Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB-92-0000 - Decision - 0508 Shelburne RoadPLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON NOTICE OF DECISION IN RE: APPLICATION OF HEATHCOTE ASSOCIATES This matter came before the South Burlington Planning Commission on October 13, 1992 on the application of Heathcote Associates 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. Heathcote Associates was 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 application involves a commercial property located on Shelburne Road in the City of South Burlington which is commonly known as the Factory Outlet Mall. Portions of this commercial property pre -date the adoption of zoning regulations and subdivision regulations in the City of South Burlington. 2. On or about September 27, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a substantial expansion of this commercial property despite the presence of poor traffic circulation on site, inadequate parking and a total lack of landscaping and other site amenities. In granting the requested approval, the Planning Commission was strongly influenced by the Applicant's proposal to upgrade substantially the site upon the granting of the approval. But for such proposed upgrades of the site, the Planning Commission would not have granted the requested approval in 1988. 3. The Planning Commission set forth its approval in a Notice of Decision and Statement of Conditions dated October 14, 1988. This decision contained numerous detailed conditions and expressly assumed "strict compliance [emphasis added] with all terms and conditions of this approval". 4. Condition No. 8 provides: Applicant has represented to the Planning Commission that the Lease with the existing bank shown on the above -referenced site layout plan expires in 1990. Applicant shall not enter into a new Lease that provides for the continuation of the existing drive - through facility. Upon expiration of the existing Lease, applicant shall remove all pavement and concrete from the drive -through lane and the five parking spaces shown to the east of the existing bank building and reclaim such spaces with suitable landscaping. Following expiration of the present Lease, the existing bank building shall only be leased for purposes of providing a bank facility. If the existing building is not leased as a bank facility, it will be removed and the underlying area will be reclaimed with landscaping. 5. The Lease with the existing bank on site has expired and applicant now asks that Condition No. 8 be amended to allow it to enter into a new Lease with the bank that will allow the continuation of the drive -through facility. In support of this request, applicant has submitted a revised site plan entitled "Factory Outlet Center - Bank Site Plan - Alternate I", consisting of sheets 1-4, prepared by Lamoureux and Stone, Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 30, 1992, last revised September 8, 1992, which depicts certain modifications of the site related to the drive -through bank facility. 6. 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 effecting 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. 7. As is discussed in detail in the Planning Commission's original decision, it was concerned, in general, with several substandard conditions existing on the subject property at the time of its approval in 1988. These included trip generation, traffic circulation, landscaping, and parking. The Planning Commission continues to be concerned with these matters on this site. 8. The applicant has submitted information setting forth the aspects of its proposal which it claims will enable it to renew the bank lease with a drive -through facility while improving certain conditions on site. That is not the issue presently before the Planning Commission. The applicant has failed to provide the Planning Commission evidence of a substantial change in circumstances effecting 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. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this Zo-�Iday of October, 1992. 10/ ,�V/ William L. Burge s, Chairperson I:\SON096.dec