The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0062 Laurel Hill DriveFASHION TWO TWENTY LANG DISTRIBUTORS 40 FARRELL STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 9, 1979 City of mouth Durlington Att. Mr., Stephen Page City Planner 1175 �Jilliston Road Oouth Jurlington, Vt. C5401. Dear Mr. Page: This letter is to officially verify our withdrawal of the Lang Subdivision proposal for 62 Laurel Hill Drive.. In view of the heated.opposition from the entire,neighborhond to this pro— posal, we feel it is ill—advised to further pursue the matter at this time. Thank you for all your help and cooperation. Yours truly, ��.�, "� • ,'fit.. Gail, 0. Lang CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of; a. Owner of record _; MORMI'Ma P.� 456- 37ftr— b. Applicant c. Contact person 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels involved 4s well as proposed use (s) . lk-,a, iz-r,, A , ;,,.,', n, , 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) 4 ) Namesof a ners of -record cof all conti uous roperties I r3rz.z.,z'P�- U7 k 5) Type of existing or proposed -encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, Leases, rights of way, etc. -2- 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sewerage, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. ��;'� 1 n •� � . ,... � `gin . ,.�: •.� a ,.._ . '� � ti . e i ,- 7) Describe any actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or previous actions by the South Burlington Planning Commission, which affect the proposed subdivision anoinclude dates: 8) Attcch a sketch plan showing all information required under items 2 through 7 on p. 5 of the Subdivision Regulations. (signature) app1ican r cotact person d4 ate FOR OFFICE USE - submission of application and sketch plan to administrativeate officer - this proposal is classified as a major or minor subdivision - application deemed complete - proposal tentatively scheduled for first Planning C01MMission meeting on Confirmed For �vz- oFfi- Boa._ 2 w� 400 ZLEE (r = rime— c0�4 /Cf4 3/A �-T, 4%r l04 C AF--Z C, iT-T' u.LTS -0 Fir Coj-t cos , lh z` o,4 TRAIL T cLxrnH-, c�T a/E5� Tom/& ?! ? J Too /&r-,4 TMPFIG oH �-4� -W,4 , or, , T� Now T ble, "If 7 #4 Lang Subdivision -Sketch Plan A three lot subdivision is proposed on a 2.5 acre site, that is re- markably similar to a proposal denied for the same property about 2 years ago. The property is presently occupied by a duplex with swimming pool, has an extremely irregular shape and substantial relief, although there is by my estimate, an acre or so of usable area (including land presently occupied by structures). As I stated in my memo of 2 years ago, the location of the existing structures in the middle of the usable area, mar- ginal sight distance on Laurel Hill Drive, and a fifteen foot grade difference between the usable area and the city street, all combine to create an un- usual and difficult setting for further development. A substantial amount of cutting will be required for the proposed driveway; detailed contour in- formation will be needed to evaluate the effects on the abutting property to the southeast. Also, the orientation of any new units should be restricted so as to insure that new backyards abut existing backyards (and avoid front yard to rear yard conflicts). In sum, I feel improvement of the present access situation should be a prerequisite to further development, there is adequate usable area on both proposed lots, but the orientation of dwellings on them should dovetail with that of nearby residences. The only other alternatives I can think of are possibly allowing more units within the present structure, an addition to it, or moving it or razing it to allow more flexibility in improving lot layout. t,c-,_-4Tloµ+�- IN 10 MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Re: Lang sub -division - 62 Laurel Hill Drive Date: January 18, 1979 The parcel of land in question is presently non -conforming. Section 11.00 Dimensional requirements - requires a minimum frontage of 100 feet, existing frontage of this lot being 91 feet, total lot size being 