Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-02-01 - Decision - 1125 Shelburne Road#AO-oz-oi STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RE: APPEAL OF LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP This matter came before the South Burlington Development Review Board pursuant to 24 VSA, Section 4464 (a) on appeal of Administrative Officer #AO-oz-oi of Larkin Milot Partnership, hereinafter "Appellant" appealing Notice of Violation #NV-o2-04 alleging a violation of condition #5 of the South Burlington Planning Commission's March 3, 1992 approval requiring shared parking among all the commercial uses within the planned unit development which includes the restaurant at u25 Shelburne Road. The Appellant was present at the public hearing held on March 5, zooz relative to this appeal. Based on evidence submitted at the hearing and as part of this application, the South Burlington Development Review Board hereby renders the following decision on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT i. The owner of record of this property is Larkin Milot Partnership. z. On January 16, zooz the Administrative Officer mailed Notice of Violation #NV-02-04 to the Appellant alleging the zoning violation. 3. The Appellant received the Notice of Violation and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Administrative Officer on January 31, zooz. 4. On i2/ii/90 the Planning Commission approved a planned unit development which was amended on 3/3/92 to include i5o residential units, a 61 room hotel, and 20,000 sq. ft. movie theatre (i000 seats, a zz,000 sq. ft. retail building, and a 3100 sq. ft. fast-food restaurant with drive through service. 5. The Planning Commission found that the commercial portion of the development required 592 parking spaces. The plan submitted and approved showed 465 spaces thereby granting a 127 space waiver for a 21.5% shortfall. The reason this waiver was granted was because the applicant had submitted a "shared parking analysis" indicating that 465 spaces was the total peak parking demand. 6. The Planning Commission approved a revised plan on 2/2/94 with 489 spaces as the shared parking study submitted with the application indicated a total peak parking demand of 489 spaces. An amendment by the Development Review Board on 11/2/99 reduced the total peak parking demand by four (4) spaces to 485 spaces based on the changes in use proposed. A revised shared parking study was submitted to support the application. Page #z 7. The issue is that the Appellant is not living up to the requirement to share all the commercial parking spaces equally with all the commercial tenants. Staff became aware of this problem in October 1994 and has since been attempting to obtain compliance through correspondence from staff and the City Attorney, and a meeting with Mr. Milot and a representative from McDonald's in June z000. Despite these attempts to obtain compliance, the Appellant continues to be in violation. 8. The McDonald's property currently has seven (7) signs placed within the parking area adjacent to their restaurant reading, "McDonald's Customer Parking Only Violators Will Be Towed At Owner's Expense". CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The South Burlington Development Review Board concludes that the Appellant is in violation of the South Burlington Planning Commission's March 3, 199z approval requiring shared parking among all the commercial uses within the planned unit development which includes the restaurant at 11z5 Shelburne Road. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington Development Review Board hereby denies the appeal of Larkin Milot Partnership and upholds the Administrative Officer's determination that the Appellant is in violation of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations by erecting seven (7) signs reading "McDonald's Customer Parking Only Violators Will Be Towed At Owner's Expense" at IIz5 Shelburne Road. i Dated this day of March, zooz at South Burlington, Vermont Chair or -22 Please note:`Vou have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4471 and V.R.C.P. 76, in writing, within 3o days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $15o.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 z4 V.S.A. 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy finality).