, such sums as have been collected in anticipation of expenses which are in excess fo the amount needed for expenses of all kinds, including reserves, in the discretion of the Board of Directors, in accordance with a financial statement issued to each Member. Section 3. PREMISES TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY (a) The Member shall occupy the dwelling unit as a private dwelling for himself and his family. The mimber shall occupy the dwelling for no other purpose and may enjoy the use, in common with other members of the Association, of all community property and facilities of the Project, so long as he continues to be a Member, occupies his dwelling unit, and abides by the terms of these By -Laws. U. (b) An owner shall not make structural modifications or alterations in his unit or installations located therein without previouly notifying the Association in writing. The Association shall have the obligation to answer within ten days and failure to do so with -in the stipulated time shall mean that there is no objection to the proposed modification • or alteration. Section 4. RULES OF CONDUCT (a) No resident of the project shall post any advertisements, or posters of any kind in or on the project except as authorized by the Association . (b) Residents shall exercise extreme care about making noises or the use of musical instruments, radios, television and amplifiers that may disturb other residents. (c) It is prohibited to hang garments, rugs, etc. from the windows or from any of the facades of the project. (d) It is prohibited to throw garbage or trash outside the disposal installations provided for such purposes in the service areas. (e) No owner, resident or lessee shall install wiring for electrical or telephone installation, television intenna, machine or air conditioning units, etc., on the exterior of the project or that protrude through the walls or the roof of the project except as authorized by the Association. (f) The Member shall not permit or suffer anything to de done or kept upon said premises which will increase the rate of insurance on the building, or on the contents thereof, or which will obstruct or interfere 12. with the rights of other occupants or annoy them by unreasonable noises or otherwise, nor will he commit or permit any nuisance on the premises or commit or suffer any immoral or illegal act to be committed thereon. The Member shall comply with all of the require- ments of the Board of Health and of all other government authorities with respect to the said premises. If by reason of occupancy or use of said premises by the Member, the rate of insurance on the building shall be increased, the Member shall become personally liable for the additional insurance premiums. (g) Only domestic pets shall be permitted and shall be confined to the Member's own premises, and, when off the dwelling unit; shall be on a leash and subject at all times to rules and regulations of the Association now or hereafter adopted. Pets that become a nuisance to other residents must be removed from the premises. There shall be only one pet per apartment, unless otherwise approved by the Association. Name signs on apartments shall conform to standards approved by the Board of Directors. (h) No unregistered motor vehicles shall be allowed to remain on any part of the project without the approval of the management. (i) All mailbox installations shall be of uniform style and subject to the approval of the Association. Section 5. MANAGEMENT FEES The Maintenance and Management Association shall receive a fee of To of total Sales price, but not less than $ for advertising, attorneys fees, if any, and for necessary time spent by its officers, 13. agents, and employees, for services rendered in the transfer of ownership to a new purchaser. Section 6. MANAGEMENT TAXES AND INSURANCE The Association shall provide necessary management, operation and administration of the project; pay or provide for the payment of all taxes or assessments levied against the project; procure and pay or provide for the payment of fire insurance and extended coverage, and such other insurance as the Association may deem advisable on the property in the project. The Association will not, however, provide insurance on the Member's interest in the dwelling unit or on his personal pro- perty. Section 7. UTILITIES The cost of the household lighting, cooking and heating and water shall be registered on the Member's own meter. Section 8 R.EPAIRS (a) By Member - The Member agrees to repair and maintain the Member's dwelling unit at his own expense, as follows: (1) Any repairs or maintenance necessitated by his own negligence or misuse. (2) Any interior decorating. (b) By Association - The Association shall provide and pay for all Y necessary repairs, maintenance, and replacements of project property including the Member's dwelling unit, except as specified in clause (a) 14. of this Article. (c) Right of Association to make repairs at Members expense. In case the Member shall fail to effect the repairs and maintenance specified in clause (a) of this Article in a manner satisfactory to the Association and pay for same, the latter may do so and add the cost thereof to the Member' s next month' s Carrying Charge payment. (d) The Developer guarantees all work against defects in material and workmanship for a period of one year from date of certificate of accupancy. Section 9. ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS The Member shall not, without written consent of the Association, make any structural alterations or additons in the premises or in the water, electrical conduits, plumbing, or other fixtures connected therewith, or remove any additons, improvements, or fixtures from the premises. (a) Death of Member - If upon death of the member his interest in the family unit passes by will or intestate distribution to a member of his immediate family, such legatee or distributee may, if he or she can qualify for ownership conditions within 60 days after members death, become a member of this Association. If the member dies and his interest in not assumed in accordance with the foregoing, the As- sociation shall have an option to purchase the equity from the deceased member's estate in the manner provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 15. written notice of the death being equivalent to notice of intention to leave the project. If the Association does not exercise such option the provisions of pargraph (c) of this section shall be applicable, the reference to "member" therein to be construed as references to the legal representatives of the deceased member. (b) Option of the Assoccadon to purchase. If the member desires to leave the project he shall notify the Association in writing of such intention and the Association shall have an option for a period of 30 days thereafter, but not an obligation, to purchase the member's interest, at an amount to be agreed upon by the member of the Association. Pur- chase by the Association of the member's interest will immediately terminate the member's rights hereunder, and the member shall forth- with vacate the premises. (c) Procedure where Association does not exercise option. Ifthe Association waives in writing its rights to purchase the member's interest under the foregoing option or if the Association fails to exercise such option within the 30 days;, the member may sell his interest to any person who qualifies for membership. (d) Association to Co-operate in locating premises. If the member notifies the Association of his intention to remove from his dwelling unit and to sell his interest and the Association waives or fails to exercise its option for purchase same, the member may request in writing the assistance of the Association to sell his family unit. The 16. Association will thereupon, without obligation, however, reasonably assist the member to find a purchaser at a price designated in writing by the member. The Association shall be entitled to charge the member a fee of 0/0 of total sales cost but not less than $ for this service, It is understood, however, that the member shall not be released from his liability to the Association under these by-laws until such time as a sale has been effected to a purchaser who qualifies. The Member shall not, without the prior consent of the Association, install or use in his dwelling unit any air conditioning equipment, washing machine, clothes dryer, electric heater, or power tools, all of which are ex- pressly excluded from the occasional use by the Member unless the required written consent of the Association has been obtained. The Member agrees that the Association may require the prompt removal of any such equipment at anytime and that his failure to remove upon request shall constiture a failure to repair within section 8 of the by- laws. No trees shall be planted by a Member without approval by the Association; certain species being injurious to a project of this type. No obstructions including trees, shrubs, walks, masonry bordering material, etc. shall be placed in Lawn Area, maintained by Association, except by special permission of the Board of Directors. Use of water for any purpose shall be restricted by the Association as the need occurs. All trees, shrubs, etc. planted by member shall be considered a per- manent installation and must remain on the project in the event the mem- ber leaves. Y l'l Section 10. RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT All use of recreational equipment and buildings shall be free for the use of all members, as governed by the Board of Directors. Special groups or clubs are prohibited to use facilities on the recreation premises of Pine Brook. Permission for parties over 10 persons to use the facilities must first be approved by the Board of Directors. The use of Recreation Facilities or equipment is limited to Members only. Children or guests use is forbidden. The Failfure on the part of the Association to avail itself of any of the remedies given under this agreement shall not waive nor destroy the right of the Association to avail itself of such remedies for similar or other breaches on the part of the member. Section 11 MEMBER. TO COMPLY WITH ALL ASSOCIATION REGULATIONS The member convenants that he will preserve and promote the condo- minium ownership principles on which the Association has been founded, abide by the Articles of Association, By -Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Association and any amendments thereto, and by this act of cooperation with its other members bring about for himself and co - members a high standard in home and community conditions. Any act or ommission, by a member, detrimental to the peace and occupancy of other menbers shall be referred to the Board of Directors, for deter= menation. A majority vote of said Baord shall cause a member to be deemed to be permanently disqualified for membership. 