3.1 acres. The proposed subdivision involves setting off two lots (1 & 2) with no frontage, should the Commission consider granting this subdivision both lots must be served by a permanent.easement or right-of-way at least 20 feet in width (Section 11.35). If the right-of-way width is deeded to the lots, the setting off of lot #3 would require a variance from the minimum lot frontage requirement. January 18, 1979 South Burlington Planning Commission City Hall 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Attention: S. B. Poger, Chairman Subject: Proposed Subdivision of Lang Property, 62 Laurel Hill Drive Dear Mr. Poger: I am an abuttor on the east side of the subject property and wish to object to the proposed subdivision into three residential lots for the following reasons: 1. City Administrators had expressed their written concerns about providing municipal services for lots without frontage when a similar proposal for this property was made two years ago. 2. At that time, a significant number of residents had signed a petition expressing their disapproval of the subdivision. 3. My understanding of the Planning Commission policy on private roads/ multiple rights of way is that they are not appropriate without compelling reasons. 4. A look at "houses behind houses" in Burlington leaves an impression of an afterthought and is not in character with the present neighbor— hood. 5. The increased traffic on a blind corner will be unsafe. 6. The land topography is predominantly ravine in back and a steep bank up to a plateau area in front. As a result, the buildable area is considerably less than the three total acres. For the above reasons, I respectfully urge disapproval of this proposal. (;L'01 );c J . Munn 68 L,iurel Hill. Drive So. Burlington, Vt. /vm cc: S. Page, City Planner Svesln rc V:-r 2SP u c ,-rr PRESENT STATUS TWO (2) FAMILY HOME AND POOL WITH FENCE AROUND IT ARE PRESENTLY ON THE LOT WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES IN SIZE. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. SUBDIVIDE LOT INTO FOUR PARCELS. EACH PARCEL WILL BE GREATER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 2. EXTEND PRESENT DRIVEWAY (PRESENT DRIVEWAY ENDS JUST IN FRONT OF CAPE HOME) BEHIND THE TWO FAMILY HOME AND OVER TO GARRISON HOME. 3. FABRICATE AND/OR RELOCATE HOMES (CAPE AND GARRISON) PRESENTLY LOCATED ON SHELBURNE ROAD TO RESPECTIVE LOTS AS SHOWN. 4. REGRADE HILL ON LOT #4 SO AS TO PROVIDE IMPROVED SITE FOR SPLIT LEVEL HOME. EARTH REMOVED FROM HILL WILL BE RELOCATED BEHIND 2 FAMILY HOME TO PROVIDE PROPER GRADE FOR DRIVEWAY AND PARKING. 5. BRING IN UNDERGROUND WIRING & SEWERS TO CAPE AND GARRISON HOME. 6. HAVE PROFESSIONAL SURVEY MADE AND LEGAL DEEDS PREPARED FOR EACH LOT. INCORPORATE INTO EACH DEED THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOT OWNER WILL SHARE ONE FOURTH OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE AND PLOWING OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. ITE.9 TIIE MID RSIGN-;-D ANT) T,`,TnTIIT Or TIF�., CITY OF SOUTH BUR;I.IITGTON, ARE . OPPOSED TO `I'IM PROPOSED SU? I)IIJISTON OF TIli , L ^ IID LOC ".TIM AT 62 laurel Hill Drive:. Name qm� co-. P.ddress �• n e,Y r T n i, C i r y i TIC UI1DEIi5.IGATL;D TA.4'AY��T�. � f�.I�) R � ,,I�) 'P, I,I OF TIJi? f.I CY OI' SOiTi I -I I3TiIZI.,II13TOtd, . ARE OPPUS .D TO THi; PROP09FD SWIDIVNION OF TV LA.11?) LnCAND AT 62 LAUREL HILL DRIVE: Name Address 7 i kaj C�:�✓,� y.�� :/ j' y ..F, • ,...c,,�-'�-�i°�, �� fir(/./'�i� � ��2/'�-�! / ��fi'..-ram . (/ � ,� //�, , q { ?� p/;, /j, ci Vert V � . -z, ,2, .yB%E._ , r2 ✓ / 7 ;'ICI; CITY Or, '7,OUTII BUTILINGTON WEE, THE Or ARE OPPOS)ED TO THE PROP001i'D SjJ13T-)TVT-,I0DT 07 T1,11',F) IT 62 LtTJPI'l HILL))RIVE: Name eel OA '7 Address L '-7 14�e2l 41 tit J4 U'l 4r1 ell IL 'J7 'IliE T.11"10 ITVrI) f-rC0-IJIT!, 11 r ol _TTlI 3u`:7111,MT(Al L OPPOSID TO THL' PIROPU-37) Y)T, ,�T 62 T,,,ur; 1 ifill ,)ri..re: Name: P (.-Idr c i:ti-�P t-r., -e /J'A_ VIE TH`,; WONZ T�XPV,.-,.TRS) 07, ;OTTTTT BU,T,TF.GTON OFPWh;D TO SIGM-0 RT:77TITT,3 ITT) .9 TM PROPOSED SUDT.)TVI.,ION 07 MITT) WOtTll;`I) A.T 62 Laurel Mill Drive: P�ddress: 3,7 le Q-iIvlhell( 14vz-1 If E' TID; UA?Drl`!? )MI11i") T177"r,r�p" n.l?