The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0044 Country Club DriveCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REWEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 11, 2008 \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman—misc—fill.doc Plans received: March 24, 2008 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-09-01 Meeting date: February 3, 2009 Agenda #8 OwnerlApplicant Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 0 1845 Property Information Tax Parcel 0480-00044 R4 Zoning District; 11,095 SF Location Ma .7 N CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DE VEL OPMENT RE VIE W B OARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill reapproval.doc Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking after -the -fact approval to alter the existing grade by adding approximately 300 cubic yards of fill, 44 Country Club Drive. A similar application was approved by the Board on May 22, 2008 (MS-08-01) which involved adding 160 cubic yards to the subject property. This application requests additional fill as the subject property is proposed to be enlarged by the addition of a small piece of abutting land purchased by the property owner. COMMEIV Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on January 12, 2009 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R4 Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF Max. Building Coverage 20% 16% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21% Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft Side Setback 10 ft. 7ft Rear Setback 30 ft. ft Max. Building Height 40 ft. _>30 27 ft zoning compliance zoning non-compliance The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. The applicant is addressing the side yard compliance issue as part of a separate application. It is unclear what the action is regarding the front yard setback issue. Until the violation is corrected, the property will remain on the violation list. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill reapproval.doc to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (A) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan, containing two (2) sheets showing the placement of the fill on the subject property. The plans depict the existing and proposed contours. (B) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. There are no operations being conducted on the site and therefore this criterion is not applicable. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. 1. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. CTTY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DE VEL OPMENT RE VIE W B OA RD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill reapproval.doc Other The plan submitted as part of this application includes placement of fill on the adjacent property. There is an application in process which will include this property as part of the subject property and all fill will then be on the subject property. The owner of the abutting property has stated his knowledge and understanding of the application and subsequent process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-01. Respectfully submitted, eaffija n Ros6-,As-s-oc-iale Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Law Office of James A. Dumont, Esq., P.C. 15 Main St., P.O. Box 229, Bristol VT 05443 802-453-7011; Toll Free: 866-453-7011; fax 453-6040 email: jim(? ,dumontlawyt.com; website: dumontlawvt.com James A. Dumont, Esq. Kit D. Donnelly, Legal Assistant June 14, 2011 By email to: Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington, VT Re: Lieberman, 44 Country Club Drive Dear Ray: Thanks for talking with my assistant Kit Donnelly today Terry Liebennan has told me that the change he made to his front porch satisfied you that he is no longer in violation with the front yard setback. Terry also has shown me the Certificate you issued to him. The Certificate states that there are no pending enforcement proceedings or investigations. The problem we have is that the February 3, 2009 Development Review Board decision, MS-09-01, which dealt with obtaining approval for adding fill, on page 2, states "The applicant is addressing the side yard compliance issue as part of a separate application. It is unclear what the action is regarding the front yard setback issue. Until the violation is corrected, the propeily will remain on the violation list." Since this is in the town records, it remains a defect that the Liebermans must disclose to any potential purchaser of their land. The Certificate stating that there are no pending enforcement proceedings or investigations does not address the firidmig by the DRB that there is a violation. Therefore, we need something in writing saying that there is no longer a front yard setback violation. Thanks. Sincerely ja*ne*A. Dumont James A. Dumont, Esq. cc: Mr. and Mrs. Lieberman southburfington PLANNING & ZONING August 5, 2009 Terry and Beth Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Compliance Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lieberman: The zoning permit issued to you on 7/21/2009 to cure several zoning violations on your property has now taken effect. Please let me know when you have modified the roof structure over your front deck so that we may remove your property from the zoning violations list. Thank yo khanK yo a v y n J. Belair Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tall 802.846.4106 fax 802.846,4101 www.sburi.com DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 April 2009 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Behr, Acting Chair; G. Quimby, R. Farley, M. Birmingham Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. LaRose, Associate Planner; S. McClellan, B. Gardner, D. Burke, P. Brogna, M. Diemer, J. Cooper, J. Dunleavy, T. Suinoraka, A. Everse, T. Lieberman, G. Provost, M. Young, L. Bresee, R. Peabody, M. Dufresne, L. Llewellyn 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Belair advised that the applicants for items # 5 and #10 had requested continuances. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-09-07 and Final Plat Application #SD- 09-08 of Shepard Brogna Gardner Stowe, LLC until 21 April 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application 4SD-09-05 of Wedgewood Development Corporation until 5 May 2009. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Minutes of 3 March and 17 March 2009: Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 3 March as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 17 March as written. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Final Plat Application #SD-09-14 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a two -lot subdivision to subdivide off a 0.028 acre parcel from a 271 acre parcel to be added to 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Belair noted that the applicant had not picked up the plaque that is required to be placed on the property. Members were OK with continuing. Mr. Belair also noted that there are still some things to be done to get the property into compliance, but staff had no issues with this application. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-09-14 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Miscellaneous application #MS-09-02 of Diemer Properties, LLC, to alter the western elevation of a 14-unit multi -family dwelling, 14 Bacon Street: Mr. Diemer indicated that they will be adding a window to the fagade. The family crest will be going inside the window. Mr. Belair noted an error in Stipulation #4, since there is no plat plan. Stipulation #4 was deleted. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461 (b). The DRB must keep a written -record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V. S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEA,P 6q WNG DA TE: P9 iv —I C NAME 7 A Y" ea� 1-2�t F �� t-(, I 61(etvL La " c e- (_ L e,,&-, e� L( I t\j IL-1114 ADDRESS a V �- 0 b\y� SA� IaCA \ V�L' V—)'- , S3 r6l ��rj�t ..f+. k, Wt yho" 4� 4, oq��r2;� U CU-44(cik W �Lt '2o V,�Ovafl Av�p 1�i5 Lt e- ULIA PROJECT OF INTEREST ItlNoul 3P mawkwwa_ �4'ea A ruj t aA V Me_e;AaN,_�.Lc,_,q Lt_ .inct. club membership), 166 Athletic Drive, She[- fo: 802-985-4406, www. eathleticctub.com. Vinyo- gor, Anusara, Yin, Ashtango lu classes as well as reformer, senior P710tes. VERMONT: Daily drop -in plenty of choices, open to As, two locations. Cost: $14/ 1, $115/10 class card, $130/ pass. Location: Chace Mill ooski River, downtown at 113 St. (top floor of the Leunig's g), Burlington. Info: 802-660- www.yogavermont.com. Six- kiier and Rider class, six -week a Ashtanga, Monft Restor- IdaPtive Yoga, Yoga Instructor f Course and more listed on . Gift certif7cates available. For -st, check out our blog: http.11 mont.typepod.com. kND ART WORKSHOP: May. 30 P.M. Cost: $35/2.5-hour Location: Dhatri Founda- ovement Space, 185 Tilley Burlington. Info: Courtney J, 802-310-7858, dhatri- tion.org. Courtney Reckord rtist, yoga teacher and art )r. She will be leading an on workshop that explores postureflows as well as the potential within each of Yoga experience necessary. media will be explored, in - painting and collage. $35 i all materials. 'OR MEN BY STEVE: Begin - 'et I, Mon. & Wed., 6-7:15 termediate Level II, Tues. ;., 6-7:30 p.m. Open Class & 11 welcome, Sat. 10- .m. Restorative yoga, Sat. m. Privte sessions avail- i appointment. Location: )ute 7, North Ferrisburgh. r website www.mirociesoft- rn for detailed description offerings. To schedule a inquire aboutfees or ser- ,i tact Jim, jhortil 59@ com- , 802-310-8291. Class reg- i limited to 61class. 40TICE "PLICATION §§ 6001-6092 ry 27, 2009, David Quinlan, cation 44C0723-1A for a nerally described as: I of the existing space to irts studio, addition of six aces, increase in permitted tions for the lot and revise vater disposal system. The -)cated on Chnsemity Road in Milton, Vermont. please contact the district coordinator at the telephone number listed b for more information. Prior to co, ing a hearing, the District Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Will not be prepared unless the Com- mission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this proj. ect and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by March 27, 2009. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, adjoining property own- ers, other interested persons granted party status pursuant to 1 0 V.S.A. § 6085(c). Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(5). Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 5th day of March, 2009. By/s/Peter E. Keibet Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E/ peter. keibeL@state.vt.us ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6092 On March 12, 2009, John Larkin and Cupola Golf Course, Inc., filed apptica- tion #4C1138-3 for a project generally described as: an extension of the findings that created the three -Lot subdivision and construction of 64 apartments in two buildings on Larkin Lot #2. This amendment also modifies the approvals from LUP #4C1138 and consists of an enlargement of the building footprints, relocation of the parking Lots, revision of the stormwater system, revise the roadway width and revise the tandscap- ing plans. The project is located on Quarry HiU. Road off Spear Street in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. The District 4 Environmental Commis- sion Witt review this application under Act 250 Rule 51 - Minor Applications. Copies of the application and proposed permit are available for review at the South Burlington Municipal office, Chfttenden County Regional Planning Commission located at 30 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington, and the office Listed below. The application and proposed permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (www.nrb.state.vt.us/[up) by clicking on "Act 250 Database," selecting "En- tire Database," and entering the case number above. No hearing will be held unless, on or before April 14, 2009, a party notifies the District Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commis- sion sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shalt be in writing to the address below, shalt state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence wilt be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordinator Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E/ peter.keibet@state.vt.us ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6092 On March 6, 2009, Munson Earth Moving Corporation, filed application #4C10O5- 10 for a project generally described as: the subdivision of Lot #1 into two tots with construction of a 15,000 sf single story office building and associated infrastructure on Lot #1B. This is Phase I of a two phase plan and partial find- ings are being sought for Phase II. The project is located on Hinesburg Road in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. The District 4 Environmental Commis- sion Witt review this application under Act 250 Rule 51 - Minor Applications. Copies of the application and proposed Permit are available for review at the South Burlington Municipal Office, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission located at 30 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington, and the office Listed below. The application and proposed permit may also be viewed on the Natural Resources Board's web site (www.nrb.state.vt.us/tup) by clicking on "Act 250 Database," selecting "En- tire Database," and entering the case number above. No hearing Witt be held unless, on or before April 7,2009, a party notifies the District Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commis- sion sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shalt be in writing to the address below, shalt state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence Witt be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the district coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to conven. ing a hearing, the District Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wilt not be prepared unless the Com- mission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this proj- ect and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by April 7,2009. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality the Municipal Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, adjoining property owners, other interested persons granted party status pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c). Non-party participants may also be at - [owed under 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(5). Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 12th day of March, 2009. By/s/ Peter E. Keibet Peter E. Keibet Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E/ peter. keibet@state.vt.us amount is require� - 'he bid opening. The successful bid �tl be required c to provide an assi, of compte- tion in the form of a performance & payment bond pursuant to the contract documents, as may be required by state Law. Improper assurances of completion may be sufficient cause for rejection of the accompanying bid. The owner reserves the right to waive informalities or to reject any and all bids. Bidders may not withdraw their bids within;30 days after the date of bid opening. Alt bidding processes shalt be in accordance with State Law. To request bidding information or obtain further information contact: John MacDonald Director of Asset Management Burlington Housing Authority (802) 864-0538 ext. 224 Minority, women and Locally owned businesses are strongly encouraged to apply. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board wid. hold a public hear- ing in the South Burlington City Halt Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Final plat application #SD-09-14 of Terry and Bethany Lieberman for a two (2) Lot subdivision to subdivide off a 0.028 acre parcel from a 271 acre parcel to be added to 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive. John Dinktage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March 16, 2009 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S1683-08 CnC American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as successor-i n -interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff V. Jan -Eric Johnsson, Andrea Bedard, State of Vermont Office of Child Support and Occupants residing at 419 Marble Island Road, Colchester, Vermont, Defendants SUMMONS & ORDER FOR PUBLICATION THIS SUMMONS 15 DIRECTED TO: Jan. Eric Johnsson and Andrea Bedard 1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started 4 lawsuit against you. A copy of the Plaintiffs Complaint against you is on file and may be obtained at the office of the clerk of this court, Chittenden Superior Court, 175 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont. Do not throw this paper away. It is an official paper that affects your rights. 2. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM. Plaintiffs ct i - arm 15 a Complaint in Foreclosure which alleges - -_ I -_ J 94.= or disagree with each paragraph of tim Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer. 5. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE COURT. If you do not Answer within 41 days after the date on which this Summons was first published and file it with the Court, you Witt lose this case. Your will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint. 6. YOU MUST MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN YOUR REPLY. Your Answer must state any related [egat claims you have against the Plaintiff. Your claims against the Plaintiff are called Counterclaims. If you do not make your Counterclaims in writing in your answer you may not be able to bring them up at all. Even if you have insurance and the insurance company wilt defend you, you must still file any Counterclaims you may have. 7. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you cannot afford a Lawyer, you should ask the court clerk for information about places where you can get free legal help. Even if you cannot get legal help, You must still give the court a written Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case. ORDER The Affidavit duty filed in this action shows that service cannot be made with due diligence by any of the meth- ods provided in Rules 4(d)-ffl, (k), or (L) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Proce- dure. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that service of the Summons set forth above shalt be made upon the defendants, Jan -Eric Johnsson and Andrea Bedard, by publication as provided in Rute[s] [4(d)(l) and] 4(g) of those Rules. This order shalt be published once a week for 2 weeks beginning on March 11, 2009 in the Seven Days, a newspa- per of general circulation in Chittenden County, and a COPY of this Summons and order as published shalt be mailed to the defendants, Jan -Eric Johnsson and Andrea Bedard, if an address is known. Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 25th day of February, 2009. /s/ Hon. Dennis Pearson Hon. Dennis Pearson Presiding Judge Chittenden Superior Court WARNING RUNOFF ELECTION WARD SEVEN The legal voters of the City of Burling- ton are hereby notified and warned to come and vote at a runoff election, pursuant to Section 5 of the Burlington City Charter, on Tuesday the 24th day of March 2009 Between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the voting place hereinafter named, for the purpose of electing city officers as follows: WARD SEVEN - One City Councilor for a two-year term beginning April 6th, 2009. southburfingti,on PLANN ING & ZONIN G To: South Burlington Development Review Board, From: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner Date: March 26, 2009 Re: Agenda #3, #SD-09-14, Terry and Bethany Lieberman Final Plat application #SD-09-14 of Terry and Bethany Lieberman for a (2) lot subdivision to subdivide off a 0.028 acre parcel from a 271 acre parcel to be added to 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at 102 Ethan Allen Drive and create a new lot which is 0.028 acres, to be added to the property at 44 Country Club Drive. The primary goal of the application is to allow a greater distance from the house to the side setback for the property at 44 Country Club Road. As it exists today, the home was built too close to the existing property line. Furthermore, this application will be a step towards remedying a previous infringement where fill was placed off the property without the consent of the abutting property owner. This is a minor property line adjustment and results in no substantial change to coverages, lot sizes, or other dimensional requirements that would create non-compliance as regulated in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The action indeed accomplishes the opposite. A standard subdivision generally requires a full survey of the properties involved. The larger property, addressed as Ethan Allen Drive, is a very large agricultural property. A complete survey would likely be expensive, extensive, and unnecessary as a result of this application. Staff recommends waiving this requirement. 1. The Board grants a waiver of the requirement for a full property survey of the 271 acre parcel at 102 Ethan Allen Drive. Staff supports the property line adjustment and recommends that the Development Review Board approve Final Plat application #SD-09-14. 575 Do rs et Street South Burlington, VT 05403 te 1 802. 846.4 106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburI.com SKI DUer M2 Page IT 47 L.oca-tic 431 N.T.S GENERAL NOTES There may be additional easements,re reservations not shown No liability Is assumes by the undersl that maybe associated with the exist easement,restrictions or reservation This survey Is not Intended to deline particular concern,wetlands or any c boundaries. Acceptance of this survey plat or L monuments found or set during the field survey hereby limit the undersl to professional negligent acts,error of contract to an amount not to e� Bearing Taken with hand held compas, As per Vermont Title 19 Chapter 1 s of one and one half rods on each s existing traveled way can be assumes purposes whenever the original surw or the records preserved, or If the cannot be determined. Topographic survey by Veri used for this boundary ad„ Slide # 436 ting Iron Pin , _.._ .-rr,., f i , iR -nRIVE southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 9, 2009 Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mrs. Lieberman;: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on April 7, 2009 (effective 4/7/09). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the amended final plat plans must be recorded in the land records (in mylar format) within 180 days (must be submitted to Ray Belair for recording along with an $11 recording fee per molar by October 2, 2009) or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me Sincerely, V* Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 6420 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tal 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburt.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written -record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to every person or body appearing and having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon receipt of notice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEAR ING DA TE: NAME MAILING ADDRESS P ROJECT OF INTERE yc bur,h lug. k'_rlPz�V1(' Z;2�%P �LG(el(aVL LOLrjca- Llekk_je-UIiv A? W69,DA16Z G-4)e IR VT_ �S obi s- SA�.�� oac1 k ,, �'.Jr � C�✓ Y►tiiL{,�a (fi-- SUi iZ l� .� V� 5 ©st7- -7o V,svulea (I Ave Si3 L-L e.c,u e- uLjv j - W a w LQ ST 0,� G�gT Mdf&�f&� M P_&'A V'> L1 n 14_ Permit Number S[)-=-L-- A,- - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINCTON APPLICATION FOR FINAI, SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. failure to provide the requested inforination either on this application farm or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) ,Iola ...li�-F ltcr, wjr r-:,,a,..-T,.oyoy 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 148, paaes„ 225-228 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) _ ferry and Bethany Lieberman, 44 Country Club Drive, South BuriingLon� 4) CONTACT PERSON (Person who will recei , all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address o ' ax #) - - _ .1 V f Contact email address: 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS Country Club Drive - no street t1u(n�et�Adjacent t c).� 44 Country Cliib Drive (Lieberman), and part of 102 Fthan A?len Drive (Bolter farm)« G) TAX PARCEL 11) # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) part p L>r faxm t?L_Q2__ 7) DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use)strip of _ land__ ,-- on Country Club Drive is vacant. Entire Belter farm is approx. 270.9 acres with must p LT_Su ldfn s all remote from this location: b) Proposed uses on property (include description and sire of each new use and existing uses to remain) 20 foot strip of land will he divided off for addition to 44 Country Club Drive (Lieberman land) - -see survey filed with application. - - _,- c) 'i'otal building square footage oil property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) No buildings proposed: cl} lleighl of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) N/A EJ ea Number ofresidential units (if applicable, nev, units and existing units to remain) NSA i} Number ofemployees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) N/A g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above. Please note if0verlay Districts are applicable) N/A h) List any changes to the subdivision. such as property lines, number of units. lot mergers. etc. 8) WETLAND INFORMATION a) Are there any wetlands (Class 1. 11, or 111) on the subject property'? No, b) If ycs, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands or their associated 50' buffers? N/A c) Ifyes, this project MUST be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee prior to review by the Development Review Board. Please submit the following with this application: 1. a site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's Wetlands Map. 2. response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria). 9) LOT COVERAGE (ALI, information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a) sire of Parcel: (acres /sq. ft.) b) Building Coverage: Existing NIA square feat % Proposed N /A square feet _ % 0 Overall Coverage (building. parking, outside storage, etc): Existing N/A square feet✓a Proposed N/A square feet % LI) Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only-); _--- Existing _ . N/A _ square feat % Proposed r; /A square t'ec:t % 10 ) AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: _N/A sq. ft. X *Projects disturbing more than on -halt' acre of land must follow the C:ity's specifications for erasion 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. 