Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-93-0000 - Supplemental - 1223 Shelburne RoadCHITTENDEN BANK MARTIN, Donald Agent 1223 Shelburne Road Area zoned C-2 District. Section 18.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements, minimum lot required 40,000 square feet with 200 feet frontage. Existing lot 4.63 acres with 400 foot frontage. Planned Commercial Development Section 11.053, minimum 4 acres with 350 feet frontage. Propose subdivision, 7 lots: Lot A - 4556 square feet Lot B - 5728 square feet Lot C - 3830 square feet Lot D - 4394 square feet Lot E - 4808 square feet Lot F - 3922 square feet Lots A thru F - no frontage Common land parcel 4.03 acres with 400 foot frontage. M E M O A N D U M To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Lakewood Commons Date: October 29, 1993 This project was originally approved by the Planning Commission as a Planned Commercial Development. Under Section 11.50 P.C.D's are permitted "in order to encourage innovation of design and layout, more efficient use of land". Modifications of area, density and dimensional requirements are permitted by the Planning Commission during the review and approval of a P.C.D. A Planned Commercial Development is defined as an area of land controlled by a landowner and developed as a single entity. The request by the Chittenden Bank violates the entire Planned Commercial Development provision of zoning regulations. If it is the intent of the City to allow approved P.C.D.'s to be sub -divided into non -conforming lots, I submit to the Board that amendments to Section 11.50 of the City Zoning Regulations should be considered by the Planning Commission. Before any action is taken by the Board on this appeal, the Planning Commission should provide the Zoning Board with direction regarding the approval of any future Planned Commercial Developments. ' r I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 26, 1993 Mr. Donald Martin Chittenden Bank P.O. Sox 820 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Dear Mr. Martin: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, November 8, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your zoning application. Please plan to attend and be prepared to address the criteria enclosed. Very ,truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative officer 1 Encl RW/mcp r UL1c.1Cr5Lc111U Lcie presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fob -h Mondays). That a legal dvertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen ,-5) days prior to the hear-,ig. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week Month Appeal of at to consider the following: and Date Time �y 6 seeking a /�-r ` /1 from Section /JP" d M Owl" - of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to 4 ' �.1,� ,+..ar fit"! �!! F 0 1� iL71 /Y(! d�/ �/�'► t-� ¢. r .w Tw �.�.� Cyr a.,.�.2.�-a , .�v < a%� ate" / � � 3 �1���-mot ••�. SOUTH BURLINGTOK ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zon- ing Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burling- ton Zoning Board of Ad- justment will hold a public hearing at the South Bur- lington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Bur- lington, Vermont on Mon- dayy November 8, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: .1 Appeal of Allenbrook Homes for Youth, Inc. seeking a variance from Section 19.00 Non -con- forming uses, sub -section 19.003 extensions of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to con- struct an addition, con- taining approximately 600 square feet to the Jarrett House Group Home, lo- cated at 100 Allen Road. .2 Appeal of Gary Barrett seeking a variance from Section 19.00 Non- conforming uses - sub section 19.003 extension of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to construct a 46'x55' addi- tion (repair shop and stor- age area) plus a 14'x30' second story addition to an office area on a lot containing approximately 1.5 acres. Property occu- pied by two single family Continued Next Column dwellings and a commer- cial use d.b.a. Barrett's Tree Service, located at 376 Patchen Road. .3 Appeal of Andrew nd Patricia Rickard seek- ig a variance from Sec - on 18.00 Dimensional 3quirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regula, ons. Request is for per- iission to construct a 4'x30' attached garage ) within ten (10) feet of ie northerly rear prop- rty line, located at 12 lhite Place. .4 Appeal of One win Oaks Association eeking approval from ection 10.20 Conditional ses sub -section 10.202 lay care centers and section 19.65 Multiple ses of the South Burling- :)n Zoning Regulations. lequest is for permission D operate a day care enter (maximum of 12 hlldren) in conJunctloni rith existing medical and rofessionaf offices, on a )t containing 1.8 acres, )cated at 200 Twin Oaks errace. .5 Appeal of Chitten- Ion Bank, Donald Martin, igent seeking a variance rom Section 18.00 Area, ensity and dimensional aquirement of the South lurlington Zoning Regula- ons. Request is for per- iission to sub -divide an xisting Planned Com- iercial Development ommonly known as akewood Commons, into ix (6) lots (average of 500 square feet) and ommon land parcel con- fining four (4) acres, lo- ated at 1223 Shelburne load. Plans are on file with )e South Burlington lanning and Zoning of, ce, located at City HaU,, 75 Dorset Street, South, urlington, Vermont. Richard Ward;' Zoning Administrative Officer October 23, 1993 90: IPM CHITT. HK =�Mt';- u 7 L P. 0"1 1200T City of .ouch Burlington A4-LICATION # Application to Board of Adjustment Date October 12, 1993 Applicant Chittanden Basil:, Mr. Don Martin Owner, 7easoo, agent HEARING DATE FILING DATE., FEE AMOUNT Address _ p, 0,_ Box U.0 ,_Burlington Telephone # 660-1430 ,Landowner, I Samg as an»licant (see_ accached} Address Location and description of property 6 buildinge on Lakewood- Commons. ^ Type of application check one {' ) appeal from decision of Administrative Offi.cer.( )request for a conditional use ( X ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 41468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a ,month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (1.5) days prior, to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question _Section 11.507(b) of the zoning re s�. The minimum lot size in this district Is 40,400 a.f. The ekisting lots A-F range in site rom, 8 to 7001 s • f . N sera r d �aea N/A r . The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information hie will s rve as support evidence to the � Nearing Date Signature of Appellant/ / it Do not write below this line SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Tittle 240 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold A public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on _ Day of Week at _ Co consider the followings .Month and eta Time Appe'al of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request in for permission to TO: Lakewood Common Owners FROM: John P. Pitrowiski, Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. RE: Correction To Permit Status • DATE: October 8, 1993 Dear Lakewood Common Owners: The State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources have reviewed the status of the permitting for Lakewood Commons and have identified a number of loose