>> `.C��. �''� �� 7 , �rMr Cjq.L� Or' `�0U'1,71 r3U',TLI 1Cr'.1'(7PJ, ARE OPPOSED TO THi , gTM1-)TVTI',T0T•T nr L' Tr) LOC ^ T1 T) AT 62 Ia"?r°- I HILL MIVIs• Name: /I 111�41� AI ,.e2�-ttiG�' �J • 17 jd-)66-W,,. 91 / I�—C.c�fc.c�f,�, � � �C��!1.a ��a-� �� n �t� •l c,�e-Y�, � G��, r lvv�r+ e e�-e c+,4�y Gl✓ S ec uQ/ e , �� , f.L� ��u� 'v7 !r 111 92 L, L•� ' •1^"•J�.,� ,•{ �,i / i •.�_.. a �✓ �' .N��4„!/'/� •i", / / (�G:✓ a �� ,. owl_ V*' 1 tip, TIT' UrTa)r. n..' ^.'T) TA ,fin n1?1-'T -,,,, +a r' r' T.TV 07 SM"TT 3V ARE 01 r0;i.,D TO T?i�'1 n�,n, rl9?'.P TT'Z,)TTTT`"Tr)r? OF EMI I,�°1,rT) Lor ^71 T) AT 62 Laurc',l Hill DRIVIs co _ zr r .!J lip") THE UNDI2R'-_iIC7IV,D? it1,I3.T )I-TIT`rTd') T.�hK�" Y' a�� OIL `>OIJTH/vJ BTY,'T.,7TTG?0N� IRE OPF'G;sE—o TO THE PROPOSE71 9U'3)IVI>ION Or L!PTO LOr:"I""D AT •62 Laurel Hill Drive: Name •t'.C"ZCkr � ✓ -,( /fie l-i1.�j i ��' C7� %t.� G2Z -� i �it-f G.-Ci T ifC J,) r -�✓L�.:.i �.�.1.C�.-zo? L_." ((.a �., ' l� �1C-G ti � -✓ � r r. � t - CN b 617 IZ . WE., THE UN`)RV,3IGNE) TA .) . � 'IN") , � _,„ T 11' +. i T'" SOU ; 3U'tI I : ' OId, C '1' pPf US!':) 2'O TIII SUBDIVISION OF LAND +�.T 62 LAUCT, ,, r 7 , . S + L TiTLL , �.rVF' 0.�, 1'TI 1;O��LU II^?G Ri�;.�''f7Pd;: 1. A safety hazard would be caused In that particular location if a driveway would become -an access road. 2.The principle of setting a precedrnt for other locations in South Burlington with no frontage whereby a dri_veT,7ay would become an access road for an, area not presently designated as house lots -in an a.lre.a.dy.congested residential area. ;. The potential for significantly altering the*res:Mential character of the neighborhood. 4The present housing unit app'roved as a t-i-family dwelling is, we understand, currently being used as a dormitory type residence fir college students.This being the case, it would seems that the two units being proposed as additions to the property,* could very well be used in the same way. =,ih usage, is not onl-r contrary to the character of the neighborhood housing pattern but w, _.:',d touch more traffic to Taurrl IIill ')rive bcc- .se of mul_ti.nle s ,ud(:ant occupancy and consequen. of automohi_lrrs. The same would hold true if there were multiple f,•),T _ly rental. Friday - March 11,, 1977 The following are copies of the ret4tion tthat vap taken conrrrning the subdivision of land at 62 Laurel Hill Drive. T would like to point out t,,o (2) things at this time: 1) We have a few more names on the original. the copies were made. The following are Mrs. Benjamin Schreyer Bre-,rer Robert Kelly Bre-!er Diana Kelly Brewer Fred Uallis Breirer Bodie ',Tallis Brewer These name were received after the extra names to this date: Pkw,y-. Pkwy Pkwy Pkvr,y Pk-.I.ry. 2*) The reasons that are given on the last rage of this petttion are for the names of the people listed there- not for the entire list of names* Anne Ra tkus City of South Burlington 1175 WILLISTON ROAD ;,�••. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 ^-• TEL.863-2891 March 24, 1977 Mr. Raymond Conchieri 211 Laurel Hill Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Conchieri: This is to formally confirm the action of the South Burlington Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 15, 1977, in denying your final plat application. A copy of the denial motion is enclosed. Yours truly, Stephen Page, Planning Assistant SP/dlg ,,,-PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington March 15, 1977 in the Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT MARCH 15, 1977 Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 William Wessel, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, David Morency, Sidney Poger, James Ewing, Kirk Woolery. MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Tom Davis, Mary Sweeney, Arthur Sweeney, Dave Kriecer, Bill Duff, Ralph Veve, Bill Schuele, Jean Foster, Doris Bule_y, Miles Strella, Tom -Henry, Terry Boyle, Mike Flaherty, Kay r;eubert. The meeting was called to order by Chairman at 7:30 p.m. Reading of Minutes of March 8, 1977 This item was deferred until the next meeting. Public Hearing: Final Plat Application of Mr. Raymond Conchieri for a 3 lot Subdivision at 62 Laurel Hill Drive Mr. Wessel read a Memo from Mr. Conchieri dated March 14, 1977, asking for cancellation of all actions relative to his application. Mr. Poa_er then --moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission disapprove the final plat application of Air. Raymond submitted by him. unanimously. e mot on was seconded Conchieri based on the memo Mr. Levesque and pass Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Application of Mr. Ralph Veve to construct 102 apartment units at 435 Dorset Street - Mr. Boyle described the layout and design of the project. The project is to be built, he added, in two phases: 1) 1977 - 48 two bedroom units and 2) 1978 - 44 two bedroom and 10 three bedroom units. In responce to a question from Mr. Poger, Mr. Boyle indicated the applicant would prefer a curb cut at either the north or south end of the property. Mr. Poger said he understood the developer's concern for the location of the curb cut, but felt that the final determination of the curb cut location should be based on the Citv's overall best interests, considering future access plans to the School Department property across the street, as well as the plans for widening Dorset Street. Mr. Veve summarized his traffic study, indicating that the residents of the project would tend to use the Kennedy Drive intersection, rather thee.- the Williston Road intersection, and, in sum, that the project would have a negligible affect on the current traffic situation on Dorset Street. ------ 7.7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: CONCHIERI SUBDIVISION DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 I. The Proposal This proposal is to subdivide an existing 2.2 acre lot, with a duplex and swiMming pool, into three lots (one for the existing structures and two for new residences) to have access to Laurel Hill Drive via a private right of way. II. Necessary Reviews The necessary reviews are for a minor subdivision and a private right of way (sect. 11.35 of the zoning). Such issues as the style, size, and bulk of the proposed houses, as well as whether the existing structure is used as a duplex or a boarding house are, without question, irrelevant. Any future construction or use of the proposed lots, if approved, must be in conformity with the zoning regulations. III. Conformity to Comprehensive Plan One of the primary goals of the Plan relates to protection of existing residential neighborhoods. Such a goal could* orm- _, the basis for a decision on this subdivision, but rather should serve as a policy guideline in applying the subdivision regula- tions. IV. Specific Comments on the Proposed Subdivision 1) Access- Sight distance, on the Laurel Hill Drive east approach, is not the best. The grade of the proposed driveway approaches 11 and is aggravated, to a certain extent by its "S" configuration. The layout of parking and drives between the existing apartments and the proposed cape is extremely constricted. I question the suitability of the access to the proposed garrison primarily due to its proximity to the existing building and the adjoining bank. -2- 2) Soils- Soils on site are Adams sands on varying slopes and fill of unknown quantity and quality. Reliable evidence on the nature and extent of the fill should be provided. 3) Topography & Vegetation- I doubt that the existing pines will s9rviVe if proposed filling and road construction occur. More information on storm drainage and measures to prevent erosion should be supplied. V. Summary Due to the extreme irregularity of topography and lot layout, the location of the existing apartments precludes, in my opinion,, the possibility of setting off lots which can be developed in full compliance with zoning and subdivision regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. Relocation oK ra7,ing of the existing building appears to be the only way that the existing lot may be properly subdivided for additional construction. The possi- bility of subdividing so that abuttors may add on to their lots should be kept open. I GDNiCNc�ESZ1 SuF3D1V1�1�l.1 UK ly -V—TT a EiCCOO&AcJ� A " PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 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 15, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: Final Plat application of Mr. Raymond Conchieri for approval of a minor subdivision, consisting of the division of a parcel of 2.2 acres into 3 residential lots, .7, 1.0, and .6 acres in size, at 62 Laurel Hill Drive. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the South by Laurel Hill Drive and lands of Victor Ratkus, and George Mona, on the North by lands of Benjamin Schweyer, Urban Bergeron, Frederick trallis, and Samuel Goldman, and on the West by lands of iiobert Kelley, Clement Looby,,and Frederick Spencer, as per plans on file at City.Hall, 1175 Williston Road. William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 2/26/77 7o-.- 7,7 . ....n ......., ... .- .. .... . -..... r...�: ,. .• =: , u�. r a w..r_ .7..: ,-K.«.a. •x:.aw.-+e, �. srx. n=+art c..w , :.-. r :: :;:, a awi. :�a�:G'.i.,!.rN:' +.vr9 ..e::, ..+. n ,�:. x ., . �;•.., ...r,r..0 ar, :;r4wa,^�w+t-ur; .. a I Red Tape Form - Circulation { Zoning Administrator Planning Assistant City Manager (Engineer) Fire Chief Police Chief School Directors Recreation Director City Attorney Transportation Engineer (RPC) Natural Resources Comm. Tree Planting Comm. Other c ✓ = no adverse comment x = memo enclosed J. I Czw,wa;;?-.4 - A4uxnvp---=. Lm-r- u,-r-:,-ukj , 4--.1 &".0, 0, , Z&-Z�'" wv-x` 41 GGv -7 -z- -70 llijA- M E M 0 R A N D U,M TO: SOUTH BULINGTON PLANNING COMINIISSION FROMi: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: CONCHIERI SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1977 A description of the proposal, plus a map, is enclosed. It is considered to be a major' subdivision, unless the number of lots is reduced from 4 to 3. I understand the annlicant's i.ntpntinn is tn mnirin +1-1.!:% houses from the site of'the future Burlington Sav_i.n.-g_s' Ba`nk on - Shelburne Road onto two of the proposed lots. I recommend the Planning Commission strongly support recycling efforts such as this one; however, it should be kept in ri;ind that if this subdivision were to be approved, the owner would be free to sell. or build on the proposed lots as he wishes, and is not obligated in any way to move the Bank's houses onto them. My primary concerns with this proposal are as follows: 1) Topoqraphy - Much of the property is steeply sloping. A detailed topographic map showing existing and proposed contours (at least 51 intervals,preferably 21) should be submitted as soon as possible to determine the suitability for siting the private road and additional houses. 2) Soils - Some of the lot has been filled - The suitability of the filled area for a house site should be determined. The potential for erosion appears to be high, without preventative measures being taken. 3) Access - The topes map will indicate whether the driveway grade is acceptable. Some rearrangement of access and parking for the existing dwelling may he necessary to re- duce conflicts in the plan as shown. Legal assurances will. be required regarding maintenance and permanency of the proposed private rights of way. Because of driveway grades and lack of buildable area, I do not feel a city street would be appropriate. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski Re: Conchieri Subdivision Date: February 18, 1977 1. Development of Lot #1 will be extremely difficult due to the limited area for construction of the parking area and driveway behind the existing house on Lot #2. I would discourage development of Lot #1 for that reason and that it will be necessary to extend a water main to at least Lot #3 and install a hydrant mainly to afford fire protection to house on Lot #1. 