18. Section 12. INSPECTION OF DWELLING UNIT The member agrees that the officers and employees of the Association shall have the right to enter the dwelling unit of a Member and make inspections hereof at any reasonable hour of the day. Section13. NOTICES Whenever the provisions of law or the By -Laws of the Association require notice to be given to either the members or the Association such notice may be given in writing by depositing the same in a post office or letter box, in a postpaid, sealed wrapper addressed to the person to whom the notice is to be given, at his or her address, as the same appears on the books of the Association, and the time when the same shall be mailed shall be deemed to be the time of the giving of such notice. Section 14. FISCAL REPORTS At the - end of each fiscal year, the Association shall furnish to the member a statement of the income and disbursements of the Association, including Reserves, in the replacement trust account. Section 15. ORAL REPRESENTATION NOT BINDING No representations- other than those contained in the Articles of Association and these By -Laws shall be binding on the Association. k� O [1 r (d a) - Id -0 .C4 (1) 'd s N ,s~ O $~ 43 Cl ho td ON to 0 Ed �i z000 ate) u) -P Ed -0 (A O rl Cl-- (T Ed a oN a -r-i •ri 0) W p. a) Q f N O F. 4, -N v1 W O H Q a) 01 ri bo -1) n. (1) Ed P. $1 (is si H O N O C" V4 0 $, O H 0 ri P, 4, v (Ed rn Ed o d -sA rd O a) .d c'. r-i a) .J p En E-4. V)) n, cn U •r-i F, d P. P, a) U U U'ra O i 14 4A -riO w F, ,d P, C7 ir, U P. (A a) N -ri i N Ct1 C Cd tS :j d O a c5 •ri a' O O r^ ^ i 1 r i 4-3 -4-) f! p, • • aa)) O bo Pi �11 1 U d N r� (1, bA v 4-) si , H RJ U d -P A u) .P -ri O ►-7 >i ;j d O d f: U N W N U F- 0 i-) U U P. O " a) C:J •ri ri N r-I -ri III w OH O P N C•J a) 0 O T, Cy A A m (d 43 0 w N ,C 0) Ed0--P �> d r-I E-( 'J 4A ri a) 4-3 (n a) (D o) U (n a) 0 • O ri .C: O O •ri to 4-4 U P •ri 0 .0 (d >a (n d +> +.) P 4-4 E) O O iy (d <<i �) -P 4-3• •, i O Q) 4-30 F; -C cU .C: ei-i .cS UA O F, 4-3 U) • U O 'd V) O E-4 t; �: Fr O (1) '(j -r-I •ri (D V) 43 a) v 0 d 4-) (d CA >a u O •ri (1) F, S i X: N P. rd a) 0 0 F(O a) a) 44J -ri 'd P. ^ P, cJ 4,3 07 O a) ;J () -r-i 0 (A 4-4 m r-i f-: -ri bo • -P F, 0 rI F, -P of F, u) Ed a) O (A F. r " 4—) d 0 rd 0) 0 --0 P, O O a) 0 F, N >, d •rA •ri (n 0) 0 • U bo +-) O (A > Fr 4A 4A P4 Fr P. >, U (d e) •a (+) S~ •-. d -ri 0 •ri 0 2 0 4-) U 9 d ;j ri .-t ^ •r 1 ;S U -ri F.' V) -ri P.— .,I (d Fa (J Vr-i C'� • ,C O •rid O r-i El Ed — ri r-i (1) a) O\ a) O C.-: d P bo-►-� -ri C. F, N •r-1— a) M cl n, F, U H 0 (1) (\ O F, Si 54 (A +-) 4-4 4 ( 4-) • • ?C N Fi a) nJ (A i ,C; O d •ri $4 (a O ri a) O AS `d d v N a) 0— U -ri O bn F, F, ^ 0 C: .C: ,c. 3 u• ti U S~ 4� s : F, 0 Ed P.A Cd (1) +-) -N V a) (1) Cl 3 F, (d r-1 (d (d (1) -ri F, r), .c.' S<: 'd R; a) O P. r-i o) O F 4 C) 0.:k � 'Cl d PQ --P ^ b) F, d (A 0 H i~ P, a, r A U bn £J O (A O N (n d $1 O a) ri NHi �-P�� +-) W bCr-i ." 000 N 0.C4,00 a) 0 O 0 •ri O (d a' 4-3 ,f: H Fi .G' r. " 4 r 13 rH .0 'o. a) P. •ri U (d ,C: •ri a) S: >a bn,a 4-( d o S; (n 4-) U O P Sr 4- -N F, (1) 4> 0 O k F( •ri a) -ri d —'d d (1) F, 'f7 S~ r a) O F-r -4-) a) 4C 4-3 ,c; a) M 0'Ja Fi P. (d O a) d a) T P, 4, F-. P. U ,c: (d 3 a) " Cu ,o r-4 U Pi bf 'd C: O (4,0. (d +) F, U $-r 0,0 5-: O bLri bC a, (1) Z •,-1 43 ri UA -P (A Fr O O -ri -P a) N Q' :� • 4-3 S:: F,' .ti,'d d V) a) UA iJ 4, 41 U i; oS a) Si (A •ri ri r: P •ri ,C a) b3 > Ed cJ (D a) a) VA •.-i 4--1 'd 0. >, Ed . d ,a 9 O -r-i N U S~ a) a) U d(.' , r. N +� F4-3 r-1 -ri FA -P U 0 ri d 4-) F. U +3 S; N 1-3 ^ Cd • F, IZ• a' F, a) bo O O O .4-3 f~ d Ed >b O 0 w >, r-i U m 0 Q) U U 90 U 4-) -P S~ a) a) CO s~ of .r, •ri r-i 43 N P. (1) fil -ri � � O Ed . d a)d a) O r-i (n .P FA 4-3 e) (d (DU a) >~ O F. N � 4 d U O -r-I " bo F, •ri ,S ; >, F, -P A a) 0,C) P, O 43 -ri a) 4:1 P. 4- +) Ed • d n. F-r 4-3 CO ri 4, vl CA Frj (d 0 +) � o bn 54 0 (d b") S SA a d '(n 0 FA Fi rl .s~ (a (A P. 1-)a) >• a) � a) C: 0, (n S~ •i i p p a) () O ,C, d 2 •ri a) O O d rd d U F, •r A a) 0 U O o) •r 1 ,C; (A -P -P -r-I 4-3 ,"S r-i of pi •ri Z •r-4 d .-I'd Al 0 a) 4-) a) +2 +) +) ,d d i~ a' a) e) ,C U: (d C4 r-I d -P d s. >, ri 4) a) () O 00 (U > bC 4-3 F, (1) ri a) 0 N •ri i 4-i U a a Ed (n a) U F, a) (d o " P, 4~ O cJ P. •ri 4- ( (A F, O -ri (1) q bC a) 114 S~ O d -ri (J +-) 0— P. > ,a () tin O • • 5'- O 04 C. 'd d -ri -P a) i-) 4-) F�: Uri Z :3 -ri i-i S'. P, M EH U 11 E-4 C) 'J r A N U) CO a) O (A 1 Uri a) r: " `d F♦ O O O F+ T3 'd •• -r-I CO •ri " F, F, 0 0 d m -ri a bB m •r4 QJ +- = (3) (d Z o (1) d d cJO '-� 'd O Z 4-3 (,) ' F, U Ed U -12 d N ,C. O r-i r-1 ri O (d F-t O S~ 0 O Q 0 Fo X d r-I a) 4-3 +) A. n. A P. F, P• 0 •r 1 F, 4 1 ; N '(J a) F-+ n, F-( 0 City Manager & Engineer City of South Burlington South Burlington, 71. 05401 AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSER'%/ATiC-aaW' NIARTL\ L. y)HN,)t)v DEPARTMENT OF YVAUR PE&DURC+S November 14, 1974 RE: Farrell Street Sewer Connector Dear Mr. Szmanski: This office has reviewed the sewer plans for the subject sewer project prepared by Willis Engineering dated October, 1974 and hereby approve same as the basis for construction as required under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 47, Paragraph 1271. Should you kiavu any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Richard 1. Phillips, P.E. Sanitary Engineer ;.Ipfsjl .4ovember 7, 1974 Munson !:',arth-noving Coryporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Attention: Mr. William Bohlens Re Pine Brook Condominiu.ms Sout-1Lurlington Dear Dir. Lohlens: The plan for t-he above, referenced project dated k4ovem-ber 1974, detailin,the road profile anci ty-ical cross-section, together with the detail plans for inlets, headwalls, riprap, etc. prepared by Calcagni-Frazier and Zajchokqski., dated 6-25-74, is acceptable. Detail plans for sewers, water, an(I draina(je, within the development must be submitted for approval prior to construction. Very truly yours, 1°,Tilliam J. Szymanski City Manager _ MUNSON EARTH -MOVING CORP. 366 DORSET STREET • SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 a TELEPHONE 863-6391 August 29, 1978 REGEIV" Mr. William Szymanski AUG 3 1918 City Manager OF, City of South Burlington CITY O. BU14L.IN South Burlington, Vt. 05401 Re: High Pressure Water Line - Joy Drive Dear. Mr. Szymanski: Pursuant to your recent conversations with this company in regards to the high pressure water line that has been installed from the Maple Surgar Lab through to Meadowbrook, we feel the problem should be addressed right away. It has been your request that we turn this line on, thereby servicing Joy Drive. We feel this should be done for the protection of all parties involved at the earliest possible date. However, when this line is placed in service, the bene- fit of conversion will extend into the line that we installed from the cul-de-sac to the condominiums. Munson Earth -Moving Corp. should be reimbursed for the installation of this line, and we believe you have expressed a willingness to accept that responsibility. We request that you contact this office at your earliest con- venience so that we may work out the details of this arrange- ment. Very t ly yours, Philip Warren Office ger PFW/lh fps Opyi��ll HEAVY CONSTRUCTION • ROADS • WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AIRPORTS • SITE WORK 9 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Pans at�oci' CONDM(INIUM PROJECT SOUTH BURLINGTON ME CONSTRUCTION The Pine Brook Condominium Project road system will be privately built and maintained with funds provided by the management contract of the Association. The basic specifications will be those of the Town of Boath Harlington (See attached drawing dated August 22, 1974). MMION COHTiiOL The development will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. a. General: Sound site planning methods will be employed as the prime measure of controlling erosion. The building sites and the majority of roadways are located on slopes of under T percent. b. Roadways: All roadways are designed for under 5 percent and where roads are cut into these slopes, the new contours will be a maximum of 1 on 2;� to minimize erosion. These slopes will be seeded and mulched, and if required, because of ground water or angle of repose limitations for this soil, will be re-established at 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 slopes. In no case are slopes greater than 10 vertical feet anticipated. If trees are to be saved at the top or bottom of a slope and, therefore, a 1 on 2S slope must be maintained. Several * 2, � i'97 devices will be utilized: soddening, erosion net or chicken wire mesh adequately staked or plus or minus 4 inch timbers staked horizontally into the slope at about 4 foot intervals. Mineral soil cuts and fills will be dressed vtih 4 feet of wood soil and duff and seeded with grains and naturally with ferns that germinate readily in newly exposed humus. c. Drainage Swales: Swales under 3 percent will be seeded: from 3 to 10 percent sod will be used in combination with staking and erosion netting at the higher percent slopes. Armoring with washed gravel may also be utilized near culvert inlets and outfalls depending upon grade characteristics. Where velocities or discharge warrants, concentrated volumes will be dispatched on the hill sides or directed to existing natural drainage ways. Water bars will be introduced to stabilize broad channels and prevent excessive erosion during the construction process. Temporary silt basins will be utilized if this becomes a problem in the course of construction. These will be large sections of concrete corrugated metal pipe, plus or minus 4 feet deep, set in drainage courses or outfalls to the storm drain system to prevent excessive distribution of fines during periods of concentrated run-off. d. Culverts: The minimum culverts size will be 12 inches of asphalt coated corrugated galvanized metal pipe. Larger sizes will be used where needed and will be a minimum of 15 inches. All culverts will have a minimum 2 foot coverage to protect against frost heaves. Pipes will have concrete headwall outfalls r to facilitate appearance and minimize erosion on adjacent fill slopes. End of headval.ls at outflow will have stone rip rap. (See drawing dated August 22, 1974). e. Miscellaneous Devices: Although not anticipated, berm ditches, interceptor trenches or drains will be utilized if required. Additional stabilization will occur with seeding, mulching and planting as indicated in that section. All of the above as well as the planting materials and methods will be included on the drawings and specifications issued to the South Burlington City Engineer and City Manager for approval prior to construction. In summary, everything required by sound engineering practice will be employed to protect the environment and present a pleasing aspect for a quality development. Pine Brook Condominium Association By -Lava -13- a `? V74 Section 11. ENTRANCE AND ROADWAYS The Association will maintain and repair all parking areas and roadways owned by the Association. In the event the Association should request or the City deem it necessary to take over the road, the cost to upgrade the road to City specifications and the responsibility to do such will be borne by the Association. Section 12 SALTING OF ROAD AND PAVED AREAS Salt will not be used on road, payed areas or other properties held or controlled by the Association. r,. 1 MELVIN A. MONELL { CHttr 86344$5 � tre Department �Heab quarters DORSET STREET OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. August 19,19U Ig To: Curtis W,Carter District Coordinator Enviornmental District # 4 Essex Jct., Vt. Re: Pine Brook Development Dear Sir, I have reviewed the plans in my office for the above matter and find that the access into this development is adequate for our apparatus in the event of an emergency, and furthermore the power poles do not place any problem to this depErtment. Sincerely ,yours. -4 �'141 Fire Chief M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI, CITY MANAGER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS -SIDEWALKS DATE: JUNE 25, 197 A sidewalk to accomodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic to and from the development should be constructed. Since the street will be private, this walkway should probably extend to the cul-de-sac. Respectfully submitted, William J. 8zymddski, City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COKVISSION FROM: RIChA'PD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: PRCTECTIC:N Or POWER POLES WITHIN PARKING AREA OF PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: JUNE 25, 1974 In response to your reauest to inquire about protection of poles on the Pine Brook Condominium project, ilr. Bernie Brault of Green Mountain Power has requested that: "Clearance of the road from existing; and proposed poles within the development will be as mutually agreed upon, and the owners will provide necessary means to protect said poles from physical damage, both during construction and afterwards. The exact means of protection will be specified by the company once t'--�, plans are finalized." PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE MONDAY, JUNE 17, 19'14 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the South Burlington City Council on Monday, June 17, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall Conference Room located at 1175 Williston Road in the City of South Burlington, on the following: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE The official Zoning Map referred to in Section 1.10 of the zoning regulations, and adopted therein by reference, shall be amended so that the boundaries of the Residential-4 District are extended to include the following property: "Commencing at the southeast corner of the so-called Rice High School property as shown on the South Burlington official Zoning Map; thence proceeding in a northerly direction along the Rice High School and Burlington Country Club easterly boundaries a distance of 536 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the Burlington Country Club and University of Vermont southern boundaries a dis- tance of 575 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the University of Vermont property a distance of 695 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a westerly direction along the southern boundary of the Vermont State Highway Department land for a dis- tance of 690 feet, more or less; thence turning in a northerly direction along the easterly boundary of Vermont Broadcasting Inc. for a distance of 260 feet, more or less, to the point or place of begin- ning. (The land and premises described above are presently located in the Business Planned Development District.) COPIES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 1175 WILLISTON ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON. Dated this �)C7'L"A'day of May, 1974. POSTED 5/16/74 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL 2. -2- a $. Y. zrau2s The roadway and turnarounda may be located'witbis and across the right of way, as presently planned, along with the *ewer lima, provided no manholes, catch basins, hydrants, or ather fixed objects are located within the 50 ft: center strip. Loam of underground pipes, lines, etc. are to be agreed upon sad clearly marked on the plans. The installation of these lines are to conform to the plans approved by Green X=tain Pour, and an "as built" drawing, showing locations of vrdergraimd facilities within the right of way, referenced to fixed objects, above ground, is to be furnished to Qd4P upon completion of the facilities installation even if all eondominivmsa are not completed. 3. Water mains are to be located in the outer 25' strips of the right of way, except for lateral crossings as covered in Item 2. 4. No buildings, or portions thereof are to be located within the 1001 right of way. 5. Low growing, decorative shrubs and bushes may be planted within the strip, however no high growing trees will be permitted. Assess to the line must remain open to Green Mountain Power at all times, and the Company will not assume liability for any plantings that are damaged in the course of construction and maintenance of the line. :.6r Clearance of the road from existing and proposed poles within the development will be as mutually agreed upon, and the owners will provide necessary means to protect said poles from physical damage, both during construction and afterwards. The exact means of protection will be specified by the Company once the plans are finalised. 7. Green Mountain Power, by entering into such agreement, doss not waive or relinquish any of those rights received by ease- ment in 1954, and reserves the right to further restrict use of the right of way, should such use interfere with the opera- tion of the line or the construction and operation of future lines. 6. The owners will indemnify and save harmless Green Mountain Power Corporation, its officers and employees, from and against all demands, clams, actions, costs, expenses, losses or injury of any haturo p resulting from or arising out of the aotioa by the owners, their agents or assigns, as a result of the use of said parcel of :Land within said easement. 9. Grading and paving operations are to be carried out in a Epp► that will not materially alter the existing grade around the poles or under the wires. The foregoing items will be essentially incorporated in the formal agreement, along with cert&U other :stigaliations that my be added upon advice of legal ooua el: r 1WIr.y�qp.,.4HP-A1'{r�}iE'*M^�A'wkMra, �/WaNiiuw'ks n4M \# w'fr rsMNtl� "'^y«S'A'e6N+dNwrn... e.wv.,..w.J+Ys uw., SOUTH BURLI`NGTON NOTICE SUBDIVISION hEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South 1urlington City Hall, Conf erence oom, 11.75 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 11, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: Appeal of William Haas of Ticonderoga, New York for approval of a subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately twelve (12) acres for the purpose of constructing fifty (50) condominium dwelling units, said parcel is located off Joy Drive, bounded on the south by Interstate 189, on the east by property owned by the University of Vermont and the Burlington Country Club and on the west by the Rice Memorial high School and radio station WJOY, as per plan on file in the City Hall Offices. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairwoman South Burlington Planning Commission 5/27/74 C South Burlington Planning Comm. June 6, 1974 Subject: Pine Creek Dev. Attention: Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman Dear Mrs. Maher: This is to clarify our purpose in requesting A Subdivision Hearing for the Pine Brook Development Project at this time. Firstly, we recognize this hearing will be held subject to the City Council's disposition of the boundry change hearing on June 17, 1974. When the Planning Commission favorably recommended the boundry change at the public hearing of April 30, 1974, we scheduled in our plans that the City Council Hearing would be approximately 30 days later or on June 3, 1974. However, two weeks were lost in the warning proceedure when Attorney Spokes advised the Zoning Administrator that adjoining communities as well as C ouncil had to be notified for a minimum of 30 days. This pushed the Council hearing to June 17, 1974. In order to pick up some of the time lost and since the building period is so short we were advised that the Subdivision Hearing could be held and acted upon by the Planning Commission, "subject to" the Councils Hearing and legal waiting period. Hence our request was made accordingly. We appreciate your Commission's co-operation in assisting us to maintain our schedule which is most important to this project. Respectfully submitted, JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 66 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 June 5, 1974 William J. Szymanski City Manager ' 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion No. 61 Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Changing District Boundary Line Dear Bill: AREA CODE 802 863-2857 The Planning Commission would like to know whether there are any legal difficulties in their entertaining the Haas subdivi- sion proposal at a public hearing on June llth. As you know, the City Council is holding a public hearing on June 17th to consider changing the district boundary lines to permit the proposed develop- ment. Although it would have been preferable to schedule the Planning Commission hearing after the decision of the Council, I would judge there is no problem if they refrain from making a decision until after the Council has made its determination on the proposed boundary change. Very truly yours, Z�� Richard A. Spokes RAS:nm i\LUCI1�LJ CITY SO. .j "tLlNi;tU^: So. Burlington Planning Comm. 16 May 23, 1974 Subject: Pine Creek Dev. Attention: Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher Chairman Dear Mrs. Maher: This letter shall serve as an application and request for a sub- division hearing of the above development subject to the zone change recommended by the Planning Commission on April 301 1974. Formal application and plans accompany this letter and remain the same as approved in the prior hearing. Please advise me of the date that your commission will hold the hearing required under your adopted zoning laws. p Re spe ctfully, '1 MEMORANDUM TO: MARY BARBARA MAHER, CHAIRPERSON, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: F,ICHARD WARD,ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: ZONE CHANGE FOR PINE CREEK LAND DATE: MAY 13, 1974 Be advised that the City Council has scheduled a joint session for the purpose of discussing the zone change request of Yr. William Haas, for the Pine Creek land off Joy Drive, for June 3, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. The City Council requests your attendance and anycother member of the Planning Commission at this meeting. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer ,,. •�yL City of South Burlington tiJ SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 May 13, 1974 Mr. William Haas P.O. ox 171 Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Mr. Haas: The South Burlington City Council voted unanimously at a special meeting held Friday, 14ay 10, 1974 to consider your request for a zone change of the Pine Creek land for final passage on June 17, 1974. They also voted to have the City Planning Commission meet jointly to discuss this zone change request on Monday, June 3, 1974. Both meetings are regular meetings of the City Council and are scheduled for 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, Conference Room. If you have any questions regarding the above, feel free to call me at 863-2891. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer RW/j cc Calcagni, Frazier & Zajchowski City of South Burlington SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 May 7, 1971+ Dear Sir: Be advised that the South Furlington Planning Commission has approved the enclosed proposed zone change. The City Council will hold a public hearing on June / 1974 at 7:30 p.m. to consider final passage. Please address any comments regarding this zone change to the City Manager, Mr. William Szyymanski, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 0901. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer RW/ j L4v 1EMORANDUM T0: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COhDD�ISSION E : ZONE CH LNGE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY 01r1NED BY CALCAGNI, ET AL DATE: MAY 21 1974 Pursuant to section 4403 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act, a public hearing was held by the South Burlington Planning Commission on April 30, 1974, to consider a zone change request for the property owned by Calcagni et al. Enclosed please find the following materials relating to this matter: 1. Minutes of the public hearing of April 30, 1974. 2. Copy of the proposed amendment to the 1974 zoning ordinance. 3. Letter of request by the applicant. 4. Letters describing recent Planning Commission actions concerning proposals for this property. The South Burlington Planning Commission voted 4 - 1 to recommend that the City Council grant this request. The Planning Commission considered a number of different issues. The request is to change the zoning from Business Planned Development to Residential, 4 units per acre. Disadvantages to granting the request are: 1) presence of a powerline through the development and proximity of a tall radio tower may present a safety hazard, 2) access to the proposed residential area through a BPD area may lead to congestion and other access problems, and 3) nearness to an interstate highway may detract from the desirability of the residential area. On the other hand, the Planning Commission found compelling; reasons for granting the request. These were: 1) inadequate justification for the delineation of this section of the BPD district when the new (1974) ordinance was drawn up, 2) currently, there is an adequate, and perhaps excessive, amount of land zoned for BRD uses, i.e., offices, retail businesses, etc., and 3) the new (1974) Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates the need for more housing, and the rezorinry of this property would be in accord with this and other policies of the Plan. C i SOT?mH '.3URLTNGTONr PLANNING COIanI'ITSSION �� The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Tuesday, April., 0, Y�4 at 7:30 P.r:i. P ,. *r. :3 � P, S-,N:i Chair= ";iary Barbara T„aher, ','Jilliam Wessel, Sidney Poger, William Robenstein and Ronald Schmucker r,T' i,iR_ RS ABS"'NT Ernest Levesque rT 7r -ten n F S -,N T 01 � �,1,,� rRr�r�. 1 Richard 'lard, Zoning Administrator, Jack Tabaka, Fred Blais, Alfred Calcagni,Ir. Breen, Frank Jerred, John J. Hamilton, William Haas, B. F. Brault, Terry Boyle, a Mr. Mitchell, John Berryman R,7ZADINIG OF MINUTrS OF APRIL 23, 1974 Mr. Poger stated he wanted to add to the first paragraph on Page 4- the following: That from all he can see, the plan presented by Champlain Mall gives us the best layout we can see now and leaves great room for improvement such as using White Street to eliminate left turns, the extension of the road from the back of the Ramada Inn property to allow access through Mary Street to Dorset Street and the lining up of the entrance to the Mall through White Street to the Mall. He thinks the developer has given as much as we can expect for the future develop- ment for the future traffic patterns. Mr. Poger made a motion that the minutes of April 23, 1974 be approved with the addition to Page 4. Mr. Schmucker seconded said motion which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE: R'SQ174,ST PINE CRF�K, OFF JOY DRIVE N.'rs. Maher stated that this development came before -the Planning Commission for approval and was approved and then was rescinded. The City Attorney staffed it had to comply with the new Zoning Ordinance. The developer now wants the property rezoned from BPD to R4 which is also allo',ied in our new Zoning Ordinance. It was stated that if the land were rezoned, they would want to develop the same plan. Mr. Levesque called Mrs. 'Mlaher and he stated that he approved of the zone change request as he thinks the land is suitable for rezoning. He also thouCh the proximity to the golf course made it a very attractive development. Nor. Calca7r:i presented the case for the zone change request. He read a letter requesting the rezoning of this land supported by five points. The letter is made a part of these minutes. 2. !Jr. `'Vessel asked about the subject of the right of way, re: traffic - the number of vehicles going; back and forth each day and also should the Commission make a choice as to the kinds of traffic, etc. He also questioned the cul de sac near WJOY. He questioned access to the property - which use would create a greater number of cars. Mrs. Maher skated it would depend on what kind of business would go in there. .":r. 1'lessel stated the Commission has to look at it at its extremes; he is concerned about the adequacy of the road. P,.r. Poger stated that with this development there would probably be approximately 100 cars at a 'rush hour. Mr. Ward stated there are 78 cars required at Pizzigalli's and 20 to 25 at WJOY. He also stated that commercial use could generate more cars. Mr. Poger stated he is concerned with getting away from spot zoning. Mrs. Maher stated she can see this property could produce a quiet neighborhood, and she has no objection to allowing the zone change. P,7r. roger stated he is concerned with going through a BPD area to a residential area. There was discussion, re: land around WJOY and land in the BPD zone. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Wessel if his question, re: traffic, was answered. He then asked about what circumstances are set up for a zone change. It was stated that this is the public hearing, for the zone change and the City Council will have a public hearing also. Mr. Schmucker stated he is motivated by the desirability of residential over BPD. Mrs. Maher stated this might supply more not too expensive housing. lir. Blais spoke about the sewer being added. It was stated that the prices of the materials, etc. for housing have increased. It was also stated that the housing would range from $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. The development will not be built for low income housing. F�Ir. t°lessel asked about the property and how it got to be BPD. Mr. Blais stated it was a revision that eliminated the residential factor. '11-7r. Poger stated the Planning Commission should not be concerned with what was before but the variety of uses. .The letter from the City Attorney, .�Ir. Spokes, was read, re: zone changes. Mr. Schmucker stated they will have to use their best judgment and find either way. He stated there was a question of increased population. But, he thinks the development is compatible to the area and he has no objection. Mr. Poger read part of a letter from Mr. Spokes dated in 1974, re: spot zoning. It was stated by ;Irs. Maher that most members of the Planning Commission support the development. Mr. Wessel stated that the property line is almost adjacent to the interstate. It is also under the large power line and that is not asthetically attractive. He stated the radio tower is is not the ideal land on which to enjoy future years, and he is not convinced it is the best use for the land. He also thinks it might be a burden on the City and if it was BPD it would produce more revenue. Mr. Po�cr stated the radio tower is obnoxious but the golf course nearby is good. It was stated by Mr. Idessel that the non -building of houses has nothing to do with the Zoning Ordinance after a discussion that very few, if no, houses have been built recently. There was discussion, re: energy crisis and people moving closer to So. Burlington and housing will have to be provided. Mr. Poger stated that housing would be better than a warehouse, etc. , and this is a perfectly good zone change. Mr. C 3. Schmucker discussed the fact that it is a good use even with the radio tower, etc. and might make a very attractive apartment complex. l"r. Poger made a motion that he recommended the zone change from BPD to R �f and that the reco�:.mtcnda. t ors be sent on to the City Council. Schmuclier seconded said motion. Ar. Robenstein stated that there was a letter from the petitioner which would make this change valid. Mr. Wessel stated that this is a small parcel of land and questioned spot zoning. There was more dis- cussion, re: spot zoning, Mr. Robenstein stated this development is better for the community, re: school and golf course. He also stated the plan presented has a very nice buffer zone and environmental planning. He supports it because it is the best use of the property. He stated this will set a precedent. The motion by Mr. Poger passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Mr. Wessel voted against the notion. SUBSTATION ON QU12­7,.N CITY PARK ROAD Mr. Terry Boyle was present representing the Public Service Board; Mr. Berryman represented Burlington City Light and Mr. Bault represented the Green ,fountain Power Corp. There was no representative from Velco present. There was much discussion, re: plans brought in, re: sub- station on Queen City Park Road. It was stated that they are proposing an additional structure in the back and an additional fence line. It was also stated that they are bounded by the railroad and Champlain ';`later District. There was discussion, re: circuit routes, circuit breakers, number of overheads, etc. There was discussion, re: under - grounding (one will be undergrounded to get it out of the way), future undergrounding concept, line -to the water district will remain under- ground, excavation area, number of voltages, this new structure being transmission, explanation of underground get -a -way, reliability instead of asthetics, new construction within property line except for what is dotted on the plans which will be in the future. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Boyle for any comments, re: Public Service Board view. He discussed overhead construction. Mrs. Maher stated that this Planning Commission has never been through this before. It was stated that the Public Service Board would like the Planning Commission's con- sidered thoughts and will take them into consideration. Mr. Boyle stated the Public Service Board has certain criteria, re: reliability, asthetics, view from the road, etc. lie also stated he advises the Public Service Board on orderly development, asthetics, etc. There was discussion, re: separation of Velco, Burlington electric and Green 71.1'buntain Power. There was discussion, re: replacing lines, etc. by lair. Jerred, connection of taps from So. Burlington to a line in Burling- ton. There was discussion, re: new aerial .line of Green 2•ountain Power, a proposal which re -moved three poles and putting inone structure made with two poles. 14r. Jerred stated the Burlington Planning; Commission did look at the BELD tap to Burlington and the Planning Commission voted unanimously that they would recommend that the Puic Service Board require the connection to the BLLD to be underground, on the grounds, that: 0 1. There are some complications in various lines seen on one drawing. 2. That originally the BELD substation was built to take that tap underground. 3. To come overhead to that tap now creates additional lines and poles at the station which is fairly clean at the moment. They ought to start somewhere to clean up the mess. Their concern is more in long range cleaning up of the area. Mr. Berryman stated that this is riot the place to start. He also stated that in t1-iis ene connection with Veico, there is no back door and they need reliability which is an aerial connection. Mr. Wessel questioned the reliability of overhead to underground. It was stated that the overhead cables are greater in mileage than underground. BELD's company's main reason for putting it overhead is reliability with economics. Mr. Jerred of the Burlington Planning Commission stated he felt that th4 s is a backup line for East Avenue. It was stated that in terms of reliability and in terms of giving service, if East Avenue sent out, the City could provide the service and looking at the visual mess that is there, they should recommend strongly it should be under- ground for visual reasons. Mr. `vessel stated he would rather make a recommendation to the Public Service Board to consolidate everything to one site and get PSB to find a common location. Mr. Brault stated he did not know how much property Burlington has. It was stated that a lot of property has been sold to the Champlain `dater District and what land they have will be used for this project. It was stated that if you consolidate volts, you need separate substations. He stated there is not adequate space in any of the three areas to consolidate. There was more discussion, re: surrounding property, consolidation, enhancing; the GBIC concept. Mr. Berryman stated the Burlington Plan- ning Commission is shortsighted on the fact that this is just a backup. He stated that in the coming few nears it would be a backup, but the loads are growing. The Electric Dept. considers this as a very im- portant connection. _r. Boyle stated that moving the mobile box , across the street might be the solution. stirs. :,aher asked about the three things discussed - underground, overground and moving the box. Mr. Poger made a motion to recommend the following: 1. i,"ove the ;green box. 2. P,:ake the connection to the green box underground. 3. Put the connection overground. :;ir. Berryman stated he wanted to speak about economics and that the rate payer is beginning to speak up. He stated that they are really watching the pennies and are looking at the aerial circuit for the rate payer. Mr. Poger stated the Commission's primary consideration is the health and welfare of the community. It was stated that the reasons for ir. Pogers motion are as follows: this area is critical to three environments in Burlington and So. Burlington. It is the access to Red Rocks Park, the Queen City Park residential area and GBIC indust- rial area. Nir. 'idessel seconded the motion by Mr. Poger which passed unanimously. 5. It was stated that the substation will be moved eventually and will be screened. The issue now is if you have an existing use on the property and are goin.- to change the layout of the property, should they come in for a site plan review. It was stated that it will eventually have to come in for a site plan review. Mr. VIessel asked about our jurisdiction. -'r. Jerred stated we would have the jurisdiction for screening, etc. It was stated that the PSB and Zoning permit from the So. Burlington Planning Commission are separate permits. ,sir. I'lessel made a motion that the Chairman communicate with the C t� Attorney and ask the following questions: 1. Do these electrical substations fall within the juris- diction of site plan review and are specifically con- ditional uses for substations under flood plain districts, residential districts, etc.? 2. If they do, how do our powers relate to those of the Public Service Board's? Y'rs. MI-aher read from the Master Plan, re: substations, etc. Mr. Schmucker seconded the motion by Mr. Wessel which passed unani- mously. It was stated the Chairman will send off a letter this week to PSB re: Burlington Electric, re: underground transmission. Mr. Brault asked what happens then and was told he would have to come in for a site plan review. There was discussion, re: reviewing site plan. :.�r. Brault stated he would like not to come in again. He stated the plan is here, the fencing and the trees. There was discussion, re: construction of building, etc. Mr. Vlessel questioned what the powers of the Commission are. Mr. Brault stated he would like anUroval. It was stated that the trees to be added to the property are red pine and -Mr. Boyle stated that he approves. 1:'_rs. l,1aher asked about the Planning Commission's comments, re: Green 11 .� Mountain elan. Mr. Boyle stated he indicated to GIP that some planting would be needed. Mr. Poger made a moti the South T3u-rl3.n7-Lon scanin7 of Green .ioun Mr. Schmucker seconde t the Public Service B n,� Commission reviews tain Power in connec d said motion. and be informed that avorably the land - he 'Telco substation. Mr. Wessel amended the motion to read sub:;ect to the Tree Planlim Committee. Tyr. Poger seconded the amended, The motion by :sir. Poger and the amendment by Mr. 4`Iessel passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately. William Robenstein, Clerk PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINA14CE TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1974 7-30 P..!1-1. - CITY HALL CONFERr'NCE ROOM ;4otice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the South Burlington Planning Cormaission on Tuesday, April 30, 1974, at 7-30 P.M. at the City Hall Conference room located at 1175 Williston Road in the City of South Burlington, on the following: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1974 SOUTTI BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE The official Zoning 'Tap referred to in Section 1.10 of the zoning regulations, and adopted therein by reference, shall be amended so that the boundaries of the Residential-4 District are extended to include the following property: "Commencing at the southeast corner of the so-called Nice High School property as shown on the South - Burlington official Zoninq Niap; hence proceeding in thence northerly direction along the Rice High School and Burlington Country Club easterly boundaries a distance of 536 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the Burlington Country Club and University of Vermont southern boundaries a dis- tance of 575 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the University of Vermont property a distance of 695 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a westerly direction along the southern boundary of the Vermont State ilighway Department land. for a dis- tance of 690 feet, store or less; thence turning in a northerly direction along the easterly boundary of Vermnont Broadcasting Inc. for a distance of 260 feet, more or less, to the point or place of begin- ning." (The land and premises described above are presently located in the Business Planned Development District.) COPIES OF TIAIE PROPOSED A14ENDIMENT TO THE 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDINXICE __'AAY BE R=4TNED AT THE OFFICE OF TITEP CITY CLERK, 1175 WILLISTON ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON. 7.sated this 12th day of April, 1974. SOUTH BURLINGTON PIJUNNING C=MISSIGN JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 April 15, 1974 Richard R. Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Proposed Amendment to 1974 Zoning Ordinance Dear Dick: AREA CODE 802 863-2857 The following procedure must be followed at the Planning Commission level: 1- April 12, 1974 Public notice is posted in at least one public place within the City. 2- April 12, 1973 Copies of the proposed amendment are filed with the City Clerk. 3- April 13, 1974 Public notice is published in the Burlington Free Press (I am tending to this) . 4- April 30, 1974 Planning Commission hearing. If the Commission approves the proposed amendment, I would recommend that they do so by formal resolution at the end of the public hearing. The resolution should be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting. Imme- diately thereafter, the proposed amendment should be transmitted to the Council by letter of the Planning Commission. We will also need to send copies of the amendment to the adjoining Planning Commissions, etc. I will cover the remainder of the procedure with you after the public hearing. Very truly yours, Richard A. A. Spokes RAS:nm PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1974 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING ORDIl"WICE The official Zoning map referre(I to in Section 1.10 of the zoning regulations, and adopted therein by reference, shall be amended so teat the boundaries of the 'esidential-4 District are extended to include the following property: `'Coiwaencing at the southeast corner of the so-called ?ice 'I'ligh School property as shown on the South Burlington official ';oning *-lap; thence proceeding in a northerly direction along the Rice Iiigh School and Burlington Country Club easterly boundaries a distance of 536 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the Rurlington Country Clue and University of Vermont southern boundaries a dis- tance of 575 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the University of Vermont property a distance of G95 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a westerly direction along the southern boundary of the Vermont State Highway Department land for a dis- tance of 690 feet, rtiore or less; thence turning in a northerly direction along the easterly boundary of verriont !�roadcasting Inc. for a distance of 260 feet, more or less, to the point or place of begin-- nina.` (The land and premises described above are presently located in the Business Planned Development District.) Dated this 12th day of April, 19714. SOUTH BURLINGTON PIJaJMING MMISSI014 PROPOSED AMMMENT TO 1974 SOUTH BURLIUMON ZONING ORDINANCE The official Zoning A.ap referred to in Section 1.10 of the zoning regulations, and adopted, therein by reference, shall be amended so that the boundaries of the 7-esidential-4 Astrict are extended to include Vie following property: ''Compiencing at the southeast corner of the so --called Rice 'High School property as shown on the South Biarlington official Zoning 'Iap; thence proceeding in a northerly direction along the %ice High .13chool and Burlington Country Club easterly boundaries a distance of i36 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the -43'urlington ;"ountry Club Gild University of Ve?ripont southern boundaries a dis- tance of 575 feet, more or less; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the University of Vermont property a distance of 95 feet, iiiore or less; thence proceeding in a westerly direction along the southern boundary of the Vermont State Nighway Departvient land for a tlis- tance of 690 feet, more or less; thence turning in a northerly direction along the easterly boundary of Vermont Broadcastina Inc. for a distance of .160 feet, more or less, to the point or ;-dace of begii-i-- (T,he land and Premises described above are presently located in the "haziness Planned Zlevelopment District.) --ated this 12th day of April, 1974. SOUTH BUIMINGTON PL17.NNII-4-7 J "ON"NG MAP row, re f—J."'.- ez lu SUnLINGTOIN 7OWN 0— SOU—1 CHI TTE NDEN COUNTY, VERMONT 10 AS REVISED AND ADOPTED FEBRUARY 28, 1964 RESIDENCE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT "Am DISTRICT *6" !1 " RESIDENCE DISTRICT "B" BUSINESS DISTRICT "A" re W.—Ap INDUSTRIAL LDISTRICT "A" DISTRICT "80 BUSINESS PLANNED DISTRICT ..... . . . . . . . . ro J.6-~ Vi 'III cz URL JjvG fzTT Z! 7 7 LAKE fill Z� 0, 1, / , I i f April 4, 1974 To: South Burlington Planning Commission Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman Dear Mrs. Maher, In accordance with Chapter 91, VSA Title 24; Section 4403, Municipal and Regional Planning and Development, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission of South Burlington duly warn and hear this request to extend the present R-4 zone boundaries to include the following land: Starting at the southeast corner of the so called Rice High School property as shown on the duly adapted South Burlington Zoning Map; proceeding in a northerly direction along the Rice High School and Burlington Country Club easterly boundary for a distance of 536 feet more or less; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the Burlington Country Club and University of Vermont southern boundary for a distance of 575 feet more or less; then proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the University of Vermont for a distance of 695 feet more or less; then proceeding in a westerly direction along the southern boundary of the Vermont State Highway Department land for a distance of 690 feet more or less; then turning to a northerly direction along the easterly boundary of Vermont Broadcasting Inc. for a distance of 260 feet more or less to the point or place of beginning. This request is supported with the following evidence: 1. That said area was approved by the South Burlington Planning Commission, at a public meeting held on March 26, 1974, for R-4 use under cluster concept. (See enclosed letter of approval dated March 28, 1974). 2. That said Planning Commission approval granted on March 26, 1974 was rescinded by the South Burlington Planning Commission on April 2, 1974 for technical legal reasons and not reasons related to the planned use approved by the Planning Commission. (See enclosed letter dated April 2, 1974)• ., a )jjA r b,v4 ? g ' a.0 �.�..L. i,.,,a`S�')''S.} ) ,4�C i r :i.. Y r TO � "z )TWAT. 'Y 1 ) Y} }+ drj d loll top ") .1 'P W tt hot. W r v) a Y tit 1,� N1 '` "pr ;) y _ V) Y z -, S r 3& ; . > A A "t .) } . '.+ oil I Y V t t 1. 1 .S ,) z' .. d-. p ." 1. a' J. ' x ) ° list ' 't ) O. rs . r,, IU v k in 1 11 Huy.' 1. lot'4 1 oil 31 qj jv 1 3' t m [ r '* r„ -2- 3. That said R-4 use is compatible with the existing R-4 areas located to the west and northwest of the requested boundary extension. 