Loading...
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