2. Covenants delineating responsibility for road maintenance must be clearly spelled out. Respectfully submitted, 4 e William J. Szymanski, City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL OF RAY CONCHIERI, LAUREL HILL DRIVE DATE: MARCH 10, 1977 Laurel Hill Drive is zoned R-4 District. Minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with minimum lot frontage of 100 feet. The parcel under consideration contains 2.2 acres with 91 foot frontage. The lot is presently non -conforming to the dimensional requirements. The three proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size, however, requires Planning Commission approval under Section 11.35. Access to the proposed lots should be given serious review, i.e. sight distance on Laurel Hill Drive, grade from Laurel Hill, screening along adjoining property. Internal circulation could be a problem, private drive through a lot. Drainageway is zoned C.O. District, proposed location of "cape" is located within 50 feet of center line. Minimum rear yard required of proposed "cape" is 30 feet. Some question regarding lot size, a survey is required prior to subdivision application. MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND CONCHIERI SUBDIVISION DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 I anticipate that this subdivision review may become an adversary proceeding (a lengthy petition has been submitted). The Planning Commission procedures which were approved last summer follow: Planning Commission Procedures (adopted procedures and meeting agenda to be posted on door). The commission shall decide by majority vote, on what occasions the following procedures are to be invoked. 1. Chairman's introductory remarks - identify project or issue(s), and applicant and his witnesses. 2. Swearing in of applicant and his witnesses en masse. 3. Applicant/witness makes presentation. 4. Commission questions on preceding presentation. 5. Audience questions, directed to Commission, on preceding presentation. 6. City Staff - questions, memos (repeat 3-6 as necessary). 7. Audience - comments, questions, evidence on any aspect germaine to the issues) or project in general. Time shall be reserved at the end of each meeting for input from the audience. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Raymond Conchieri REF: Memorandums to South Burlington Planning Commission from Messrs. Symanski, Ward, and Page DATE: February 21, 1977 The following are my comments relative to reference memorandums. A. William Symanski memorandum dated February 18, 1977. Comments 1. If Mr. Symanski's recommendation to discourage development of lot #1 prevails, then this site development request will have to terminate as: a. Neither the Cape or Garrison homes presently located on Shelburne Road will properly fit on the only remaining lot (lot #4). Due to the steepness of the grade, lot #4 can only accommodate a home such as split level. b. Lot #1 is the nicest of the four lot$ and is where I had planned to relocate my family. 2. Parking will be difficult behind the existing home; however, parking can be relocated to the northern side of the 2 family home, if desirable. 3. A fire hydrant is located on Laurel Hill Drive, approximately 40 feet south of the boundary of the property under consideration. From this hydrant to the Cape home it is approximately 260 feet. The Garrison and 2 Family homes will be located approximately 200 feet from this hydrant. According to the South Burlington Fire Department, any home less than 300 feet from a hydrant presents no problem to service and meets both the insurance standards and present practice for site development (750 feet between hydrants). Unless there is some regulation that.I am not aware of, there should be no need to extend the water main and introduce a fire hydrant as suggested in Mr. Symanski's memo. B. Richard Wa )nemorandum dated February 14, )• Comments 1. The 2.2 acres of land proposed for my subdivision is based on a site survey map provided me by the present owner of the property. The 4.6 acres I know nothing about. 