Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-10-09 - Decision - 0085 Meadowland DriveCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BURLINGTON PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECONSIDERATION REQUEST OF #SD-10-09 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-10-09 of Burlington Properties Limited Partnership for a planned unit development to subdivide a 77.6 acre parcel developed with a light manufacturing facility into four (4) lots ranging in size from 4.93 acres to 38.55 acres at 85 Meadowland Drive was submitted on March 10, 2010. 2. A public notice on the request was published in Seven Days on March 17, 2010 and a public hearing held by the Development Review Board on April 6, 2010. 3. A preliminary and final plat decision was issued by the Development Review Board granting approval, with conditions, on April 12, 2010. 4. On April 19, 2010, Burlington Properties Limited Partnership (hereinafter the "Applicant") submitted a written request for reconsideration of the DRB decision issued on April 12, 2010. 5. The Development Review Board considered the reconsideration request at its April 20, 2010, regular meeting. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 24 V.S.A. section 4470 gives the DRB authority to reject a request for reconsideration without hearing and render a decision, which shall include findings of fact, within ten days of the date of filing of the request. The decision shall be rendered, on notice given as in the case of a decision under 24 V.S.A. section 4464(b)(3). 2. The Board's response to a motion to reconsider is potentially a multi -step process. First, the Board determines whether there are grounds to reopen the hearing on an application. 3. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that [s]ubstantial authority supports the proposition that a municipal zoning authority may reopen proceedings and reconsider a decision where new evidence is submitted. See Nash v. Warren Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment, 153 Vt. 108, 114 (1989) (emphasis added); see also In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 501 (1991). 4. The power to reopen is akin to the power of a court to grant a new trial or relief from judgment and must be supported by good cause... (...the standard is "substantial change of conditions or circumstances" or showing that the [Board's] decision was induced by "fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertence"). In re Maple Tree Plane, 156 Vt. 494, 502 (1991) (citations omitted)(emphasis added). 5. The Development Review Board concludes that Applicant has not submitted any evidence to warrant a reopening of the proceedings. In addition, any request to reopen a hearing and reconsider a decision must be accompanied by a demonstration that there is good cause for the Board to reopen its hearing on a matter. The interested person who requests that the Board reopen a hearing and reconsider a decision must demonstrate that there has been some substantial change of conditions or circumstances since the Board closed the hearing on the subject application or that the Board's decision is based in whole or in part on a fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertence. The Development Review Board concludes that there has been no demonstration that there is good cause for the Board to reopen its hearing in this matter. DECISION Motion by Gayle Quimby, seconded by Roger Farley to approve the request of Burlington Properties Limited Partnership to reconsider preliminary and final plat decision #SD-10-09. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain/not present Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain/not present John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea/nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/not present Bill Stuono — yea/nay/abstain/not present Motion failed by a vote of 0-5-0 The request for reconsideration is hereby denied. Signed this �day of April 2010, by John Dinklage, Chairman E� Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $250.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy, - finality).