The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP-09-95 - Decision - 0118 0124 Oakwood Drive#SP-09-95 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING OAKWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION — 118-124 OAKWOOD DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-09-95 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Oakwood Homeowners Association, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for two (2) two-family dwellings. The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan, 118-124 Oakwood Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 5, 2010. Sarah Lenes represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for two (2) two-family dwellings. The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan, 118-124 Oakwood Drive. 2. The application was received on November 30, 2009. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is the Oakwood Homeowners Association 4. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted is entitled, 118-124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Gardener's Supply Company, dated November, 2009. 6. The planned unit development was approved in 2004 (#SD-04-17) with an approved landscaping plan and minimum landscaping budget of $10,500, much of which was to be used for a 160' hedge to be planted between the units and the existing wetland to serve as a natural fence. 7. The proper landscaping was never installed, and so now the owner of the property, in the form of the homeowner's association, has submitted a revised plan which reflects some of the original landscaping, additional landscaping planted since, and proposed new additions to the landscaping plan. 8. The applicant maintains that $6100 in landscaping exists on the site. This value has not been itemized. The applicant is proposing an additional $1586 in landscaping, as well as $2980 in installation costs (labor and delivery), for a total of $10,666. This 1 I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Oakwood_SP0955_ffd.doc #SP-09-95 appears to meet the original landscape budget, although more of the budget appears to be dedicated to labor costs than to the actual plants. DECISION Motion by I cc� Ive 1 seconded by `,1 f�c r to approve Site PI n Application SP-09-95 of the Oakwood Homeowners Association subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr -1�e/nay/abstain/not presen Matthew Birmingh — yea/nay/abstain not resent John Dinklage nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — e nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — ye /nay/abstain not resent Gayle QuimbWenay/abstain/not /nay/abstain/not present Bill Stuono — present Motion carried by a vote of -!�:- v - U Signed this �'� day 2010, by 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 $225.00. 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). 2 hDevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Oakwood_SP0955_ffd.doc #SD-06-13 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ROBIN J. PIERCE — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 118-124 OAKWOOD DRIVE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-06-13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Robin J. Pierce, referred to hereafter as the applicant, is seeking approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 2-family dwellings on a 37,380 sq. ft. lot. The amendment consists of 1) minor modifications to the building footprints and 2) minor relocation of the building locations, 118-124 Oakwood Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 4, 2006. The applicant was present at the meeting. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) 2-family dwellings on a 37,380 sq. ft. lot. The amendment consists of 1) minor modifications to the building footprints and 2) minor relocation of the building locations, 118-124 Oakwood Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Robin J. Pierce. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 7 (R7) Zoning District. 4. The plans submitted consist of a plat entitled, "Oak Wood Commons Planned Community 118, 120, 122, 124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT existing Conditions Site Plan", prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated 3/2/06, last revised on 3/21 /06. 5. These amendments are an attempt to correct the discrepancies between the approved site plan and the buildings as built. The two 2-family dwellings have been built. The Administrative Officer discovered that the buildings did not match the approved plans, as the distance between them is less (built as 7.8') than what was depicted on the approved plans. Furthermore, "Building B" was built less than five feet from the approved ROW. 6. There are no problems with the proximity of the two buildings. There are no regulations specifying how close buildings may or may not be from each other. 7. With respect to the proximity of the building to the ROW, the applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment that would decrease the ROW to 49' for a - 1 - #SD-06-13 portion of Oakwood Drive, as depicted on the plans submitted March 22, 2006. The one foot reduction of the ROW for this small stretch is supported. DECISION A Motion by APtI� �i i P� seconded by tAR y KqPoUmA� to approve Final Plat Application #SD-06-13 of Robin J. Pierce, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. 3 Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 4. The final plat plan shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 5. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall record legal documents, approved by the City Attorney, for the revised right-of-way for the extension of Oakwood Drive. Mark Behr — nay/abstain/not present,,,—, Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain/ of prese Chuck Bolton — e nay/abstain/not presen John Dinklage — e /nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — /nay/abstain/not present Larry Kupferman —69/nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/ rese Motion carried by a vote of �-- v -0 Signed this day of l-"J� ?'z z 2006, by John Dinklage, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this -2- #SD-06-13 decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. 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). -3-