HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-82-0000 - Decision - 0040 IDX Drivef'LA:! 1I;lG CUI'UTISSION JANUARY 26, 1982
comply with ordinance requirements such as setbacks, etc.
Mr. "Iona asked why :dayo's had applied for additional signs when it
seemed that the request made the situation one of non-compliance. Mr.
Webster replied that the city had a procedure for applying for signs and
Mayo's was just trying to follow that procedure.
IIr. .lard noted that if cut-out letters were used instead of block letters
for the "Subaru" sign, they could have double the square footage.
Mr. Poger asked for additional comments, and when there were none, Mr.
Ewing moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and
all voted for it.
Air. Mona said the Commission was reviewing here whether they felt the
Code Officer had denied an application which was, in fact, in compliance.
If the Commission feels the application is not in compliance, he felt the
path was clear. Nr. Poger felt there were two issues - that of the addition
to the freestanding sign and that of additional wall signs because of the
possibility of separate uses. He felt the freestanding sign, if approved,
would be a variance, which is not permitted. The existing sign is the allowed
size. I4r. Ewing did not feel there were separate businesses here, and Mr.
Wuolery felt that part of the purpose of the sign ordinance was to inhibit
the proliferation of signs. He felt this business was clearly defined by
the existing signs.
I.:r. Poger felt that the appeal process to the Commission in the
ordinance was designed to give relief in regard to interpretation of the
language, rather than for exceptions to the ordinance.
Mr. "tuna moved to uphold the action of the Zoning Administrator on
January 5, 1982 in denial of the application for more signs at PIaY2's
Subaru. :Ir. Levesque seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
Findings of fact will be signed in two weeks.
Site plan application b PD Realt for a 4,f
existing office buildinE; a jhelburne ii(
Ir. Spitz noted that this application was almost identical to one
previously approved by the Commission. The time limit on the approval has
expired since, though. Mr. Poger asked whether there were traffic problems
in t;,e area which were not present when the previous plan was ap?roved. Mr.
Spitz said the; were well within the traffic figures.
Nr. aloolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan application of BPD Fealty for a 4,800 sq. ft. addition at
1500 Shelburne Road as depicted on a plan entitled "New Addition to Existing
Office Building", prepared by Gordon G. Woods Associates, last revised 12/17/81,
subject to the following stipulations:
1. Stipulations from -the approval dated 10/14/80 shall remain in effect.
2. This site plan approval expires in 6 months.
N.r. Mona seconded the motion. Mr. Levesque felt the approval should expire
in 1 year, given the bad economic conditions existing now. Mr. Poger felt
the 6 month period was fine. I1r. Levesque mentioned talking to the City
Council abcut changing the tax rate on the property but Mr. Ewing noted
that if, over time, the Commission applied stricter traffic controls which
caused the value of a particular property to decrease, that devaluation would
show ul) in the fair market value of the property and eventually be reflected
in the taxes.
The motion passed unanimously.