11) WAIVERS REQUESTED a) list any, waivers from the strict standards in the land Development Regulations (e.g„ setbacks, height, parking, etc.) that the applicant is seeking Waiver of requirement to Survey remaining Reiter land. 12) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations) $ N/A b) Landscaping (see Section 13.06(G) of Land Development Regulations) $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost) N/A 13) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily tiatlic for entire property (in and out) � N/A b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out) N,/A c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out)��„ _ 14) PEAK HOC:RS OF OPERATION N/A 15) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION _ ,N/ 16) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE Transfer as soon as possible following approval. 3 17) AllurrING LANDOWNERS —please list abutting landowners, includint those across an), :streets. You may attach a separate sheet, Terry and Bethany Lieberman, 44 Country Club Drive janane 1,7rcligassper, 45 counLYTTILib Dr. eve Neil and Patricia Lolier, 46 Country Club Drive WilLiam and Melinda Cooper, 42 Country Club Drive 16) PLANS AND FEE Plat plant:; shall be submattcd which shows the; intortrtetion listed on Exhibit A attached. I'ive (5) regular sire copies and one reduced colt} (I I" x 17") of the plans Must be submitted. A subdivision application foe shall be paid to the City at the, time of submitting the tonal plat application (see Exhibit A). Survey attached 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. SIGMAVI'UR : (] API'I,ICANT SIGNATURE; Of' PROPERTY OWNER _ Do not write below this line DATE; OF SUBMISSION: I have reN iewed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: C"ornplete _ Incomplete X7 ` r'of Planning Zoning or Designee 3��a9 at� 4 17) ABUTTING tiny Vroel-R. YOU May �:ttacb n scpamtQsheet. Terry and IlPrbaay UeberUtWL, '1/1 COWIrry mi.b i)_iva Ell =V , rcml.r Ne 1 aud Par.];Ula 1QUay, �j COUUL J.Y 1:17 )Vfr: W1.111am and Xt:71juda Cuulfc-T, Z'T*Cruatry Club Dzivp 16) PLANS AND MR Five (5) regular %72,e copies and one reduwduop� A subdivision application Few shall 15a paid to file Ci(v at dio, time of sv bmitting tJie final V!%l appi -cat im (w F xhib itA). Survey 4sttavl.ed I herc4y certify that. all the information requested as part of this up - plicati9j, ba's beta submitted and Is accurate to the best of my knowledge. ab Slfi\'A.'1`UREOF APPLICANIT 3 M%TUR17. or PR 1 T-, R - UY ONA r N' 9 R Do nat'g,-rite Lelom, this ling DATE; OF SUMMON': I have it-,vkwcd this prclinihiary plat applicafloj,, and find it to bc; D Complete Directoi Of Plzwnirii, &Zoning or De&I'Prim, Dime. 4 LOT 484 N/F Coc Iffs N031 LEGEND • Existing Iron Pin Iron Pin To Be Set GRAPHIC SCALE COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE To the best of my knowtedpe and beilef this survey was based upon Informs tdten iron deeds and plans of recordalorFp with nnrktrs vklent on the pr arld rich WFFornntbn _ supplled property o -- -- --— ---... --- � ----VllUnn A. Robenstain I Professlonat Land surveyor 909 Dorset Street South Suriftton Vermont 03403-7303 (SM W-s917 i s5 Sire y Location Map N,T.S. ige 431 GENERAL NOTES hrre A•r M .YM.aI s.swnt.M.*fc.w,.M R resT.Why im .saws by liFM a rrsl /Fse Isr sm l.w tYrt .swdat.e smh w+s edstsrin .f .rq .ud+ hires r iws.rv.11.a 7M. sv'veY i. art IrFt.rFbwf to dNir.0 l.ql w'Ns of grMW.r c.For+F,wM.ds x wW Door Jrlewcd.al ..M. a ses %= Ms fsrfwwrFcs of 1N *r. ��wy lw.Yy lilt e. viirslprJ WWthihe Y r.4tN t. fr.fs.r.al rrpysn! selrwner�s..+.r.n - w.dF of c. w' * im M wont art b same We f" dare" Mriy i.lwn .IMF nw hli Doha A. i.` V.rnont Tee t! QF./tw' t ..clbn 3L A n.,rwY .aM M w srN w h.lf roN on wdF d of khr osrnsr M t/Fe a�� wc.FhWIN f.Milr.y • tM r.e.Vs O'w.srss" ar M th iMMY.r .i� y ncwV.� C~ M Mtsrnir" Yn�ks Topopraphk survey by Vermont Land Surveyors used for this boundary adjustment. SWe a 436 — 2 Lot SubDivision - City of South Burlington Vermont - - -_ 44 Country Club Drive W.R WILLIAM A. ROBENSTEIN PROFESSIONAL DRAWN 8Y LAND SURVEYOR ` - 1 -WR ( souTii GTONS�Os403 �aIECI® iia� flit-/M7 BY�; F 02/24/2009 j WR MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURUNGTON Peter F. Langrock A T T O R N E l S AT LAW Michael W. Wool Ellen Mercer Fallon Mark L. Sperry William B Miller, Jr. Christopher L. Davis James W Swift A Limited Liability Partnership Thomas Z. Carlson Emily J Joselson Including a Professional Corporation Susan M. Murray Mitchell L. Pearl Alison J. Bell Kevin E Brown Lisa B. Shelkrot Frank H. Langrock Eric M. Knudsen Beth Robinson David W. M. Conard F. Rendol Barlow Thomas J. Sherrer Devin McLaughlin Sarah Gentry Tischler Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin Miller Hems Erin E. Ruble Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office March 3, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: John and Joyce Belter Subdivision Application Dear Ray: I am delivering to you with this letter the final subdivision application, which has been signed by the Belters. I understand you already have a copy of the enclosed, which the Liebermans have signed as applicants as well as a copy of the Robenstein survey dated 2/24/09. The Liebermans should be the contact persons, but since I do not have their contact particulars, I have not filled out question 4. 1 trust they filled that information out on the copy they signed. Please copy me by email on any correspondence relating to this matter as the contact person for the Belters. Please call if you need anything further. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:Icl Enclosures MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388-6149 • Email: attorneys (glangrock.com • Website: www.larigrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864.0137 • Email: attorneys (ri langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer March 3, 2009 Page 2 John Klesch, Esq. Bob Reis, Esq. Tom Simon, Esq. John and Joyce Belter Hobart Popick, Esq. 4853691 southburlinoon Cy PLANNING & ZONING March 18, 2009 John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public hearing notice that was printed 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 meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. cc: Bethany Leiberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 FiL E COPY 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tell 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON MIDDLEBURY Peter F. Langrock ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael W. Wool Ellen Mercer Fallon Mark L. Sperry William B. Miller, Jr. A Limited Liability Partnership Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Including a Professional Corporation Susan M. Murray Mitchell L. Pearl Alison J. Bell Kevin E. Brown Lisa B. Shelkrot Frank H. Langrock Eric M. Knudsen Beth Robinson David W. M. Conard F. Rendol Barlow Thomas J. Sherrer Devin McLaughlin Sarah Gentry Tischler Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin Miller Hems Erin E. Ruble Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office March 6, 2009 Ray Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Belter/Lieberman Application for Final Subdivision Plat Review Dear Ray: I understand the above is set for final hearing on April 7, 2009. As with the previous hearing, I do not plan to attend on behalf of the Belters, since the Liebermans, or Mrs. Lieberman will be there as the "applicant." This letter will serve as the Belters' "statement of concern" as required by the statute. The Belters, as the landowners, support the application. When a decision issues, I would appreciate your e-mailing me a copy. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns c: Tom Simon, Esq. (via e-mail) Bob Reis, Esq. (via e-mail) Hobart Popick, Esq. (via e-mail) John and Joyce Belter (via facsimile) 485737.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys 6—i langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys (odangrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com r WHOM :6:110-1W southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 27, 2009 John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the April 7, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. 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 meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Si cerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. Cc: Terry and Bethan Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 4% 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com W `.ram southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 27, 2009 Janine Krichgassner 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the April 7, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802,846.4101 www.sburi.com r MINNA� southburhmton PLANNING & ZONING March 27, 2009 Neil and Patricia Loller 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the April 7, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, A14� Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com INS i601001� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 27, 2009 William and Melinda Cooper 42 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive, 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for the April 7, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. The enclosure includes a proposal that abuts property you own. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve § 4461(b). A copy of any decision been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon�ece receipt of ody notice of a earing d having the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the peal to appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: 3 TM W1ftT . NAME �'��t" ` MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST SFM! jZ U46 mot IJ 1 _ Plati F� 2 ,e LI Ci 9 Pi5 r.4 c r s P ' PC) Co 505i4 ild . o''") O -I ► C.v i^7 RV '1 CITY OF SOUTH 13URLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve § 4461(b). A copy of any decision been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). Upon�ece receipt of ody notice of a earing d having the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the peal to appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARp11G DATE: �-�� i Li erzL NAME _-- / A MEN 'P `f southburlinoon PLANNING & ZONING February 4, 2009 Terry and Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: #MS-09-01 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lieberman: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board on January 20, 2009 (effective 1/22/09). Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six 6 months. If you have any questions, please contact me Sincerely, � ki! �-- Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 5034 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve § 4461(b). A copy of any decision been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). uponorece receipt of ody appearing otice of an appeal the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the peal to appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE: 3 S rL WI NAME � MAILING ADDRESS PROJECT OF INTEREST a"m 1I///J� >V �F11f� j� J rY i',(e COu4- r� U46 mot ZI G 9 Pb r- e- r s P T RC) col . 44 Cove," CAD,, f CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested persons. At any hearing, there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achieve interested person status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b). A copy of any decision rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve ry having been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)() eUponrsonorece receipt of body appearing otice of an appeal to the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). fLA ME southburliing ii January 22, 2009 Terry and Beth Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the February 3, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. 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 meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 rJurssl 'trrr:;i 900� Vif:hngion, YT 0540.1 et,l Southburl ingl4on PLANNING -& ZONING January 22, 2009 John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the February 3, 2009 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. 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 meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, L. 6SV�- W�14 Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dfl—tt 31rallt. Ssu! csrlf ;". r, VT il5463 4*1 902 R3i1.c!nu lax gill I rr roll, 4-, ftamiol-�-Ww southburlington PLANNING & ZONING January 29, 2009 Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 Re: February 3, 2009 Hearing — 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. & Ms. Lieberman: 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, February 3, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Si cerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com { ( i sJOHN H. do JOYCE N. BELTER, JR. SzSN 36 00, E \\ 230 Z35 \ \ \\ 12TR51.4' 20. 0' I e C DARC DAR � LOT 48A \ \_ WILUAM & MELINDA COOPER I DECK \ \\ I — \"40' oZ l \ y 42 \ LOT 48 DECK o \ EXISTING HOUSE 20 s`' SETBACK AVG.ROOF HT.= 274' s. I LINES AVG.GRD.= 247' 10 p,0 OIFF. -27' 6 \\ \O APPLE 70" TREES 6l \ STEPS W TH `s OVERHANG F Z \\ S54 :39'W 122.76 P LEGEND IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 1 " IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD SEWER LINE WATER VALVE LOT 47 NEIL do PATRICIA LOLLER VOL. 432 PG.431 s s CDUNRY CLUB DRI VE s s s ----o a` 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY M O REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED 00UNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 & 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. i 0 SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEE' • G P S 0 20 40 60 80 100 D4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY MEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 2007, MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M. W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A N CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit # k--- APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide 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 Violation ( ) Request for a conditional use () equest for a variance (vJ Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY): WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING ? 1) OWNER OF ECQRD (Name as shown on deed, mail ing,address, phone & fax #): 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (book & page #) 3) APPLI ANT !(nafm , mailing address phone and fax #) T I1u fa I �i� (�� t'i rl n ��i i i�l.4' t�.y E I4 41 I N " �, 9 4) CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive staff correspondence. Include name, mailing address, phone & fax # if different from above): { ' l yj t. 1 !� � f i•y1Gt ram. �Li '�. - ��` � � � `�' 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Hq COLd 14 LA Oil A Y cFr &/ 17rn C� }6( ' / 6) TAX PARCEL ID #: 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): � �. .., , V B. Proposed Uses on Property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses tomain): e rn C. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings & existing building to remain)- 2 sbo 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): I F. Number of employees company vehicles (existing & proposed, note office vs. non -office employees): e`I� G. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, pease rote if overlay districts pre applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE A. Total parcel size: M� A Sq. Ft. B. Buildings: Existing _ Proposed / Sq. Ft % / 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_ G1i�Gf` ��xJi UJGI 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 necessa ): 1 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accur to to the best of my knowledge. SIG ATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: M b REVIEW AUTHORITY: evelopment Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this application and find it to be: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number SD---d l - v APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OII WNEI� OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 3)—A�PPLI�CANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) e 4, 1i.! '�i�' � � C 1��, � �� t �� l U'4.�1''�'� W'�ti `: � �. i 1`"'� '�, � ' ; y 7 t 4) S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Tioy Contact email address e AO 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 10'Z F4,(,n Ot�g 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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) lioi L Post-W Fax Note 7671 Date / pagof To of'b � /� l From Co./Dept Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing _% Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed % 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (unitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) c Ca + y �E* " inn `J+ t i ;a !) : , 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATES �� ' 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my know le SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT GNATURE OF PROPERT OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: 1/4 U I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: Complete ❑ Incomplete of Planning Zoning or Designee Date 7 3 MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devm McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble January 20, 2009 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: John and Joyce Belter Subdivision Application - Sketch Plan Hearing Dear Ray: BURLINGTON Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler Erin Miller Hems Hobart F Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office Pursuant to our telephone conversation on January 20, I represent John and Joyce Belter in connection with the above. As you know, the parties have reached a settlement through mediation, part of which involves the Liebermans processing the requisite permit applications. Accordingly, I do not plan to attend the February 3 hearing. Please consider this letter as the participation of my clients at the hearing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4471(a). While this letter constitutes "statement of concern" within the meaning of the statute, obviously they in fact support the application and request that the DRB approve it at the sketch plan level. As soon as Mark Ward has completed his survey of the small parcel to be conveyed to the Liebermans, hopefully we can then proceed directly to final approval. If you need anything further from me, please do not hesitate to give me a call. As I indicated, the Belters are in Florida and I can only reach them by regular mail or FedEx. Therefore, this is my request to anybody who wishes the Belters' further signatures on anything that they get me the qpplications forms as soon as possible so that there will be no delays by reason of the mails. MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388-6149 • Email: attorneys <glangrock.eom • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864.0137 • Email: attorneys ((rlangrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer January 20, 2009 Page 2 Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns c: John Klesch, Esq. Bob Reis, Esq. Tom Simon, Esq. Jon Anderson, Esq. John and Joyce Belter 481653 1 south.: w. PLANNING & ZONING To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner Date: January 29, 2009 0 Re: Agenda #7, #SD-09-04, Terry Lieberman Sketch plan application #SD-09-04 of Terry Lieberman for a (2) lot subdivision to create a small lot to be added to 44 Country Club Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at 102 Ethan Allen Drive and create a new lot which is approximately 1000 square feet, to be added to the property at 44 Country Club Drive. The applicant is conducting a survey of the property now and will have a survey plat, and exact size of the subsequent lots, available as part of the submittal of the final plat application. The primary goal of the application to allow a greater distance from the house to the side setback for the property at 44 Country Club Road. As it exists today, the home was built too close to the existing property line. Furthermore, this application will be a step towards remedying a previous infringement where fill was placed off the property without the consent of the abutting property owner. This is a minor property line adjustment and results in no substantial change to coverages, lot sizes, or other dimensional requirements that would create non-compliance as regulated in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 1. The applicant should provide the total acreage conveyed as a result of this adjustment. The applicant should provide information on the current lot sizes for both properties. 2. The applicant should provide the current lot sizes for the subject lots A standard subdivision generally requires a full survey of the properties involved. The larger property, addressed as Ethan Allen Drive, is a very large agricultural property. A complete survey would likely be expensive, extensive, and unnecessary as a result of this application. Staff recommends waiving this requirement. Staffs supports the property line adjustment as specified in application #SD-09-04 and recommends that the applicant address the numbered items above and proceed to final plat plan review. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846,4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com LOT 48A WYLLIAM & MELINDA COOPER j 42 EXISTING HOUSE s LEGEND JOHN H. & JOYCE N. BEL TER, JR. s2:ss F 36 00, z \\ 41 CP - BOTTOM OF BANK 24 "TREE ` � � \ I 20.0' I n CEDAR� _ \ � \�� NEW TOP OF BANK I \ LOT 48 DECK \ \\ I �� I \ \ I TOP 9F ggNK CO I DECK \ 0 \ \\ o � OLD TOP v 20' of BANK Off' I SETBACK AVG. ROOF 14T= 274' R LINES AVG.GRO.= 247' ll RIFF.=27' APPLE _ ,— l o " TREES 6 "" \ y �Gs �7EPS WITH Fs OVERHANG 55439'W \ 49.44' 1 4 I 122, 76' - wv 4 \ LOT 47 s s COUNTRY CLUB DRIVEs s s— -- 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY 0 �O 0 & PATRICIA LOLLER VOL. 432 PG.431 REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 & 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 0 SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET 1" IRON PIPE TO BE SET • GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD P SEWER LINE S 0 20 40 60 80 100 WATER VALVE pd TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 20OZ MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M. W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A south ur1ington T'CANNpNG j Z014fr4G August 7, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Minutes — Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved July 1, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, L6c64 &a�Wj Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dur&-�t Strp+st SO141t YT U54� )3 gal 602.tJ .t+,qra iak, 8C.3146.0111 'mevw.IvUr'''CC,n out burl i n, n PLA$1NtNG & ZONING August 7, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Erin Miller Heins, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Minutes — Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Sperry & Ms. Heins: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved July 1, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �3r ds�t 8e�u� Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 53 Onrxct Street S-0-11 VT 1154,i+ tal 801 ii"+�.�°.t'1(i fax SgZ [146,41(jl �=,wr�•s�u.r.�a�n� l 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 WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF COM) AMANDA S E LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 WILLIAM E FLENDER August 4, 2008 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Appeal of Leiberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No.: 100-5-08 Vtec Dear Jacalyn: OF COUNSEL JOHN H KLESCH DINA L ATWOOD Counsel for Appellants has agreed that the City may timely serve its response to Appellants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Undisputed Facts (both dated July 2, 2008) up to and including August 5, 2008. In other words, Counsel have agreed to a one -day extension for the City's response. i CC: Jon Anderson, Esq. ,Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer son08-093.cor MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H. Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble August 4, 2008 Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Including a Profession IT E AUG 5 2008 i BURLINGTON Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Oentry Tischler STIT EL PACE Erin Miller Heins LE1Cr R PC v Hobert F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec Dear Jackie: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter, please find the following: 1. Opposition to Appellant -Applicant Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and 2. Response to Appellant -Applicant Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Statement of Additional Undisputed Facts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very t ly yo , Hobart F. Popick HFP:mns Enclosures c: David Rugh, Esq, John Klesch, Esq. John and Joyce Belter 467478.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street - P.O. Drawer 351 - Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388-6356 - Fax (802) 388.6149 - Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Webslte: www.larigrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street - P.O. Box 721 - Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 (802) 864.0217 - Fax (802) 864.0137 - Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT -APPLICANT TERRY AND BETHANY LIEBERMAN'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW COME John H. Better, Jr. and Joyce N. Better (the `Betters"), adjoining property owners to the appellants, Terry and Bethany Lieberman (the "Liebermans"), by their undersigned counsel, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, and hereby submit, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56, the following Opposition to Appellant -Applicant Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the "Motion") in this matter. Factual Ba kPround The Belters own land and premises known and designated as 2 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the `Better Property"). The Belter Property abuts the northerly side of the parcel owned by the Liebermans, known and designated as 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the "Lieberman Property"). (See Affidavit of John H. Better, Jr., attached as Exhibit 1 to the Betters' Response to the Liebermans' Statement of Undisputed Facts and Statement of Additional Undisputed Facts, ("Better AM") ¶¶ 6-7.) The boundary between the Lieberman Property and the Better Property runs along a steep embankment, which drops down to the Better Property. (See Better Aff.18.) The Lieberman residence is sited approximately seven (7) feet from the northerly boundary of the Lieberman Property. (See Better Af£ 19.) The Liebermans dumped approximately 39 LANGROCK SPERRY I! truckloads of fill on the northerly edge of the Lieberman Property, which has encroached onto & WOOL I.LP the Better Property without the Betters' knowledge or permission. (See Belter Aff. ¶¶ 10-11.) LANGROCR $PERRY & WOOL LLP The Lieberman applied for an after -the -fact permit for the placement of this fill, which the South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") denied on May 22, 2008. (See Ex. 5 to Appellant -Applicant Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (the "Liebermans' Statement.") The City of South Burlington has served the Lieberman, John Belter, and Joyce Belter with notices of zoning violation for the placement of the fill, which are on appeal to this Court in Docket Nos. 151-7-08, 154-7-08 and 155-7-08, respectively. On or about April 8, 2008, the Liebermans filed their subdivision amendment, preliminary plat and alteration of existing grade application, seeking PUD approval for a single lot PUD (the "Application"). (See Ex. 1 to the Lieberman Statement.) The Liebermans' stated purpose for the Application was to correct a "construction error" of the builder who sold them the house, which resulted in a 3-foot encroachment into the 10-foot side setback and a 7 %-foot encroachment into the 30- foot front setback. (See Motion at 2.) Indeed, the Liebermans' Application did not propose any new construction or other change to their Property, but rather, simply sought approval for their side and front setback encroachments. (See Ex. 1 to Lieberman Statement.) The Liebermans' Application was heard by the DRB on April 15, 2008. The Belters Participated as "interested persons" in the hearing. The DRB denied the Liebermans' Application by a written decision dated May 22, 2008, finding that the Application did not qualify for PUD review by the DRB. (See Exhibit 4 to Lieberman Statement.) The Liebermans appealed the DRB's decision to this Court, and now move for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the DRB had the authority to review the Liebermans' Application. 