2. If a twenty foot right of way is required by Section 11.35, then the final site survey will be modified to show this. This will be accomplished by adding five foot on either side of the private road which is planned to be ten foot wide. The location of the right of way will be depicted on the final survey for each individual lot. C. Stephen Page memorandum dated February 18, 1977. Comments, 1. Topography - A topographic map, as requested, is being prepared ,in five foot intervals. This map will also show the changes planned to topography on lot #4 to accommodate a split level home and those areas of lot #2, 3, and 4 that will be modified to put in the private road. 2. Soils - Good clean fill was added to the bank behind the Cape house on lot #3. The home and garage will be located on virgin soil. 3. Erosion - The only area that might sustain significant erosion is from the bank edge to the brook bed. This bank has been there for years; however, if deemed necessary, I would be willing to plant some small evergreen trees on the bank to retard any potential erosion situation. 4. Access and Grade - Presently I do not plan to change the grade of the existing driveway unless determined to be essential to meet maximum grade standards. This driveway, which presently serves the two Family home, has not presented any problems but does require plowing due to winter snowstorms. Any changes required to assure easy and safe access will be incorporated into the private road design. 5. I have previously indicated in my original request that the road will be private and not the responsibility of the city of South Burlington. This will be included into the deeds for each lot. It is imperative that I obtain a decision from the Commission relative to this request no later than March 15, 1977. The bank has notified me that my bid on the two homes has been accepted; however, the required removal date is April 15, 1977. The planning and effort necessary for this relocation project is extensive and cannot be accomplished unless the above decision date is met. e ectfully yours, m4Raymond E. Conchieri CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski Re: Conchieri Subdivision Date: February 18-, 1977 1. Development of Lot #1 will be extremely difficult due to the limited area for construction of the parking area and driveway behind the existing house on Lot #2. I would discourage development of Lot #1 for that reason and that it will be necessary to extend a water main to at least Lot #3 and install a hydrant mainly to afford fire protection to house on Lot #1. 2. Covenants delineating responsibility for road maintenance must be clearly spelled out. Respectfully submitted, William J. Szymanski, City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: SOU1TH BURLINGTON PLANTING COrLMISSION FROM: RICHA.RD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE': RAIMOND CONCHIERI, 211 LAUREL HILL DRIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1977 Proposed subdivision located at 62 Laurel Hill Drive. According with information from the Tax map the parcel to be subdivided contains 4.6 acres with 91 ft. frontage. The plan submitted by ;ir. Conchieri shows 2.2 acres with 91 ft. frontage. Proposed site development is the setting off of four lots, each to contain over 20,000 square feet. The proposed road will be a private driveway. Lot --t4 will have frontage on Laurel Hill Drive, the other three lots will be served by the private driveway with no lot frontage. Proposed driveway is non -conforming to Section 11.35 of the zoning regulations. Section 11.35 requires permanent easement or right-of-way of at least 20 feet, also requires Planning Commission approval. 1,4 E 14 0 R A N D U ;, TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PL M,? IING CO,%V4ISSJOIN FROMI: STEPHE1,4 PAGE, PLAivNING ASSISTANT RE: CO`1CriIIRI 5UDDIVISIONf SKETCH PLAIN DATE: FEFRUARY 1.8, 1977 A description of the proposal, plus a man is enclosed. It is considered to be a major subdivision, unless -the nuc;ber of lots is reduced from 4 to 3. I understand the applicant's intention is to move the two houses from the site of the future Burlington Savings Bank on Shelburne Road onto taro of the proposrd .lots, I recommend the Planning Corrmission strongly support recycling efforts such as this one; hov,,ever, it should be kept in r.;ind that if this subdivision %,ere to be approved, the o�'rner would be free to sell or build on the proposed lots as lie v,,ishos, and is not obligated in any tvay to move the Bank's houses onto them. My primary concerns with this proposal are as folloJ!s: 1) TTo._nograph - t.iuch of the property is steeply sloping. A detaile�opographic map shov�:ing existing and proposed contours (at least 5' inte.r-vals, preferably 21) should be submitted as soon as possible to determine the suitability for siting the- private road and additional houses. 