4. That said R-4 use is compatible Rural districts to the north and boundary extension, and affords agricultural and business uses. Very truly yours, Wi Haas , chf/' 0. Box 171 Burlington, Vermont 05401 to the Agricultural - east of the requested a buffer between 00 hLo O April 2, 1974 ' ys . William Haas ?.0. Box 171 Burlington, VT 051+01 Dear -Yr. Haas: Upon advice from the City's attorney, 'Yr. Richard Spokes, I regret to inform you that the South Burlington Planning Commission has unanimously agreed to resind its approval of the Pine Brook proposal because it does not conform to the duly adopted 1974 Co prehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed is a copy of Ifr. Spokes opinion ,=5'L, detailing the basis for this decision. In addition to resinding its approval, the South Burlington Planning Commission hereby formally rejects the Pin- Brook proposal on the basis that it sloes not conform to the existing 'Taster Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Article IV, Section 401, of the 1964 South Burl- ington Subdivision Regulations). Furthermore, please be advised that the Lakelands proposal has likewise been denied on .these grounds as well. Sincerely yours, Nary Barbara Maher, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30c{ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK - rn , - I OR DATE EET &ND NO. STATE AND 41P CODE RETURN t. Shows to wham and date delivered ............ 15 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ > 65 SERVICES 2' Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 With delivery to addressee only ............ 85 - DELIVER TODRES ADSEE ONLY — 50 SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) ........................... ........... 45 POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — July 1969 NnT FAR INTFRUATtnuet ►sell March 28, 1974 ?'r. '+illiam Haas P..O."'ox171 Burlington, VT 05+01 Dear :-:r . laas s Be advised that the South Burlin-ton Planning Commission has approved your application for the construction of 50 condominium dwollinM units on a parcel o-' land located off .goy Drive, as per plans submitted on Fel,ruary 19, 1974. Approval is conditional on the follow -ng: 1. That the City Manager again review the site because of the concern that there appears to be a 1200 foot wall: that children must gravel to and from the cul-de-sac. That a determination as to how the sidewalk be provided or if one is needed be made by the City 'tanager, the Commission is prepared to waive the standa.-d cement sidewalk for a more rural blacktop type. 2. That a formal landscapin.7 plan be submitted and reviewed by the City Tree Committee and also be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That all final drainage details be approved by the City Manager. That the condominium by-laws be submitted for approval by the City Attorney and Planning 6nmmission. 5 That all street lighting; be approved by the City Manager. 6. That all recommendations made b ► the City anag;er in a letter dated March 26, 1974 be complied with. 7. That the developer submit, in letter form, a timetable for development for the entire project. No Text Pir. '°'illiam Haas Page 2 2-larch 28, 1974 A final subdivision plan must be submitted to the :Tanning COM-Mission in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article V! of the City subdivision regulations. The developer is also required to submit a performance bond, amount of said bond to be determined by the City, s.'hen you have prepared your landscaping and final plan please advise this office and a meeting with the Planning Commission will be scheduled. If you have any questions feel free to call me at 863-2891. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning administrative Officer Rw,/ j Cc. Mr, Alfred Calcagni Y LAW OFF ICES OF EWING 6. SPOKES 66 ST• PAUL STHEET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWINO AREA CODE 802 RICHARD A. SPOKES April 1, 1974 eos•aes� Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion Letter 54 New Zoning Regulations - ISSUE: Do the new zoning regulations apply to subdivision applications pending upon the effective date of the new zoning regulations? Dear Bill: The question has been raised whether the two subdivision applications pending before the Planning Commission on March 21, 1974, must conform to the City's new zoning regulations. It is my understanding that both subdivision applications were filed prior to March 21, 1974, which was the effective date of the new zoning regulations. Neither application at that time, however, had been approved by the Planning Commission. It is also my understanding that neither applicant has been issued a zoning permit. In order for a person to be free from the limitations of a new zoning ordinance, he must have established a nonconform- ing use or a vested right, or there must be some specific authority contained in the State's enabling act or in the municipality's zoning regulations preserving pending permit applications. My examination of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and our new zoning ordinance reveals that neither source contains language fixing the rights of an applicant.at' the time his application is filed. Therefore, the issue is whether the two applicants in ques tion have established a nonconforming use or a vested right under which they would need not comply with the new zoning ordinance. Generally speaking, "land included in a newly improved plat which has been approved by the planning board and filed in the appropriate office is as vulnerable to changes in the zoning regu- lations as is all other land in the community." 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 19.23. Also, "the filing of an approved subdivision plat does not establish a nonconforming use of the plated land which protects it from subsequent zone changes." 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section•19.23,•and cases there cited. 4ING 6. SPOKES .. Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- April 1, 1974 Another zoning authority has stated the general rule in the following terms: "It is generally held that neither the filing of an application for a building permit nor the issuance of a building permit, although valid and issued in con- formity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, alone confers any rights in the applicant or permittee as against the change in the zoning ordinance which • imposes further limitations upon the use or structure proposed." Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 57-2. g The clear weight of authority indicates that no right to a nonconforming use is established when a land owner applies for a permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.21. Following this one step further, the issuance of a permit adds little to a land owner's case for a nonconforming use. 1 Anderson,' i American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. It is clear from the case law that in order to establish a nonconforming use, the owner of the land must actually use his property for the intended purposes. Many opinions distinguish between preparing the land for an intend- ed purposes, and actual use of the land for that purpose. See Town of Mendon vs. Ezzo, 129 Vt. 351, 361 (1971). The Mendon case indicates a preparation for a forbidden use is not enough to relieve property from new regulations nor is a substantial investment commit- ed to the project enough to establish a nonconforming use. There is no question that neither applicant in South Burlington has established a nonconforming use. Concerning the acquisition of a "vested right", the majority rule requires the land owner to spend'a substantial amount of money or change his position in reliance upon the issuance of a valid permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. Although,. there are no Vermont Supreme Court cases defining a "vested right", last year, the Chittenden County Court considered vested rights in Preseault vs. Wheel and City of Burlington, Chittenden County Court ,Docket No. C82-73CnC. In that case, the Court, by implication, ruled that vested rights.are earned if the developer has spent. a substantial amount of money in reliance upon the issuance of a building permit. - I would conclude that the South Burlington applicants have neither acquired a nonconforming use nor a vested right, and both applicants must comply with the new zoning regulations. From the scanty case law in Vermont, it'appears that our Supreme Court ° would side with the majority view on both of these issues. Very truly yours, Richard A, Spoke M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI, CITY MANAGER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: MARCH 26, 1974 As a result of the March llth meeting the following three questions were brought up. 1. The 40 foot right-of-way to the development: A 60 foot right-of-way would enroach upon Rice High School b allfield and since it will be a private street maintained by the developer (including snow removal), I have no objection, however, it should be specified that in the future if it is to become a city street, additional land must be acquired and the street constructed to city standards. 2. Sewer easement: The main sewer interceptor, from the cul-de-sac to the development, should be deeded to the city because only the city possesses the equipment necessary to unplug and clean sewer mains. The width of the easement should be 15 feet. 3. Need for sidewalks: I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Respectfully submitted, L William J. Szymanski City Manager March 26, 19Th Re: Project f74-5 Pine Brook CondominitmF South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vermont Gentlemen Fallowing our March 12, 1.974 meeting we have met with Mr. Bill. Symanski, City Manager said also have reviewed the site plan with Green Mountain Power Corporation. We submit the following items of decisions, approvals and discussion as a result of our meetings. A. Meeting with Bill uymanski on March 18, 19'T4. 1, Relative to the 40' Eight of Way. Mr. Symanski has no objections. This to be confirmed in writing? from City Manager's office. 2. Relative to 15' easement for sever, Mr. Symanski requests that sewer Line be installed to city standards and that a 15' wide easement for the sewer line be given by the Association to the City. This is agreeable by owner. -3. Relative to curve at entrance Mr. Symanski stated it was acceptable, but did ask that the northern edge of the road also have a curve. Radius of inside curve is 100', which is more than adequate for large trucks and buses of any kind. $. Relative to street lighting, the Association will, provide adequate street lighting for safety and security purposes. 