HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-18-01 - Supplemental - 1505 Dorset Street (6)
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
November 16, 2018
To: Bill Miller, Chair, Development Review Board
Re: #AO‐18‐01 1505 Dorset Street – Appeal of Administrative Officer re: Dorset Meadows
On behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, et al., Murphy Sullivan Kronk has filed an appeal of the administrative
officer’s decisions that the Master Plan application #MP‐18‐01 and preliminary plat application #SD‐18‐29
were complete on September 26, 2018. This document outlines how the DRB is required to proceed in the
case of such an appeal.
A. Interested Persons
Only persons which meet the criteria for interested persons can give testimony. Interested persons may
appeal any decision made in this issue. Other persons can ask questions but cannot provide testimony.
Interested persons are defined in 24 V.S.A. §4465 (b)(3) and 24 V.S.A. §4465 (b)(4) as follows. You may wish to
read these paragraphs out loud.
(3) A person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property that is the
subject of any decision or act taken under this chapter, who can demonstrate a physical or environmental
impact on the person's interest under the criteria reviewed, and who alleges that the decision or act, if
confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms of the plan or bylaw of that
municipality.
(4) Any ten persons who may be any combination of voters or real property owners within a
municipality listed in subdivision (2) of this subsection who, by signed petition to the appropriate municipal
panel of a municipality, the plan or a bylaw of which is at issue in any appeal brought under this title, allege
that any relief requested by a person under this title, if granted, will not be in accord with the policies,
purposes, or terms of the plan or bylaw of that municipality. This petition to the appropriate municipal panel
must designate one person to serve as the representative of the petitioners regarding all matters related to
the appeal.
Staff has confirmed that the appellants are claiming status under both 24 V.S.A. §4465 (b)(3) and 24 V.S.A.
§4465 (b)(4). This means they are making a claim that the decision being appealed is not compliant with the
rules, and that the decision has physical or environmental impacts on their property.
Once the definitions have been made clear, persons wishing to claim interested persons status who are not
party to the appeal should identify themselves and state the reason they believe they qualify for interested
person status as specifically as possible using the criteria of 24 V.S.A. §4465 (b)(3) and 24 V.S.A. §4465 (b)(4).
Once a list is established, the Board should go into a brief deliberation to determine whether to grant
interested person status to those identified.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
B. Testimony
After each party testifies and indeed at any point, the Board should be given the opportunity to ask questions
for clarity. The Board should keep in mind that they are the adjudicating body and not a party to the case. In
other words, they should listen to testimony and ask questions but not provide their own testimony.
Administrative officer: The administrative officer(s) should be allowed to present testimony first. The
administrative officer(s) will describe the contents of the packet on the matter.
Appellant: After the Board has asked questions, the appellant’s attorney, Daniel Seff, should be
allowed to present testimony.
Applicant: Next the applicant or applicant’s attorney, Robert Rushford, should be invited to present
testimony. He is not required to provide any testimony and may choose not to do so.
Interested Persons: Each additional interested person should be then allowed to present testimony.
They are representing themselves. The interested persons who are represented by Daniel Seff are
not anticipated to provide testimony.
Responses: Once all testimony has been given, each party should be given an opportunity to respond.
The City’s attorney may respond on behalf of the administrative officer(s).
C. Conclusion
Once testimony has been taken, the Board should close the hearing. The Board does not need to respond or
discuss any of the presented testimony. Rather they will issue a decision in a normal deliberative session.
Additional Information
The applications under appeal are tentatively scheduled to be heard on December 18, 2018. This is not
specifically relevant to the hearing and does not need to be shared. Rather it is to flesh out your
understanding of where things stand.
Sincerely,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner
Assistant Administrative Officer