2) ;oils - Some of t},e lot has been filled - The suitability of the fillod area for a house site should. he deterr-.inr . The rotenti.al for erosion appears to he high, without preventative measures tieing takccn. _ Inc. 1;01 o rnl,p v.ill i.n is c ncthor the <I i-vc,:Iy C�7raGe 1s accC'-t'at'le. �OrRe l:oa.i:.;-jngclient ! nd f �f �cr.r_•,, a parrinq for the ��xh sti.nc3 Ull!c•11 ink a;' l"=c nrc:c: ;ary to rc- duce conflicts in the Flail as sllo�,.n. L:'cal assurance k•:ill be required re�garJing maintenance and rerr:,anency of the proposed ;-r. ivate rights of �.ay. ocause of drivE�;ay c,.radcs and lack of bui.ldahle area, I do r,r t f ec l a city s trcc't would be aFr- orriat.o. S 47 3 11' 20 O. ol n .00" wait Pl A' < 0/\ Gs MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANP;ING COMI ISSION FROM: RICHAIiD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: RAYMOND CONCHIERI, 211 LAUREL 1JILL DRIVE DATE: F'EBRUARY 14, 1977 Proposed subdivision located at 62 Laurel Hill. Drive. Acco,ding with information from the Tax map the parcel to be subdivided contains 4.6 acres with 91 ft. frontage. The plan submitted by Mir. Conchieri shows 2.2 acres with 91 ft. frontage. Proposed site development is the setting off of four lots, each to contain over 207000 square feet. The Proposed road will be a private driveway. Lot #4 will have frontage on Laurel Hill Drive, the other three lots will be served by the private driveway with no lot frontage. Proposed driveway is non -conforming to Section 11.35 of the zoning regulations. Section 11.35 requires permanent easement or right-of-way of at least 20 feet, also requires Planning Commission approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski Re: Conchieri Subdivision Date: February 18-, 1977 1. Development of Lot #1 will be extremely difficult due to the limited area for construction of the parking area and driveway behind the existing . house on Lot #2. I would discourage development of Lot #1 for that reason and that it'will be necessary to extend a water main to at least Lot #3 and install a hydrant mainly to afford fire protection to house on Lot #1. 2. Covenants delineating responsibility for road maintenance must be clearly spelled out. Respectfully submitted, William J. Szymanski, City Manager PRESENT STATUS TWO (2) FAMILY HOME AND POOL WITH FENCE AROUND IT ARE PRESENTLY ON THE LOT WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES IN SIZE. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. SUBDIVIDE LOT INTO FOUR PARCELS. EACH PARCEL WILL BE GREATER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 2. EXTEND PRESENT DRIVEWAY (PRESENT DRIVEWAY ENDS JUST IN FRONT OF CAPE HOME) BEHIND THE TWO FAMILY HOME AND OVER TO GARRISON HOME. 3. FABRICATE AND/OR RELOCATE HOMES (CAPE AND GARRISON) PRESENTLY LOCATED ON SHELBURNE ROAD TO RESPECTIVE LOTS AS SHOWN. 4. REGRADE HILL ON LOT #4 SO AS TO PROVIDE IMPROVED SITE FOR SPLIT LEVEL HOME. EARTH REMOVED FROM HILL WILL BE RELOCATED BEHIND 2 FAMILY HOME TO PROVIDE PROPER GRADE FOR DRIVEWAY AND PARKING. 5. BRING IN UNDERGROUND WIRING & SEWERS TO CAPE AND GARRISON HOME. 6. HAVE PROFESSIONAL SURVEY MADE AND LEGAL DEEDS PREPARED FOR EACH LOT. INCORPORATE INTO EACH DEED THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOT OWNER WILL SHARE ONE FOURTH OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE AND PLOWING OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. No Text (7l o�nao Ful M. HILL S 47 031' 20" E 147.30' 1 a -� 1p ro 14 E vE l..0 NOE. N ]i 1�• O 15)/ F so, O�p Nk