2 11 LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL LLP II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3), " Oludgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any parry is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "On summary judgment, the court may not act as the trier of fact, but instead must draw all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor, and must regard all properly supported allegations presented by the opposing party as true." Mellin v. Flood Brook Union School Dist., 173 Vt. 202, 211 (2001) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Here, as described below, even if the Liebermans could demonstrate an absence of any issue of material fact, they cannot demonstrate that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and, accordingly, the Motion must be denied. B. This Project Does Not Qualify For Planned Unit Development Or "PUD" Treatment. The DRB denied the Lieberman' Application on grounds that it was not authorized to review it as a PUD. Because the DRB's decision correctly applied the applicable regulations, the Liebermans are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Section 2.01 of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations (the "Regulations"), a Planned Unit Development or PUD is defined as follows: "Planned unit development (PUD). One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed." .ANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL I.LP Regulations, Section 2.02 — (emphasis added). The Application here does not involve or qualify for PUD treatment, because, by the applicants' own admission, the "proposed PUD will consist of the existing two story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space" on an existing lot. (Project Commentary, page 1, emphasis supplied.) See also TJ 8 and 9 on Application form: 8: "Existing uses on property — 2 story single family house;" 9: "Proposed uses on property — same — existing single family house." This project does not involve a parcel of land "to be developed." Rather, it involves a parcel of land already developed, and nothing new is proposed. In their Motion, the Liebermans argue that the DRB was required to review their Application as a PUD pursuant to Section 15.02(C) of the Regulations. Any logical reading of this provision, however, demonstrates that it offers no support for the Liebermans' argument. Section 15.02(C) of the Regulations provides in pertinent part: [A]ny applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations. Regulations, § 15.02(C) (emphasis added). As described above, the "project" here simply does not satisfy the definition of a PUD. Therefore, the Liebermans' Application cannot possibly qualify for review "pursuant to the PUD process and regulations." Moreover, as the DRB's decision noted, "the construction of a single family home is a permitted use in the R4 zoning district, ... [and] [t]he construction of a single family dwelling does NOT require action by the bRB and may not be considered as a PUD." (See Exhibit 4 to Lieberman Statement, at 2.) Indeed, where the Lieberman acknowledge that the only purpose of the Application is to correct a violation for 4 LANGROCK sPCRRY & WOOL LLP i I encroachment of an existing home into the front and side setbacks, DRB review of the Application as a PUD would constitute a misuse of the PUD process. Thus, it is plain that the DRB's decision did not rest on an application of the "Purpose" Section 15.01, as the Liebermans assert, but rather, was based on the DRB's correct conclusion that the Lieberman' Application "may not be considered as a PUD." Accordingly, the DRB's decision that it was not required to act was correct, and the Motion should likewise be denied. In any event, as described below, even were the DRB to act upon the Liebermans' Application, it would not qualify for DRB approval because of a number of other deficiencies. Accordingly, where granting the Motion would serve no practical purpose, it should be denied. C. The Application Is Likewise Not Subject To Approval Because It Fails To Properly Address The 39 Truckloads Of Fill Placed On The Belter Property The Liebermans concede that the only possible mechanism by which they could obtain PUD review and approval of their front and side setback encroachments is by submitting their Application with an application for placement of fill on the northern boundary of their Property. (See Motion at 4.) As noted above, the Liebermans' placement of fill (approximately 39 truckloads' worth) on the boundary between their Property and the Belters' has resulted in a corresponding encroachment of fill on the Belter Property without their permission. Nonetheless, the PUD Application is silent with regard to the effect that this fill has upon the Belters' Property. Removal of the fill will leave an unsightly drop off at the Lieberman north line, with only at most 7 feet between the house and the drop off. Moreover, the Belters have no obligation to join in any application to let the fill remain, and its presence has resulted in their being served with a notice of violation by the City of South Burlington. Thus, although the fill affects the Bleter property, the Liebermans have failed to address those 5 effects, or obtain the Belters' consent in their application. Therefore, the Liebermans' application for fill placement it simply not subject to approval.I Accordingly, the Liebermans' application for fill placement is not "an application for land development requiring action by the DRB," and thus cannot be the basis for PUD review pursuant to Section 15.02(C) of the Regulations. IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the DRB correctly decided that the Liebermans' PUD application did not require DRB action, and the Lieberman's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be denied. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 4th day of August, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LL Mark L. Sperry Hobart F. Popick PO Box 721, 210 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 Attorneys for John and Joyce Belter. 467324.1 1 The Liebermans' Application is likewise deficient and not subject to approval in that it misleadingly states that "adjusting the setbacks" allows the Lieberman house to appear "more centered on the lot" in relation LANGROCK SPrRRX to the adjacent houses (Project Commentary, p.2). The Lieberman house is about 45 feet from the house on the & WooL LLP south (labeled "142 Existing House" on the Plan), and about 105 feet from the Loller house on the north. "Centering" the Lieberman house would require a substantial shift to the north onto the Belter Property. n STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec RESPONSE TO APPELLANT -APPLICANT TERRY AND BETHANY LIEBERMAN'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED FACTS NOW COME John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter (the `Belters"), adjoining property owners to the appellants, Terry and Bethany Lieberman (the "Liebermans"), by their undersigned counsel, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, and hereby submit, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56, the following Response to Appellant -Applicant Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Statement of Additional Undisputed Facts (the "Liebermans' Statement") in support of their Opposition to the Lieberman's July 2, 2008 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in this matter. The Belters admit that a copy of a document entitled "Terry and Bethany Lieberman's Preliminary Plat and Fill Placement Applications" is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Liebermans' Statement, and further state that the Exhibit 1 speaks for itself. 2. The Belters admit that a copy of a document entitled "City of South Burlington Zoning Permit Application" in the name of Rasim Redzic is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Liebermans' Statement, and further state that the Exhibit 2 speaks for itself. The Belters admit that a copy of a document entitled "City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations Effective February 6, 2007" is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Lieberman' Statement, and further state that the Exhibit 3 speaks for itself. LanrGROCK SPERRY & WOOL LI.r11 4. The Belters admit that a copy of a document entitled "Terry & Bethany Lieberman — 44 Country Club Drive Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-20 Findings of Fact and Decision" is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Liebermans' Statement, and further state that the Exhibit 4 speaks for itself. 5. The Belters admit that copy of a document entitled "Terry & Bethany Lieberman — 44 Country Club Drive Miscellaneous Application #MS-08-01 Findings of Fact and Decision" is attached as Exhibit 5 to the Liebermans' Statement, and further state that the Exhibit 5 speaks for itself. Statement of Additional Undisputed Facts 6. The Belters own land and premises known and designated as 2 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the "Better Property"). The Belter Property abuts the northerly side of the parcel owned by the Liebermans, known and designated as 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the "Lieberman Property"). (See Affidavit of John Belter ("Belter Aff."), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 6-7.) 7. The boundary between the Lieberman Property and the Belter Property runs along a steep embankment, which drops down to the Belter Property. (See Belter Aff. ¶ 8.) 8. The Liebermans have constructed a dwelling on their Property, located approximately seven (7) feet from the northerly boundary of the Lieberman Property. (See Belter Aff. ¶ 9.) 9. The Liebermans dumped approximately 39 truckloads of fill on the northerly edge of the Lieberman Property, without the Belters' knowledge or permission. (See Belter Aff. ¶ 10.) 10. The aforesaid fill encroaches approximately 40 feet onto the Belter Property. (See Belter Aff. ¶ 11.) LANGROCIC SPERRY do Wool. YJ 7 467319.1 LANGROCK SPLRRY do WOOL IJ-P I i DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 4th day of August, 2008. ;LANNkGROCKI-PE & WOOL, L P Mark L. Sperry Hobart F. Popick PO Box 721, 210 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 Attorneys for John and Joyce Belter. Exhibit i LANGROCii SPERRY & Woor. LLP STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. JOHN H. BELTER, JR. AND JOYCE N. BELTER, Plaintiffs, V. TERRY R. LIEBERMAN AND BETHANY LIEBERMAN, Defendants. Superior Court Docket No. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN H. BELTER JR. 1. My name is John H. Belter, Jr. I am over 18 years of age. 2. The statements in this Affidavit are made upon my own personal knowledge and are true to the best of my information and belief. 3. My wife, Plaintiff Joyce N. Belter, and I reside in South Burlington, Vermont. 4. I making this Affidavit in support of my Complaint and Motion for Writ of Attachment in the above -referenced case. 5. I understand that the Defendants in this case, Terry R. Lieberman and Bethany Lieberman are residents, of North Andover, Massachusetts. 6. The Defendants own land and premises known and designated as 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the "Lieberman Property"), as shown on the August 16, 2007 survey attached hereto as Exhibit A. This survey was prepared by a surveyor retained by the Defendants. 7. My wife, Plaintiff Joyce N. Belter, and I own land and premises abutting the northerly side of the Lieberman Property, known and designated as 2 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont (the `Belter Property"), as shown on Exhibit A. II.ANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL LLP 8. The boundary between the Lieberman Property and the Better Property runs along a steep embankment, which drops down to the Better Property. (See Exhibit A.) 9. The Defendants have constructed a dwelling on their Property, located approximately seven (7) feet from the northerly boundary of the Lieberman Property. (See Exhibit A.) 10. The Defendants, through their excavation contractor R & J Trucking, dumped approximately 39 truckloads of fill on the northerly edge of the Lieberman Property, without MY or my wife's knowledge or permission. 11. The aforesaid fill encroaches approximately 40 feet onto the Better Property. The aforesaid fill also buried a drainage pipe that crosses the Better Property, which is owned by the City of South Burlington pursuant to a City easement, to a substantial depth. (See Exhibit A) 12. The City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Section 3.12, provides that the placement of fill in an amount of 20 cubic yards or more on any lot, that is not necessary in connection with the construction of a home on that same lot, requires approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. The Defendants failed to obtain such approval. The Administrative Officer could therefore serve me with a Notice of Violation in relation to the Defendants' dumping of fill on my Property. 13. The Defendants have failed and refused to restore the land to its prior condition. 14. The estimated cost of removal of the aforesaid fill and to return the land to its prior condition is at least $8,620.00. (See Exhibit B.) 2 15. The estimated cost of the necessary engineering work to return the land to its prior condition is up to $5,500,00, due to the problems with the closeness of the Lieberman home to the boundary line and the steep embankment, and the burying of the City drainage pipe. (See Exhibit C.) 16. I understand that the Defendants do not have any insurance or bond to cover any judgment that I may obtain in this case. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this day ofM 04 , 2408. qok - il, hn H. Better, Jr. 'kj f STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS At Burlington, Vermont this 5'� day of 6(C� 2008, John H. Better, Jr. personally appeared, and swore that the statements contained in this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, are true. and accurate to the best of his knowledge. 451410.1 LANGROCK $PERRY & Wool- T.r.P Before me ary Pub Commission Expires: 2/10/2011 7�j�%„ ✓OHN H. .IOYCE N. BELTER. JR. COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 60 FT RIGHT OF WAY ' nomn TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -FOR ' TERRY MEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB ORVE SO, BURUNGTON, VERMONT VIsRMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC.' 4050 WILLISrW ROAD, SUltE 112.. SOUTH SURLINCTON•. VERMONT 05403-0063 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET' (aoz) 862-5661 DA T£ - AUG 16. 2007 - ' t - SURVEYED A!. W. - Gc B H.- 0 - 20 ' 40 STEVENF STITZEL PATTI R PAGE ROBERT E FLETCHER JOSEPHS McLEAN AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WILLIAM E. FLENDER STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 WWW FIRMSPRCOM E-MAI L(FIRM2555 @FIRM SPF. COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 August 5, 2008 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No.: 100-5-08 Vtec Dear Jacalyn: OF COUNSEL JOHN H. KLESCH DINA L. ATWOOD Enclosed for filing with the Court is the City's Opposition to Appellants' Motion for Summary Judgement and Statement of Undisputed Facts in connection with the above -referenced matter. n rely, Jo n Klesch Enclosures cc: David W. Rugh, Esq. Mark Sperry, Esq. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer son08-094.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT In re: APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN PUD ) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ) Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S OPPOSTION TO APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56, Appellee City of South Burlington ("City") hereby opposes Appellants' motion for summary judgment. Appellants' motion should be denied because (I) Appellants have not introduced grounds supporting an amendment of current permits, and there exist no grounds for amendment; and (II) the City's Land Use Regulations ("Regulations") do not provide for PUD review under the circumstances. For these reasons, the Court should not only deny Appellants' motion, but the Court should further enter summary judgment in toto in favor of the City. See V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3) ("Summary judgment when appropriate may be rendered against the moving party "). Standard of Review "On appeal from a [municipal panel's] decision, the court must conduct a de novo trial. See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4472(a), 4475. This standard requires the court to approach the case as if it were the planning commission, without regard to what had been done before by the planning commission." In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 275, 668 A.2d 1271, 1274 (1995),I Therefore, this Court may decide issues raised in Appellants' Statement of Questions on any appropriate basis without regard to whether such a basis was considered or relied upon by a municipal panel below. 1 Based on this standard, Appellants' unsupported remarks about their "sense at the public hearing on the Lieberman' preliminary plat application" as to what "the DRB thought" is wholly immaterial. Page 1 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 Argument Appellants concede that the house located on their property encroaches on existing setbacks; namely, by approximately 3 feet into the 10 foot side yard setback, and approximately 7 feet into the 30 foot front yard setback. See Appellants' July 2, 2008 Motion for Summary Judgment at 2. Their application is an attempt to secure authorization for these encroachments. For the reasons that follow, Appellants' application must be denied. L THE EXISTING PERMIT REQUIRES SETBACK COMPLIANCE AND THERE EXIST NO GROUNDS FOR AMENDMENT. Appellants' application effectively seeks amendment of an existing subdivision permit, namely SD-04-45 Findings of Fact and Decision dated July 20, 2004 (hereafter "July 20, 2004 Decision"). See Appellants' July 2, 2008 Motion for Summary Judgment at 3 (subject of appeal is Appellants' "requested amendment of the 2004 subdivision creating their lot to include a PUD, Exhibit 2;" see also Exhibit 2 to Appellants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (copy of July 20, 2004 Decision). The July 20, 2004 Decision includes a final plat entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment for Jane Evans Harrocks," last revised April 26, 2004, recorded on August 4, 2004 on slide 436 of the South Burlington Land Records (hereafter "Plat"). See July 20, 2004 Decision at 1; City's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Exhibits A (copy of Plat) and B (1" = 20' scale copy of portion of Plat showing Applicants' lot). The Plat depicts Lot 48A and Lot 48, and the property that is the subject of the present case (i.e., the Liebermans' property) is the depicted Lot 48. See July 20, 2004 Decision. Applying the Plat's scale to the lines depicted as "Proposed Building Envelope per City of So. Burlington" for Lot 48, the Plat depicts that the building envelope boundary is set 30' from the front yard boundary line and 10' from the side yard boundary lines. See Regulations, Appendix C at C-9 (R4 District single family home setbacks are 30' front yard, 10' side yard). Page 2 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 "[R]ecorded plats necessarily become subdivision permit conditions." In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 276, 668 A.2d 1271, 1275 (1995); accord In re Northern Acres, LLC 2007 VT 109, ¶ 8, _ Vt. _, 941 A.2d 240, 242. Furthermore, a condition of the July 20, 2004 Decision is: "2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning." July 20, 2004 Decision at 4. Because the Plat depicts the building envelope on Appellants' property as complying with minimum required setbacks, setback compliance is a condition of the extant permit. Since their pending application seeks approval of the house which, as constructed, encroaches into the setbacks, the application under review on this appeal would require an amendment of the extant permit.2 Requests to amend a land development permit are subject to the three-part test enunciated in Stowe Club Highlands. See In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶ 12, 181 Vt. 568, 570, 917 A.2d 478, 482. To apply this test, we should examine: "(a) changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of a permittee; (b) changes in the construction or operation of the permittee's project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued; or (c) changes in technology." (Cite omitted).... "[E]ven where the Board finds such a change, there are certain situations where an amendment may not be justified, for instance where the change was reasonably foreseeable at the time of permit application. Otherwise, the initial permitting process would be merely a prologue to continued applications for permit amendments." (Cite omitted). In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶ 7, 181 Vt. at 569-570, 917 A.2d at 481. The keystone to meeting any of the three standards for possible condition amendment is unforeseeable change of circumstances. 2 They are also seeking amendment of their April 13, 2005 zoning permit for construction of their single family home (also part of Appellants' Exhibit 2), because the plan drawing included with the application for the zoning permit similarly depicts compliance with setbacks. Page 3 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 Failure to build a structure in conformity with setbacks, as required by the permits, most certainly cannot be viewed as an unforeseeable change of circumstances. To the contrary, a permittee has control over owned property such that any construction on said property is the responsibility of the permittee. To hold otherwise would equate to a rule that failure to comply with a permit may always be cured simply by seeking a permit amendment that would authorize the noncompliant structure. The outcome would be the very ill sought to be avoided in Hildebrand: an initial permit would merely be a prologue to a later permit process to review what actually was built. In short, there exists no lawful basis upon which the permits governing Appellants' property may be amended. The merits of their application should not even be reached for this reason. Rather, the application should be denied on the basis that it seeks amendment of current permits and there is no basis for such amendment under Stowe Club Highlands. IL THE CITY'S LAND USE REGULATIONS DO NOT ALLOW FOR PUD REVIEW UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. a. Accordine to its plain terms, Section 15.02(C) does not apply to Appellants' application. This Court "will construe zoning regulations and bylaws using the familiar canons of statutory construction, giving effect to the plain meaning of the regulation where a plain meaning is present, and avoiding absurd results and surplus language." In re Kowalski Subdivision Preliminary Plat, No. 50-3-07 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct., January 16, 2008), slip op. at 8 (citing In re Casella Waste Management, 2003 VT 49, ¶ 6 and In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 279- 80 (1995)). Applying these familiar rules of construction readily demonstrates that PUD review under § 15.02(C) of the Regulations is not allowed based on the circumstances of Appellants' application. Page 4 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507, BURLINGTON, VF.RAIONT 05402-1507 Section 15.02(C) states: Elective PUD Review. In all districts of the City, any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and/or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations. The plain import of this language is that DRB may, if requested, review any proposed land development that requires DRB review as an application for a PUD. More precisely, the only reasonable interpretation is that when DRB receives an application for land development that requires DRB approval, DRB may review that proposed development under PUD standards. Appellants' pending application fails to trigger § 15.02(C) because development of single family homes does not require DRB approval. Single family homes are a permitted use in the R4 District where Appellants' property is located. Moreover, Appellants' PUD application is, by itself, not even an application for land development because it does not propose "construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any mining, excavation or landfill, and any change in the use of any building or other structure, or land, or extension of use of land." See Regulations § 2.02, definition of "Land Development." Appellants do not even attempt to characterize their so-called PUD application as seeking authority for land development. There is no "land development" that would occur by virtue of the application which is the subject of this case. Thus, § 15.02 is inapplicable for this reason as well. Appellants argue that § 15.02(C) should be read to mean that the simultaneous filing of an application to DRB for any kind of land development on a parcel -- whether or not amenable to PUD review on its own -- requires the DRB to review all other applications pertaining to the same parcel under PUD standards merely by virtue of such simultaneous timing of filing. There Page 5 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 is simply no text in § 15.02(C) to warrant this interpretation. Indeed, Appellants' application for fill placement is itself not even