Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-05-04 - Supplemental - 1803 Brand Farm Drivef STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y ) November 8, 2005 Jacalyn Stevens, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Appeal of Nikhil Patel Docket No. 231-11-05 Dear Ms. Stevens: JILL E. SPINELLI WILL S. BAKER Enclosed please find for filing with regard to the above - referenced matter my Entry of Appearance on behalf of the City of South Burlington. Thank you. Sincerely, ow" C[/ Amanda S. E. Lafferty Enclosure CC: Raymond Belair Nikhil Patel SON5979.COR STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: ) APPEAL OF ) DOCKET NO. 231-11-05 Vtec NIKHIL PATEL ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES Amanda S. E. Lafferty, of the firm Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and hereby enters her appearance in the above - referenced matter by and on behalf of the City of South Burlington. DATED at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, this 8th day of November, 2005. SON2129.LIT STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By: n wloo� A, ? -a — Amanda S. E. Lafferty 'k- l' CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 8, 2005 Nikhil Patel 1803 Brand Farm Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Docket No. 231-11-05 Vtec Dear Mr. Patel: Pursuant to V.R.C.P., the following is a list of interested persons: 1. Mr. Brooks. He did not sign the sign -in sheet at the 9/20/05 meeting so I do not know his first name or address. Please be advised that you are required to serve a copy of the notice by certified mail upon each interested person. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. r• cc: Vermont Environmental Court Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT ---------------------------------------- City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 ---------------------------------------- (802) 828-1660 2418 Airport Road, Ste.1 Barre, Vermont 05641 - 8701 November 4, 2005 Patel Certificate of Occupancy Docket No. 231-11-05 Vtec The above -referenced appeal from a municipal panel, district commission, agency of natural resources or agency of agriculture was received at the Environmental Court on 11/02/2005. Environmental Court docket number 231-11-05 Vtec has been assigned to this appeal. Please use the Environmental Court docket number and the above case name when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case. Please.note, this case name may not be final if we are missing necessary information from the appellant. All documents should be filed with the Environmental Court at the address at the top of this letter. Also, if you have not provided the Court with a telephone number where you can be reached during working hours for the purpose of telephone conferences, please do so as soon as possible. The Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) set out the procedures to follow for this appeal. Enclosed is a copy of those Rules, minus Rules 3 & 4 which are not applicable in this type of action. I have also omitted some of the Reporter's Notes. You may obtain a full copy of the piles and Re::orter'c Notes at i:,rna.vermontjudiciary.crg. 1. The person filing the appeal is called "the appellant". The appellant must take certain actions in order to assure that this appeal is not dismissed. Consult the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings to see what those actions are. 2. This case will be ready for hearing or other appropriate disposition when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired, or 20 days after the notice to interested parties has been sent, whichever occurs later. (The clerk of the appropriate municipal panel must provide the Appellant with a list of interested persons within five working days of the municipality's receipt of a copy of the notice of appeal.) The Court may extend that time if a request is made by written motion filed with the Court before the deadline has expired. If this case is set for a hearing on the merits, the hearing will take place in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5 (b)(4) (g), these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make certain appeals on the record. November 4, 2005 - Page 2 - 231-11-05 Vtec 3. Faxing a copy of a document is not sufficient to meet deadlines for filing documents with the Court. Faxed copies may be authorized by the Court in certain circumstances, but the Court will not accept Faxed documents unless the sender has first telephoned the Court and obtained permission to do so or and unless the judge has authorized it in a scheduling order. 4. The person filing any document (including letters) with the Court must also send a copy of that document to each of the other parties. The Clerk of the Environmental Court will contact the parties to arrange for a pre -hearing conference in person or by telephone with a judge or with a case manager. Enclosed in the Appellant's packet is a Pro Se form that needs to be filled out and returned to the Court with the Appellant retaining a copy for his own records. Also, in the appeal the Appellant referred to an Exhibit A that was a copy of the South Burlington Development Review Board's decision dated October 4, 2005. The decision was not included with the appeal. Sincerely, Jacalyn M. Stevens, Court Manager encs: Mediation materials, abridged V.R.E.C.P., Pro Se form (Appellant only) CC: Municipality, City of South Burlington Appellant, Nikhil Patel r ,e CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 11, 2005 Lance A. Llewellyn, P.E. Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. 20 Kimball Avenue, Suite 202 N South Burlington, -VT 05403 Re: Village at Dorset Park Dear Mr. Llewellyn: You have requested a list of condominium buildings which do not have Certificates of Occupancy within the Village at Dorset Park project. Our records indicate that the following buildings do not have Certificates of Occupancy: 7, 11, 18, 27, and 29. If you require further information, please let me know. Administrative Officer NIKHIL PATEL 1803 Brand Farm Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 November 2, 2005 Jacalyn M. Stevens, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Nikhil Patel Dear Jacalyn: Enclosed herewith please find a Notice of Appeal in the above -referenced matter, together with a check in the amount of $225.00 to cover the filing fee. Thank you. Very truly yours, Nikhil Patel NA: aka Enclosure CC: South Burlington Development Review Board STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT RE: APPEAL OF NIKHIL PATEL DOCKET NO. NOTICE OF APPEAL Name and Address of Property: 1803 Brand Farm Drive, South Burlington, Vermont Permit Applicant(s): Nikhil Patel Description of Project: Appeal of Decision by zoning administrator not to issue Certificate of Occupancy. Decision Appealed: Decision of the South Burlington Development Review Board dated October 4, 2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Party Taking Appeal: Nikhil Patel, 1803 Brand Farm Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Party Status: This appeal is taken pursuant to the provisions of the Vermont Planning and Development Act, including in particular, but not by way of limitation, the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4471(a) and 24 VSA §4465(b)(3) DATED at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 2' day of November, 2005. k6t��i- Nikhil Patel SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (8o2)846-4io6 October 19, 2005 Edward D. Fitzpatrick, Esq. PO Box 174 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Re: Minutes — Appeal #AO-05-04 Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the minutes from the September 20, 2005 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, y Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARL 20 SEPTEMBER 2005 Another issue is the width of the road. This adds 12,000 feet of coverage and increases the impervious surface. Mr. Williams felt this seemed like a waste. Mr. Belair noted this is even less than minimum road standards, and staff is not willing to go beyond that. Mr. Williams said he felt wide roads are ugly, expensive and not safe because people will go faster on them. Ms. Williams noted there is a precedent where the DRB did not require building a road to the property line in the case of a small subdivision. Ms. Hinds noted the regulation was written after those instances. She read from the regulations requiring building of a road or providing funding for building it. Ms. Hinds also noted that this application is coming in under the interim zoning provisions. Mr. Williams said they will probably have to come back in for more lots because of the cost. Ms. Quimby moved to approve preliminary plat application #SD-05-45 of J. Larry & Leslie Williams subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Bolton seconded. The motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Birmingham abstaining. 