ends which has to be resolved (see attached letter dated May 10, 1993 from Jessanne Wyman - Assistant Regional Engineer). The initial involvement of the State occurred when a State employee tried to shut down Jakes Restaurant for having too many seats. The seating capacity had been properly permitted through the City but not the State (the difference was only 25 seats). Mr. Edward Loeffler of Jakes Restaurant retained our services to assist them in resolving the matter. At that time the State identified a number of other loose ends that existed that they wanted resolved. The most significant loose end is that a Subdivision Permit is required. This is because the deeds to each of the buildings on Lakewood Commons indicates that the land beneath the buildings as well as the buildings were sold to the individual owners. This constitutes a subdivision which has never been permitted through the State or local authorities. The original permittees have transferred the project to the Chittenden Bank (Mr. Don Martin is the bank's representative for this project). The bank has retained our services to assist in resolving the loose ends identified in the attached letter from Ms. Jessanne Wyman. Although it is not the Bank's responsibility they are willing to work toward meeting the State and City's requirements regarding the subdivision permit, to a limited extent. At some juncture it may be necessary to call an Owner's Association meeting to help share in the financial responsibility. Several of the issues noted in Ms. Wyman's letter have been resolved per my response letter dated July 27, 1993 (copy attached). I am hoping to resolve the remaining issues as quickly as possible. To that end I am asking each of the owners to sign the Subdivision Application as co -applicants as requested by the State (copy attached). I would greatly appreciate your prompt response to this request. To assist you in your prompt response. we are enclosing a self addressed, stamped envelope. As it stands now, these loose ends with the State create an encumbrance on your property. I hope to resolve them quickly and orderly. Page 2 If you have any questions, please feel free to call meat 879- 6331. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CON`SSUU"LTING ENGINEERS, INC. John P. Pitrowiski JPP/jlv cc: Mr. Dan Martin Carl Lisman, Esq. Steve Knudson, Esq. Building A O'Brien Salons Fay Real Estate Appraisers Building B Edward & Dale Loeffler Building C Paul Kaza Assoc. Building D Gordon Ahlers, M.D. Bell Financial Services, David Bell N.J. Clark Hearing Instruments, Inc./Sonotone Gale Golden Norrell Temporary Services Robert & Lorrie Rothman Jerry Mannock Arrow Tech Associates, Inc. Building E O'Brien's Training Center Blodgett Insurance Mark Hill Investments, Inc. Mill Publishing/Business Digest Knowledge -Based Systems Building F SportStyle Rob Rothman lakeuood.ltr Ls State of Vermont w. w,�\7w Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests. Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council Edward H. Loeffler 1233 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation t Ill West Street Esser: Jct. , VT 05452 Phone h(802) 879-6563 TDD 1-800-253-0191 May 10, 1993 Re: Case Number WW-4-0600; application for approval for 29 x 15' addition to existing restaurant and increase seating from 150 to 175 seats, in previously approved building, located at Lakewood Commons, Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont. Dear Mr. Loeffler: Our office has completed an initial review of the above referenced project and have determined that the additional information listed below will be needed before approval can be granted. 1) As I discussed with you on the phone the original permit (4CO395-4)Land the one for your restaurant and the other buildings)was approved on a 4.6 acre parcel. If the land has been subdivided and you were conveyed a portion of it, a subdivision permit should have been obtained prior to the conveyance. To expedite the process, if the other buildings have also been conveyed with portions of the land, we ask that the following be submitted. a) A completed subdivision application form. Each of the landowners should be listed as co -applicants. You can submit a separate sheet with their names , addresses and signatures. aO.ev cps Of 4,61t ! 5 '. b) The fee is 6*144M"Pper lot. For example: if 5 buildings have been conveyed with own lots, the fee would be 5 x 100 = S 500.00. c) The remaining common land Could be covered by a Deferral. A Deferral application form is enclosed. 'this fee is S25.00. (l ) Submit two sets of a site plan showing aLl the boundary difne.ns�ons for- each lot., sire of each lot, and size or.' remaining common land. 2. ) In reviewing our files l fot.ind the fol..iowin; out.standirit, issue:, that, need to be addressed: Regional Offices - BaiiP.!Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Splingflleld.St. Johnshmy N" Edward Loeffler May 10, 1993 Page 2 a.) Building E was originally approved for use as an office building and I can not find any record of approving the change of use for a portion to be used as a hair salon. A Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal permit application and fee will need to be submitted to approve this use. Regarding the sewer allocation, the five office buildings were granted a blanket approval for 4800 gpd. If an engineering breakdown of design flows for the 5 "office" buildings, including the flows for the hair salon exceed 4800 gpd, a letter from the municipality approving the additional gallons per day will be required. If the breakdown of design flows is tinder 4800 gpd, we will need a letter ( from who ever is authorized to sign for the project) stating that the hair salon will be allocated the additions gallons per day it needs from the original 4800 gpd. V Itismy understanding that building F has been built. eviewing the original plans vs. the recent plans it ars that there have been miner changes to the location of the exterior sewer lines, and we need a certification of construction from professional engineer on manhold lA and the sewer lines as required in Public Building Permit PB-4- 1321. r A proposed retail building and proposed hotel are shown on j the recent plans submitted; however it is our understanding that approved for them is not requested at this time. 4 To expedite the review process I am sending copies of this Vetter to several of the other building owners, as well as the Crittenden Ban). It is my understanding that the original permittes tia,,-,e transferred the project to several others. X5 Please be advised that our fees maybe increasing as of June 1993. The application must be submitted before June 1, 1993 in order to avoid the fee increase. l r Edward Loeffler May 10, 1993 Page 3 Please note that no construction is granted until written, approval is issued by the Division and all other authorities. Please address resubmitted information to engineer in charge of project. Please submit two copies of any revised plans. Upon receipt of the above items, we shall continue our review. Should there be any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact. me. Sincerely, J 'vv Jessanne Wyman Assistant Regional Engineer Enclosures CC: City of South Burlington Trudell Consulting Engineers Michael