5. Relative to 241 wide road Mr. Symanski stated it was eceeptable. Page two South Burlington Planning Commission March 26, 1974 6. Relative to the sidewalk Mr. Symanski wishes to vithdrav his suggestion. 7. Relative to drainage of run off water, Nor. Symanski wishes to review final drawings to insure against erosion of roadway edges and will request curbs in certain areas of curves where he feels it to be necessary. B. Meeting with green Mountain Power Corporation (Mr. Bernie Brault). 1. Site plan and easement agreement was reviewed and the revised drawing dated March 26tb incorporates a plan that is acceptable to the power company, which utilises the easement for the roadvay and utilities.. C. Relative to Mr. Reay's rem wk on three buildings, they will be located so that they will not cause erosion of the bank. Respectfully submitted, CALCAGNI, FRAZIER, ?A.TCHOWSKI for PINE BROOK CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION A. A. Calcagni AAC/t f AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING C01112 ISSI0N CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 1175 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT TUESDAY , MARCH 26 8 1974 REGULAR MEETING 7 : 30 P . T4. 1. Reading of minutes of March 12, 1974- 2. Work session with Mr. Bouchard, Burlington Associates, proposed location of a squash court. 3. Site plan review, addition to Pizza-alli office complex, Joy Drive, Mr. Gary Warner. �+. Continue discussion on two subdivision applications: 1. Lakeland Corporation, Bartlett Bay area, Mr. Peter Bergh & Mr. Raymond Unsworth. 2. Pine Creek Joy Drive area, Mr. Alfred Calcagni & M.r. Will1am Haas. 5. Discuss Queen City Substation - Burlington Electric Light Co. (See City Manager's memo). 6. Appoint zoning administrative officer (Chapter 91, Section 4442) . (�X �--/ Submitted by, (For Planning Commission) Richard Ward Zoning Administrator NOTE: On Sunday, March 24, 1971+ at 1:00 P.M. the Commission will meet at the Automaster Company parking lot to r inspect the Unsworth property. LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWING AREA CODE 802 RICHARD A. SPOKES March 12, 1974 863-2857 Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion Letter 51 Subdivision Regulations - Waiver of Requirements Dear Bill: The Planning Commission has inquired whether it is empowered to waive certain subdivision requirements set forth in our regulations, particularly the street requirements enumerated in Section 403 of the regulations. The Vermont Planning and Development Act (Chapter 91 of Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated) permits a munici- pality to include in its subdivision regulations a pro- vision authorizing the Planning Commission to waive or vary certain requirements in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. 24 V.S.A. §4411 (b). Section 801 Bond Requirements of the South Burlington subdivision regulations contains the following language: "...provided however that the Commission may waive, subject to appropriate conditions and guarantees, for such period as it may determine, the provisions of any or all such improvements as in its judgment of a particular plan are not requisite in the inter- ests of public health, safety and general welfare." In the past, this language has been interpreted as per- mitting the Planning Commission to waive specific requirements. I believe Section 801 is sufficiently broad to justify this interpretation, and that the Planning Commission may waive or vary requirements if in its judgment the requirements are not essential in promoting the interests of public health, safety and general welfare. I must readily concede that the language contained in Section 801 is susceptible to a contrary interpretation, but such a construction would make our regu- lations unusually strict and inflexible. EWING & SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- March 12, 1974 I believe Mrs. Maher would like this opinion for tonight's Planning Commission hearing. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes i "- M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY TANAGER SZYMANSKI RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS DATE: MARCH 11, 1974 Sewers: 1. The proposed project would be an extension of a sewer system that is served by the Citv of Burlington. The anticipated sewage flow from, the development is approximately 12,000 to 15,000 gallons per day. Burlington will not accept this volume due to problem they are having with their collection system on Pine Street)4 The alternative is to construct approximately 2,000 feet of sewer line on Farrell Street to the proposed correction site pumping station where a station capable of pumping 550 gallons per minute will be installed and made a part of the city system. 2. If the Pine Creek Drive sewer is to be part of the city system a 15 foot easement to the City should be provided. Drainage: 1. Additional drainage inlets are required along Pine Creek Drive. See recommendations in red on plan. 2. A drainage collection system within the development should be included. Any drainage from Rice, U.V.M., or the Country Club must be intercepted into a drainage system. Water: 1. All water mains feeding hydrants should be 8 inch. 2. Valves should be provided in the system. 3. If the system is to be private, a meter vault must be provided near the cul-de-sac. Streets and Sidewalks: 1. Bit. concrete curbs along the curves should be considered. 2. A sidewalk at least to the curve of Rice High School should be considered. 3. Street lights should be included. MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM, MR. WILLIAM HAAS DATE: MARCH 69 1974 Proposal is to construct 50 condominium units on a tract of land containing approximately 12 acres. n Parcel is located near Rice High School and W.J.O.Y. A private road will be constructed entering off from the Joy Drive cul-de-sac. 1. Area is zoned Planned District. The 1972 Comprehensive Plan projected Central Business area. The 1974 ordinance is F.P.D. 2. Minimum lot required 7 acres. 3. All yard requirements are in conformity. 4. height of units are 2 story. Units are two and. three bedroom that are being proposed. 6. Off-street parking conforms - garages are proposed. 7. No accessory buildings other than garages. Development has 1001 power easement, all building set -backs to conform with easement. Buildings also set back 1501 from Interstate R.O.W. MEMORANDUM TO: MARY FVARFARA MAHER, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRWOMAN FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS PROPOSAL AND REQUIREMENTS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DATE: MARCH 6, 1974 Section of W-)division .Regulations Stuff Plan 401 Conformity to Town Plan - residential use proposed for an area designated as "Central Business" in 1972 Plan. 401 A & E Street Requirements - proposed "Pine Creek Drive" is 24 feet wide - under Alrequirement is for minimum width of 60 feet; under B, no private drive, such as Pine Creek Drive, may serve more than one dwellin,7. 405 Dead End Streets - insufficient turnaround radius 40P Parks and Playground - no such area is shown Sites 503 CID9EII & J Plan Data - as required under C, ownership of property directly adjacent to the south is not shown; D requires endorsement of Commission Chairman Of plan's submission date; E requires approximate width and location of all easements, i.e., sewer, water, utilities, etc. - these are not shown on this study plan; I relates to parcels which are to be dedicated to the City for public purposes and refers back to sect. 40F above; J requires complete plan and profile of each public street, which are missing in this study plan because developer proposes a private street to serve the develbpment, in conflict with sect. 403 (B) above. SOUTH BURLINGTON NOTICE SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont.on Tuesday, March 12, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: #1 Appeal of Lakeland Corporation, Mr. Raymond Unsworth of South Burlington, Vermont for approval of a subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately fourteen (14) acres, for the purposes of constructing ninety-six (96) condominium dwelling units, said parcel is located on the westerly side of Shelburne Road and bounded by the jermont Railroad, bounded on the south by the Lozon property, on the north by the Lowell and Ambrose properties and on the west by Lake Champlain, as per plan on file in the City Hall Offices. #2 Appeal of William Haas of Ticonderoga, New York for approval of a subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately twelve (12) acres, for the purposes of constructing fifty (50) condominium dwelling units, said parcel is located off Joy Drive, bounded on the south by Interstate 189, on the east by property owned by the University of Vermont and the Burlington Country Club and on the west by the Rice Memorial High School and radio station WJOY, as per plan on file in the City Hall Offices. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairwomen South Burlington Planning Commission 2/25/74 eebruary 13, 1974 City of Burlington, Vermont City Ball Church Street Attention. Iir. Ed Crowley Dear Ld. South Burlington has a proposal for constructing S 50 condominiums in the vicillitY Of )Ace ifigh School and ea,t of joy Drive. This to include approximately 25 two -bedroom units and approximately 25 throe.-): e(lrooru units. This area is now served by the turlington sewer and water systems. "I, Ine sewer sYsten, that would serve the area is Ly aL 8 inch sewer running �,,resterly down Joy Drive and Hadle-y Road, entering the Burlington systeir, at the intersection Of haciley Road, and Shelburne The water systei,'i on Joy strive woulci I)e extended easterly to the site. MIY ciuestion is, would tkie City of I-wrlington accept tiiis`auded load on their systeing. Very truly Yours, William J. Szymanski 11 City Manager WJSlh