HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-87-0000 - Decision - 0059 Swift Street (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
10 MARCH 1987
PAGE 3
depicted on a set of plans entitled "Burlington, Vermont: FAA
ATCT with 6200 Square Foot Base Building" prepared �2y Leo A.
Daly last revised 9/19/86 with the following stipulations:
1. A new landscaping plan valued at $29,750 shall be
submitted and approved �2y the City Planner prior to permit.
This plan shall show berms along Airport Drive, and the berms
shall count as landscaping. In the event that a berm is not
permitted on the Airport property, a new landscaping plan
shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to
permit A bond for this amount shall be posted prior to
permit.
2. The Dawn Court road opening shall be closed �2y removing
the existing curb radii and constructing a concrete barrier
curb.
3. The curb around the paved road shall extend around the
intersection radius and to the parking lot entrance.
4. Prior to permit, the City of Burlington must rectify the
landscaping requirement under the previous permit 12y sub-
stituting a bond for the cash.
5. The sidewalk adjacent to the parking area should be at
least 5 feet wide.
6. The looped water system shall be completed and the last
hydrant installed in accordance with previously approved
plans.
7. A 405 gallon per day sewer allocation is granted in ac-
cordance with the South Burlington Sewer Policy. This
project is placed on the waiting list and no building permit
shall be issued until capacity is available. The $2.50 per
gallon fee shall be paid prior to permit.
8. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or
this approval is null and void.
Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Site plan application of Charles Anderson & Albert St.
Amand for construction of a 9600 sq. ft. building for auto-
mobile radio sales and service and warehouse use, 59 Swift St
Mr. St. Amand noted they had purchased the property from the
Mini -Storage people across the street. Half the building
will be used for a company installing 2-way car radios. Mrs.
Lafleur noted more landscaping is required. The concensus of
PLANNING COMMISSION
10 MARCH 1987
PAGE 4
the Commission was to increase the size of the trees. Mr.
Anderson noted he would like to keep the sidewalk for cus-
tomer convenience.
Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve the site
plan application of Charles Anderson & Albert St. Amand for
construction of a 9600 sq. ft. commercial -warehouse building
as depicted on a plan entitled "59 Swift Street:Anderson St.
Amand, South Burlington, Vermont" prepared �2y Michael Dugan,
dated February 25, 1987 with the following stipulations:
1. A $4950 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit.
The plan shall be revised to reflect this amount and shall be
approved by the Planner prior to permit. The plans should
show any existing large trees at the rear of the lot.
2. A site drainage plan shall be submitted to the City En-
gineer for approval prior to permit.
3. Plans shall be revised to show where pavement will be and
where curbs will be constructed.
4. A 75 gpd sewer allocation is granted in accordance with
the South Burlington Sewer Policy. The $2.50 per gallon fee
shall be paid prior to permit.
5. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or
this approval is null and void.
Mrs. Maher seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
6. Sketch plan application of RPM Development (Paul Marquis)
for a 2-lot subdivision of an 80,822 sq. ft. lot, 5 Gregory
Drive
Mr. Hirt noted one lot will be 40,364 sq. ft. and the other
40,458. A driveway will be split between the 2 lots. There
will be only 1 curb cut. The Commission has already approved
a building for one lot. Mrs. Lafleur said the plan meets all
requirements, setbacks, etc.
7. Sketch Plan application of John Belter for subdivision of
32.2 acres into 21 industrial -commercial lots located on
Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Drive
Mr. Belter stepped down during this discussion.
Mr. Belter noted there will be anew street, 32 ft. wide which
will be a city street with curbs. Mrs. Lafleur added that
all lots except 2 are south of Ethan Allen Drive. Mr. Belter
SOUTI: )URLINGTON ZONING BOA%D OF .AUSTMENT
Findings in accordance with Section 4468 of the Planning � Development
Act
(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
regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located; a
(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; D-
(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the
appellant;
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential'
character of the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be
detrimental to the public welfare; and IT
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum
variance that will afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan.
Appeal #
Date 3%23 /F7
Appellantr4w(y �wc�e►� /q�tiT� D�/Y��4n�
Vote: Yes No Sign
p
List findings below:
l . n y�� c% �Je �, Gy S CS �d A
2. hi T2Arr(- c r4-1.r,✓cc-
C c1Y x l.c 6 4L� z,, 77- ,tie , s
3: -
SOUTI. BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF JJUSTM::NT
Vote:
Li
1.
2.
3
Findings in accordance with Section 446P of the Planning & Development
Act
(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
regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located;
(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; 1:1
(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the
appellant;
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential'
character of the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be
detrimental to the public welfare; and
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum
variance that will afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. a
Appeal #,
Date
Appellant LG�/J7
Sign
Yes F1
No n
SOUTh hRLINGTON 'ZONING BOAPI) OF t{L)JUSTM::NT
Findings In accordance with Section 446E of the Planning & Development
Act
(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
regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located; j
(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; 9
(3) That such unneces -ry hardsship has not been created by the
appellant;
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential'
character of the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be
detrimental to the public welfare; and
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum
variance that will afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan.
Date —)� -2.2—,f7
Appellant,aL�si� ��T_•c.,�
Vote: Yes No
List findings below:
3:
Appeal #,
Sign _
SOM, tUP,LINGTON ZONING BOAP.D OF JJUS'FM'--.'N'r
Findings in accordance with Section 446E of the Planning & Development
Act
(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
regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located; U
(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; 9
l vl
(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been Created by the
appellant;
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential'
character of the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be
detrimental to the public welfare; and
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum
variance that will afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan.
Appeal # L
Date /23 (
Appellant &k,
Vote: Yes Q No Sig
List findings below:
1. kg 4""4 4�
2.
SOUi._ kURLINGTON ZONING BOA?D OF ADJUSTM'ENT
Findings in accordance with Section 446P of the Planning & Development
Act
(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
regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located;
(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; 11
(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the
appellant; L1
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential'
character of the neighborhood or district in which the property
is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be
detrimental to the public welfare; and E
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum
variance that will afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan.')
Appeal #
Date .Z 3 . / q
Appellant
Vote: Yes j No F Sign �
List findings below:
1
2
3: