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