9. 'Public Hearing: Appeal #AO-05-04 of Nikhil Patel appealing denial of Certificate of Occupancy #CO-05-31 for a four unit multi -family dwelling at 1803 Brand Farm Drive: Mr. Belair reviewed the history of the appeal. He said he was contacted regarding this building and found there had been a temporary CO issued. He was asked to issue a Certificate of Occupancy. He found the building was at a different location from what had been approved on the plan. He then talked to the owner about coming in for a re - approval of the plan with the existing building location. Earlier this year, Mr. Belair said he was contacted by Lance Llewellyn regarding beginning to provide a draft plan. That draft plan was submitted, and Mr. Belair told Mr. Llewellyn what more was needed. He never heard anything further from Mr. Llewellyn. Mr. Belair said he was then contacted by Mr. Fitzpatrick asking for a CO. Mr. Belair said he could not issue one because of the discrepancy. Mr. Dinklage asked why a temporary CO had been issued. Mr. Belair said there were landscaping issues that were weather related, and the temporary CO said these must be completed when the weather allowed. Mr. Fitzgerald said the temporary CO was issued only because of the landscaping issue, and there are no landscaping issues now. Former Zoning Administrator Dick Ward said there were no other zoning issues. Mr. Fitzgerald noted this all occurred prior to the Bianchi decision. He felt the person who had ` JEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARL 20 SEPTEMBER 2005 contacted Mr. Llewellyn hadn't wanted to pay for a new plan. Mr. Fitzgerald said there are no setback or other zoning violations. Mr. Dinklage reiterated that the building was not built according to the only plan the city has. He said the Board pays attention to the location of buildings, and the city has to take this very seriously. He noted there are a lot of residents whose clear title is at risk because of the Bianchi decision. Mr. Brooks, a neighbor, said he has lived in one of the condos for 11 years. He said they all got temporary CO's with a statement that when the landscaping was finished, they would be entitled to a permanent CO. He asked why they can't be granted a waiver after all this time. Mr. Kupferman asked if there is a regulation that allows the DRB to grant a CO. Mr. Fitzgerald said he didn't know, but he believed this was a case of "substantial conformance." The only thing indicated as outstanding the temporary CO was remedied. Mr. Belair stressed that the statutes don't allow him to issue a CO for this building. Mr. Dinklage suggested the Board discuss this with the City Attorney and get an understanding of "substantial conformance" from him. Mr. Kupferman moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Miscellaneous application #MS-05-04 of Malcolm Willard to stockpile up to 2000 cubic yards of fill, 1100 Hinesburg Road: The applicant was not present. Mr. Dinklage said he wanted to know more about this. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Miscellaneous application #MS-05-04 of Malcolm Willard until 4 October 2005. Mr. Kupferman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Miscellaneous Application #MS-05-05 of Gary Rounds for approval under Section 3.06(.1)(2) of the Land Development Regulations to allow a 401x40' and 8'x10' breezeway to encroach 12 feet into the required front setback, 1495 Dorset Street: Ms. Quimby stepped down during this application due to a conflict of interest. Staff said there were no issues with the request. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 5, 2005 Edward D. Fitzpatrick, Esq. PO Box 174 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Re: Appeal #AO-05-04 Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 3110 0001 3598 5794 SIGN IN SHEET MEETING: DATE: N� 1<0CIMA 6— S' - s� QJ�'vl� ► c,9bc� L k c /7 t/eRd)e4 To V V iK �;��5- % �l- dot- SS . -% CC- A- act Putt I��S d rr. � S�• �oAj n Y / 1 ✓ GC.QI�� 7v� ��s /J�n�' lGrl� �jarj/�1.�[,�R+ L L,ANtW,4 1 &�?_c �1C /( 1/►s��Ii6Z1�i �` ► ► C loft.J r QGi►?►J IZG�S�vJece( �� �\ of � C , II J ►&00.000000000000 aW� v- z 4 Utz W 41J��c0 ` J0041fl 4i .3 %A I o ki 4 .••....••.•..•...•....................� �• • 000000..• • •. i R: N 0 a � n •r rf _ a• -i d =�' N �F .k 1p i<>> J� w mfm %i0� i�ITY �c/�LBLM., f:-'O F rc.) ZS TYPE A-2 TO ENCIRCLE ALL .SO EROSION CONTROL BARRIERS STING DROP INLETS DI 16, DI 17 DRAWING. NOTE EXISTING PONDS AND OUTLE STRUCTURE (TO OUTFALL OF TWIN 36" PIPES) TO REMAY THE PROPERTY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 4" UNDERDRAIN SHOWN OUTSIDE OF ROADWAY FOR CLARITY. REFER TO DETAILED CROSS- SECTION FOR ACTUAL LOCH TION. RECEIVED MAR 12 1992 City of So. Burli(,,.,,)n SCALE 1 = 40 40 20 0 40 80 120 160 200 24 THE VILLAGE of DORSET PARK a planned residential development SOUTH OURLINGTOlY VFl7M( SURE THA ,► c DRAWING -SITE 8 UTILITIES PLAN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT ! CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Secti n 2 20 of the Zoni�gulat/ ions the premises located at � ©fi t �f' �j / having been completed 0 y as per specificatiops o tlined in Zoning Permit No. 9,3-0? 4\5 dated %d V / may now be used for occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for days. 14 -1 -V X1-1441L-1 /_Zoning Administrative Officer URLINGTON 185.48' COMMON a 19,584 S.F n 0.44 A. 0 1403 1402 1401 Q = 80'43'05' R = 75.00' L = 105.66' k, 37.37' t 100' EASEM70'TUTIUTY 4.11' 250.00' I I I 130, p=80043'0 R=15.00' L=21.13' r I 7.3 1504 1503 D V 15p2 I 15a D 1 3 .P !4 1704 I t0 0 1703 I 2� 1702 0 4 1701 (N,it L] 19p4 1903 1902 " 1901 13 12 ).00' 20' ' IOO�^- - � W s rn IB04 1803 1802 18Q1 W t0 t0 0) 2004 2003 2002 2001 2204 2203 2202 a01 R N/F CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CLUSTER C 133,806 S.F. 3.07 A. Receivrd ��: � Recorded in Vd.!21 . Of So. Budington land Reco Attest. p Margaret rgen� A. f kar C CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 15, 2005 Nikhil Patel 1803 Brand Farm Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal #AO-05-04 Dear Mr. Patel: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, l Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assitant Encl. tun Ld I1K w/Caolnel, noon, nmer, and accessories, $75 firm. 802- 864-5200 ext. 229. SPAYED BLACK CAT: Too pos- sessive since she had kittens. Will no Longer allow other cats home. Very loving, excellent mouser and good with children. 802-425-4353. ► photography ASPIRING FEMALE MODELS WANTED to work w/fashion photographer in exchange for portfolio, experience. Contact David, 373-1912, email rusldp@juno.com or visit www.rusldp.com. Great opportu- nity for beginners. ► stuff wanted LOOKING FOR copies of old and rare VT hardcore or punk rock recordings, 1978-1985. Anything you have! Contact Big Heavy World, c/o Spencer, scrispe@ gmail.com. WANTED: Older Singer sewing machine, metal head, preferably black, in good working order, no Slantmatics. Call 862-8758, leave message. ► travel Ces CRUISE CABIN MATE NEEDED: F, quiet, NS. Thanksgiving week. ecording Sue, 865-4743. once. !6-3166. ► tutoring QUALIFIED ENGLISH TEACHER FOR bright 8th-grader w/empha- sns-on writing. 3 hours per week. 1SICL�. Candidate must be positive, e evening enthusiastic, demanding and t Julie at capable. 