Seaver/Chittenden Bank Bill O'Brien Richard & Margaret Eastman Charles Brush IrTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. t July 27, 1993 Ms. Jessanne Wyman, Assistant Regional Engineer Agency of Natural Resources 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 RE: Lakewood Commons (TCE #93034) Dear Jessanne: On April 7, 1993 I submitted an application to Mr. Lou Borie (District Coordinator) on behalf of Edward and Dale Loeffler. The application was for a 29 x 15 foot addition that has already been constructed. You responded to my letter with review comments dated May 10, 1993. Subsequent to your letter we have had several conversations by telephone. Since the majority of your review comments are not related to the Loefflers but rather all of Lakewood Commons, the Chittenden Bank has retained our services to help resolve the issues you note. I offer the following in response to your review comments: 1. You indicated that if each of the building owners own the land beneath their building then a subdivision has been created which has not been permitted. Our deed research indicates that 3 of the buildings and land beneath them are owned privately and 3 have been condominiumized. I will ask the Bank to have their attorney confirm that the 3 buildings condominiumized have also been subdivided. We have completed our field survey and deed research for all the buildings at Lakewood Commons. Once we have determined the answer on the condominiumized buildings we will complete a subdivision application with the Chittenden Bank as applicant and all the building owners as co -applicants as you suggested. We will plan to include an application fee of $150 per lot created. We will also complete a deferral application to cover the common land and include the appropriate application fee ($25). As you can imagine, it may take awhile to get everyone's signature. Please be assured that we will make the submittal once we have received the signed application. P. O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Page 2 2. You indicted Building E was approved for office use and not a hair salon. You also indicated that a Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit application is needed for the change in use. The change in use required an added sewer allocation of 320 gpd (see attached May 10, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes). I will fill out the above noted application and get the owners signature and submit this to you in the near future. 3. You requested certification for the exterior sewer lines serving Building F. We recently conducted a site visit to observe the condition of sewer manholes 1, 1A and 2. There was no evidence of infiltration or clogging. In reviewing our files I have a record of a certification statement submitted to Mr. Ernie Christianson (copy attached), which covers everything except manhole lA and the related sewer mains. I have included a current certification and the related testing results for this. 4. The proposed retail building and proposed hotel are not part of this application. Thank you for your help on the telephone and for your patience. I will continue to assemble the information you have requested and forward it you when it is ready. Very truly yours, TRU ELL CCOONSULTI G EN NEERS, INC. John P. Pitrowiski JPP/jlv cc: Mr. Don Martin (Chittenden Bank) Mr. Carl Lisman Mr. Dale Loffler (Jakes) TTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. July 27, 1993 Ms. Jessanne Wyman, Assistant Regional Engineer Agency of Natural Resources 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 RE: Lakewood Commons, South Burlington, Vermont (TCE #85086/93034) Dear Ms. Wyman: In accordance with Condition #7 of Certification of Compliance 4C0395-5A, we certify that sewer manhole lA and the related upstream and downstream sewer main was installed in accordance with the approved plans with the following exception: The 8 inch PVC SDR 35 sewer line between manhole lA and 1 was constructed with a slope of 0.0031. Our certification is based on periodic site visits during construction and a recent site visit this month to observe the current condition of the sewer collection system in the vicinity of sewer manhole 1A. In our recent visit we looked at sewer manholes 1, lA and 2. We did not observe any sign of infiltration or clogging. We did have some concerns over the shallow slope of the sewer manhole, but our field survey indicated it has not been a problem (no evidence of clogging). Attached with this certification is record information on the sewer collection main and test results. This certification is not intended to imply any type of warranty or guarantee. The sewer collection system will require periodic maintenance including flushing to clean the lines and repair of leaks that may develop over time. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING EN INEERS, INC. ^� T_ �V• / John P. Pitrowiski cc: Mr. Don Martin (Chittenden Bank) P O. Box 308 14 Blair Park Road Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 879-6331 Rev. 5/26/93 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Permit tk __ PERMITS, COMPLIANCE & PROTECTION DIVISION Date Ai�plicz�tio» Received__________________ APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PERMIT (Pursuant to Section 3-08 of the Environmental Protection Rules) (Schedule "D" of Master Act 250 Land Use Permit Application) LANDOWNER NAME: See attached list of 'I'Land Owners" _ PHONE: (As shown on Deed) RAILING ADDRESS: (Town) (State) (Zip) John P. Pitrowiski CONSULTANT NAME- Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. PHONE: 879-6223 HAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 308 _+ Williston Vermont 05495 (Street) (Town) (State) (Zip) 1. Location: (Enclose United State Geological Survey Map or Town Highway Map showing subdivision location.) Town: South Burlington Road: Shelburne Road Deed to this property is recorded in Book , Page Refer to Plat 2. Description: Number of lots: — 7 _— Size of lots:_ Refer to Plat 3. Purpose: single-family residences _ X other (i.e. boundary line change, change to wastewater and/or water supply, construction of commercial building) Update and correct permit status Type of Water System Proposed: Number of lots connected to water supply This water system serves/will serve 2 or more buildings or lots. Individual drilled well; onsite offsite _ Dug well or sprinq: onsite offsite _______ _ — Other (Reservoir/Lake) Name _ XConnection to municipal system (name municipality and attach a letter authorizing water allocation to that system). Hunicipality: —_ -_-_ Connection to a non -municipal community water system. How many lots are now connected to this system? Who owns it:' 5. Type of Sewage Disposal System Proposed: Septic- tank system: with site. modifications? Connection to a non -municipal community disposal system. Owners Name Connection to municipal system (name of lnunicipaiity and attach a letter authorizing sewage allcc•-ation to that system). iunicipality: ---_ __-- — ---_ -- _- Other How much Land will remain adjacent to the subdivision b-ing applied for? 4.03 _ (Do not include land across a public highway from the lot or under separate dIeefl. ) If less than 10 acres, is the remaining lot improved? Yt_s X No ------- - Wit.h what