HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB-82-0000 - Decision - 0508 Shelburne RoadPLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
IN RE: APPLICATION OF CHITTENDEN BANK
NOTICE OF DECISION
This matter came before the South Burlington Planning
Commission on November 10, 1992 on the application of the
Chittenden Bank to amend the Notice of Decision and Statement of
Conditions approved by the Planning Commission on September 27,
1988 and dated October 14, 1988, as amended on August 29, 1989,
December 5, 1989, January 9, 1990, October 29, 1991, and April
28, 1992. The Chittenden Bank was present and was represented by
Chris Bishop. Heathcote Associates, was also present and was
represented by Peter Collins, Esq. Based upon the information
provided the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby
renders the following decision:
Decision
1. This request involves the bank facility operated by the
Chittenden Bank which is co -located with the Factory Outlet Mall,
so-called, on Shelburne Road in the City of South Burlington.
The Chittenden Bank leases this facility from Heathcote
Associates.
2. Heathcote Associates is the owner of the subject
property and as owner consented to this request by the Chittenden
Bank.
3. By the above -referenced decision, dated October 14,
1988, the Planning Commission imposed a condition on Heathcote
Associates that following expiration of the lease in effect for
the bank facility, it would not renew permission for the
operation of a drive-thru facility.
4. It is the City's understanding that the lease in effect
on October 14, 1988 for the bank facility expired on or around
October 31, 1991. By amendment of its original approval on
October 29, 1991, the Planning Commission granted Heathcote
Associates permission to continue operating a drive-thru facility
in connection with the bank for an additional six (6) months to
enable approval of plans for a substantial redesign of traffic
circulation and parking facilities incorporating the Heathcote
property and adjoining property owned by Thomas Farrell. On
April 28, 1992, the Planning Commission granted a further
extension of six (6) months to allow further development of such
plans.
5. On October 13, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed
plans submitted by Heathcote Associates for revision of the bank
drive-thru facility and concluded, by Decision dated October 20,
1992 that said plans did not constitute a substantial change from
conditions existing on the property. On such basis, the Planning
Commission denied the requested approval. Heathcote Associates
has appealed this denial to the Chittenden Superior Court.
6. By letter dated October 26, 1992, the Chittenden Bank
requested an additional six month period during which it could
continue to operate its drive-thru facility while it explored the
possibility of relocating its banking facility to adjoining
property of Thomas Farrell.
7. The Planning Commission was provided no evidence that
the approval and implementation of plans for the relocation of
the Chittenden Bank to property of Thomas Farrell would result in
elimination of the bank drive-thru facility on the Heathcote
property. Indeed the contrary is suggested by the action of
Heathcote Associates appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission denying the request of Heathcote Associates for
approval to modify the bank drive-thru facility.
8. This Planning Commission is not required to consider a
requested amendment of an earlier decision unless the request is
supported by a substantial change of conditions or other
considerations materially affecting the merits of the request.
See In Re Application of Carrier, 155 Vt. 152 (1990). The
applicant has the burden of proving that such a change has
occurred.
9. In this case there is absolutely no evidence before the
Planning Commission that the requested amendment will result in
any change in the property which is the subject of this
proceeding, the Factory Outlet Mall owned by Heathcote
Associates. Consequently, the applicant, Chittenden Bank, has
failed to provide the Planning Commission evidence of a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the merits of the
Planning Commission's earlier approval. Since the applicant has
failed to meet its burden of proof, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the applicant's request to amend the Planning
Commission's October 14, 1988 decision, as previously amended.
Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, thisi Pt, day of
November, 1992.
William Burge s, hair an
H:\SON118.dec