802-861-6240. S. pianist, dorm live w/fake ing pro- 544. oV[-859-89bb. ► work wanted CLEANING HOUSES: AM hrs or working with elders, Heather 658-9323. ►, legals PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont, on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, at 7:30 P.M. to consid- er the following: 1. Final plat application #SD-05- 73 of Cathedral Square Corp. to amend a previously approved planned unit development con- sisting of: 1) 309 residential units in six (6) buildings, 2) subdividing two (2) parcels of 24.458 acres into eight lots, 3) a 90,000 sq, ft. building which will include 11,000 sq. ft. of retail, a 150 seat, 7500 sq. ft. restaurant, 70,000 sq. ft. of gen- eral office, 2,500 sq. ft. drive -in - bank, and ten (10) residential units, 4) a 4430 sq. ft. expan- sion to an indoor recreation facility and 5) an existing 16,000 sq. ft. television studio & office building. The amendment consists of: 1) elimination of 90,000 sq. ft. mixed -use build- ing, 2) reduction in size of 16,000 sq. ft, television studio to 11,700 sq. ft., and 3) con- struct a 4-story 63 unit congre- gate care housing facility, Farrell Street. 26B I august 31-september 07, 2005 1 SEVEN DAYS Im LEGALS/SU PPORTG RI 2. Final plat application #SD-05- 77 of Homestead Design, Inc. to amend a previously approved planned unit development con- sisting of 89 multi -family units in 24 buildings. The amendment consists of revising the Land- scaped berms by increasing the height from three (3) feet to six (6) feet, Songbird Road. 3. Appeal #AO-05-04 of Nikhil Patel appealing denial of Certificate of Occupancy #CO-05- 31 for a four (4) unit multifam- ily dwelling at 1803 Brand Farm Drive. John Dinktage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board August 31, 2005 PUBLIC NOTICE Vermont Agency of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Overall Annual Goals For Fiscal Year October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 Pursuant to US Department of Transportation regulations con- tained in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, all state transportation agencies receiving Department of Transportation financial assistance must estab- lish overall percentage goals for the dollar value of work to be awarded disadvantaged business- es. This action has been deemed necessary in order to provide these businesses the maximum opportunity to partici- pate in the performance of con- tracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Vermont Agency of Transportation is a recipient of US Department of Transportation financial assistance, and hereby A description of the methodolo- gy used in establishing these goals can be viewed for 30 days following the date of this notice during normal business hours at the above address. It is also available for viewing on our website: http://www.aot.state.vt.us/civil rights/Documents/VTransDBEGoaL FY06.pdf Comments pertaining to these overall goals will be accepted at the above referenced address for a period of fifteen days following the completion of the thirty day notice period. Comments will also be accept- ed by the Federal Highway Administration, Vermont Division, Federal Building, P.O. Box 568, Montpelier, VT 05601 and the Federal Transit Administration, Transportation Systems Center, Kendall Square, 55 Broadway, Suite 920, Cambridge, MA 02142- 1093, Attention: FTA Regional Civil Rights Officer. Additional information about our DBE Program, including our cur- rent DBE Registry, certification application, resource guides and Links to other small business resources can be obtained by visiting the DBE page of our website at: http://www.aot.state.vt.us/CML Rights/Dbe.htm ALL firms, both DBE and non - DBE, are invited to contact the Vermont Agency of Transpor- tation for information regarding bidding opportunities on federal- ly funded projects. Dated August 1, 2005 at Montpelier, Vermont STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. THERESA PHILIPS The above -entitled matter is a divorce action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in which the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has Lived separate and apart from Plaintiff for six consecutive months, the resumption of marital relations being not reasonably probable. Defendant, George Philips, is hereby summoned and required to serve upon Paul D. Jarvis, Esquire, Plaintiffs attorney, whose address is PO Box 902, Burlington, Vermont 05402, an answer to the Complaint which is hereby served upon you by publication of this Order, on or before September 19, 2005, which is 21 days after the date of first publication of this Order. If you fail to make service of your answer as aforesaid, judg- ment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Your answer must be filed with the Court. Unless relief demand- ed in the Complaint is for a damage by a liability insurance policy under which the insurer has a right or obligation to con- duct the defense, or unless oth- erwise provided in Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any related claims which you may have against the Plaintiff or you will be barred from making such claim in any other action. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 17th day of August, 2005. Family Court Judge support groups DON'T SEE A SUPPORT group here that meets your needs? Call Vermont 211, a program of United Ways of Vermont. Within Vermont, 866-652-4636 (toLl- free) or from outside of Vermont, 802-652-4636. Monday -Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 4_30 p.m_ FAMILY AND PORT GROUI your family o friends is in ship, this nee designed espi Info, call Woi Battered Won 658-1996. ANXIETY AI` SUPPORT GI Sundays, 1-2 mutual suppc skills. 300 FL 865-6138. WOMEN'S E: MOUS GROL at the Boys St., Burlingt MALE SUPP men who ha violence. Th- a safe, enco survivors of share their men. Offeref Rape Crisis 1 864-0555 o1 Line, 802-86 SEX AND L, ANONYMOI step recover a problem v tionships? 4 Wednesdays Main St. Be stairs, red c 249-6825.1 tiaL PARENTIN group for p dren of all Please call for more in HAIR PUL GROUP: T Support Gr group for < affected b, (chronic h, parents of supportive and confid Meets on 1 every mon J CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4io6 6 August 30, 2005 Nikhil Patel 1803 Brand Farm Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. Please call our office at 846-4106 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 90 Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. ( CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4io6 August 30, 2005 Christine Canosa 18oi Brand Farm Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4io6, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, �1 Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4to6 August 30, 2005 William & Jeanette Rochford 1802 Brand Farm Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-41o6, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, &N ACIw Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4io6 August 30, 2005 Allan & Jean Bruce 1804 Brand Farm Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, 661 `4 Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. C � John J. BergeronREPLY BERGERON PARADIS TO: Vincent A. Parades 34 earl Street Edward la Fitzpatrick FITZPATRICK LLP P.O. Box 174 Priscilla B. Dube Essex Jct., VT 0545252-0174 Douglas G. Kallen A T T O R N E Y S Tel (802) 879-6304 Daniel P. O'Rourke Fax (802) 879-6533 Kerin E. Stackpole www.bpflegal.com Michael D Danley September 20, 2005 David D. Aman OF COUNAL John W. O'Donnell Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal of Patel Dear Ray or Juli Beth: I am submitting this letter setting out what I understand the facts to be, and the position of my client. My firm represents Nikhil Patel. He purchased his townhouse - 1803 of the Village at Dorset Park Condominiums in October, 1997. Prior to that closing my partner, Daniel O'Rourke, undertook the title search for this transaction. Prior to closing, Mr. O'Rourke spoke with Richard Ward regarding the existence of any zoning violations. In the course of the title search, Mr. O'Rourke discovered that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy had been issued, and that it had not been appealed. was assured by Mr. Ward that the problem cited in the temporary C. 0. (landscaping) had been completed. He indicated that there were no outstanding zoning issues. We, and our client, in reliance upon this representation proceeded with the transaction. Our client closed and purchased his property. Some time ago, my client inquired about refinancing his property. In connection therewith, we attempted to get the final Certificate of Occupancy. We were told by Ray Belair that a final Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued, because the building was constructed