structure -Common oark ng_ for all_7-.1.zts___-(one deferred)_____ 7. List. any prior Environmental or Act 250 Pe units issued on the same tract of land. 1,i�.;t. ijtimb,�rs _Land-Use_Permit 4CO395-6B, Public Bldg_ Permit_PB-4-13.18-1-321 Certificate of Compliance 4CO395-5A .i 8. Present use of neighboring property (residential, agricultural, etc.). Show this information and locations of water supplies and sewage disposal systems on plot_ plan. Shelburne Road - neighboring property is commercial 9. Are any of the lots exempt:' Yes _ _ No X If yes, explain _* _ _ _ . If either proposed lot or remaining land is improved with a primary single-family residence, or, a public building with sewage flows less than 300 gallons per day, and was under construction prior to March 5, 1973, the lots may be considered exempt if: a. the structure is served by a public water supply approved by the Department of Health or a private eater supply which has been tested and meets the drinking water quality standards in Chapter 21 of the Environmental Protection Rules; and b. the structure is served by a municipal sewage disposal system approved by the Department; or has a functioning on -site sewage disposal system not causing apparent pollution or a health hazard with the disposal. field at least 100 feet from any property boundary created by the conveyance. If the sewage disposal system is an outhouse or other system not requiring interior plumbing and conventional subsurface disposal, the 100 feet will be measured from the location where a subsurface disposal system would likely be installed. 10. If the remaining land or proposed lot meets items 9.a. and 9.b above, you should complete a Request for Exemption under Section 3-04 of the Environmental Protection Rules. 11. Act 250: Number of lots (of any size) created by applicant/landowner within a five mile radius of this subdivision or within the environmental district within the last five Will any roads have to be .constructed to give access to or within this subdivision?�A (If applicant/laMowner has created more than 10 lots in response to question number one, or if you answer "yes" to second question, you must obtain a project review sheet-reuardincl Act 250 jurisdiction from the District Coordinator before Submitting this application.) APPLICATION FEE: S150.00 PER LOT Amount Enclosed S 1,050 -------- --------------- (Hake check payable to STATE OF VER1dONT) ---------- ------------------- --- ------------------------ (Signature ��f Landocmer (s) as shown on Deed) (Date) THERE IS TO BE NO SITE WORK OR CONSTRUCTION C0I0;NCED ON THIS PROD!,(:T WITHOM' WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM ITM AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. CONSULTANT'-S STAM-TENT REGARDING FIOOD PLAINS (Section 3.08.A.7) (Consultant. Must State WhC-ther any area of the subdivi: ion lies within .a f oc+d N/A -----------------------:--------------------------.-_._. -- --------------- --. iSi•,nature of Consultant) (Dar%) I CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR EACH WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSA , SYS ItiP! COMPLIES WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RULES. N/A --------_ i------------- - -- ---- ----------..-_........._.....-----••- --- -- - --------(Sicnarure of Consultwlt) (Dar-#t) M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment FROM: Steven L. Knudson, Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp, Attorneys for Chittenden Bank DATE: November , 1993 SUBJECT: Memorandum in Support of the Lakewood Commons Planned Commercial Development Revised Site Plan and Subdivision Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Our firm represents Chittenden Bank in connection with the request by the Bank and other owners at Lakewood Commons for zoning and subdivision approval for the Lakewood Commons Project located on Shelburne Road in South Burlington. This memorandum sets out the background, the legal issues involved, and various reasons why zoning and subdivision approval should be granted to Lakewood Commons. Backaround and Issue. Lakewood Commons is a planned commercial development located on approximately 4.65 acres on Shelburne Road in South Burlington. There are six buildings at Lakewood Commons: (1) Building A, being the renovated East O'Lake mansion; (2) Building B, Jake's Restaurant; (3) Building C, an office condominium; (4) Building D, an office condominium; (5) Building E, an office condominium; and (6) Building F, the Sportstyle clothing store. The overall operation of Lakewood Commons is governed by and is subject to the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Lakewood Commons, A Planned Business Community" dated December 23, 1986 and recorded in the South Burlington land records, as amended (the "Declaration"). The Declaration governs such general items as use restrictions, architectural design restrictions, maintenance and repairs, the Owners Association, assessments, and similar items necessary to operate a planned commercial development. In addition to the Declaration, the three office condominium buildings (Buildings C, D, and E) are also governed by a Declaration of Condominium for each building. Consequently, Lakewood Commons looks, acts, and operates the same as any other well -planned Planned Commercial Development. Lakewood Associates originally developed Lakewood Commons. Chittenden Bank provided the financing to Lakewood Associates for the overall development of the Project, the renovation of the East O'Lake Mansion (Building A), and the construction of the office condominium buildings (Buildings C, D, and E). Jake's Restaurant was to be one of the "anchor establishments" at the Project. The owners of Jake's needed control over the construction of Building B to ensure that it was constructed in a manner that was consistent with the unique requirements of a restaurant, while still being subject to the architectural restrictions of the Declaration. Jake's needed financing to construct the restaurant building and obtained construction financing from The Merchants Bank. We understand that it is not uncommon for anchor stores to own their own building pad and to construct their own building in a planned commercial development. We also understand that many banks are reluctant to extend construction financing unless the anchor store, or the entity constructing the building, either owns the building pad, has a long term lease on the building pad, or has some similar guaranteed right of access to the building site. Otherwise, given the existing laws, there is nothing for the construction lender to take a mortgage or security interest in to secure the construction loan, the building, and access to the building site to complete construction of the building in the event a default occurs prior to completion of the building. Consequently, the building pad for Jake's (Lot B) was conveyed to the owners of Jake's, and Jake's mortgaged the building pad to The Merchants Bank in connection with the construction loan. The conveyance of the other buildings and the declaration of buildings to condominium ownership followed the pattern set in Jake's, i.e., conveying the building pad with the conveyance or declaration of each building. The Chittenden Bank became the owner of the