possibly subject to PUD review. Appellants' reading is a model of the "absurd result" that must be avoided in construing a regulation. Placing their reading into the context of the present case, Appellants argue that because they filed an application to place fill on their property, and because the placement of fill requires DRB review, that any other application whatsoever they might have filed on the same date requires DRB to review such other application as a PUD. Even if the language could be twisted to produce such a result it is absurd on its face. The absurdity of Appellants' argument stems in part from its contravention with the well - acknowledged purpose of PUDs (and PRDs), recognized not only in the Regulations but also in state statute and caselaw. See, e.g., 24 V.S.A. § 4417(a); In re Pierce Subdivision Application, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 21, _ Vt. _, _ A.2d _.3 The plain language of § 15.02(C) illustrates that it does not apply to Appellants' application, such that resort to construction aids is unnecessary. However, to the extent Appellants argue there is some ambiguity, the stated "Purpose" of PUDs in the regulations guides interpretation and application: The overarching objective of the Court in matters of statutory construction, however, "is to give effect to the legislative intent." Lubinsky v. Fair Haven ZoningBd., 148 Vt. 47, 49, 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1987); see also In re Vt. Nat'l Bank, 157 Vt. 306, 312, 597 A.2d 317, 320 (1991) ("In construing a zoning ordinance, we use the same rules as in the construction of a statute."). This paramount "concern is so fundamental that, although application according to the plain language is preferred when possible, the letter of a statute or its literal sense must yield where it conflicts with legislative purpose." Lubinsky, 148 Vt. at 49, 527 A.2d at 228. In re Pierce Subdivision Application, 2008 VT 100, 128, _ Vt. _, _ A.2d _. Therefore, if there is any doubt as to the meaning of § 15.02(C), such doubt must yield to the purpose of the regulation explicitly described in § 15.01: 3 Pierce quotes repealed 24 VSA § 4407(3). However, the general purpose analysis remains analogous. Page 6 of 9 l 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re- development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. Appellants' application at issue is intended to achieve one result only: to approve the encroachment of their home into front and side yard setbacks. It has nothing whatsoever to do with innovation in design and layout or efficient use of land. The application is totally outside the intended scope of PUD review and there is simply no basis on which to find § 15.02(C) applicable. b. Section 15.02(C), "Elective PUD Review," is explicitly permissive, not mandatory. Even if § 15.02(C), entitled "Elective PUD Review," of the Regulations were applicable (which it is not), at most it allows the DRB to review an application pursuant to the PUD process and regulations. By its plain language, it is permissive, not mandatory, such that Appellants could have no possible vested right to have their application reviewed as a PUD. c. Section 15.02(C) is not invalid and, even if it were, it would not aid Appellants' application. Appellants argue that § 15.02(C) features a lack of standards to guide the DRB's decision making, and that, as a result, review under the PUD criteria is required. The authorities they cite, such as In re Handy & In re Jolley Assocs., 171 Vt. 336, 764 A.2d 1226 (2000), concern the STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, Pc. constitutionality of a statute or regulation. See 171 Vt. at 344 ("we conclude that § 4443(d) is ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOR1507 unconstitutional because it is not limited by standards or guidelines."). Section 15.02(C) is not BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 Page 7 of 9 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON VF.RMONT 05402-1507 unconstitutionally vague because it must be read in pari materia with the rest of the Regulations, including numerous sections which explicitly detail the requirements for PUD approval set forth in § 15.18. Section 15.18 is entitled "Criteria for Review of PUDs, Subdivision and Master Plans." It states under "General Standards" that DRB "shall also make positive findings with respect to the project's compliance with the specific criteria in this section." Regulations § 15.18(A)(1)- (10). Criteria 1 through 10 list the specific criteria which are "general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivision and Master Plans." Thus, it cannot be said that there is a lack of objective standards governing the DRB's review of an application under PUD criteria. Moreover, even if Appellants were correct that a lack of standards invalidates § 15.02(C) (which the City disputes), invalidity of this section would not aid the Appellants. Reading the Regulations as if § 15.02(C) did not exist does not eliminate some obstacle to PUD review of Appellants' application. If it were stricken from the Regulations, § 15.02(B), which lists certain types of applications for which PUD review is mandated, would remain. Appellants' application does not meet any of the categories listed in § 15.02(B), so the putative invalidity of § 15.02(C) is irrelevant. Conclusion For these reasons, the Court should deny Appellants' motion and enter summary judgment in toto in favor of the City. See V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3) ("Summary judgment when appropriate may be rendered against the moving party."). Page 8 of 9 Respectfully submitted August 5, 2008, Burlington, Vermont. KAWPDOCVHKGSON-Lieberman MSJ OPP.doc STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171BATTERYSTREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: ll"V f John 9. . 4 lesch, Esq. Stitt 1, age & Fletcher 171 zx tery Street P.O1507 Burlington, VT 05401-1507 Page 9 of 9 s 1� STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT In re: APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN PUD ) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ) Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. Exhibit A attached hereto is a genuine and authentic copy, reduced size, of the July 20, 2004 Decision includes a final plat entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment for Jane Evans Harrocks," last revised April 26, 2004, recorded on August 4, 2004 on slide 436 of the South Burlington Land Records (hereafter "Plat"). 2. Exhibit B attached hereto is a genuine and authentic copy of an excerpt of the Plat, scaled approximately to its 1" = 20' scale. Respectfully submitted August 5, 2008, Burlington, Vermont. K:\WPDOCUHK\.SON-Lieberman MSJ OPP SUMF.doe STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 OF SOUTH BURLINGTON a By: Jobn Klesch, Esq. riF0.EBx 1, Page &Fletcher attery Street o1507 Burlington, VT 05401-1507 Page 1 of 1 r southburlington PLANNING & ZONING July 29, 2008 Jon T. Anderson, Esq, Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Lieberman NOV (Setback Encroachment) Docket No. 151-7-08 Vtec Dear Mr. Anderson: Pursuant to Rule 5 (b) (4) (A) of the Vermont Rules of Environmental Court Proceedings (also see 24 V.S.A. §4471(c)), the following is a list of "interested persons" for the above referenced proceeding. You are instructed by that Rule to serve a copy of your client's notice of appeal upon all people or entities listed below, by certified mail. Erin Miller Heins, Esq, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Jon Anderson, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 When the DRB sent out its notice on the above referenced application, the following additional people or entities were provided a copy of the DRB notice (this list does not include the persons noted above who appeared at the DRB hearing): Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 James Kirchgassner 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tell 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com J Neil & Patricia Zoller 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Lastly, I recommend that you consult the statutory definition for "interested persons" contained in 24 V.S.A. §4465(b). If you believe that our list is missing someone who has interested persons status in this proceeding, you should consider sending them a copy of the notice of appeal, so that you can be confident that all persons or entities who are entitled to notice have received it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincer , C R and J. Belair Administrative Officer cc: Vermont Environmental Court John Klesch, Esq. JOHN �. & JO }'CE N. BEL TER, A. N47.52'55"E 54.00, 112" IRON ROD FOUND FLUSH 1 " IRON PIP\-) FOUND 3" BE GRADE "IRON ROD ID 3" BELOW GRADE (S g 7 36 "W) N)j . S2 SS F 62 // . 4�v N,, S� SS ryE 0� fib' DO , z h � N L,y `),op OF Bj/vK LOT 48A ►� 20,129 SQUARE FEET NEWLY ADJUSTED AREA EXISTING DIVISION I LINE BETWEEN LOTS 48 AND 48A # 42 EXISTING HOUSE S54 3929 "W 123.66' I Q s \\ FI] \\ 2 0 t \fg&accfftdVol. 4m BUILDING \11 ENVELOPE PER \ So. Suft COVENANTS \-n r'29 SEE NO TE 5 \\ Mot \\ ��cwl 1 \\ o I 4 LOT 48 0 o z �= ` 11,095 SQUARE FEET I NEWL Y ADJUSTED AREA \\ \ �I L-j- (80) J,\\ \ PROPOSED DI VISION \\ \ BUILDING -� -- - LINE BETWEEN LOTS PROPOSED 48 AND 48A ENVELOPE PER CITY SO. BURLINGTON COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE s s 60 FT. RIGHT OF WA Y S54'39'29 "W 122.76' 49- 44' m LOT 4 EXHIBIT ci s s s S s B m 0 U 1 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND £LUSH JOHN H & JOYC£ N. BEL TER, JR. Tqo O'l BON aPi k LOT 48A 20,129 SQUARE FEEr NEWLY AD.VS7EO AREA LOT 49 EXIS77NG DI VISION LINE B£TWEE N LOTS 48 AND 48A - 4 o � o n if 42 ,OF JB EX/S71NC HOL ISE STEPHEN SA VALE CHERYL CURRIER W.O. WL 454 PG 60J II 7" IRON PIPE FouNo J" eetow GRADE I I/2' IRON ROO FOUNO J" BELOW GRADE I (23 82') 554:79'29 "W (548'S7'36"W) 12J 66' i 0 v 0 I'o BUILDN ENVELOPE COVENAI SEE NOT 1 / \o LOT 48 � Z I 11,095 SQUARE FEET j I NEWLY AD,VS TED AREA V F L (80) PROPOSED DIVISION LINE BETWEEN LOTS 48 AND 48A IE -5 S_ COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 60 FT RIGHT OF WAY — S- -S S S S S--G NO TES 1 ✓ANE 'VANAND S HARROCKS ACQUIRED HER PROPLOTS 48ERTY /N WARRANTY DEED VOLUME BB P7R EL AND WESTERL AC£ 428 ON ✓ANUARY J1, 1969 gE1NG 48 AND Y L LOTS BE/NCL pSµp� ON A PUN q� COUN7R� CLUOF THE BA ESTATES RENS/ON NO 1 DATED MARCH 7967ARI OF RfC' "No IN VOLUME 80 PAGE 57 PROPERTY /S SUB,.ECT TO A 5 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT ALONG�MEY BOU OND SIDE LOTS BOUNDARY LINES AS WELL AS THE FRONTAGE OF COUNTRY CLUB OR1VE FOR INS TALLA DON, MAIN IENANCf AND REPAIR SI OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TELEPHONE LINES 2 REFER TO A PLAN OF COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES DATED AUGUST 1965 RECORDED IN VOLUME BO PAGE 18, ALSO REFEY TO SEC DON ONE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES DATED OC rOBER 1967 RECORDED IN VOLUME BO PACE /27, AND RfV1SlON OF NOUN7RY CLUB ESTATES BY WILLIS ENGINEER/NG DATED .NNE 197! RECORDED /N VOLUME J07 PAGE 2 3 REFER TO PROPERTY PLOT or Wq.p� ROCK DA LED FEBRUARY 21, 2001 BY O"LEARY AND BURK£ CIVIL ASSOC/A TES, pjC RECORDED IN VOLUME 495 PACE J6, SLIDE J85 4 MONUMENrATION SUPPORTED BY APPARENT POSSESSION WAS HELD UP TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT THE ENORTH LINE OF LOT sB, T}/E£REMAINDER D 70 SS W?/A�I,SHOWN AS TA COTS 48 AND 4gA 5jI CC US S 10IES THE WHITE ROCK SURVEI S y£L�D 1p ��EA7E 5. THE PROPERTY SHOWN /S SUBXCT TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT$ OF COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES RECORDED IN VOLUM 9� AND AMENDED /N VOLUME 394 PACE 24O THIS PROPERrY IS ALSO SUB„ECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ARCHlTFC7UR CO PAC, GE COMMI rTEE PACs GE 60 rR( 6 F RM THE LAND SURVEYORS, INC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY LOCAL OR STATE PERMITS THAT MAY BE N;=CESSAR RY FOR THE TRANSFER OF 1H/S' PROPERTY LECE ND IRON PIPE -ROD FOUND I' IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN it 7ELO —�-- POWER UNE AS MARKED /N 1 FIELD —p— SEWER LINE _ S — WATER VALVE Approved by r resolution of the Deveippmeft Review5card, d, The CRY of South Ver►nortk on th he � d� di 4. Apm- b *� jbjed Ct to the ` end' rs off f said rai Y (%Y Oil 01 Jfi�U f�� c v o: C , Clerk SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 20 40 60 80 /00 l CEA RDFY THIS PUT IS BASED UPON A TOTAL STATION SURVEY, RECO 'ORD RESEARCH, PHYSICAL ENDENCE FOUND, PLANS AS N07ED AND 1 INFORMATION PROWDED BY JANE EVANS HARROCKS. VZN4,0 b � awn # i M 4 ••1.wh of Np -Y�a.4-' L 1 U m TO WHITE ROCK DEVELOPMENT o I b o a U I� b IRON PIPE FOUMID FLU94 OtEARY 4 BURKE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUST WENT FOR JAAE EVANS HAMOCKS 42 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT VF.i ONT LAND sjmvzyaW Evc 4050 WILUSTON ROAD, SUITE 172 SOUTH BURLWG'!'OK 1V'T 05403-6063 (802) 882-5661 uH Ic APRIL 21, 2004, APRIL 26, 2004 SURVEYED M,W. & B.H. DRA WN BRADFORD L. HOLDEN PRDJECT 2407 EXHIBIT Z A E m LEGEND IRE —ROD FOUND V PIPE TO BE SET NE AS MARKED IN FIELD LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD LINE VAL VE cr ,d i F- • 9 /IV rH = 20 FEET O 20 40 bU ov .00 I CERTIFY THIS PLAT IS BASED UPON A TOTAL STATION SURVEY, RECORD RESEARCH, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOUND, PLANS AS NOTED AND INFORMA 77ON PROVIDED BY JANE EVANS HARROCKS. �ti�E YER�jo��► oco � WARD �K t40.498 c FGIS� No suR { t ;..A-- ! t� JUL 2 8 2008 ??° s.a o' VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT m ._--(802)-.82,84660—j f _ r --_.. 241.8-Airport Load; Ste: i ! John H. Klesch, Esq. ! EME oo Barre, Vermont 05641 - 8701 ! Stitzel Page & Fletcher, P.C. ! ! P.O. Box 1507 ! ! Burlington VT 05402 ! July 24, 2008 Lieberman NOV (Set Back Encroachment) Docket No. 151-7-08 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 07/18/2008.. Environmental Court, docket number 151-7-08 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 Rules and Reporter's Notes at www.vermontjudiciary.org. 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. For requirements regarding the appellant's responsibility to notify interested parties, see V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A); see also Form 900 available on the Court's web site at www.vermontjudicia.ry.org or by calling the Court at the above number and requesting that one be sent to you. 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 a`fter the.'notice'to interested parties has been sent, whichever occurs later. To complete sex -vice of appeals, the appellant must do as follows: From an Appropriate Municipal. Panel, follow V.R,F,.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A) 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. July 24, 2008 -Page 2- 151-7-08 Vtec From a District Commission, District Coordinator or the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resource, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B): Take special notice that no list of interested parties will be provided by the tribunal, other than the service list on the decision appealed from. 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. 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. Before the initial conference, the Appellant is requested to provide the Court with a copy of the decision being appealed from. The Court finds it useful in preparing to discuss the appeal with the parties at the initial conference. Sincerely, Jaca4Wn M. Fletcher, Court Manager/designee CC: Jon T. Anderson, Attorney for Appellant, Terry Lieberman Jon T. Anderson, Attorney for Appellant, Bethany Lieberman Co -Counsel for Appellant, David W. Rugh Hobart F. Popick, Attorney for Interested Person, John H. Belter Jr. Hobart F. Popick, Attorney for Interested Person, Joyce N. Belter John H. Klesch, Attorney for Appellee, City of South Burlington STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S McLEAN AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WILLIAM E. FLENDER STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 W W W.FIRMSPF.COM E-M AIL(F IRM 25 5 5 Ga)F IRM SPF. COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCII@F1RMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 July 22, 2008 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 OF COUNSEL JOHN H KLESCH DINA L ATWOOD Re: Appeal of Lieberman Notice of Violation for Construction of Single -Family House with Setback Encroachments Docket No.: Dear Jacalyn: Enclosed for filing with the Court is our Entry of Appearance in connection with the above -referenced matter. JHK/ j g Enclosure CC: Hobart Popick, Esq. David Rugh, Esq. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer son08-089.wpd STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN NOTICE ) OF VIOLATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ) DOCKET NO.: SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE WITH SETBACK ) ENCROACHMENTS ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES JOHN H. KLESCH, of the firm of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and hereby enters his 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 22nd day of July, 2008. son08-038.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By. . �.. _ John H..Klesch 171 Bat,,��yery Street, PO Box 1507 Bu-rIir, ton, VT 05402 ( 02) 6/660 2555 ►rr southburlington PLANNING & ZONING July 16, 2008 David Rugh, Esq Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Appeal #AO-08-12 Dear Mr. Rugh: Enclosed, please find the Findings of Fact and Decisions regarding the above referenced appeal. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, I"'— &da' Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 5898 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com southburfington PLANN1iqs i0NINa July 16, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Appeal #AO-08-12 Terry & Bethany Lieberman Dear Mr. Sperry: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Betsy c onough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant 5')A' 0a-set rstro[•ss 5,Vsit» 0urIi19 ton, V T 0 553 toll E02 W, it. -IC i a x Sg2.846 4O1 W-4kw �bjr9'C�Is b-r-IJ Vgan DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD R-6 1 JULY 2008 constructing a fourth building consisting of 3200 sq. ft. of medical office use, 1152 Williston Rd: Mr. Precourt said they have complied with the request to increase the island in front of Chicken Charlie's by 4 feet. They will also increase the island in front of Starbuck's. They have had no response to the request for a mutual access agreement. Mr. Dinklage noted the exact location would be left "to be determined." Mr. Precourt said he had no issue with that. Mr. Bresee felt it would be better to make the location definite now and change it later, if necessary. He said "to be determined" doesn't work. Stipulation 3c of the draft motion was amended to read: The plan shall be revised to show that this is an approximate location of the mutual access. Mr. Precourt testified that he would build what was shown in the elevations. Mr. Dinklage raised the question of traffic at the intersection. Ms. LaRose said it is an issue of light sequencing, but staff feels this is not the best project to deal with this. Mr. Dinklage felt the city should do something about the problem, possibly using impact fees to accomplish that. Ms. LaRose said she felt there would soon be an application presented to the DRB that would fix the problem. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-08-32 of Precourt Investment Co., LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued Appeal #AO-08-11 of Cedar Bluff Condominium Association, Inc., appealing the issuance of Notice of Violation #NV-08-14 for zoning violations at 303 & 305 Lime Kiln Rd: Mr. Belair advised that the appellant has asked for a continuance. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Appeal #AO-08-11 of Cedar Bluff Condominium Assn. until 15 July 200. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Appeal #AO-08-12 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman appealing issuance of Notices of Violation #NV-08-15 and NV-08-16 by the Administrative Officer for zoning violations at 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Knudsen stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Anderson, representing the Liebermans, said the house was built with setback violations. He disagreed that this means the house has to be taken down to solve the violations. The case will go to the Environmental Court, and this hearing is needed to allow that appeal to proceed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2008 Mr. Belair said since the house was not built to the zoning specifications, it does not have a zoning permit. Ms. Heins, representing the Belters who have appealed the placing of fill on their property by the Liebermans, are requesting that the building be moved back to that whatever fill is needed goes on the Lieberman property, not the Belter property. Ms. Quimby moved to close the hearing to allow members to deliberate and seek legal opinion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Continued Appeal #AO-08-09 of Century Partners, LP, appealing the issuance of a Notice of Violation #NV-08-11 for zoning violations at 2 & 4 Market St. and 100 Dorset St: and 13. Continued Appeal #AO-08-10 of Tekram Partners, LP, appealing the issuance of Notice of Violations #NV-08-13 for zoning violations at 2 & 4 Market St. and 100 Dorset St: Ms. Heins, representing both appellants, said they disagree that these are zoning violations. Ms. Heins noted that the hedge near 100 Dorset St. in front of EMS, was put in within the last 5 years to improve the appearance. She did not feel this required approval as a change to a site plan. Ms. Heins said they also don't feel that an area behind 100 Dorset St. for dumpsters to be picked up is a "new service area." She said that when dumpsters are picked up they may be put back in a different location. She didn't feel this was a zoning violation. Regarding the alleged conversion of space from general office to medical office use, Ms. Heins said the CO included a chiropractic use under the general office building. Regarding landscaping around 2 Market St., Ms. Heins said the 6 December 2005 approval shows no landscaping in the 2 Market St. area. Mr. Belair responded as follows: The 24 February 1976 plan shows a row of trees where barberry hedges were planted last year. There were trees there at some time. A new service area for dumpsters was added to the north side of the building. The last approved site plan does not show a service area in that location. 2 dumpsters have been there since the restaurant opened. Suite 21 was converted from general to medical office use. There had been no chiropractic use in the building until 1997. In reviewing past applications (Exhibits 7, 8, -5- i r VA `l♦ southburlington PLANNING & ZONING July 8, 2008 David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Appeal #AO-08-08 Dear Mr. Rugh: Enclosed, please find the Findings of Fact and Decisions regarding the above referenced appeals. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, "I Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 5799 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com rr A0, `.lam southburlington PLANNING & ZONING June 26, 2008 David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Rugh: 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, July 1, 2008 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, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com ►PAN 6s south', ; ,,I i x y. 41, PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM FILE COPY To: Development Review Board Fr: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Date: June 18, 2008 Re: Appeal #AO-08-12 Agenda #11 Appeal #AO-08-12 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman appealing the issuance of Notices of Violation #NV-08-15 and #NV-08-16 by the Administrative Officer for zoning violations at 44 Country Club Drive. 1. The Administrative Officer mailed on May 30, 2008 via Certified Mail, Notice of Violation #NV-08-15 to Terry Lieberman (EXHIBIT 1) and Notice of Violation #NV 08-16 to Bethany Lieberman (EXHIBIT 2), both dated May 28, 2008 for zoning violations at 44 Country Club Drive. 2. The Notices of Violation were for: a. Constructing a single family dwelling without a zoning permit. b. Constructing a single family dwelling in the required side/setback and in the required front yard/setback without a zoning permit. 3. On June 6, 2008, Terry & Bethany Lieberman filed Notice of Appeal #AO-08-12 appealing the issuance of the Notices of Violation referred to in item #1 above (EXHIBIT 3). 4. Terry & Bethany Lieberman are the record owners of 44 Country Club Drive. 5. A plan entitled, "Topographic Survey for Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors, Inc., with a last revision date of March 14, 2008 was submitted with an application for a PUD (EXHIBIT 4). 6. The plan referred to item #5 above, depicts the existing house on the property. It shows that the house is seven (7) feet from the side property line and the roof over the front steps is 23.25 feet from the front property line. 7. This property is located in the R4 Zoning District which requires a minimum side setback of 10 feet and a front setback of 30 feet (EXHIBIT 5). 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www sburi.com E 8. The zoning permit issued to construct the house was zoning permit #ZP-04-375 dated 10/13/04. The drawing attached to the permit application indicated that all setback requirements would be met (EXHIBIT 6). 9. No zoning permit was ever issued for the house as depicted on EXHIBIT 4, therefore it was constructed without a zoning permit. P southburlington PLANNING & ZONING May 28, 2008 Terry Lieberman c/o David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Zoning Violation — 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Lieberman: )-4 0_09 _/5- Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. I. Constructing a single family dwelling without a zoning permit. 2. Constructing a single family dwelling in the required site yard/ setback and in the required front yard/setbach without a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Obtain a zoning permit for the single family dwelling in its current location, or Mahe alterations to the building to eliminate all yard/setback encroachments and obtain a zoning permit. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincer C R mo 4Belaii Administrative Officer Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5584 P PIN;i southburlinoon PLANNING & ZONING May 28, 2008 Bethany Lieberman c/o David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Zoning Violation — 44 Country Club Drive Dear Ms. Lieberman: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. 1. Constructing a single family dwelling without a zoning permit. 2. Constructing'a single family dwelling in the required site yard/ setback and in the required front yard/setback without a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Obtain a zoning permit for the single family dwelling in its current location, or Make alterations to the building to eliminate all yard/setback encroachments and obtain a zoning permit. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincere' , !.L Ra m n J. Belai Administrative Officer Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5577 J Application #AO - 08 - A NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. I understand: the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. 1 agree to pay a fee of $110 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Terry and Bethany Lieberman,,fc/o David W. Rugh, Esq., Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: 44 Country Club Drive, single family house _ 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Zoning Violation letter, dated May 28, 2008 _ - 1 - 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Table C-2 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Dismiss first and second violation 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? First violation is improper because Redzic had permit to build the house, and the Liebermans did not construct it. Second violation is improper because the Liebermans sought a permit_ to bring their house into compliance. 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). John -:and Joyce Belter, 2 Cduntry Club Drive Neil and Patricia Loller, 46 C6untry Club Drive Janine Kirchgassner, 45 C6untry Club Drive I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge.�Ua�44� L44 J7� SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT DATE -2- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: 4 di5 REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete Incomplete L / Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- JOHN H. & JOYCE N. BEL TER, JR. LOT 48A WfLLIAM & MELINDA COOPER COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE s s s s 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY TOP OF BANK ffj- REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JAN£ EVANS HARROCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 do 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE f436. LEGEND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 0 SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FEET 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SU17E 112 I" IRON PIPE TO BE SET • SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD p17! (802) 862-5661 SEWER LINE S 0 20 40 60 80 100 WATER VALVE D4 DA TE AUG. 16, 20O Z MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M. W. & B. H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A 260 ANDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density) Maximum site coverage: Standard setbacks (feet): Buildings only Buildings, parldng and all other impervious surfaces Front yard(s) Side yard(s) Rear yard Single-family oo SF ) 20% 0% 30 10 30 Two-family 12,000 SF () 20% 0% 30 10 30 Multi-famil 6,00o SF/unit (4) 20% 0% 30 10 30 Non-residential uses 0,000 SF 30% 6o% 30 10 30 RZ Single-family 6,00o SF () o% 0% 30 10 30 Two-family 10,00o SF () o% O% O 10 30 Multi-family6,00o SF/unit (4) 30% 0 % 30 10 30 Non-residential uses O,000 SF O% 6o% 30 10 30 R12 Single-family 6,00o SF (12) 30% 0% 30 10 30 Two-family 8 000 SF (12) 0% 0% 30 10 30 Multi -family 3,500 SF/unit (12) 0% 6o% 30 10 30 Non-residential uses O,000 SF O% 6o% 30 10 30 R7-NC All residential uses Same as R7 standards All non- residential uses 12,00o SF 40% 70% 30 10 30 South Burlington Land Developm+ `.egulations Effective February 6, 2007 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Application No. zP 3 (office use only) Applicant: � a5 L Y� 2e 8 21 C Address: C, © r 4 k rd Daytime Tel. No: (0002) CSS - 24 39 Property Address: co u n f r y l r ' E- 6] Property Owner: dAS L n k , 1 cys m i ocG Pe� 211C Address: 44 &u n +,(y C I A b E 44 e Tax Parcel ID No. Parcel Size: O. 2 �; Present use of property (describe): i4 Present structure/improvements on property (describe): �Ione Proposed use of property (describe): Sinale �ramlI-7 Proposed structures/improvements (including building dimensions): Attach a Cr. attached sketch plan instructions) or site plan. Estimated cost of improvements: t I � O • oo C) - ©O Is adjoining property owned by applicant/property owner (if yes, describe): 1 o Property access ublic road fronta public water frontage, approved right-of-way): 'Yes 1 Applicant/Owner Certification The undersigned property owner hereby consents to submission of this application and understands that if the application is approved, the zoning permit and any attached conditions will be binding on the property. Qg4,>\ Q�2� c Io 1 Property Owner Signature Date The undersigned applicant hereby affirms that the information presented in this application is true, accurate and complete. "�\ M 2e6 I,\C. I Applicant Signature Date ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ACTION Date Received: Fee Received: $Z� 4, Identification of zoning district: Identification of proposed use: Proposed use type: Permitted Conditional Date of site plan approval/denial — Approval Date Denial Date Date of subdivision approval/denial Approval Date Denial Date Date of conditional use approvalldenial Approval Date Denial Date Date of appeal variance approval/denial: Approval Date Denial Date FINAL ADMIN IVE OFFICER AC ON / l / O G PERMIT APPROVED l I 0 Date o Approval Administrative Officer's Signature This permit shall expire on / l% DENIED Date of Denial Reason for denial: Administrative Officer's Signature Notice of Appeal Rights Any interested person may appeal this decision by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the development review board within 15 days of the date of this decision. The notice of appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of $85.00. ON Hose 00 c�o�tac�� Yin W+% Sep l�ckS 3 G� �15' 1 � - L' HouSE GA2ACZ i \ - I � DuatE 2ti 55� Ce�ior off' Poac7 Coun�ry Cl\),L— southburb ton PLAWNtN G & ZONMG June 10, 2008 Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public hearing notice that was printed 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 meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburl.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Li Betsy 4Mconough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. cc: David Rugh, Esq. 575 Gur'sest Strektl iaurh 31w k-nglaTn, VT 06MV2 Mel 60:1.64&. V, 8 lax 002,94£ 4)01 www.sbUO,r�nl MIDDLEBURY LANCROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble June 9, 2008 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Terry and Bethany Lieberman Appeal of Zoning Violation Dated May 28, 2008 Dear Ray: Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler Erin Miller Hems Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office Enclosed is my Notice of Appearance in connection with the most recent Notice of Appeal of the Liebermans. I don't think I have seen the May 28, 2008 letter to the Liebermans. Could you e- mail me a copy. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry NILU:mns Enclosures c: David W. Rugh, Esq. (Attorney for Liebermans) John and Joyce Belter 4626641 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388-6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys �&langrock.com • Website: www.langrc)ck.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 (802) 864-0217 • Fax (802) 864.0137 • Email: attorneys Llangrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com STATE OF VERMONT SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD IN RE: Terry and Bethany Lieberman Appeal of Zoning Violation dated May 28, Application #AO 2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Now comes Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP and hereby enters its appearance in the above proceeding on behalf of Tohn H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter, adjoining property owners to the applicants. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this day of June, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark V "Sperry PO Box 721, 0 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 462663.1 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 WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 WILLIAM E. FLENDER June 4, 2008 Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road, Ste. 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application Docket No. Dear Jacalyn: Enclosed for filing with the Court is our Entry of Appearance in connection with the above -referenced matter. erely, H. Klesch Enclosure CC: David W. Rugh, Esq. Mark Sperry, Esq. Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer son08-069.doc OF COUNSEL IOHN H. KLESCH DINA L. ATWOOD STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN PUD ) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ) DOCKET NO. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES JOHN H. KLESCH, of the firm of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and hereby enters his 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 4th day of June, 2008. son08-027.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By: � JoVlington, Klesch 17ttery Street, PO Box 1507 Bu VT 05402 (8660-2555 John I.T. Rcher, Jr. Joyce N. Re+lter ?. C:ounU y Club Drh c South Durlington, VT 054p3 June 25, 2009 South DW-lington Deveiplttnent Itavicw Board 575 Dorset Streel South Durlingloti, VT 05403 RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2008 City of So. Burlington Pe. Appeal AO-08-12 oCTcrry and T 0111any Lie-bunuan Appaaling the IsSu4llce of Notices of ViuliLtiun NV-08-15 alld NI V-O$-16 by the Adininistrative Officer for Loning Violationsat 44 Country Club Drlvt; Dcar South LDurlirlstou De-valopment Review Board Members: We me abutting propc,-ty owi,r.ra to the Lieberilialls, who al-e the appellalitS in Connectioll with the above proceeding. T'hi:: letter will serve as our "titatcrnvrlt of C(HICCn)" as proviftcl by 24 V.S A. 4471(a), Specifically, the Licbcrniani bavc. constructed tl]eir housc, witlliil ctPpi•Oximately 7 feet of our 00trin1on'boundary lint: in violation of the ..uairtg setback. In doing so, they tilled 1101 only Oil their own property to our cornmon b-ounda.,y line, but (without 011r pernlissiot) or kno wledgc) cnrl},1rluing onto our properly as v►roll. WQ I,EWC luought an flClion. in Superi0 l' C;Ottrt against the Licberma ns for our cost of removal ut'tlie• .fill and otherwise retllcdying this situaLiOln. 1-Iowevcr', because the builclilig is placed sa cluso; to ant' pi'Opetl.y line, if the building remains in its present positioiz wv stay not be able to ie"'()ve all ofthe L,iebuntlan fill that is on our T1roperty Or tive mcty aced iu ittstr�.11 z3 rctaitling sri ue tort . Thal: is, we inay reed to leave a Slope eollsiSting of TAeberinf,n fill on our p operty, or we tasty ile►:d to install a retaining structure oil our properly, due to the proximity of the building to out. line. We object to having to leave rally of tltc I.iabCrillfttl fill on our properly Or installing a retaining structure oil Our proptxty, and coil8e luc:nily we ask that the Noti"s of Violation be upheld, We also ask the DR.13 to order that the building be moved away front our boundary litre a sufficicnt distance so that whatever slope must be mainifthied luaund the building Call be. installed entirely on the 1,ie6e3'111an piolivrly, even if the distuTiv : is greater than the nlinirliunl s0back, S' cercly your•:;, Jolv1 YI. T3oltor, Jr. 2.7 Beltcr cc., L%1Yld Rugll, Esq, Mark L, sper•ty, r .%,.,. .$30 for an hour -tong lesson. Info Harrison Shulman, 516-297-9448 GER rna- lern List. ma- Alo, ]be. Ifo: )NE lver sigh awa .50. tMP ISC, aw. _W, ex- Ifo: e@ 200 ost 02- SC. ure ure ige gi- ces GUITAR INSTRUCTION Berklee grad. w/25 years teaching expe- rience offers lessons in guitar, music theory and ear training. Individualized, step-by-step ap- proach. All ages/styles/levels. Info: Belford Guitar Studio, Rick Belford, 802-864-7195, rickbetf@ verizon.net, www.rickbelford. coin. MUSIC LESSONS Piano, guitar, voice, theory, composition, song - writing. All ages, levels, styles. 20 yrs. exp. Friendly, individual- ized lessons in So. Burlington. Info: 802-864-7740, eromail13@ gmail.com. Auditions/ Casting ----------------------- FEMALE MODELS WANTED For artistic projects in Burlingtoh. Excellent opportunity for be- ginners to build free portfolio. Info: David Russell Photography, David Russell, 802-373-1912, dave@daverussell.org, http:// www.daverusseL[.org. ro-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ver Irs, Bid for 32- re. RD ys, m. )2- am =s. :h- in irs :e. .0: am .a- .d- all ay �x- 'p. te, n, e! m. Creative Space ----------------------- ARTIST SPACE FOR RENT Space in Burlington. Great for artist/ workshop, on Art Hop route. Secure, natural light, utils. incL. Info: ICCE, Andrea Hossley, 802- 355-0562. NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sate contained in a certain mortgage given by Shane L. Girard to the New England Federal Credit Union dated March 23, 2007 and recorded in Volume 191, Pages 353, et seq., of the Hinesburg land records, of which mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purpose of foreclosing and recorded in me 137, Page 80 of the Hine land records. TERMS OF SALE: The Property shall be sold to the highest bidder, who shall at sale pay cash or certified funds or $10,000.00 in cash, certified check, or treasurer's or cashier's check drawn on a financial institution regularly doing business in Vermont, and produce evidence satisfactory to New England Federal Credit Union of the ability to pay the remainder of the highest bid, which evidence shall be provided to New England Federal Credit Union prior to the initiation of bidding and who shall pay the balance of the success- ful bid price within thirty (30) days. The successful bidder will be required to sign a purchase and sale agreement. Any purchaser at sate will take the Property "AS IS" and title will be conveyed by an auctioneer's deed which warrants only that the public sale of the Property has been held in compliance with 12 V.S.A. Chapter 163 and otherwise conveying the Property by quit claim. The mortgagor, Shane L. Girard, is entitled to redeem the premises at any time prior to sale by paying the full amount due under the mortgage, including the costs and expenses of the sale. Other terms may be announced at the sate or inquire at Kohn Rath & Meyer LLP (802) 482-2905. NEW ENGLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Dated: April 25, 2008 By: David Rath, Esq., its Attorney OPENINGS BURLINGTON CITY COMMIS- SIONS/BOARDS On Monday, July 14, 2008, the Burlington City Council will fill vacancies on the following City Commissions/Boards: Airport Commission Term Expires 6/30/12 One Opening Board of Assessors Term Expires 3/31/11 One Opening Cemetery Commission Term Expires 6/30/11 One Opening CCRPC (Alternate) Term Expires 7/31/10 One Opening Design Advisory Board Term Expires 6/30/11 One Opening Design Advisory Board (Alternate) Term Expires 6/30/11 Two Openings Fence Viewer Term Expires 6/30/09 Three Openings Planning Commission Term Expires 6/30/10 One Opening Board of Tax Appeals Term Expires 6/30/10 Tor a position; a List of touncit members is also available at the Clerk/Treasurer's Office. Please call the Clerk/Treasurer's Office at 865- 7136 for further information. 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, July 1, 2008 at 7,30 P.M. to consider the fol- towing: 1. Final plat application #SD-08- 30 of Homestead Design, Inc. to amend a previously approved planned unit development consist- ing of 89 residential units in 16 buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) adjusting traffic control islands at Dorset Street and Spear Street, 2) relocating street light at Spear Street, and 3) encroaching into the wetlands with a retain- ing wall behind Unit R, Songbird Road. 2. Final plat application #SD-08- 31 of William E. Dailey, III to amend a previously approved five (5) tot subdivision. The amend- ment consists of: 1) relocating the private road serving lots #2, 3 & 4, 2) replacing the Cedar trees along the south side of the private road with Autumn Blaze Maple & split rail fencing, 1500 Dorset Street. 3. Appeal #AO-08-12 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman appealing the issuance of Notices of Violation #NV-08-15 and #NV-08-16 by the Administrative Officer for zoning violations at 44 Country Club Drive. 4. Final plat application #SD-08- 32 of Precourt Investment Co., LLC to amend a previously ap- proved planned unit development consisting of three (3) buildings of 9800 sq. ft., 3800 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. for a multiple number of tenants and a multiple number of uses. The amendment consists of constructing a fourth build- ing consisting of 3200 sq. ft. of medical office use, 1152 Williston Road. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. June 11, 2008 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S0763-07 CnC Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Cer- tificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT4, Asset -Backed Certificates, Series 2006-OPT4, Plaintiff V. Charles S. Thomnsnn ,lr Kathnr_ Kos' LoLchester, Vermont all and si )r the premises described in salt.. ortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Charles S. Thompson, Jr. and Katherine M. Thompson by Warranty Deed of Charleen P. Mills (formerly known as Charleen D. Moulton) dated January 5, 2004, of record in Book 475, Page 609 of the Town of Colchester Land Records. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Colchester. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlington, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S 1067-06 Cnc Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Plaintiff, V. Robert C. Riley, Jr., Tracy M. Riley and New Century Mortgage Corporation, Defendants. NOTICE OF SALE Byvirtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in a cer- tain Mortgage Deed dated October 14, 2004, from Robert C. Riley, Jr. And Tracy M. Riley, to New Century Mortgage Corporation. Said Mortgage Deed was recorded on October 18, 2004, in Book 892, Page 309, of the Burlington City Land Records. The subject mortgage was assigned from New Century Mortgage Corporation, to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, Under Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2005, Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1, Inc., Trust 2005-NC1, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-NCI, by an Assignment dated September 1, 2006, and recorded on Septem- ber 14, 2006 at Book 974, Page 474, of the Burlington City Land Records. The undersigned represents the present holder for breach of the conditions of said Mortgage and for the purpose of foreclosing the same which will be sold at Public Auction at 11:30 o'clock AM, on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2008, at the subject premises of 84 San- dra Circle, Burlington, Vermont, all and singular the premises described in said mortgage will be cnlri ac a iuhnlo and to be recorded in the Ci Burlington Land Records. Being all and the same land premises conveyed to Tamm, Benway by Quit Claim Deed Frederick C. Benway and Tan Benway, dated February 12, and recorded in Volume 669, 688 of the City of Burlingtor Records. Being a lot of land with all t buildings thereon situated o westerly side of Sandra Circl( ing a frontage thereon of 70 feet and a uniform width an( depth of 125.00 feet, it bein no. 41 of Block K, as shown Plan entitled "Howe Farm Es Phase 5, Lot Layout," which is filed for record in Volume Page 134, of the Burlington Land Records. Terms of Sale: Purchaser at the sate shall pi cash or certified funds, or prl a commitment letter from a t or mortgage company or oth( lender licensed to do busines the State of Vermont at the t of the sale for the amount of winning bid. In any case the ning bidder shall be required produce $10,000.00 (ten-tho dollars) cash or certified func the close of auction as the d( against the sate. The sate wit subject to the Confirmation C of the Chittenden Superior Cc In the event the auction tern confirmed by the Superior Coi aforesaid, and the winning bi is unwilling or unable consun mate the sale, the deposit sh be forfeit. In the event the s, not confirmed the deposit wil returned without interest. The Mortgagors are entitled t redeem the premises at any t prior to the sale by paying th amount due under the mortgz including the costs and exper of the sale. EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY All real estate advertising in this newspaper is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and simih Vermont statutes which make it illeg to advertise any preference, limitatioi or discrimination based on ace, colt religion, sex, national origin, sexual c entation, age, marital status, handical presence of minor children in the fam or receipt of public assistance, or ar intention to make any such preferenc limitation or a discrimination The newspaper will not knowingly accep any advertising for real estate, whicl is in violnuon of the law. Our reader are hereby informed that all dwelling advertised in this newspaper are avai able on an equal opportunity basis. Any home seeker who reels her or sh has encountered discrimination shoul contact the HUD Office of Fair Housing, 1( Causeway St., Boston, MA 02222-1092 (617)565-5309. OR Vermont Human Rights r ) 4 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING June 5, 2008 David W. Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application; Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec Dear Mr. Rugh: Pursuant to Rule 5 (b) (4) (A) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, (also see 24 V.S.A. §4471(c)), the following is a list of "interested persons" for the above proceeding. You are instructed by that Rule to serve a copy of your client's notice of appeal upon all the people or entities listed below, by certified mail. The following persons appeared at the hearings held by the Development Review Board (hereinafter referred to as the DRB) on this application: Jon Anderson, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Terry Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 When the DRB sent out it's notice on the above referenced application, the following additional people or entities were provided a copy of the DRB notice (this list does not include the people noted above who appeared at the DRB hearing): 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com William & Melinda Cooper 42 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Janine Kirchgassner 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Neil & Patricia Loller 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Lastly, I recommend that you consult the statutory definition for "interested persons" contained in 24 V.S.A. §4465(b). If you believe that our list is missing someone who has interested persons status in this proceeding, you should consider sending them a copy of the notice of appeal, so that you can be confident that all persons or entities who are entitled to notice have received it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: Vermont Environmental Court John Klesch, Esq. 11 f VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec (802) 828-1660 2418 Airport Road, Ste.1 Barre, Vermont 05641 - 8701 June 2, 2008 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 05/30/2008. Environmental Court docket number 100-5-08 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 Rules and Reporter's Notes at www.vermontjudiciary.org. 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. For requirements regarding the appellant's responsibility to notify interested parties, see V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A); see also Form 900 available on the Court's web site at www.vermontjudiciary.org or by calling the Court at the above number and requesting that one be sent to you. 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. To complete service of appeals, the appellant must do as follows: From an Appropriate Municipal Panel, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). 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. June 2, 2008 -Page 2- 100-5-08 Vtec From a District Commission, District Coordinator or the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resource, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B): Take special notice that no list of interested parties will be provided by the tribunal, other than the service list on the decision appealed from. 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. 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. Sincerely, 96rcaiyy�nM. Fletcher, Court Manager CC: FYI, City of South Burlington (No appearance yet filed) Jon T. Anderson, Attorney for Appellant, Terry Lieberman Jon T. Anderson, Attorney for Appellant, Bethany Lieberman Co -Counsel for Appellant, David W. Rugh l BUM ANDERSON MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Law Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Michael L. Burak" Jon Anderson Thomas R. Melloni" Michael B. Rosenberg' Shane « McCormack"# W. Scott Feivcllcl Anja Freiburg David W. Rugh"" Gateway Square • 30 Main Street Post Office Box 787 Burlington, Nbrmont 05402-0787 Phone: 802 862-0500 Fax: 802 862.8176 Nv"-:vtlawl.com 'Also admitted in New Ibrk **Mso admitted in Maryland •Also admitted in the District of Columbia A] so admitted in Massachusetts 13Also admitted in Connecticut & Pennsylvania June 2, 2008 Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application, Environmental Court Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec Dear Jackie: Enclosed for filing in the above -referenced matter please find a Statement of Questions. Sin , David W. Rugh, Esq. DWR\alb Enclosure cc: Betsy McDonough Brown, City of South Burlington Mark Sperry, Esq. Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. S \Client Matters\80286\L.etters\dwr fletcher2 doc BURMij AWDERSON MELLONI PLc COUNSELLORS AT LAW GATEWAY SQUARE 30 MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 787 BURUNGTON,VERMONT 05402-0787 802 862-0500 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT -------------------------------X APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION -------------------------------X Docket No. 100-5-08 Vtec STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS 1. Does the Lieberman preliminary plat application qualify for Planned Unit Development ("PUD") review pursuant to § 15.02(C) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations ("LDR"), as the preliminary plat application was submitted as an amendment to the existing Country Club Estates subdivision with an application for approval of fill/alteration of existing grade, requiring Development Review Board ("DRB") review pursuant to LDR § 3.12? 2. Is a decision of the DRB under § 15.02 void because there are no standards guiding the DRB's exercise of discretion once the pre -conditions for review are met? 3. Does the preliminary plat application qualify for DRB review? 4. Can a denial of preliminary plat approval be based on the language of LDR § 15.01, the purposes section of PUD review? 