in a slightly different location, being approximately 4 feet from where it is shown on the existing plans. Mr. Belair felt that a new plan should be submitted to the City for approval. I have learned that it will cost approximately $3,000.00 for a new plan! Certainly there will also be additional expenses in connection with getting the new plan approved. I believe that this case is analogous to the recent Supreme Court case involving Certificates of Occupancy. I have enclosed a copy. The exact location of the building was not cited as a violation, and the Certificate was not appealed. Under the circumstances it seems a rather unnecessary expense for these folks to go through; I would ask that a Certificate of Occupancy be issued to my client. Sin erely, Ed qad . Fitz ck, Esq. Efitz(n,essex.bp egal.com EDF: aka Enclosure BURLINGTON OFFICE 27 Main Street 6 PO. Box 925 0 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0925 0 Tel (802) 863-1191 1 Fax (802) 863-5798 Entry Order Docket No 2004-049 2005 VT 92 In re Appeal of Tekram Partners, Century Partners and Judge Companies February Term, 2005 On Appeal from Environmental Court Stephen B. Martin, J. Matthew I Katz, J. Opinion Filed July 28, 2005 • Zoning & Planning — Violations — Effect of Certificates of Occupancy Enforcement of zoning violations three years after zoning administrator issued certificates of occupancy for property amounts to the type of untimely collateral attack on administrator's decision that is expressly barred by 24 V.S A § 4472(a). • Appeal & Error — Trial Court Conclusions — Standard of Review When determining whether trial court's conclusions are consistent with the applicable law, Supreme Court exercises plenary, nondeferential review. Court will uphold lower court's conclusions if they are consistent with the controlling law and are supported by the findings • Zoning & Planning — Certificates of Occupancy — Exclusive Remedy Exclusive remedy for interested person or municipality who feels certifi- cate of occupancy is issued in error is to file an appeal with the appropriate panel within fifteen days This exclusivity -of -remedy provision is strictly enforced to ensure timely review of all zoning disputes, thereby assuring parties of finality. Appeal from order upholding zoning violations and from cross -appeal denying zoning violation. Affirmed; reversed. PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J (Ret.), Specially Assigned In the above -entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: 1 1. Appellants Tekram Partners, Century Partners, and Judge Companies (hereinafter collectively referred to as Tek- ram Partners) appeal the environmental court's decision upholding three zoning violations issued by the City of South Burlington. Tekram Partners argue that the exclusivity -of - remedy provision in 24 V.S.A. § 4472 bars the City from raising certain violations because the City approved these disputed design features when it issued certificates of occupancy three years earlier. Tekram Partners further contend that nothing on the approved site plan or in the City's zoning ordinance im- poses a requirement to "stripe" (i.e. paint) parking spaces. As to two of the violations raised on appeal, we reverse. Regard- ing the third violation, we conclude that the lines indicating parking spaces on the approved site plan are sufficient to impose a striping requirement, and, therefore, we affirm the environmental court's decision to uphold the striping violation. The City cross -appeals from the environmental court's dis- missal of an alleged zoning violation regarding the unapproved location of one garbage dumpster. Tekram Partners complain that the fifteen -year limitations period under 24 V.S.A. § 4454 (formerly § 44961) precludes the City's enforcement of this violation because the dumpster has been in the same location since 1975. We reverse on this issue. 12. We first consider the alleged violations regarding the paving of two triangular green areas and the conversion of retail space to storage space. The City alleges these violations on the basis that Tekram Partners deviated from the site plan without the necessary approval from the City. Tekram Partners appeal the violations, arguing that the City's zoning administrator approved of the disputed areas by issuing certificates of oc- cupancy for Tekram Partners' Four Market Street Building. Tekram Partners argue that § 4472(a), therefore, bars the City from enforcing violations in these areas because the City failed to timely appeal the zoning administrator's decision to issue certificates of occupancy for the project. The environmental court upheld these violations, reasoning that the disputed design features deviated from the project as permitted, and that Tekram Partners had not received the necessary approval from the City for these deviations. Without analysis of the potential effect that the certificates of occupancy had in ratifying the nonconforming design features, the environmental court con- cluded that Tekram Partners' § 4472(a) argument was "not persuasive." After reviewing the record and the applicable zoning regulations, we hold that the environmental court's conclusion on this issue is not supported. The City's enforce- ment of these violations three years after its own zoning administrator issued certificates of occupancy that apparently cover the entire Four Market Street project amounts to the type of untimely collateral attack on the administrator's decision that is expressly barred by § 4472(a). Accordingly, we reverse the environmental court's decision to uphold these violations 13. The alleged violations occur at the northeast corner of the Four Market Street Building, one of five structures within a larger Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the 100 Dorset Street Complex. On March 12, 1996, the City's plan- ning commission issued final plat approval of the PUD.2 Among other things, the City approved a 15,000 square -foot building at Four Market Street. 14. On July 3, 1997, Tekram Partners obtained a zoning permit from the City authorizing construction of the Four Market Street Building. During construction, Tekram Partners paved two triangular areas at the northeast corner of the build- ing and installed an overhead door for access to the part of the building that would be used for storage at this corner. When construction was complete, Tekram Partners requested a cer- tificate of occupancy from the City for the Four Market Street Building. Pursuant to § 27.20 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, once Tekram Partners notified the City that the Four Market Street project was ready for use and occupancy, the City's zoning administrator then had a duty to make a final inspection of the premises and issue a certificate of occupancy "if the project [was] found to conform with the provisions of [the] ordinance." S. Burlington Zoning Regulations § 27.202. 15. In December 1997, the City's zoning administrator conducted an inspection of the Four Market Street Building pursuant to Tekram Partners' request. On December 11, 1997, the City's zoning administrator issued three certificates of occupancy for the retail units that comprise the Four Market Street Building. Attached to the certificates was a sketch depicting the floor plan of the building and indicating the square footage of each retail unit. Also included on this sketch was an area labeled "Mechanical 580 SF," which corresponded with the northeast corner of the building where the paved areas and the overhead door had been constructed. The environmen- tal court found that the two paved areas and the storage area would have been visible to the City's zoning administrator at the time of inspection, The court also found that at no time during the inspection did the zoning administrator alert Tekram Partners to the possibility that the paved areas or the storage area were inconsistent with the approved plan and, therefore, in violation of the zoning ordinance. The findings also indicate that Tekram Partners considered the issuance of the certificates as final approval of the Four Market Street Building for which no further certificates of occupancy were required. 