unsold buildings and units at Lakewood Commons in November, 1991 pursuant to a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure. All of the buildings had been built by the time the Bank obtained the unsold buildings and units. The Bank and other owners of Lakewood Commons recently learned that there may be a technical violation of the Lakewood Commons zoning permit and the South Burlington subdivision regulations. The technical violation stems from the conveyance of the building pads with the buildings. The South Burlington Planning Commission has previously reviewed and approved the site plan and overall development plan of the planned commercial development at Lakewood Commons. The prior site plan approval, however, gave approval for the construction and development of Lakewood Commons with everything being owned in common. In this situation, however, it was necessary to convey the building pad so that the construction lender could take a mortgage on the building being built with the construction loan proceeds. In this situation it was impossible to construct Lakewood Commons as a pure condominium regime where the unit owners merely own the units that exist on the land but do not own the building pad on which the building is constructed. The conveyance of the building pads inadvertently created a subdivision issue. The ironic twist in this situation is that the overall construction, appearance, operation, and use of Lakewood Commons is exactly the same regardless of whether it is constructed as a pure condominium where the owner merely owns a building that is above the ground or whether the owner owns a building plus the building footprint on which the building is built. Consequently, K we do not believe that anyone intentionally intended to sidestep the South Burlington zoning or subdivision regulations because there was absolutely no effect on the overall construction, appearance, operation, or use of Lakewood Commons. We believe that no one realized until recently that there was a potential subdivision problem at Lakewood Commons. To resolve this problem, the Bank and other owners are seeking a revised site plan approval and a subdivision permit for Lakewood Commons. The Lakewood Commons planned commercial development would subdivide the Project into seven ( 7 ) lots. Six ( 6 ) of the lots will be equal in size, dimension, and location to the footprint or building pad for each of the six (6) buildings at the Project. The seventh lot will be the remaining land at the Project which will provide access to the six buildings. The seventh lot, or remaining land, will remain common land owned in common by all of the owners at Lakewood Commons for the benefit of the planned commercial development as a whole. The six (6) building lots at the Project match the footprint of the buildings and range in size from 3,800 square feet to 5,700 square feet. It has been suggested that: (a) according to the South Burlington zoning regulations the minimum lot size requirement in this district is 40,000 square feet; and (b) that pursuant to Section 11.507(b) of the zoning regulations, the Planning Commission can not modify the minimum lot size requirements. While the South Burlington zoning regulations clearly state that "Planned Commercial Developments are encouraged" (see, Page 20 § 11.00), the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement appears to create a serious roadblock to a development plan (planned commercial development) that is specifically "encouraged" by the zoning regulations. As more fully discussed below, the South Burlington Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment have the authority to and should approve the Lakewood Commons revised site plan and subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The rules of statutory construction require that statutes and regulations be read in harmony with one another. Reading Section 11.507(h) in harmony with the purpose and intent of the other zoning regulations, the 40,000 square foot lot size requirement cannot apply to building pads "within" the planned commercial development. By interpreting the zoning regulation in accordance with the general principles of statutory construction, the Planning Commission has the power and authority to, and should, grant the Lakewood Commons site plan and subdivision applications. 2. Planned Commercial Developments are permitted, and in fact encouraged, development plans within the C1 District and should be considered under the conditional use standards. Lakewood Commons qualifies for and should be granted its zoning and 3 subdivision approvals under the conditional use standards. 3. Even assuming that Lakewood Commons needs a variance to obtain its zoning and subdivision permits, Lakewood Commons qualifies for a variance under the variance criteria of 24 V.S.A. § 4468. Discussion of Legal Issues. 1. Statutory Construction. It is a general principle of statutory construction that when the provisions of a statute or regulation are in apparent conflict, the statute or the regulation should be interpreted in a manner which harmonizes the conflicting provisions. State Agency of Natural Resources v. Riendeau, 603 A.2d 360, 362 (Vt. 1991). It is also a general principle of statutory construction that the primary objective is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, or in this case the intent of the Planning Commission and the South Burlington City Council. In re AC, 470 A.2d 1191, 1194 (Vt. 1984). The South Burlington zoning regulations specifically encourage Planned Commercial Developments ("PCD"). Zoning Reg. § 11.00. PCDs are permitted in order to "encourage innovation of design and layout, more efficient use of land for commercial development, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements." Zoning Reg. § 11.50. Section 11.507 of the Zoning Regulations provides generally that the Planning Commission may modify the standards for a PCD "as long as the general objectives of the PCD are met." Zoning Reg. § 11.507(a). Section 15.07(b) further provides that the zoning regulations of Section 18.00 may be modified in accordance with the conditions and objectives for PCDs, except the minimum lot size and building coverage requirements of Section 18.00. Section 18.00 covers area, density and dimensional requirements for the various districts in South Burlington. According to Section 18.00, the minimum commercial lot size in the C1 District is 40,000 square feet per lot. 40,000 square feet is almost one acre. (One acre equals 43,560 square feet.) If the 40,000 square foot minimum lot requirement applies to building pads or to lots within a PCD, it places a serious obstacle in the path of developing a PCD that is innovative in design and layout and provides a more efficient use of land. It also is in apparent conflict with the other sections of the zoning regulations and the specific intent of the City Council to encourage Planned Commercial Developments. One of the basic concepts of a Planned Commercial Development is that small portions of the development are individually owned by the building or unit owners and the larger portion of the 4 development is owned in common by all of the building and unit owners for the benefit of all of the buildings and for the benefit of the