Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-11-01 SD-11-07 - Decision - 1302 1340 1350 Spear Street (2)MP-11-01 SD-11-07 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FARRELL REAL ESTATE, 1302, 1340, AND 1350 SPEAR STREET MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-11-01 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-11-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master Plan application #MP-11-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-11-07 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 25 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 22 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 20, 2011. Eric Farrell represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: Notice of Decision Reizardin2 Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing This matter was consolidated for hearing purposes such that, on September 20, 2011, that DRB heard evidence and argument regarding both an appeal by Appellants/Interested Persons, William and Maurene Gilbert, et al. (hereinafter "the Gilberts"), from a decision of the Administrative Officer to warn Master Plan Application #MP-11-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-07 (the "Applications") for hearing before the DRB on August 3, 2011, and their request to "dismiss" the Applications for lack of DRB jurisdiction. A separate decision has been issued addressing the appeal. Relevant Background Facts It is undisputed that this Board held a public meeting on July 6, 2010, on FRE's sketch plan application (#SD-10-20). On August 11, 2010, the applicant, Farrell Real Estate ("FRE") submitted Preliminary Plat Application#SD-10-28 and Master Plan Application #MP-10-01 to the City. However, FRE withdrew those applications on January 27, 2011, due to changes in project boundary lines proposed after the sketch plan meeting. The following day, on January 28, 2011, FRE submitted the Applications to the City. The Gilberts argue that FRE failed to ` The Gilberts seek an Order remanding the Applications back to the sketch plan stage of the subdivision review process. Page 1 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 submit its application for preliminary plat approval within the time required by the City's Land Development Regulations and that the DRB, consequently, cannot review it. Decision Regarding Timeliness of Preliminary Plat Filing As noted above, the Gilberts have asked this Board to dismiss the preliminary plat application for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 15.06(C) and 15.08(A) of the City's Land Development Regulations.2 Those provisions address the timing of plat submission for minor and major subdivision review, respectively. Section 15.08(A), in particular, provides that "[a]fter classification of the proposed subdivision as a major subdivision and within six (6) months of the meeting on the sketch plan, the applicant shall file an application for the approval of a preliminary plat with the Administrative Officer." (Emphasis added) In this case, the Applicant, FRE, did not meet this requirement. As noted above, the last sketch plan meeting for this project was held on July 6, 2010. Applications #SD-10-28 and #MP-10-01 were initially submitted in a timely matter, but those applications were withdrawn on or about January 27, 2011. The Applications that replaced them and that are at issue here (#SD-11-07 and #MP-11- 01) were not submitted within six months of the meeting on the sketch plan. Therefore, the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements of § I5.08(A), the plain language of which is not in dispute. 3 Moreover, as the Gilberts correctly observe, the new (2011) applications for preliminary plat and master plan approval have never been subject to sketch plan review. Although the Applicant argues that the new applications are substantially the same as the old (i.e., except for minor changes to boundaries, etc.), and therefore can "piggyback" on the July 2010 sketch plan review for the withdrawn applications, the Land Development Regulations do not appear to contemplate this process, and the so-called "minor" changes to boundaries reflected in the new preliminary plat/master plan applications implicate a substantial number of additional property owners who apparently did not receive notice of the prior sketch plan meeting. The DRB believes that it would be reasonable, under the circumstances, for the Applicant to provide new posting and notice to property owners impacted by changed boundaries, and to submit a new sketch plan for review by the DRB. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, it is the determination of the DRB that preliminary plat and master plan review shall not proceed until a new sketch plan meeting has been held, with The Gilberts have styled their request as a "motion to dismiss." While the DRB acknowledges and understands the Gilberts' request, it does not wish to encourage parties that come before it to engage in overly legalistic "motion practice." The DRB is a lay board, comprised primarily of non -attorneys, and it is both expensive and time- consuming for the Board to attempt to address complex legal motions like those filed in this case. 3 By this decision, the DRB specifically does not decide whether failure to meet the 6-month requirement is "jurisdictional," as the Gilberts assert, or merely a procedural prerequisite. It is clear, however, that the 6-month deadline was missed, and the DRB believes that submission of a new sketch plan is warranted in this case. 4 The DRB understands that, as of the date of this decision, the Applicant has already submitted a new sketch plan application. Therefore, the Gilberts request for a "remand" for this purpose is essentially moot. Page 2 1 MP-11-01 SD-11-07 proper posting and notice to adjoining land owners per the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4464 and the City's Land Development Regulations. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this 1 st day of November, 2011. Chair Page 3