16. Three years later, on September 26, 2000, the City issued a notice of violation to Tekram Partners, which alleged, among other things, that the paved areas and the storage area located at the northeast corner of the Four Market Street Supreme Court Opinions 16 VERMONT LAW WEEK Page 255 Building violated the zoning ordinance. Tekram Partners time- ly appealed the notice of violation to the City's development review board, which upheld the notice of violation. Thereafter, Tekram Partners appealed to the environmental court, which dismissed some of the violations, but upheld the violations regarding the paved areas and the storage area. Tekram Partners now appeal from the environmental court's decision. 17. We now consider whether 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a) precludes the City from enforcing the alleged violations regarding the two paved triangular areas and the storage area at the northeast corner of the Four Market Street Building. When determining whether the trial court's conclusions are consistent with the applicable law, we exercise plenary, nondeferential review. Sigler Found. v. Town of Norwich, 174 Vt. 129, 130, 807 A.2d 442, 443-44 (2002). We will uphold the court's conclusions if they are consistent with the controlling law and are supported by the findings. Id. On this issue, the environmental court's conclusion is not supported by the findings and largely ignores the effect of § 4472(a). 18. An interested person or municipality 3 may file an appeal with the appropriate panel within fifteen days of any decision or act taken pursuant to a provision of any plan or bylaw. 24 V.S.A. § 4465 (formerly § 4464). This is the exclusive remedy for contesting local zoning decisions or actions. Id. § 4472(a). We have "strictly enforced" this exclusivity -of -remedy provision to ensure timely review of all zoning disputes, there- by assuring parties of finality. City of S. Burlington v. Dept of Corr., 171 Vt. 587, 588, 762 A.2d 1229, 1230 (2000) (mem.) (internal quotations omitted). Section 4472(a) pertains to "any decision or act taken ... with respect to ... any plan or bylaw." Thus, there is no dispute that this provision prescribes the manner of appealing a certificate of occupancy issued by the City's zoning administrator. And with the passing of three years between the zoning administrator's issuance of the cer- tificates of occupancy and the notice of violation that gives rise to this case, the limitations period for appeal has long since expired. The dispositive issue thus becomes whether the cer- tificates of occupancy the zoning administrator issued for Four Market Street approved the areas the City now alleges are in violation of its zoning ordinance. 19. We conclude that the certificates issued for the Four Market Street Building were the final and only certificates required under the City's approval process; therefore, they had the effect of approving the disputed design features. Tekram Partners requested and received certificates of occupancy from the City for the Four Market Street Building. The disputed design features were in plain view when the City's zoning administrator inspected the building. Although the City main- tains that the approval stemming from the certificates stops at the walls of the Four Market Street Building, it has not demonstrated that a separate process existed for gaining ap- proval of the paved areas that are contiguous with the northeast corner of the building. 110. Nothing in the findings contradicts our conclusion that the certificates of occupancy apply to the entire Four Market Street project, including the storage and paved areas. Tekram Partners have introduced valid certificates of occupancy, along with a sketch depicting the storage area at issue that was attached to the certificates when they were issued. The City contends that the certificates do not encompass the paved areas or the storage area. In responding to Tekram Partners' argu- ment in the environmental court, however, the City failed to adduce any evidence indicating how it would otherwise ap- prove of the constructed areas immediately surrounding the Four Market Street Building, if not pursuant to the certificates of occupancy it issued in December 1997. 1 11. The City's assertion that the certificates granted only partial approval to the Four Market Street Building lacks sufficient support. The City's claim is based on the fact that each certificate included a specific square footage notation, and thus approval was limited to the areas encompassed by the notation. But the environmental court found that Tekram Partners believed otherwise, and thus we can infer that the administrative officer who issued the certificates gave no in- dication that they did not apply to the project area around the building. Unless the areas surrounding the building were also approved for use by the City, approval for the retail space alone would have been of little use because the public would have no means to access the businesses. In the absence of evidence that the City had a separate process for granting certificates to other aspects of the project beyond the retail space, it is illogical to conclude that the certificates did not affect all aspects of the project on which use of the retail space depended. 1 12. Our conclusion that the three original certificates encompassed all project areas, not just the interior retail space, is bolstered by the fact that the City has not issued a violation to Tekram Partners on the basis that they are using the exterior areas without a certificate of occupancy. Under the City's zoning regulations, it is illegal to "use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed,. converted ... until a certificate of occupancy/compliance is issued therefore by the Administra- tive Officer." S. Burlington Zoning Regulations § 27.20. As the environmental court's findings indicate, the City has al- leged nine violations against Tekram Partners. It is clear that the City has reviewed every aspect of the PUD in an attempt to hold Tekram Partners responsible for even the most minor and technical violations. Thus, the City's failure to cite Tekram Partners for using and occupying the nonretail project areas without a valid certificate of occupancy is a glaring omission that is at odds with its claim that the certificates of occupancy issued in December 1997 did not extend beyond the retail areas of the building. 1 13. The environmental court concluded that Tekram Partners had created the disputed design features without ob- taining the necessary approval from the City. But the disputed design features had already been constructed when the City issued the certificates of occupancy for Four Market Street. An exclusivity -of -remedy claim is not surmounted by proving that disputed design features deviate from an approved plan. Where § 4472(a) is at issue, the nature of the disputed design features as they pertain to the plan becomes irrelevant. The question before us is not whether a zoning violation exists, but whether the City's attempt to enforce zoning violations with respect to the disputed design features is a collateral attack on the certificates issued in 1997. Tekram Partners have shown that valid certificates of occupancy for Four Market Street were issued by the City, and have asserted that these extend to all aspects of the project that were plainly visible to the issuing administrative officer at the time of his inspection. The City's evidence is insufficient to overcome this claim. Thus, we conclude that the City approved of the paved areas and the storage area, as built, when it issued the certificates of occupan- cy in 1997. Though this may have been an error on the administrative officer's part, § 4472(a) mandates the procedure for correcting such an error. The City's failure to follow that procedure precludes the City from enforcing violations regard- ing areas it approved three years earlier. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue. 1 14. We now decide whether Tekram Partners' failure to Page 256 16 VERMONT LAW WEEK Supreme Court Opinions 1 paint six parallel parking spaces located along the northeast corner of the Four Market Street Building violated the City's zoning ordinance.4 We review this question of law de novo. The City alleges this violation based on the fact that the approved site plan depicts parking spaces in this location, and argues that the parking spaces do not exist until they are painted. Tekram Partners complain, however, that there is nothing on the site plan, nor is there any provision of the City's zoning ordinance, that requires parking spaces to be painted. The environmental court found that a requirement was implied in the creation of parking spaces. We affirm on this issue because the disputed parking spaces are striped on the ap- proved site plan. 1 15. Before the City could approve the PUD, Tekram Partners were required to submit a site plan that depicted the layout of all buildings and parking areas. S. Burlington Zoning Regulations § 26.651(c). On March 12, 1996, after reviewing the site plan, the City's planning commission issued final plat approval for the PUD conditioned upon the construction of a minimum amount of parking spaces. See S. Burlington Zoning Regulations § 26.25 (mandating and establishing minimum requirements for parking associated with land development); 24 V.S.A. § 4416 (allowing such requirements to be imposed by municipal bylaws). Once the City approved the site plan and permitted commencement of development, Tekram Partners were bound to conform its construction to the plan. See S. Burlington Zoning Regulations § 27.10 (requiring an applicant for a zoning permit to submit information that demonstrates compliance with the zoning regulations prior to the commencement of development). The approved site plan indicates that six parallel parking spaces were to be created along the northeast corner of the building at Four Market Street. 1 16. There is no dispute that a paved area exists at this location for six parallel parking spaces. But unless and until the spaces are painted, motorists will be unaware that this area has been designated for use as parking. More importantly, the disputed parking spaces are striped on the site plan. We con- clude that the existence of stripes on the approved plan is sufficient to impose a requirement that newly created parking spaces must be painted. Accordingly, we affirm the environ- mental court's decision upholding this violation. T 17. Lastly, we consider the City's cross -appeal regarding the placement of one garbage dumpster along the north side of the 100 Dorset Street Building, a separate building in the PUD complex. This is also subject to de novo review. The approved site plan indicates the location of four service areas along the north and east side of the 100 Dorset Street Building. The City alleges that Tekram Partners are in violation of the zoning regulations by maintaining one dumpster outside the approved service areas, in an area depicted as "Proposed 300SF Storage" on the site plan. The environmental court dismissed the viola- tion finding no reason why this area could not be used to locate a dumpster in compliance with the approved plan. On the contrary, the approved plan provides the reason why the desig- nated service areas are the only places a dumpster can be located in compliance with the plan. 1 18. Tekram Partners sought and obtained approval to locate dumpsters in the designated service areas and has used the service areas exclusively as locations for dumpsters. That the designated service areas are the exclusive locations for dumpsters should not be in question in light of Tekram Partners' submission of the PUD site plan indicating the service areas, and the City's subsequent approval of their locations. Tekram Partners complain that they have maintained a dumpster in the disputed location for over fifteen years, and therefore the City's attempt at enforcing a violation is barred by the limitations period in 24 V.S.A. § 4454 (formerly § 4496). Section 4454 does not shield Tekram Partners from an enforcement action in this case, however, because there was no basis for the City to allege a violation until 1996, when the four service areas were created and the disputed area was designated as proposed storage. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Notes to Text: 1. In 2004, the Vermont Planning and Development Act, 24 V.S.A. §§ 4301 et seq., was substantially reorganized, whereby many sections were added, repealed, or renumbered. 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.) §§ 4403-4472. We reference the current sections of title 24 herein, which correspond to the older versions cited by the parties in their arguments. 2. After construction of the Four Market Street Building was complete, Tekram Partners sought the City's approval for changes that had already been built. The changes were minor and the City approved an amended final plat in a decision dated June 9, 1998. This decision is, however, technically invalid because the amended final plat was never recorded in the city land records. See 24 V.S.A. § 4463(b) (invalidating approved plats that are not recorded in the city land records) (formerly § 4416). After reviewing the arguments of both parties regarding the validity of the unrecorded plan, the differences between the plans have not been shown to have any bearing on the areas at issue in this case. Therefore, our analysis proceeds according to the development that was approved by the City's decision dated March 12, 1996. 3.24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(2) provides that an interested person may mean, among other things, "[t]he municipality that has a plan or bylaw at issue in an appeal." 4. If the City has a separate approval process for parking spaces, it was not shown below. Because the six parallel parking spaces at issue here are located at the northeast corner of Four Market Street, it would seem that § 4472(a) would also bar the City from asserting a violation at this late date. In their certified questions to the environmental court, Tekram Partners did not extend the § 4472(a) argument to the six parking spaces. So we will consider their challenge to the striping violations separately. Editor's Note: In the Supreme Court, the appellant -ap- plicant was represented by Eric Knudsen, Langrock Sperry & Wool, Burlington; the cross -appellant City by Amanda Laffer- ty, Stitzel Page & Fletcher, Burlington. Trial court docket number was 72-5-01 Vtec. Supreme Court Opinions 16 VERMONT LAW WEEK Page 257 CITY OFSOUTH UTH BURLID4G1LON DEPAXTMEIT Off' PLANNING & ZONE'4C 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VEW4101'a 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit #- - APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Al: inioriiiation requested on `l'1i5 application mu:�t be completed in full. raiiufe to proviue the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Type of application (check one): Appeal from decision of the Administrative Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Vio ation ( ) Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( ) Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY): VYJ�AT ACTION OF THE A MINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING ? i ut - IU 1) O WNER OF REC RD (N me as shown on deed, mailing address, phone & fax lT #): . k V�" I C. -t � I 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (book & page #) 3) APPLICANT (name, mailing address, phone and fax #) k, 4) CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive staff correspondence. Include name, mailing address, Vo n & fax # if different from above): ,, 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: / 9 C �- 07 " 11 / (W 6) TAX PARCEL 1D #: i) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): B. Proposed Uses on Property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): C. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings & existing building to remain): D. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement & mezzanine): E. Number of residential Units (if applicable, new units & existing units to remain): F. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing & proposed, note office vs. non -office employees): G. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if overlay districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE A. Total parcel size: Sq. Ft. B. Buildings: Existing % / Sq. Ft Proposed % / Sq. Ft. C. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % / Sq. Ft. Proposed % / Sq. Ft. D. Total area to be disturbed during construction: Sq. Ft. * * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9) COST ESTIMATES A. Building (including interior renovations): $ B. Landscaping $ C. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC: A. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): B. A. M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): C. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 14) LIST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS: (list names and address of all abutting property owners, including those across any street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet of paper if necessary): I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 11 SIGNATURE OF AOOLICANT SIGNAT4dftE­OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: ®'Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning i have reviewed this application and find it to ne: ❑ COMPLETE ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date l John J. Bergeron BERGERON PARADIS Vincent A. Paradis Edward Fitzpatrick FITZPATRICK LLP Priscilllaa B. Dube Douglas G. Kallen A T T U R N F Y S Daniel P. O'Rourke Kerm E. Stackpole Michael D. Danley David D. Aman August 16, 2005 OF COUNSEL John W O'Donnell Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1803 Brand Farm Rd. Dear Ray or Juli Beth: REPLY TO: 34 Pearl Street PO. Box 174 Essex Jct., VT 05452-0174 Tel (802) 879-6304 Fax (802) 879-6533 www.bpflegal.com I represent Nikhil Patel who resides at 1803 Brand Farm Drive. Enclosed please find the appeal of Ray Balair's denial of an Application for Certificate of Occupancy, together with the filing fee of $110.00. Sincerely, Edward D. Fi�patrick, Esq. Efitz2essex.bpfle ag l.com EDF:aka Enclosure cc: Nikhil Patel RECEIVED AVG 18 2005 City of So. Burlington BURLINGTON OFFICE. 27 Main Street 0 P.O. Box 925 0 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0925 • Tel (802) 863-1191 0 Fax (802) 863-5798 1�01 i.i w(Ill are, � ��►ett�. +�pc�d g6L Pam+ �arn,� tk �I�C�o Sao &x ) 9 6 A bard limi wF t t I 1. of tr lI APP� ICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY The undersigned her ::with i equests an inspection of the premises indicated below and issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy" pursuant to Section 17.03 of the South Burlington Land Development 'Regulations. Property Owner:.�� Mr--)Wng Address: f • � s cy'. 1.uN h.� . < 0 IPrc erb. Address: ❑ The wdrlk fr.,- which a a::ertificace of Occupancy is being requested was corripiey d oni' ;� '., as authorized under Zot7ir,g Permit# date �. ❑ Come Ocwup._Aion Request Propz r•-,;' 0!-`'truer Signat,,re J-�eed $60.00 r " r Application received on: oS --3/ Application #C©- ❑ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy/ will expire on to provide the applicant time to complete the following improvements: ❑ Permanent Certificate of Occupancy Ap Officer's Signature Date CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 AGENDA #9 To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Re: Appeal #AO-05-04, Nikhil Patel Date: September 16, 2005 Background 1. On April 2, 1992, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to a previouslo approved planned residential development (see exhibit "C") known as "Village at Dorset Park". The area that was amended is shown on exhibit "A". It is the area with the shaded buildings on this plan and is recorded at Map Slide #247. 2. The developer recorded another plan a few months later including the street address for the units which is recorded at Map Slide #250 (see exhibit "B"). This plan changed building #20 to #1801-1804. 3. Zoning permit #ZP-93-263 was issued on 10/4/93 which authorized the construction of units 1801-1804 (see enclosed). 4. On or about 5/23/94, the then Administrative Officer, Richard Ward, issued a temporary Certificate of Occupancy which was valid for 90 days (see exhibit "D"). The 90 day period expired on or about 8/23/94. The building in question, which includes units 1801-1804, has been occupied illegally since that date. 5. On 8/5/05 the owner of unit #1803 on Brand Farm Drive submitted a Certificate of Occupancy application for his unit. The Administrative Officer visited the property discovered that the building was not constructed as shown on the approved plan (building #20 on exhibit "A") -I- 6. The Administrative Officer measured the Northwest corner of unit #18 to be 42 feet from the street curb on the plan and 44 feet 3 inches on the ground. The southwest corner of the building was measured to be 54 feet from the street curb on the plan and 48 feet on the ground. 7. On August 8, 2005, the Administrative Officer denied the request for Certificate of Occupancy application #CO-05-31 (see enclosed) for the reason that the building is not constructed in the exact location as shown on the approved plan. 8. Section 17.03(C) Final Inspection and Certificate Issuance of the Land Development Regulations states in part as follows: ....is shall be the duty of the Administrative Officer to have made a final inspection thereof and issue a Certificate of Occupancy if the project is found to conform with the provisions of this ordinance, and all other ordinances and regulations of the City." REASON TO UPHOLD DECISION Pursuant to 24 VSA § 4448(a) the "Administrative Officer shall administer the bylaws literally and shall not have the power to permit any land development that is not in conformance with those bylaws." The building is not in conformance with the approved plan, therefore, the Administrative Officer does not have the authority to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for unit #1803 on Brand Farm Drive. -2- 0 M � _ k R • •^y.w '�`�a,`"..zT»'NTa.. ... �.�..'tiiaralAx` �"""'S2.<aA'%r.,'. CCITY OF SOUTH BC___INGTON PERMIT NO-/ APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER rQ 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone....., 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date .............9 / 2 8......................... 19 9 3.... . ) Tho undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements me described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington end the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now In effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET Brand Farm Drive NUMBER #1801, 802, 18 OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage See Plan Depth Lot No. 1804 Single Family B 1 2 3 Two Family Cement OWNER A & G Investments BUILDER Owner Apartment No. Fem. Earth Store Pine WATER SUPPLY: Public Private ❑ Offices Hardwood SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public M Septic Tank Warehouse Tile p ❑ Permit # Carpet ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # Res. Garage Attic Ft. & Strs. No. Cars Dot. Att. Height ELEC. WIRING: Underground 12§ Overhead ❑ Permit # Gas Station INTERIOR FINISH Additions -Alterations B 1 2 3 Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. FOUNDATION Pine Mark N at Compass point Indicating North. Concrete X Hardwood Concrete Block Sheetrock Ll Brick or Stone Unfinished Piers Paneling Collar Area Full Y. % Recrest. Room No Collar X Finished Attic Fireplace EXTERIOR WALLS Clapboards Wide Siding M-Pipaiess Furnace -M Hot Air Furnace ....................................... No Sheathing Forced Air Furn. Wood Shingles Asbes. Shingles Stucco on Frame ....................................... Brick on Tile e - ................ ..................... Solid Brick = ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... n emar s . . •0-: '• .� 10 BedroomsP. 00 ROOFING Asph. Shingles =PROPERTY G„ FEE COMPUTATI 4040 .40Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ 25 Pinec_rest Dr., Essex Jct. , VAT SI ER or BUILDER ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED /� �(.f �/% SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO C/�( Date PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY The undersigned herewith requests an inspection of the premises indicated below and issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy", pursuant to Section 17.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Property Owner:��'► Mailing Address: © 0 ra r'l,Q a-r Property Address:'►�� ❑ The work for which a Certificate of Occupancy is being requested was completed on / 7 as authorized under Zoning Permit # &3date ❑ Nome Occupation Request Property Owner Signat! ire Date Fee: $60.00 Application received on: O �� Application #CO ❑ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will expire on to provide the applicant time to complete the following improvements: ❑ Permanent Certificate of Occupancy V/"Appli u� n denied for the fo 5 #x, AJOT Ca QlJ O 1 istrative Officer's Signature ns:'ij )EXA(T /..a Date exwe IT C FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: Findings of Fact, application of A&G Investments for a 177 unit planned residential development consisting of 63 single family units and 114 multi -family units, Village at Dorset Park. On the 2nd of April 1992 the South Burlington Planning Commission approved the request of A&G Investments for revised final plat approval under Section 204 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations based on the following findings: 1. The applicants are proposing to amend the approved 178 unit planned residential development by reducing the overall density by one (1) unit and reducing the number of multi -family units from 34 buildings to 29 buildings. The result will be a 177 unit PRD consisting of 63 single family lots and 114 multi -family units. The sketch plan which was reviewed on 8/6/91 showed a project with 145 units consisting of 121 single family lots and 24 multi -family units. The current proposal is much closer to the original approved concept than was presented at sketch plan. 2. Access: Access to the project has not changed. 3. Coverage/setbacks: Coverage limitations will continue to be met. The 20 foot rear yard setback requirement will be met including the requirement that these buildings be a minimum of 30 feet apart. 4. Landscaping: The landscaping requirement for the 68 multi- family units is $45,920. The landscaping proposed amounts to only $21,350, a shortfall of $24,570. The 1988 approval required a landscaping bond of $85,000 for the multi -family units. Records indicate that a $19,000 bond was posted and subsequently released. The remaining $66,000 amount should be reduced to $45,920. Homestead Design, Inc. (this project's previous developer) agreed last fall to plant 45 white and/or Austrian pine trees 3' - 4' in height in those areas where the existing 20 foot buffer zone along the property line is sparse and at the northwest corner of the project. The applicant is agreeable to this condition. The 1988 approval required a $9,800 landscaping bond for the buffer zone plantings. The 1988 approval required a landscaping bond of $197,000 for street trees. Records indicate that a $63,000 bond was posted of which $50,000 was released. This approval will require a street tree landscaping bond of $134,000 with $13,000 from the original being continued. 5. Common area: The common area has been slightly reduced in size from the 1990 plan. The previous plan had the common area being 360 feet long (this is the distance between the multi -family buildings located at either end of the common area). The proposed plan shows this distance being 250 feet, a reduction of 110 feet. 6. Sewer: The original sewer allocation of 81,600 ;pd still applies. This amendment results in one (1) less unit which would allow the allocation to be reduced by 450 gpd to 81,150 gpd. DECISION & CONDITIONS Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Planning Commission approves the revised final plat application of A&G Investments for a 177 unit planned residential development consisting of 63 single family units and 114 multi -family units as depicted on a 13 page set of plans, page one entitled, "The Village at Dorset Park, a planned Residential Development, South Burlington, Vermont, Overall Site Plan", prepared by FitzPatrick- Llewellyn, Inc. and dated February, 1992, last revised 3/10/92, and a two (2) page survey plat, page one entitled "The Village at Dorset Park, Plat of Subdivision for A&G Investments", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. and dated March, 1992 last revised 3/27/92, with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and conditions which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. The applicant shall post, prior to permit, a 3-year, $45,920 landscaping bond for the multi -family units and a 3-year, $134,000 landscaping bond for street trees. 3. The Planning Commission grants an $8,000 landscaping credit for existing vegetation to remain. This vegetation exists in the proposed common area within the multi -family portion of the development. 4. The applicant shall plant 45, 3' - 4' high white and/or Austrian pine trees within the sparse areas of the 20 foot buffer zone and in the northwest corner of the development. These additional plantings are needed to enhance areas of the buffer zone which have been disrupted and also fulfill the requirement of the May, 1988 approval to enhance the buffer in the northwest corner. 5. The Planning Commission grants a revised sewer allocation of 81,150 gpd to account for one less unit in the development. The applicant shall pay the appropriate sewer fee prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 6. The revised final plat (i.e., survey plat and site plans) shall be recorded prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit and within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The revised final plat shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chairman or Clerk prior to recording. - Chairman(or—Clerk V South Burlington Planning Commission CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY s• In accordance with Secti n 2 20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at ©� 1AI, having been completed �`� ` as per specifications o tlined in Zoning Permit No. 9 �°? dated f b may now be used for occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for days. Zoning Admrnistrotrve Officer -- --a• �X1 Qr T ',4" f R 1 ) 42' x 100' /NN1/A11 OK x I a 3011 _ � � I 1 3 33 34 35 i �36 i Ip !I PU^V''b� lvw I 1 _—� I— / 12 L!3 i PREV/OU, 1 \ 1 — L_ APPROVED PROJECT 31 BRAND FARM DRIVE 1 � — i 45 46 — 1 j 44 , 1 1 1 47 3THIS _ 1 1 9 PROJECT 29 1 ' D 49 150 1 5► 28 i m 11 48 1 1\ 1 I i 8 I /6 27 7 - i 25 1 i 24� 23 1 22 26 i v�T I 1 Z i _ y \ 1 ' 19 ! ` 20 ! 21 1 6 s o i 17 i 18 j I ��\1 1 � 'I 19 Dj 1 is 15UPWM LDNB. LA \\\ - o 6 F1 16 IRIS LANE a p m COMMON I 15 ) 1 i 54 v zt1 1' \ AREA 52 53 1 R1 t k6 vTlt-ITY 1 1 i C/�SE CNT 1 N I 14 4 i — r c �ve1Q Gh6LE , —1 , ETG.1 13 56 i 57 i 58 59 60 BLUESTAR = _ I ► f , — 11 64 i 65 — I 61 i 6-0i 6 1 \ 10 \ 1 _ 1 2.o.w. 1.11E 9 �— Ek15T1lify rrc'.Gc 1 �� 1 67 I 68 I 69 ! 66 IRIS LA 1 1 7 _ + 1 1 2 13 1 I 1 — SrREEr a/F G/aLICIn1S Il N/F CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 112-84' 455.00' 1204 1203 1202 1201 455.00' S87'56'30'E --.43' 2 2' 134.11' CLUSTER D 45, 501 S. F. 1.04 A w 0 0 ti 4404 1403 1402 1401 O S87'56'30'E 384.11' w1 i I 35'03'55' Ni o '70.00' O 11o2 11ol �8.07' �I O NI 0I 1 ]5'10'09' 42.61' z1 330.00' 17 7. 7 74.88'T N 87° 5fi 30`W 2 0.3 37,37, loo' X 70' UTILITY EASEMENT 250.00' /3oz 1: /30, 1 U) 20' UTILITY EASEMENT"/ {I{ W 1504 N 1503 rt CLUSTER E 75,948 S.F 1.74 A. 15°Z 1 a 1 1501 0= 11. 15'25" R = 1470.00 L = 288.81' 1 20' UTILITY EASEMENT l' 59'� JO' 8 = II.15,25" R = ' 308.4 L - 308.46' 3120, 87' CLUSTER A 84, 412 S. F 1.93 A. 6 = 080 13' 12° R = 1730 00' 79' 31'10' = 248 20' 15.00' 20.82' p = 80 13' (D R = 1630 00 = 233.82' COMMON C 287,608 S. F —R 1570,0070.00' 0 = 6.60 A. = L = 115.23' 1 185,48, COMMON 0 --�19,584 S.E 0.44 A. 0 = 80' 43'05' R = 75,00, L = 105.66` 4, 4/,ern w� H16O4,=80°'•r.7 0 15.00' =21.13' 1602 1601 -31 3 !4 1704 t0 l CL 1703 z� o no2 a 1701 19o4 1905 1902 1901 �— 100.000 g 82 4g 35" W MATCH LINE 4< m m it N 1604 ISO 1802 ,Sol W �o c0 G: IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE THE LATEST REVISIONS. 2004 2003 2002 2001 2y04 22p3 ?zo2 N N W �01 tT 10 ADD BUILDINGS, CHANGE & EASEMENT 9.14-92 9 CONTINUE FROM 0.2783; REMOVE PHASE LINES; REVISE CLUSTER BOUNDARIES ; CHANGE PROJECT NO./ DATE / DRAWING NO. 3-27-92 8 ADD PHASE BOUNDARIES GHC 5/1/90 Ok (7 4.2690 7 REMOVE LOTS 37- 43 ; ADD CLUSTER D; REVISE EASEMENTS; REVISE CLUSTER BOUNDARIES; ADD 15' UTILITY EASEMENT 41290 6 ADD EASEMENT a NOTE 3.13.90 5 JADD STREET NAMES •24.89 4 ADD IRON PINS TO CLUSTER BOUNDARY LINES 12-13 3 CHANGED CLUSTER DESIGNATIONS 7--88 2 ADD • CLUSTER DESIGNATIONS; SHADE COMMON AREAS 30-68 r 1 REVISE AREAS,BEARINGS, LEGEND 8 NOTES,a ADD EASEMENTS 11-88 REVISIONS DATE 2404 K N/F CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON A CLUSTER C 133,806 S.F. 3.07 A. SCALE . I " = 50' 50 25 0 50 100 THE VILLAGE of PLAT OF 5! FO A bar G INt SOUTH BURLINGTON F0u,z'PnA ENGINEERING AND WILLISTON