development as a whole. If the 40,000 square foot minimum lot requirement is applied to the building lots within the 4.65 acre Lakewood Commons development, five (5) buildings could have been built on five (5) individually owned 40,000 square foot lots. In this example, 200,000 square feet of the 4.65 acre development would be individually owned and only the remaining 2,990 square feet would be jointly owned for the benefit of all of the buildings and for the benefit of the development as a whole. This is the exact opposite of one of the basic concepts of a PCD. The interpretation that the 40,000 square foot minimum lot requirement applies to building lots within the PCD leads to a rather irrational and ineffective consequence. A third basic principle of statutory construction is that there is a presumption against the construction of statutes in a manner that leads to absurd results or to ineffective or irrational consequences. Craw v. District Court of Vermont, 549 A.2d 1065, 1069 (Vt. 1988), In re A.C., 470 A.2d 1191, 1194 (Vt. 1984). On the other hand, the sections of the zoning regulations can be harmonized. If the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement is applied to the overall area of the PCD instead of the building pads within the PCD, the 40,000 square foot minimum size requirement can be read in harmony with the remainder of the PCD regulations and can be read in harmony with the intent of the zoning regulations. Section 11.503 of the Zoning Regulations governs the general area, density, and dimensional standards for a PCD. It provides generally that the minimum area for a PCD is 4 acres. Section 11.507(a) however, provides that "where limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards of this section, the Planning Commission may modify such standard as long as the general objective of the PCD are met." Zoning Reg. § 11.507(a) (emphasis added). In other words the Planning Commission may modify any PCD standard or requirement, including the 4 acre minimum area standard of Section 11.503, if the Planning Commission determines that it may be difficult for the PCD site to comply with such standard and the PCD will otherwise meet the general objectives of a PCD. Section 11.507(b) further grants the Planning Commission the authority to modify the requirements of Section 18.00 of the Zoning Regulations (excepting the minimum lot size requirement) in accordance with the "conditions and objectives" of the Section on Planned Commercial Developments. Section 18.00, like Section 11.503, sets forth general area, density, and dimensional requirements. Under Section 18.00, the minimum lot size for commercial and industrial lots in the C1 District is 40,000 square feet. If the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size applies to the PCD site as a whole rather than the building pads within the PCD, 5 Sections 11.503, 11.507(a), 11.507(b), and 18.00 can be read in harmony with one another and in harmony with the zoning regulations' specific intent to encourage PCDs, to encourage innovative design and layout, and to encourage more efficient use of commercial land through the development of PCDs. Section 11.507(a) grants the Planning Commission the authority to reduce the lot size of the PCD site below the 4-acre requirement of Section 11.503 if the Planning Commission determines that the requirements of Section 11.507(a) are met, but Sections 11.507(b) and 18.00 place a limitation on how far below the general 4-acre minimum the Planning Commission may reduce the PCD site. The Planning Commission may not reduce the area of the PCD site to an area less than 40,000 square feet. The zoning regulations should be read in accordance with the following general rules of statutory construction: (1) statutes should be interpreted in a manner which harmonizes conflicting provisions; (2) the statutory construction should give effect to the intent of the rule -making body; and (3) the statute should not be construed in a manner that leads to absurd results or leads to ineffective or irrational consequences. By interpreting the zoning regulations in accordance with the general rules of statutory construction, the Planning Commission has the power and authority to, and should, grant the Lakewood Commons revised site plan and subdivision application without requiring a variance. 2. Conditional Use Criteria. Planned Commercial Developments are not only specifically "permitted in the C1 District", they are "encouraged". Zoning Reg. §§ 11.50, 11.00. Consequently, it is difficult to understand why the approval of the Board of Adjustment is necessary to approve a "permitted and encouraged" use. However, if the Planning Commission determines that, because of the apparent conflict between the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement of Section 18.00 and the PCD provisions of Section 11.50, the approval of the Board of Adjustment is required prior to approving the Lakewood Commons revised site plan and subdivision application, the Board's approval should be governed by the conditional use standard of 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2) instead of the stricter criteria of the variance statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4468. See, Stevens v. Essex Junction Zoning Board, 428 A.2d 1100 (Vt. 1981) (where zoning regulations did not prohibit the use contemplated, rather specifically permitted it under exemption and review, it was not a variance that was sought, but a conditional use). Section 4407(2) of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes sets forth the general standards for proposed conditional uses. The proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect: (A) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities; (B) The character of the area affected; (C) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; (D) Bylaws then in effect; or (E) Utilization of renewable energy C. resources. 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2). The general conditions related to the adverse impact on (A) the capacity of community facilities, (C) traffic, and (E) utilization of renewable energy resources, have been addressed in the Lakewood Commons applications and documents prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers. The applications show that the Lakewood Commons Planned Commercial Development will not adversely affect these three criteria. Likewise, Lakewood Commons will not adversely affect the remaining two criteria, the character of the area and the bylaws. Lakewood Commons was designed and planned specifically to be in harmony with the character of the area. The design of the Lakewood Commons development includes the renovation and use of the old East O'Lake mansion. The other buildings at Lakewood Commons were built subject to architectural restrictions which were consistent with the character of the renovated mansion. Lakewood Commons is in the C1 Commercial District. The property immediately surrounding Lakewood Commons consists of Shelburne Road on the east, an auto dealership on the south, a warehouse/distribution facility on the west, and undeveloped land on the north. Not only does Lakewood Commons "not adversely affect the character of the area", it preserves, improves, and enhances the character of the area by incorporating the East O'Lake mansion into the development and by developing the remaining buildings in a manner that is in harmony with the East O'Lake mansion. Lakewood Commons does not have an adverse affect on the zoning bylaws. To the contrary, the Lakewood Commons development is consistent with and furthers the specific intent of the bylaws. Planned Commercial Developments are specifically encouraged within the C1 District to promote innovative design and layout and more efficiently use land for commercial development. Lakewood Commons advances the objectives set forth in the bylaws. Zoning Reg. § 11.50. The Lakewood Commons revised site plan and subdivision application should be approved because it is a "permitted and encouraged" planned commercial development in the C1 District and it satisfies the conditional use criteria. 3. Variance Criteria. Assuming Lakewood Commons must obtain a variance before receiving approval of its revised site plan and subdivision application, Lakewood Commons is entitled to a variance and is entitled to approval of its site plan and subdivision application because it satisfies the five (5) variance criteria of 24 V.S.A. § 4468. In this proceeding the applicants are seeking a permit for a 7 use at Lakewood Commons which is in conformance with the uses in the surrounding area, is in conformance with the uses permitted in the C1 District, and is encouraged by the zoning regulations. The five criteria of 24 V.S.A. § 4468 are set forth and discussed below in the order they appear in the statute. (a) Criteria No.1. "That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located." Lakewood Commons is a 4.65 acre parcel located on Shelburne Road. The old East O'Lake mansion is located on the parcel. The original developers desired to renovate and preserve this unique existing building and incorporate it into the planned commercial development at the Lakewood Commons site. (b) Criteria No. 2. "That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property." Because of the unique nature of the property, the desire to incorporate the existing East O'Lake mansion into the planned commercial development, the realities of commercial construction lending, and the apparent requirement that each building pad within the development contain at least 40,000 square feet, unless a variance is granted, it is impossible to develop the property in strict compliance with the zoning regulations and still have a reasonable, viable use of the property; let alone a reasonable, viable use of the property that promotes an "innovation of design and layout" and promotes a "more efficient use of land for commercial development" as encouraged by Zoning Reg. §§ 11.00 and 11.50. (c) Criteria No. 3. "That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant." The unnecessary hardship was created by the unique nature of the property, the location of the existing East O'Lake mansion on the property, the realities of construction lending, and the apparent requirement that each building pad within the PCD contain at least 40,000 square feet. Anchor stores in a planned commercial development, such as the restaurant at Jake's and the clothing store at Sportstyle, often have unique requirements. To ensure n. that these unique requirements are met, anchor stores often build their own buildings in a planned commercial development, subject to the general overall architectural restrictions of the PCD. In order to construct the building, the anchor store owner must obtain financing. Lending institutions are reluctant to lend construction money unless the anchor store owner (or the entity constructing the building) owns, leases on a long term basis, or otherwise controls the building pad and has access to the building pad upon which the building will be built. Otherwise, under existing law, there is nothing that the lender can take a mortgage on or security interest in to secure the construction loan. In order to construct Lakewood Commons in a manner consistent with the plans previously approved by the Planning Commission, it was necessary to convey the building pad. It was not the affirmative act of the developers that created this hardship, see Lewis v. Pickering, 349 A.2d 715, 718 (Vt. 1975) , rather it was the unique nature of the land and the East O'Lake mansion, the realities of construction lending in this situation, and the desire to develop Lakewood Commons in a manner consistent with the plans previously approved by the Planning Commission. (d) Criteria No. 4. "That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use and development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public welfare." By renovating and preserving the East O'Lake mansion, and by constructing the remaining buildings in a consistent architectural style, Lakewood Commons preserves and enhances the essential character of the neighborhood. Lakewood Commons is located on Shelburne Road in the C1 Commercial District. It is surrounded by an automobile dealership, a warehouse/distribution facility, undeveloped land, and Shelburne Road. The Lakewood Commons planned commercial development is located on a 4.65 acre parcel and will not impair the appropriate use or development of any adjacent property nor reduce access to renewable energy resources. Likewise, Lakewood Commons will not be detrimental to the public welfare. To the contrary, Lakewood Commons is beneficial to the public welfare because it provides innovative design and layout and more efficiently uses land for commercial development. (e) Criteria No. 5. "That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and from the plan." This criteria highlights the irony of this situation. If it were realistically possible to develop the Lakewood Commons planned commercial development as a pure condominium, where the unit owners merely own the buildings built upon the ground and the land is A owned in common, there would be no question that Lakewood Commons was in compliance with the zoning and subdivision regulations. Due to the realities of this situation, however, it was necessary to convey the building pads. Regardless of whether Lakewood Commons is a pure condominium or the building owners own the pads upon which the buildings are built, the overall construction, appearance, use, and operation of Lakewood Commons is exactly the same. The net result is "a distinction without a difference." Granting Lakewood Commons a variance to enable the subdivision lots to match the footprints of the buildings will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will result in the least deviation possible from the zoning regulations and plan. Furthermore, it will result in no deviation from the express intent of the zoning regulations, i.e., to encourage and permit planned commercial developments within the C1 District. Conclusion. As set forth in this memorandum, Lakewood Commons is entitled to approval of its revised site plan and subdivision application because: (1) applying the general rules of statutory construction to the zoning regulations and reading the regulations in harmony with one another, Lakewood Commons qualifies for site plan and subdivision approval under the zoning regulations; (2) Lakewood Commons qualifies for site plan and subdivision approval under the conditional uses criteria of 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2); and (3) Lakewood Commons qualifies for site plan and subdivision approval under the variance criteria of 24 V.S.A. § 4468. We respectfully request that the South Burlington Planning Commission and the South Burlington Board of Adjustment approve the Lakewood Commons site plan and subdivision application. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, DINSE, ERDMANN & CLAPP Steven L. Knudson Attorneys for Chittenden Bank SLK/rdg cc: Joe Weith, City Planner Mark Ward, Zoning Representative c\slk\ops\Iakewood 10 DINSE, ERDMANN & CLAPP JOHN M. DINSE, COUNSEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW STEVEN L. KNUDSON ROBERT H.ERDMANN NOAH PALEY MICHAEL B. CLAPP 209 BATTERY STREET SANDRA A. STREMPEL SPENCER R. KNAPP P. O. BOX 988 MOLLY K. LEBOWITZ KARENMCANDREW BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0988 PIETROJ.LYNN BARBARA E. CORY PHILIP C. WOODWARD ROBERT R. MCKEARIN SARAH GENTRY TISCHLER JAMES W. SPINK TELEPHONE TELECOPIER SUSAN J. FLYNN JOHN D. MONAHAN, JR. 802-864-5751 802-864-1960 JEFFREY J. NOLAN EMILY R. MORROW RITCHIE E. BERGER AUSTIN D. HART SAMUEL HOAR, JR. November 3, 1993 South Burlington Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Attn: Joe Weith, City Planner Mark Ward, Zoning Representative Re: Lakewood Commons - Revised Site Plan and Subdivision Approval Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment: Our firm represents Chittenden Bank, one of the current owners at Lakewood Commons, in connection with the application for a site plan approval and subdivision permit for Lakewood Commons. A memorandum in support of the site plan approval and subdivision permit is enclosed with this letter. The memorandum sets forth the background and issues involved along with reasons why the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment should approve the site plan and subdivision permit. As more fully described in the memorandum, Lakewood Commons is a six (6) building planned commercial development located on Shelburne Road. Planned commercial developments are specifically permitted and encouraged within this C1 District. Lakewood Commons consists of the renovated East O'Lake mansion, Jake's Restaurant, the Sportstyle clothing store, and three office condominium buildings. The owners at Lakewood Commons recently learned that there may be a technical violation of the zoning permit and subdivision regulations because the building pads were conveyed with the buildings. Although this may be a technical violation of the subdivision regulations, it makes absolutely no difference to the overall construction, appearance, operation, or use of Lakewood Commons. The overall construction, appearance, operation, and use are exactly the same regardless of whether Lakewood Commons is a pure condominium where the owners merely own the buildings and units above the ground or whether the owners own the building plus the building footprint on which the building is built. To resolve this technical problem, the owners are seeking a subdivision permit which subdivides the project into 7 lots. The six building lots will be equal in size, dimension, and location to the footprint of the buildings. The seventh lot will be the remaining land LAW OFFICES OF DINSE, ERDMANN & CLAPP November 3, 1993 Page 2 owned in common for the benefit of all of the buildings and for the benefit of the development as a whole. In its initial review the Planning Commission questioned whether it could grant the subdivision permit without a variance. It appears that a quirk in the zoning regulations may require that the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size for lots within the C1 District also apply to building sites within a planned commercial development. This quirk in the zoning regulations appears to be contrary to the intent of the zoning regulations which specifically permit and encourage planned commercial developments within the C1 District. As more fully discussed in the enclosed memorandum, the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment have the power and authority to, and should, approve Lakewood Commons revised site plan and subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The Planning Commission has the power to, and should, grant the subdivision permit without a variance. Planned Commercial Developments ("PCD") are specifically permitted and encouraged within the C1 District because PCDs encourage innovative design and layout and more efficiently use land for commercial development. If the zoning regulations require that building lots within a PCD have at least 40,000 square feet (40,000 square feet is almost one acre), then this requirement is in direct conflict with the provisions of the zoning regulations which specifically encourage PCDs in the C1 District. The zoning regulations should be interpreted in accordance with the following general rules of statutory construction: (a) statutes should be interpreted in a manner that harmonizes conflicting provisions; (b) the interpretation should give effect to the intent of the rule -making body; and (c) the regulation should not be construed in a manner that leads to ineffective or irrational results. By interpreting the zoning regulations in accordance with these general rules of statutory construction, the 40,000 square foot minimum lot requirement does not apply to building sites within a planned commercial development. Consequently, the Planning Commission may approve the site plan and subdivision permit without a variance. 2. Planned Commercial Developments are a specifically "permitted and encouraged" use within the C1 District. If the approval of the Board of Adjustment is required prior to approval of the revised site plan and subdivision application, the Board's approval should be governed by the conditional use criteria rather than the stricter variance criteria. As a permitted and encouraged planned commercial development within the C1 District, Lakewood Commons satisfies the LAW OFFICES OF DINSE, ERDMANN & CLAPP November 3, 1993 Page 3 conditional use criteria and its site plan and subdivision should be approved. 3. Even assuming that Lakewood Commons must obtain a variance before receiving approval of its revised site plan and subdivision application, Lakewood Commons is entitled to a variance and is entitled to site plan and subdivision approval because it satisfies the five variance criteria. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment approve the Lakewood Commons site plan and subdivision application. Thank you for your attention to this matter. For your convenience and because of the legal issues involved in this matter, we have sent a copy of this letter and the enclosed Memorandum to Steven Stitzel, the South Burlington City Attorney. Also, for your convenience we have sent a copy of this letter and the enclosed Memorandum to the members of the Board of Adjustment. Very truly yours, *DINS,RDMANN & CLAPP Knudson Attorneys for Chittenden Bank SLK/rdg Enclosure cc: Steven Stitzel, Esq. Donald D. Martin John Pitrowski Fred Blais, Chairman George Chamberland Dennis Johnson Daniel King Stephan Kramer Maureen O'Brien Joseph Randazzo EO,9' 1 I -7-6 002 ;� •s reys'