5. Is compliance with LDR § 15.01, the "Purpose" section, required for preliminary plat approval? 6. Does the preliminary plat application comply with the applicable approval standards in LDR § 15.18, as recognized by the DRB's decision? Dated: June 2, 2008 BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONI, PLC Burlington, Vermont. By: on Anderson, sq. David W. Rugh, Esq. S \Client Matters\80286\Legal\statement of questions prelim plat doc Attorneys for Terry and Bethany Lieberman AN�' � southburlington PLANNING & ZONING June 2, 2008 Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. Stitzel Page & Fletcher, PC P. O. Box 1507 Burlington, VT 05402-1507 Re: Notice of Appeal — 44 Country Club Drive Dear Amanda: Enclosed, please find a transmittal letter to the VT Environmental Court and a Notice of Appeal on the above referenced property. Please enter your appearance on behalf of the City in this matter. Thank you. Sincer , havymond/jlBelairoj Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com BuRAK,,ANDERSON MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Law VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1 Barre, VT 05641-8701 Michael L. Burak* Jon Anderson Thomas R. Mellon* Michael B. Rosenberg' Shane w. McCormack*# W. Scott Fewell Anja Freiburg David W. Rugh** Gateway Square * 30 Main Street Post Office Box 787 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0787 Phone: 802 862-0500 Fax: 802 862-8176 www.vtlawl.com .:Also admitted in New York "Also admitted in Maryland 'Also admitted in the District of Columbia #Also admitted in Massachusetts "Also admitted in Connecticut & Pennsylvania May 29, 2008 Re: Appeal of Lieberman PUD Preliminary Plat Application; Environmental Court Docket No_ Dear Jackie: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal for a decision of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board denying preliminary plat approval to Appellant -Applicants Terry and Bethany Lieberman for a single -lot planned unit development at their property at 44 Country Club Drive. The central issue in this case is primarily legal in nature, as it involves whether the City's Land Development Regulations allow the creation of a single -lot planned unit development. Additionally, the resolution of this case has implications for a number of nearby property owners, not to mention Appellant -Applicants, as it is related to two cases in Chittenden Superior Court. One case, Belter v. Lieberman, Docket No. 0335-08 CnC, filed by Appellant -Applicants' neighbors relates to the placement of fill by Appellant -Applicants on their neighbors' property, which resulted from a construction mistake which caused Appellant -Applicants' single-family house to be built outside the building envelope designated by the City's setback requirements. Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court May 29, 2008 Page 2 BURAK }ANDERSON & MELLONIPLc Appellant -Applicants filed the other action, Lieberman v. Redzic, Docket No. S0680-08 CnC, against their builder for locating the house outside the building envelope. Sincerely, David W. Rugh, Esq. DWR\alb Enclosures cc: Betsy McDonough Brown, City of South Burlington Mark Sperry, Esq. Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. S \Client Matters\80286\Letters\dwr fletcher doc BURAVMERSON MELLONI PLc COUNSELLORS AT LAW GATEWAY SQUARE 30 MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 787 BURLINGTON,VERMON7 05402.0787 802 862-0500 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT -------------------------------X APPEAL OF LIEBERMAN PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT Docket No. APPLICATION -------------------------------X NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COMES Terry and Bethany Lieberman ("Appellant -Applicants"), by and through their attorneys, Burak Anderson & Mellon, PLC, and hereby appeals to the Environmental Court a May 22, 2008 decision of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board in #D-08-20, denying Appellant -Applicants' preliminary plat application for a single -lot planned unit development. The use is permitted under § 15 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and preliminary plat approval should issue. A copy of said decision is attached hereto. This appeal is also related to two existing cases in Chittenden Superior Court: Belter v. Lieberman, Docket No. S0335-08 CnC and Lieberman v. Redzic, Docket No. S0680-08 CnC, filed in March and May, 2008, respectively. The property subject to this appeal is property owned by Terry and Bethany Lieberman at 44 Country Club Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. Appellant -Applicants claims party status pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(1), and their address is 802 Brand Farm Drive, So. Burlington, Vermont 05403. Dated: May 29, 2008 Burlington, Vermont. S \Client Matters\80286\Legal\nonce of appeal prelim plat doc BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONI, PLC By: K� derson, Esq. David W. Rugh, Esq. Attorneys for Terry and Bethany Lieberman #S D-08-20 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERMAN - 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-08-20 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Terry & Bethany Lieberman, hereafter referred to as the applicants, seek preliminary plat review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 15, 2008. Jon Anderson, Esq., 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicants seek preliminary plat review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. 2. A zoning permit was issued on October 13, 2004, to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The plan submitted with the application indicated that all setback requirements would be met. Applicants recently discovered that the house was not constructed in compliance with the side and front setback requirements. This application is an attempt to correct that violation. 3. The sketch plan was heard on February 5, 2008. The Board advised the applicant that it would likely not support approval of the proposed PUD. 4. The owners of record of the subject property are Terry & Bethany Lieberman. 5. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 6. The plan submitted is entitled, "Topographic Survey for Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors, Inc., dated March 24, 2008. - 1 - #SD-0s-20 Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Rarnaramantc Min. Lot Size Max. Building Coverage 9,500 S.F. 20% 11,095 SF 16% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 % ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft �I Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft Max. Building Height 40 ft. 27 ft zoning compliance ♦ Waiver requested The structure on the subject lot fails to comply with both the dimensional standards of the district and the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three (3) feet into the required side setback. The front entrance porch, with roof, is constructed within the required 30-foot front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. Applicants request a front yard setback waiver of 6.75 feet and a side yard setback waiver of 3 feet. The subject lot is a conforming lot. There is nothing unique or otherwise limiting in its shape or size. The required setback lines allow for a sizeable building envelope. The Board considers this application as though the applicants propose the waivers on a vacant lot, prior to construction. The proposed single family dwelling and its setbacks would very likely not qualify for a variance pursuant to state law and the Land Development Regulations. The applicants have therefore submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development as the only regulatory mechanism which offers the possibility of setback waivers. However, as explained below, the Land Development Regulations do not permit review of this application as a PUD. The Land Development Regulations do not require review of the proposed development as a Planned Unit Development. See Section 15.02(B). Section 15.02(C) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, pertaining to elective PUD review, specifically states that "any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations." The construction of a single family home is a permitted use in the R-4 zoning district, provided that all dimensional requirements are met. The construction of a single family dwelling does NOT require action by the DRB and may not be considered as a PUD. The PUD waiver requirements were intended to allow the DRB to grant waivers of setbacks to improve the design of new projects. The language in Article 15.01, Purpose, says: "...It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and -2- #SD-08-20 layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan." [emphasis added]. Where the grant of a waiver does not fulfill any of the purposes of PUD review, the Board will not grant the requested waiver. The requested setback waivers are not needed for an innovative design and/or layout or the efficient use of land. Even if the Board were to conclude that this application could be reviewed as a PUD, the Board would not approve the requested front or side yard setback waivers. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning districts in -which -it is located. The single family residence is in conformance with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 Zoning District per the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. However, Section 4.03(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states that all requirements of Section 4.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The above mentioned criteria were adequately addressed at the time of the subdivision of the Country Club Estates area. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. -3- #SD-08-20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Section 15.02 (C) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, pertaining to elective PUD review, specifically states that "any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations". The Board concludes that the construction of a single family home does NOT require action by the Development Review Board, so therefore, it does not have the authority to review the application as a PUD or to grant the requested setback waivers under the PUD provision. 2. Section 15.01 of the Land Development Regulations states"... A is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout efficient use of land and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan." [emphasis added]. The Board concludes that the proposed PUD request is not in compliance with the stated purposes of the PUD provisions of the Land Development Regulations. DECISION The Development Review Board hereby approves Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08- 20 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman: Mark Behr — yea/Day/abstain/not present Matthew Birmingham — yea/Day/abstain/not present John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea/Day/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain/not present Peter Plumeau — yea/nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/not present Application denied by a vote of 0-4-0. This application is hereby DENIED. Signed this A P day of May 2008, by a John Din I ge, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). -4- r ffimolAwM L6 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING May 23, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Lieberman Applications #SD-08-20 & MS-08-01 Dear Mr. Sperry: Pursuant to 24 VSA 4464(b)(3), enclosed please find a copy of the Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided a copy of this decision because you appeared or were heard at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com r f� southburlinoon PLANNING & ZONING May 23, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Lieberman Applications #SD-08-20 & MS-08-01 Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced projects. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT: 7008 0150 0003 6150 5966 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tal 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com }southburfifigton May 27, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402 Re: Minutes — 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved April 15, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tejs� ?V� Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Do sel Strueft i7oijilhG.arlsngt�rt, GT 115403 to] 002A46,4PO4 fax 802' 94B.41701 wwx.sbne,1.,*m .. `r southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Date: May 29, 2008 Re: Agenda Item # 14, Appeal #AO-08-07 1. On April 23, 2008, the Administrative Officer mailed via Certified Mail Return Receipt, a Notice of Violation dated April 16, 2008, to Joyce Belter for a zoning violation at 102 Ethan Allen Drive (#NV-08-08 — EXHIBIT 1). 2. The Notice of Violation described the violation as: "Altered the existing grade of your above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing or allowing to be placed fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit". 3. A Notice of Appeal (#AO-08-07) was filed on 4/29/08 by Joyce Belter (EXHIBIT 2), hereinafter referred to as "Appellant", appealing the Administrative Officer's determination in Notice of Violation #NV-08-08. 4. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on May 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 3). 5. The fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material placed on the Appellant's property by Terry & Bethany Lieberman is depicted on a plan entitled, "Topographic Survey for Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors, Inc., last revised on March 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 4). The Liebermans' agent informed the Administrative Officer that the Liebermans placed approximately 200 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on the Belters' property. 6. Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations requires approval of the Development Review Board for the placement of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards (EXHIBIT 5). 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846,4101 www.sburl.com 7. No one has obtained approval from the Development Review Board for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. 8. Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations states, in relevant part, that "no land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer" (EXHIBIT 6). The definition of "land development" includes "[t]he construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any mining, excavation or landfill. See Article 2 of the Land Development Regulations (emphasis added). 9. No one has applied for or obtained a zoning permit for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. l r t4of southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 16, 2008 Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violations — 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Mrs. Belter: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. Altered the existing grade of your above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing or allowing to be placed fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Either obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the grade alteration or remove all fill material and return the site to it's original grade. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington. VT nSnnR rei Qnn - E You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Mark Sperry, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5553 04/24/08 16:26 FAX 802 864 0137 Langrock,S.Perry&-Wool Bur �_. In 003 Application #AO - � - A PP NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. l understand: the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & development Act); that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; + that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prier to the hearing on my appeal, 1 agree to pay a fee of $110 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Joyce Belter, 2 Country Club Dr., South Burlington 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: Country Club Drive, northeasterly of Lieberman property 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Notice of Violation dated April 16, 2008 -1- 04/24/08 16:26 FAX 802 864 0137 Langrock,Sperry&Wool Bur U004 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Section 312(A), Section, 17.02, 24 V.S.A. 4449(a)(1), 24 V.S.A. 4451(a) 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? ^Rev-rse decis%ori of Zoning .Administrator as to violation. B) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? Landowner did not place fill on property. Fill placed there by Liebermans without landowners' consent or Imowledge. This does I not constitute a violation. 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). Terry and Bethany Lieberman 21 3ohnson Circle North Andover MA 01343 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE QF APPELLANT Joyce Belter DATE -2- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be - Complete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- ication and proposed P ' ay also be viewed on the or to convening a hearing, . the District Commission must District #4 Coordinator 117 West Street esources Board's Web v.nrb.state.vt.us/lup)- by determine that substantive is- sues requiring a hearing have Essex Junction, VT 05452 . in "Act 250 Database," "Entire Database," and, been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions -of Law will hot be T/ 802-879-5658 E / Peter.keibel@state.vt.us the case number above. prepared unless the Commission \ ig will be held unless, on May 27, 2008, a party holds a public hearing. CHARLOTTE PLANNING he District Commission ie or issues requiring Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability •COMMISSION NOTICE -.OF PUBLIC HEARING ntatiori of evidence at or the commission sets for which you are going -to deed accommodation, please notify us Pursuant to Title' 24 Chapter 117 'and r for hearing on its - pn."Any hearing by May 27, 2008. V.S.A. the Charlotte Land Use Regulation;, the Charlotte ,fequest writiog to the address Ill state the.criteria or Parties entitled to participate -are the Municipality, the Municipal nning- Commis'siow'i(L meet on Thursday June 5 n2008 at the town 3'at issue; why a hearing Planning Commission,.the Re- Hal( to hear the following application: 1 and what additionat gional Planning Commission, , ,vilL be presented at ig. Any hearing request adjoining property owners, other' interested persons party 8:30 PM -Final Plat Hearing of »ping property.owner iterested person must granted status, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § Clark Hinsdale III and Meg Berlin for a subdivision modification to petition for party status. 6085(c). Non-party participants may atso be allowed under,10 change boundary linQs'of adjacent ibmitting a request for V.S.A. § 6085(c)(5). properties at 1251 Greenbush -Road ptease contact the.dis- liirator at the telephone'. -ted below for more Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 2nd day of May 2008. .Application maEerial can be n. viewed at the Planning and Zoning Office. Participation in the hearing /s/ Peter E:•Keibel. is a -prerequisite to the right to Peter E. Keibel appeal any decision related to Natural Resources Board these applications.' naaysv"Exorn [clic Open 24/7/365. Post & browse ads atyour=convenience. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW BOARD -The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearin,g at the.South Burlington City Hall Conferencq Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the. following: 1. Conditional use application .#CU-08-03 of South Burlington School District seeking permission to install four (4) 80 foot high pole lights, 550 Dorset Street. 2. Appeal #AO-08-06 of John Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-07 for alteration of existing grade with- out a zoning permit, 102 Ethan Allen Drive. COMPREHENSIVE' DEVELOPMENT 0RDINANCE - Institutional Zoning #ZA-08701 at the Comprehensive Development Ordinance of the Code of amended by amending Sections'Ordinances of the City of Burlington be and hereby is 4,4.4, 4.5.2 and Appendix B as set forth in the document attached hereto. 'ZONING AMENDMENT. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-08-01 re: Institutional Zoning Districts :.4.4.41nstitutional District" ildi le 4.4.4 -1 Dim7IF71 rids , M. x: Lot Coverage' Building Setbacks' (feet) ' Max Side .. Rearr Height'. ` tutional' (24 du/acre with 40% (48%with Minimum: 15=feet io%oflofwidth Min:-S-feet . . 25%of lot depth -35' inclusionary req.) -inclusionaryreq.) Max:20-feet Min:204eet Max:75-feet ieasurement of and exceptions to coverage, setback and height standards are found in Art S. 'he calculation of the front yard -setback shall be a percentage of lot width and depth or as defined and described in Art S. daximum allowable lot coverage, setbacks and building height In portions of this )verlays in Set.�4.5.2 district may be modified by the provisions of the Institutional.Core Campus 65.2 ' institutional Core C ampus Overlay Distrirts Dlstrrd specific Regulations: Fletcher Allen Health Care Campus (ICC-FAHC) and UVM Main Campus.pCC-UVM); Building Height height shill be measured under the provisions ofArt. 5 except that the Measurement'fnterval method specified in Sec 5.2.5(a)(3) shall not apply. Except for ornamental and architett4lil-features, additions and new construction may be built to a height thattloes not exceed the lesser of - The actu#heightof the tallest existing structure as of January 1, 2007 and located within the strict;or, respective institutions core campus' the elevation of a plane runningparallel to sea level from a point defined by the roof of the tallest structufe at the iation within theparcel as depicted as of January 1, 2000. .highest Nnciw 3. Appeal #AO-08-07 of Joyce Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-08 for alteration of existing grade with- out a zoning permit, 1Q2 Ethan Allen _ Drive. 4. Appeal #AO-08-08 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman, appealing de cision of the Administrative Offict to issue'Notices of Violation # NV 08-09 & NV-08-10 for alteration of existing grade without a zonin, permit, 162 Ethan.Allen Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of -the applications are available for public inspection at the South_ Burlington City Halt. May 14, 2008 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT OF CHITTENDEN PROBATE COURT DOCKET NO. 32397 IN RE THE ESTATE OF Geraldine M. LaPLant LATE OF SO. BURLINGTON, VT NOTICE TO CREDITORS To the creditors of the estate of Geraldine M. La'Plant late of Soutl Burlington. ' I have been appointed as persons representative of the above name estate. All creditors having' claim; against the estate must present their claims in writing within fou months of the first publication of this notice. The claim must be Presented to me at the address Listed below with a copy filed wit the register of the Probate Court. The claim will be forever barred if it is not presented as describec ,within.the four month deadline. Dated: May .i, 2008 Signed: Robert 9. Perry Address: i'0 Box 238 Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-2675 • 'Name of Publication: Seven Days .First Publication Date: 5/7/08 Second Publication Date: 5/14/0; Address of Probate Court: Probate Court, District -of Chit- tenden . PO Box 511 Burlington, VT 05402 LEGEND IRON PIPE -ROD FOUND 0 1 " IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD P SEWER LINE g WATER VALVE D4 L� REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARPOCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 & 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 20 40 60 80 100 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 2007, MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M. W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK K WARD PROJECT 2717/' ARTICLE 3 GENERAL P 65 total of six (6) months in a one year period, any future use of such land shall be in compliance with all provisions of these Regulations. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit Required The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for Approval (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B), and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards A. Purpose of Performance Standards Consistent with the general purposes of these regulations, performance standards (see Appendix A) shall set specific controls on potentially objectionable external aspects of such non-residential uses so as to: (1) Reduce to a reasonable minimum the dissemination of smoke, gas, dust, odor, or other atmospheric pollutant outside the structure or beyond the property boundaries in which the use is conducted. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 234 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 17.01 General Provisions 17.02 Zoning Permits 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy 17.04 Expiration of Permits and Approvals 17,05 Revocation of Permits and Approvals 17.o6 Fees 17.07 Planning Commission 17.o8 Development Review Board 17.09 Design Review Committee 17.10 Amendments to Regulations and Maps 17.11 Violations 17,12 Penalties 17.13 Appeals 17.01 General Provisions A. Annlicability of Vermont Planning and Development Act. Administration and enforcement of these regulations, the effect of the adoption of these regulations, the appointment and powers of the Administrative Officer, the appointment and powers of the Development Review Board, the requirement for zoning permits and certificates of occupancy/compliance, penalties and remedies, administration and finance, public notice, appeals and granting of variances and other related provisions of Chapter 117 and Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated, known as the Vermont Planning and development Act, shall be applicable to these regulations, as such provisions now provide or may hereafter be amended. [reserved] 17.02 Zoning Permits A. Zoning Permit Required. No land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer. No zoning permit may be issued by the Administrative Officer except in conformance with these regulations and the provisions of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Any applicant for a zoning permit shall provide the Administrative Officer with any and all information the Administrative Officer deems necessary to ascertain compliance with these zoning regulations. Such permit shall not be effective until the time for appeal has expired, or such appeal has been adjudicated, in accordance with the Vermont Planning and development Act. 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy A. Certificate of Occu an Reguired..It shall be unlawful to use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy has been issued therefor by the Administrative Officer. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 r W southburlinoon PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Date: May 29, 2008 Re: Agenda Item # 15, Appeal #AO-08-08 1. On April 23, 2008, the Administrative Officer mailed via Certified Mail Return Receipt, Notices of Violation dated April 16, 2008, to Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a zoning violation at 102 Ethan Allen Drive (#NV-08-09 & #NV-08-10 —EXHIBITS 1&2). 2. The Notices of Violation described the violation as: "Altered the existing grade of your above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing or allowing to be placed fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit". 3. A Notice of Appeal (#AO-08-08) was filed on 5/1/08 by Terry & Bethany Lieberman (EXHIBIT 3), hereinafter referred to as "Appellants", appealing the Administrative Officer's determination in Notices of Violation #NV-08-09 & #NV-08-10. 4. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on May 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 4). 5. The fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material placed on the Appellant's property by Terry & Bethany Lieberman is depicted on a plan entitled, "Topographic Survey for Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors, Inc., last revised on March 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 5). The Liebermans' agent informed the Administrative Officer that the Liebermans placed approximately 200 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on the Belters' property. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 6. Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations requires approval of the Development Review Board for the placement of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards (EXHIBIT 6). 7. No one has obtained approval from the Development Review Board for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. 8. Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations states, in relevant part, that "no land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer" (EXHIBIT 7). The definition of "land development" includes "Whe construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any mining, excavation or landfill ..." See Article 2 of the Land Development Regulations (emphasis added). 9. No one has applied for or obtained a zoning permit for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. �► a11, 100, 4_7ftir southburlinaton PLANNING & ZONING April 23, 2008 Terry Lieberman do David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Zoning Violation — 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Mr. Rugh: } �,) N0-vVO-o ff Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above - described property. Altered the existing grade of the above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Either obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the grade alteration or remove all fill material and return the site to it's original grade. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per -day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Zn . Belau Administrative Officer Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5560 ) I, *" o Z - 162 i► Q� southburliugton PLANNING & ZONING April 23, 2008 Bethany Lieberman c/o David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: Zoning Violation — 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Mr. Rugh: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above - described property. Altered the existing grade of the above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Either obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the grade alteration or remove all fill material and return the site to it's original grade. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5997 CITY OF SOUTH-BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Application #AO - 09 A NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. I understand: • the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. • 1 agree to pay a fee of $111 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Terry and Bethany Lieberman, c/o David W. Rugh, Esq., Burak Anderson Melloni, PLC, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: Property northerly of 44 Country Club'Drive, at -what is known as 102 Ethan Allen Drive 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Zoning Violation letter, dated April'23, 2008 - 1 - 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Zonin Re ulations section 3.12 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Grant a permit to leave fill or to remove 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? The Zoning Regulations require it. 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT 1S THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). Janine Kirchgassner, 45 Country Club Drive John and Joyce Belter, 2 Country Club Drive Neil and Patricia Zoller, 46 Country Club Drive I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is curate to th st of my knowledge. . w vvx 1— Odtliii--- SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT U ZS 0 . DATE -2- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete -Z Incomplete J Ljn cuw► yr riannmg & coning or Designee Date -3- :ation and proposed y also be viewed on the sources Board's web .nrb.state:vt.us/lup) by -i "Act 25G Database," "Entire Database," and, he case number above. ) will, be held unless, on Nay 27, 2008, a party . e District Commission or issues requiring tatiori of evidence at or the commission sets for hearing on its n.'Any hearing 1equest writing to the address It state the criteria or at issue; why a hearing and what additional rill be. presented at g. Any hearing request ining property.owner terested person must ietition for party status. bmitting a requestfor please contact the.dis- inator at the telephone Led below for more Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commission must determine that substantive is- sues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions -of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a -public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this 'project and you have a disability for which you are going_to need accommodation, please notify us by May 27, 2008. Parties entitled to participate -are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission,. the Re- gional Planning Commission, adjoining property owners, other interested persons granted party status, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § • 6085(c). Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.5.A. § 6085(c)(5). Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 2nd day of May 2008. /s/ Peter E:-KeibeL Peter E. Keibel Natural Resources Board - HIfill '..• .4`�. District #4 Coordinator - 137 West Street - Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E% peter.keibel@state.vt.us CHARLOTTE PLANNIJJG •COMMISSION NOTICE•OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Titte' 24 Chapter 117 V.S.A.'and the Charlotte Land Use Regulation$, the Charlotte Planning -Commission will meet on Thursday June 5,. 2008 at'the Town Hall to ,hear the following application: 8:30 PM Final Plat Hearing of Clark Hinsdale III; and Meg Berlin for a subdivision modification to change boundary lines'of adjacent properties at 1251 Greenbush Road ' Application material can be viewed at the Planning'and Zoning Office. Participation in the hearing is a, prerequisite to the right to appeal any decision related to these applications.' �- tiaaysvtxom Iclic Open 24/7/365. Post & browse ads 1 at your :convenience. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH ,BURLINGTON'DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW BOARD ' 'The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold i public hearing at the. South Burlington City NaLL Conferencq Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 3, 2008'at 7:30 P.M. to consider the• following: 1. Conditional use application #CU-08-03 of South Burlington School District seeking permission to instal( four (4) 80 foot high pole lights, 550 Dorset Street. 2. Appeal #AO-08-06 of John Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-07 for alteration of existing 'grade with- out a zoning permit, 102 Ethan Allen Drive. COMPREHENSIVE" DEVELOPMENT ORDI NANCE - Institutional Zoning #ZA-08701 at the Comprehensive Development Ordinance of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlingtori be and hereby is amended by amending Sections,4,4;4, 4.5.2 and Appendix B as set forth in the document attached hereto. ZONING AMENDMENT Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-08-01 re: Institutional Zoning Districts :. 4.4•.4lnstitutiortal District Ie D'i 444-1 m i I S ensiona - Landards And Density - , •icts Max. Intensity �M4x. Cot Coverage' Building Setbacks' (feet) Max r ....,3%' . • i@ _ Front? Side' 7 Rear' Height' tutional' 20 du/ac • (24dU/acre With 40% (48% With Minimum: to%aflot"width 25%of lot depth 15-feet Mln: S-feet 35 inclusionary req.) -Inclusionary req.) Min: 204eet Max:20-feet Max:75-feet leasurement of and exceptions to coverage, setback and height standards are found in Art 5. he calculation of the front yardsetback shall be ape rcentale of lot width and depth or as defined and described in Art S. rlax(mum allowable lot coverage, setbacks and building height in portions of this district may be modified by the provisions of the Institutional Campus )vedays in Sec.4.4.2 -Core 1,5J institutional Core Campus Overlay Districts DistndSpecilicRegulations: Fletcher Allen Health Care Campus (ICC-FAHO and UVM Main Campus-II(C-UVM); Building Height hcightshall be measured under the provisions of Art 5 except thatthe Measurement'(nterval method specified in Sec 5.2.5(a)(3) shall not apply. Except for ornamental and architett4i0eatures, additions and new construction maybe built to a height thattioes not exceed the lesser of: Theactual herghtofthe tallest existing structure as of January 1, 2007 and located within the respective institutions corrnmpus ' rstricro The elevation of a plane runningparallel to sea levelfrom a point defined by the roof of the tallest structute at the highest vationwithintheparcel as depicted as of January 1, 2000. ' nwity . 3. Appeal #AO-08-07 of Joyce Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-08 for alteration of existing grade with- out a zoning permit, 102 Ethan Allen Drive. 4.-Appeal #AO-08-08 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman, appealing de cision of the Administrative Offict to issue 'Notices of Violation # NV 08-09 & NV-08-10 for alteration of existing grade without a zonini permit, 162 Ethan.ALLen Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. May 14, 2008 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT OF CHITTENDEN PROBATE COURT DOCKET NO. 32397 IN RE THE ESTATE OF Geratdine'M. LaPlant LATE OF SO. BURLINGTON, VT NOTICE TO CREDITOR2S To the creditors of the estate of Geraldine M. LaPLant late of Soutl Burlington. I have been appointed as personi representative of the above name estate. All creditors having claim: against the estate must present their claims in writing within fou months of the first publication of this notice. The claim must be presented to meat the address ' Listed below with a copy filed wit the register of the Probate Court. The claim wiLL be forever barred if it is not presented as describec within the four month deadline. Dated: May 1, 2068 Signed: Robert 0. Perry Address: PO Box 238' Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-2675 Name of Publication: Seven Days ' .First Publication Date: 5/7/08 Second Publication Date: 5/14/0; Address of Probate Court: Probate Court, District of.Chit- tenden PO Box 511 Burlington, VT 05402 LEGEND IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 0 1 " IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD p SEWER LINE S _ WA TER VAL VE 0- REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 do 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 20 40 60 80 100 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY MEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT T- VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 2007, MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M. W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVTSTONR HIBIT 65 total of six (6) months in a one year period, any future use of such land shall be in compliance with all provisions of these Regulations. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit Required The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for ADDroval. (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under_ Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards A. Purpose of Performance Standards. Consistent with the general purposes of these regulations, performance standards (see Appendix A) shall set specific controls on potentially objectionable external aspects of such non-residential uses so as to: (1) Reduce to a reasonable minimum the dissemination of smoke, gas, dust, odor, or other atmospheric pollutant outside the structure or beyond the property boundaries in which the use is conducted. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT �34 17 A►DMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 17.o1 General Provisions 17.02 Zoning Permits 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy 17.04 Expiration of Permits and Approvals 17.05 Revocation of Permits and Approvals 17.o6 Fees 17.07 Planning Commission 17.08 Development Review Board 17.09 Design Review Committee 17.10 Amendments to Regulations and Maps 17.11 Violations 17.12 Penalties 17.13 Appeals 17.01 General Provisions A. A licabili of Vermont Plannin and Devel)pm,. ,nt Act. Administration and enforcement of these regulations, the effect of the adoption of these regulations, the appointment and powers of the Administrative Officer, the appointment and powers of the Development Review Board, the requirement for zoning permits and certificates of occupancy/compliance, penalties and remedies, administration and finance, public notice, appeals and granting of variances and other related provisions of Chapter 117 and Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated, known as the Vermont Planning and development Act, shall be applicable to these regulations, as such provisions now provide or may hereafter be amended. [reserved] 17.02 Zoning Permits A. Zoning Permit Rgauired. No land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer. No zoning permit may be issued by the Administrative Officer except in conformance with these regulations and the provisions of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Any applicant for a zoning permit shall provide the Administrative Officer with any and all information the Administrative Officer deems necessary to ascertain compliance with these zoning regulations. Such permit shall not be effective until the time for appeal has expired, or such appeal has been adjudicated, in accordance with the Vermont Planning and development Act. 17.03 Certificates Of Occupancy A. Certificate of Occu an Re Hired.. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy has been issued therefor by the Administrative Officer. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 r 64 ,11 � UP southhurlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Date: May 29, 2008 )b Re: Agenda Item # 13, Appeal #AO-08-06 I. On April 23, 2008, the Administrative Officer mailed via Certified Mail Return Receipt, a Notice of Violation dated April 16, 2008, to John Belter for a zoning violation at 102 Ethan Allen Drive (#NV-08-07 — EXHIBIT 1). 2. The Notice of Violation described the violation as: "Altered the existing grade of your above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing or allowing to be placed fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval of the Development Review Board and a zoning permit". 3. A Notice of Appeal (#AO-08-06) was filed on 4/29/08 by John Belter (EXHIBIT 2), hereinafter referred to as "Appellant" appealing the Administrative Officer's determination in Notice of Violation #NV-08-06. 4. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on May 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 3). 5. The fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material placed on the Appellant's property by Terry 61- Bethany Lieberman is depicted on a plan entitled, "Topographic Survey for Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Vermont Land Surveyors, Inc., last revised on March 14, 2008 (EXHIBIT 4). The Liebermans' agent informed the Administrative Officer that the Liebermans placed approximately 200 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on the Belters' property. 6. Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations requires approval of the Development Review Board for the placement of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards (EXHIBIT 5). 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.shijri r- 7. No one has obtained approval from the Development Review Board for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. 8. Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations states, in relevant part, that "no land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer" (EXHIBIT 6). The definition of "land development" includes It]he construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any mining, excavation or landfill . . . " See Article 2 of the Land Development Regulations (emphasis added). 9. No one has applied for or obtained a zoning permit for the placement of more than 20 cubic yards of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material on Appellant's property. r a� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 16, 2008 ,John Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violations — 102 Ethan Allen Drive Dear Mr. Belter: -# V_ 4)g� -6) 7 Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, p y' you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. Altered the existing grade of your above referenced property in the vicinity of 44 Country Club Drive by placing or allowing to be placed fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards without approval o the Development Review Board and a zoning permit. pp f You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: fillEither obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the grade alteration or remove all material and return the site to it's original grade. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the Cit before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. y 575 Dorset Street ini,th You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Mark Sperry, Esq. Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 0150 0003 6150 5546 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Application #AO - - NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. I understand: • the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. • 1 agree to pay a fee of $111 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): John Belter, 2 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: Country Club Drive, northeasterly of Lieberman property 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Notice of Violation dated April 16, 2008 -1- ) 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Section 312(A), Section 17.02, 24 V.S.A. 4449(a�(l), 24 V.S.A. 4451(a) 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Reverse decision of Zoning Administrator as to violation. 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? Landowner did not place fill on pr,Qperty. _Fill placed there by Liebermans without landowners' consent or knowledge. This does not constitute a violation. 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). Terry and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Cirt1:e North Andover, MA 01845 I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT DATE -2- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete _Vf Incomplete �/ 9 �ld �3 Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- lri West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E/ peter.keibel@state.vt.us Show View an - � photos - - .CHARLOTTE PLANNING •COMMISSION NOTICE1OF PUBLIC HEARING . Pursuant to Title' 24 Chapter 117 V.S.A-'and the Charlotte Land Use Regulation;, the Charlotte Planning -,Commission will meet on Thursday June 5, 2008 at the Town Hall to hear the following application: ' , :ation and proposed ty also be viewed on the Prior to convening" a hearing, . the District Commission District #,4 Coordinator must n ess, on holds a public hearing. May 27, 2008, a party . to District Commission e or issues requiring station of evidence at or the commission sets r for hearing on its )n."Any hearing Sequest i writing to the address ill state the criteria or i at issue; why a hearing I and what additionat - vill be presented at g. Any hearing request lining property.owner . iterested person must )etition for party status. bmitting a requestfor please contact the.dis- inator at the telephone ted below for more n. Should a hearing be held on this ,project and you have a disability for which you are going_to need accommodation, please notify us by May 27, 2008. Parties•entitted to participate.are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Re- - gional Planning Commission, adjoining property owners, other' interested persons granted party status. pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c). Non-party participants may also be allowed under 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(5). Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 2nd day of May 2008. /s/ Peter E. KeibeL Peter E. Keibel Natural Resources Board 8.30 PM Final Plat Hearing of Clark Hinsdale III and Meg Berlin for a subdivision modification to change boundary tines•of adjacent properties at 1251 Greenbush Road ' Application material can be viewed at the Planning'and Zoning Office. Participation in the hearing is a. prerequisite to the right to appeal any decision related to these applications.' ysvi.COM [olio Open 24/7/365. a, Post & browse ads -i at your :convenience. 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, June 3, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the• following: I. Conditional use application #CU-08-03 of South Burlington School District seeking permission to instal( four (4) 80 foot high pole Lights, 550 Dorset Street. 2. Appeal #AO-08-06 of John Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-07 for alteration of existing grade with- out a zoning permit, 102 Ethan Allen Drive.. COMPREHENSIVE•DEVELOPMENT.ORDIN - ORDINANCE Institutional Zoning #ZA-08-01 at the Comprehensive Development Ordinance of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington be and hereby is amended by art ending Sections 4,,„4,4,.4.5.2 and Appendix B as set forth in the document attached hereto. ZONING AMENDMENT Burlington Comprehensive Development d rdinance ZA-08-01 re: Institutional Zoning Districts ; 4.4.41nstitutional District ale 4.4.4 -1 Dimensional -Standards ind Derisity - riots Max. Intensity • Max, Lot Coverage' Building Setbacks' (feet) ' Max ^: '•� Front? Side' 'm"' Rears Height' itutional' 20 du/ac , 40% Minimum: 10%oflotwidth 25%of lot depth, -35' (24 du/acre. with (48% with 15-feet Min:5-feet Min:20-feet inclusionary req.) inclusionary req.) = Max:2afeet Max:7S-feet Measurement of and exceptions to coverage, setback and height Standards are found in Arts. the calculation 6f the front yard -setback shall be a percentage of lot width and depth or as defined and described in Art 5. Maximum allowable lot coverage, setbacks and buildingheight in portions of this district maybe modified by the provisions of the Institutional.Core Campus Overlays in Set. 43.2 4.5:2 -In StRutional Core Campus Overlay Districts District Speafi "Regulations: Fletcher Allen Health Cue Campus (ICC-FAHC) and UVM Main Campus.(ICC-UVM); ' . Building Height height shall be 'measured under the provisions of Art.' 5 except that.the Measurementinterval method specified in Sec 5.25(a)(3) shall not apply. Except for ornamental and architettUrWeatures, additions and new construction maybe built to a height thatAoes not exceed the lesser of: The actual hefghtofthe tallest existing structure as of January 1, 2007 and located within the respective institutions core campus listrict; or, The elevation of a plane running parallel to sea level from a point defined by the roof of the tallest structufe at the highest Nation within the parcel as depicted as of January 1, 2000. 'Density ' 3. Appeal #AO-08-07 of Joyce Better, appealing decision of the Administrative Officerto issue Notice of Violation #NV-08-08 for alteration of existing grade with- out a zoning permit, 1Q2 Ethan Allen Drive. 4, Appeal #AO-08-08 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman, appealing de cision of the Administrative Offic( to issue Notices of Vibration # NV 08-09 & NV-08-10 for alteration of existing grade without a zonin, permit, 162 Ethan Allen Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South- Burlington City Hatt. May 14, 2008 STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT OF CHITTENDEN PROBATE COURT DOCKET NO. 32397 IN RE THE ESTATE OF Geraldine M. La Plant LATE OF SO. BURLINGTON, VT NOTICE TO CREDITORS To the creditors of the estate of Geraldine M. LaPlant late of Soutl Burlington. I have been appointed as persom representative of the above name estate. All creditors having claim: against the estate must present their claims in writing within fou months of the first publication of this notice. The claim must be presented to me at the address Listed below with a copy filed wit the register of the Probate Court. -The claim will be forever barred if it is not presented as describec 'Within the four month deadline. Dated: May 2, 2008 Signed: Robert J. Perry Address: PO Box 238' Burlington, VT 05402 802-658-2675 • Name of Publication: ' Seven Days First Publication Date: 5/7/08 Second Publication Date: 5/14/0: Address of Probate Court: Probate Court, District of-Chit- tenden . PO Box 511 Burlington, VT 05402 LOT 48A WILLIAM & UELINDA COOPER W -s s a LEGEND IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND I" IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD SEWER LINE WATER VALVE 0 • G P S m JOHN H. & JOYCE N. BELTER, JR. COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE s s s s 60 FT RIGHT OF WAY LOT 47 s OO REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR ✓ANE EVANS HARPOCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 do 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET imi f —1 0 20 40 60 80 100 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY MIEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT T VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 2007, MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M.W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V WARD PROJFECT 2717A ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS l65 IIBIT total of six (6) months in a one year period, any future use of such land shall be in compliance with all provisions of these Regulations. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit Required The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for Approval (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards A. Puruose of Performance Standards Consistent with the general purposes of these regulations, performance standards (see Appendix A) shall set specific controls on potentially objectionable external aspects of such non-residential uses so as to: (1) Reduce to a reasonable minimum the dissemination of smoke, gas, dust, odor, or other atmospheric pollutant outside the structure or beyond the property boundaries in which the use is conducted. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 234 JL 7 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 17.01 General Provisions 17.02 Zoning Permits 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy 17.04 Expiration of Permits and Approvals 17.05 Revocation of Permits and Approvals 17.o6 Fees 17.07 Planning Commission 17.o8 Development Review Board 17.09 Design Review Committee 17.10 Amendments to Regulations and Maps 17.11 Violations 17.12 Penalties 17.13 Appeals 17.01 General Provisions A. Applicability of Vermont Planning and Development Act Administration and enforcement of these regulations, the effect of the adoption of these regulations, the appointment and powers of the Administrative Officer, the appointment and powers of the Development Review Board, the requirement for zoning permits and certificates of occupancy/compliance, penalties and remedies, administration and finance, public notice, appeals and granting of variances and other related provisions of Chapter 117 and Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated, known as the Vermont Planning and development Act, shall be applicable to these regulations, as such provisions now provide or may hereafter be amended. [reserved] 17.02 Zoning Permits A. Zoning Permit Required. No land development may be commenced within the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer. No zoning permit may be issued by the Administrative Officer except in conformance with these regulations and the provisions of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Any applicant for a zoning permit shall provide the Administrative Officer with any and all information the Administrative Officer deems necessary to ascertain compliance with these zoning regulations. Such permit shall not be effective until the time for appeal has expired, or such appeal has been adjudicated, in accordance with the Vermont Planning and development Act. 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy A. Certificate of Occupangy Required It shall be unlawful to use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy has been issued therefor by the Administrative Officer. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective February 6, 2007 Application #AO - oS - -I v \ NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will result in rejection of your application and delay in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. I understand: • the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. • 1 agree to pay a fee of $110 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Terry and Bethany Lieberman,'c/o David W. Rugh, Esq., Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: 44 Country Club Drive, single family house 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Zoning Violation letter, dated May 28, 2008 - 1 - 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Table C-2 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Dismiss first and second violation 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? First violation is improper because Redzic had permit to build the house, and the Liebermans did not construct it. Second violation is improper because the Liebermans sought a permit to bring their house into compliance. 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). John and Joyce Belter, 2 Country Club Drive Neil and Patricia Loller, 46 Country Club Drive Janine Kirchgassner, 45 Country Club Drive I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT saw DATE -2- Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: —V-1dt REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete 4z,�- Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- BURR A DERSON M MELLONI PLC Counsellors at LaNv Mr. Raymund Belaif Administrative Officer Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael L. Burak " Jo❑ Anderson Thomas R. Dlelloni" Michael B. Rosenberg' Shane NK McCormack,]: AN: Scutt FeAvell .1nja Freiburg Gateway Square • 30 .Main Street Post Office Box 7S7 Burlington, Nimnont 05.102-07S7 Phone: 802 862-0500 Fax: 802 862-8176 Nim. '.vtlawlAeon] Also admitted ill New )41. Also Mililitted in Mariland •.Vtio admitted in the District of Columbia tAlso adutitted in Massnehusetts "Also admitted in Connecticut K Pcuusvhania June 5, 2008 Re: Lieberman Alleged Zoning Violation 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Belair: Enclosed please find the Liebermans' Notice of Appeal for a zoning violation letter issued May 28, 2008. The Liebermans have applied for a zoning permit for the second alleged violation, which is currently on appeal. Moreover, the first alleged violation is incorrect, as there was a valid zoning permit issued for construction of the house. See ZP-04-375, issued on October 13, 2004 to the Liebermans' predecessor in interest and builder, Rasim Redzic. Additionally, although we have enclosed a check in the amount of $111.00 for the appeal, the Liebermans are paying such amount under protest and expect that it will be returned to them in the future. It is not only inequitable, but also contrary to a party's rights in the justice system that they must pay the party who commenced an action against them a tee to exercise their appeal rights to defend such action. Defendants in any judicial or quasi-judicial matter, like a zoning violation and enforcement action, cannot be held financially responsible to exercise their constitutional right to appeal. Sinc ely, David W. Rugh, Esq. DWR'alb Enclosures cc: Mark Sperry, Esq. John H. Klesch, Esq. S:\Client Matters\80286\Letters\dwr belairldoc ,�i 11 JOHN H. & JOYCE N. BEL TER, JR. �P S2 SS E 36 00, \\ 4 \\ N W Oro 0, ` � BOTTOM OF BANK `q` \ , 4"TREE CEDAR 51.4' 1 20. 0' I Q /� L 0 T 48A I \\ NEW TOP OF BANK WILLIAM & MELINDA COOPER I \ LOT 48 DECK \ �� \\ LOT 47 `p OFr Nr 0 DECK \ r # 42 01 v I OLD TOP \� EXISTING HOUSE OF BANK — — — p�' >> NEIL & PATRICIA LOLLER I SETBACK AVG.ROOF HT.= 274' \ Q R a�_ VOL. 432 PG.431 I LINES AVG.GRO.- 247' DIFF. -27' 6 APPLE 70"" TREES 6" Ja+0� 0.\ p� �Gs STEPS WITH n Fs OVERHANG F` 554 39'W .4 ' 122.76 ti WZ COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE s s s s s s s— s `a 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY 0 o ° o TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "8OUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERMAN FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK" PREPA ED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 4126104 AND RECORDED 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ON SLIDE #436. SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT LEGEND VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. IRON PIPE -ROD FOUND 0 SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FEET 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 1" IRON PIPE TO BE SET • SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G (802) 862-5661 POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD P SEWER LINE S 0 20 40 60 80 100 DATE AUG. 16, 2007, MARCH 14, 2008 WATER VALVE pd SURVEYED M. W. & B. H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAhJ 15 APRIL 2008 prohibition to crossing the Foxcroft property. But that does not mean the issue is closed. Mr. Russell said he would provide staff with information concerning the right-of-way. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-08-12 of Allen Road Land Company until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-69 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 14.5 acre parcel into three lots of 1.01 acres, 5.76 acres, and 7.77 acres, Old Farm Road & Tilley Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance until 6 May. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-69 of Pizzagalli Properties until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-08-18 of John Larkin and Cupola Golf Course to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of five multi -family dwellings for a total of 160 units and a 40-unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of. 1) reducing the width of the proposed public street from 30 ft. to 28 ft. and 2) site modifications to the two multi- family dwellings on Larkin lot #2, Quarry Hill Road: Mr. Belair advised that staff had asked for a continuance until 6 May. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-07\8-18 of John Larkin & Cupola Golf Course until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-08-19 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna for a boundary line adjustment between two previously approved lots,1450 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Belair said staff had no issues with the application. Mr. Farley moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-08-19 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. �. Preliminary Plat Application 4SD-08-20 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a planned unit development consisting of one lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Knudsen stepped down during the application due to a conflict of interest. -2- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAk) 15 APRIL 2008 Mr. Anderson said the applicant is proposing a PUD to accommodate a house that the builder put slightly in the wrong place. The result is that the porch extends 7 feet into the front yard setback and one of the building's corners extends 3 feet into the side yard setback. Mr. Anderson noted that Mr. Lieberman did not know of this when he purchased the house. Mr. Anderson said it is his belief that the Board is permitted to and required to do this because the applicant meets all the requirements for the waivers and because the city's regulations do not provide standards for not approving a PUD. He added that if the Board does not approve the application, he would ask for an enforcement issue so they can go to the Environmental Court. Mr. Belair said it is staff s position that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to review the application. This position is supported by the City Attorney. Mr. Anderson said their position is that the applicant can make this request as part of any request as it is a request to amend a previous approval. Mr. Lieberman said this issue wasn't raised when they bought the house and hasn't been raised by the neighbors. They had an offer on the house and could have sold it, but he saw the problem and didn't feel he had the right to "sweep it under the carpet." He said he is asking the Board for "good judgment" and to do what is "fair" and "decent." He stressed that he is not trying to abuse a privilege or gain power. It's just that an honest mistake was made. Mr. Anderson noted that the potential buyer withdrew because of this issue. The Liebermans are now carrying 2 mortgages and are living a split lifestyle until this is resolved. A claim has been presented to the builder, and a suit is being prepared. The builder is an immigrant, and if he can't pay, the Liebermans are in trouble; if the builder does fix it, his finances are in trouble. Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a letter of opposition from John Belter, a neighbor. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Better only objects because he wants to sell the Liebermans a piece of land at an exorbitant price. Mr. Dinklage said there are other remedies available, including removing the overhang in front, which would result in the house meeting the front setback. Mr. Birmingham then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to discuss this further in deliberative session. 8. Miscellaneous application #MS-08-01 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman to alter the existing grade by adding 160 yards of fill, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Anderson said that as a result of the house being built too far over, some fill was deposited in the back yard (at Mr. Lieberman's direction) and on land belonging to Mr. Belter. Mr. Lieberman didn't know the land was Mr. Belter's. The applicant met with -3- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAR) 15 APRIL 2008 Mr. Belter to ask if he would sign an application to allow the fill to remain or would allow the applicant access to remove it. Mr. Sperry, representing Mr. Belter, said the fill covers a city pipe, and Mr. Belter doesn't want to be liable if someone else damages it. Mr. Anderson said it is their belief that the fill is nowhere near the pipe. Mr. Anderson said that what is in their control is to file an application to allow the fill on the Lieberman land to remain. Mr. Dinklage said the Board would have no problem with that. It does have a problem with the fill on the Belter land. Mr. Anderson said if the Board allows the fill to remain on the Lieberman land it might send a message to the Belters: either remove it or sue the Liebermans to remove it. He said the applicant would accept a condition to regrade if Mr. Belter's soil is removed. Mr. Sperry said one thing he doesn't see is a grading plan, and he felt it was the applicant's obligation to supply that. Mr. Lieberman said this is really about how much of a check Mr. Belter will settle for. He added that he is looking for some way to resolve this. Members felt they would like to discuss this in deliberative session. Mr. Birmingham moved to close the hearing. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knudsen rejoined the Board. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-08-19 of Fargnoli Associates to amend a previously approved plan for an auto rental service facility. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area: Mr. Rushford said this facility has been used as an Avis Rent -a -Car business with an approved parking area. Mr. Fargnoli brought in gravel for a parking area in the rear. The site plan is unclear as to whether it was approved for parking. A notice of violation was issued regarding the fill put in the rear area. To address that, they are asking the Board to approve a gravel parking area in the rear. Mr. Belair said the fill is technically to fill a large portion of a Class 2 wetland. The State is asking for some of the fill to be removed. Mr. Rowe said they met with people from the Wetlands Office. He distributed an aerial photo and noted that the State regulations went into effect after the land was cleared. The applicant has agreed to take up some of the gravel, mulch the area, and not use it. That area is shown on the plan. -4- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2008 prohibition to crossing the Foxcroft property. But that does not mean the issue is closed. Mr. Russell said he would provide staff with information concerning the right-of-way. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-08-12 of Allen Road Land Company until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-69 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 14.5 acre parcel into three lots of 1.01 acres, 5.76 acres, and 7.77 acres, Old Farm Road & Tilley Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance until 6 May. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-69 of Pizzagalli Properties until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-08-18 of John Larkin and Cupola Golf Course to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of five multi -family dwellings for a total of 160 units and a 40-unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of. 1) reducing the width of the proposed public street from 30 ft. to 28 ft. and 2) site modifications to the two multi- family dwellings on Larkin lot #2, Quarry Hill Road: Mr. Belair advised that staff had asked for a continuance until 6 May. Mr. Farley moved to continue Sketch Plan Application #SD-07\8-18 of John Larkin & Cupola Golf Course until 6 May 2008. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-08-19 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna for a boundary line adjustment between two previously approved lots, 1450 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Belair said staff had no issues with the application. Mr. Farley moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-08-19 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-20 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a planned unit development consisting of one lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Knudsen stepped down during the application due to a conflict of interest. -2- d DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2008 Mr. Anderson said the applicant is proposing a PUD to accommodate a house that the builder put slightly in the wrong place. The result is that the porch extends 7 feet into the front yard setback and one of the building's corners extends 3 feet into the side yard setback. Mr. Anderson noted that Mr. Lieberman did not know of this when he purchased the house. Mr. Anderson said it is his belief that the Board is permitted to and required to do this because the applicant meets all the requirements for the waivers and because the city's regulations do not provide standards for not approving a PUD. He added that if the Board does not approve the application, he would ask for an enforcement issue so they can go to the Environmental Court. Mr. Belair said it is staff s position that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to review the application. This position is supported by the City Attorney. Mr. Anderson said their position is that the applicant can make this request as part of any request as it is a request to amend a previous approval. Mr. Lieberman said this issue wasn't raised when they bought the house and hasn't been raised by the neighbors. They had an offer on the house and could have sold it, but he saw the problem and didn't feel he had the right to "sweep it under the carpet." He said he is asking the Board for "good judgment" and to do what is "fair" and "decent." He stressed that he is not trying to abuse a privilege or gain power. It's just that an honest mistake was made. Mr. Anderson noted that the potential buyer withdrew because of this issue. The Liebermans are now carrying 2 mortgages and are living a split lifestyle until this is resolved. A claim has been presented to the builder, and a suit is being prepared. The builder is an immigrant, and if he can't pay, the Liebermans are in trouble; if the builder does fix it, his finances are in trouble. Mr. Dinklage noted receipt of a letter of opposition from John Belter, a neighbor. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Belter only objects because he wants to sell the Liebermans a piece of land at an exorbitant price. Mr. Dinklage said there are other remedies available, including removing the overhang in front, which would result in the house meeting the front setback. Mr. Birmingham then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to discuss this further in deliberative session. 8. Miscellaneous application #MS-08-01 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman to alter the existing grade by adding 160 yards of fill, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Anderson said that as a result of the house being built too far over, some fill was deposited in the back yard (at Mr. Lieberman's direction) and on land belonging to Mr. Belter. Mr. Lieberman didn't know the land was Mr. Belter's. The applicant met with Sm DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2008 Mr. Belter to ask if he would sign an application to allow the fill to remain or would allow the applicant access to remove it. Mr. Sperry, representing Mr. Belter, said the fill covers a city pipe, and Mr. Belter doesn't want to be liable if someone else damages it. Mr. Anderson said it is their belief that the fill is nowhere near the pipe. Mr. Anderson said that what is in their control is to file an application to allow the fill on the Lieberman land to remain. Mr. Dinklage said the Board would have no problem with that. It does have a problem with the fill on the Belter land. Mr. Anderson said if the Board allows the fill to remain on the Lieberman land it might send a message to the Belters: either remove it or sue the Liebermans to remove it. He said the applicant would accept a condition to regrade if Mr. Belter's soil is removed. Mr. Sperry said one thing he doesn't see is a grading plan, and he felt it was the applicant's obligation to supply that. Mr. Lieberman said this is really about how much of a check Mr. Belter will settle for. He added that he is looking for some way to resolve this. Members felt they would like to discuss this in deliberative session. Mr. Birmingham moved to close the hearing. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knudsen rejoined the Board. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-08-19 of Fargnoli Associates to amend a previously approved plan for an auto rental service facility. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area: Mr. Rushford said this facility has been used as an Avis Rent -a -Car business with an approved parking area. Mr. Fargnoli brought in gravel for a parking area in the rear. The site plan is unclear as to whether it was approved for parking. A notice of violation was issued regarding the fill put in the rear area. To address that, they are asking the Board to approve a gravel parking area in the rear. Mr. Belair said the fill is technically to fill a large portion of a Class 2 wetland. The State is asking for some of the fill to be removed. Mr. Rowe said they met with people from the Wetlands Office. He distributed an aerial photo and noted that the State regulations went into effect after the land was cleared. The applicant has agreed to take up some of the gravel, mulch the area, and not use it. That area is shown on the plan. -4- MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble April 10, 2008 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Poptck REPLY TO: Burlington Office Re: Preliminary Plan Application SD-08-20 and Fill Placement Application - Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman Dear Ray: Enclosed please find my Notice of Appearance, and a "statement of concern" from John and Joyce Belter relating to the above matter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, 7. /f r Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns Enclosures c: David W. Rugh, Esq. (Attorney for Liebermans) John and Joyce Belter 455190.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Webstte: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys Clangrock.com • Webstte: www.langrock.com STATE OF VERMONT SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD IN RE: Application of Terry R. and Preliminary Plan Application SD-08-20 Bethany Lieberman and Fill Placement Application NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Now comes Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP and hereby enters its appearance in the above proceeding on behalf of John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter, adjoining property owners to the applicants. 455183 1 LAM1GWWK SrtRNY & Wtu)[1'T.1' DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 'day of April, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. Sperr PO Box 72 , 210 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 11, 2008 \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman_misc_fill.doc Plans received: March 24, 2008 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-08-01 Meeting date: April 15, 2008 Agenda #8 Owner/Applicant Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 Contact Property Information Jon Anderson, David W. Rugh Tax Parcel 0480-00044 Burak Anderson & Melloni R4 Zoning District; Burlington, VT 05402 11,095 SF Location Map N, Iw yy 1 rj l N� 1 CITY OF SOUTH B URLING TON 2 / DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill.doc Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking approval to alter the existing grade by adding 160 cubic yards of fill, 44 Country Club Drive. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 24, 2008 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Re uirements R4 Zoning District Required Proposed �l Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF �l Max. Building Coverage 20% 16% �l Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 % ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft Max. Buildin Height 40 ft. 27 ft �l zoning compliance ♦ zoning non-compliance The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. The applicant is seeking relief from the setback requirements as part of a separate application. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill.doc (A) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan, containing two (2) sheets showing the placement of the fill on the subject property. The plans depict the existing and proposed contours. (B) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. There are no operations being conducted on the site and therefore this criterion is not applicable. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. 1. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. Other The plan submitted as part of this application includes placement of fill on the adjacent property. Staff cannot and does not support the placement of fill on the abutting property without the abutting property as party to this application. Staff understands that the subject fill was placed on the abutting property without the consent of the abutting property owner. CITY OF SO UTH B URLING TON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman miscfill.doc RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the denial of this application unless the applicant is willing to remove the fill placed on the adjacent property without the owner's consent. Respectfully submitted, /Y Am "/I- o-k aCathya LaRose, ssoci to Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Jon Anderson, Contact Mark Sperry, Representative for John and Joyce Belter, abutting property owners File .. - ' - 1!',,.±t"a Ay`!,;u,+Er, l�R s.�i� °�.5,ry��r•".�i`i. �- " :y;�s Y �„y��p•'fr�r"�,1� `'� r(",,.��p.y '� •,`ti �ty� ;,"?'"++.m`-•y'�'-`t: ' 4re M • . !• P , . ,,'i�'"'�.",. x Via. j�'�� 1...5 ' r �'�� !• ,. .`„ _ _, .....-:�'S..'.:. , ,`,� , f ,„.yam,^, 1. .,, 1;• ,: i - ,.. ' i ;. S "`fir"z: ,af �„ 1 . L•;' r . - � � yl}�� £� � �"jw�„r' ' • ., .. 7 1 .* CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sublliebermanllieberman relimina .doc Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking preliminary plat review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. A zoning permit was issued on October 13, 2004 to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The plan submitted with the application indicated that all setback requirements would be met. It was more recently discovered that through carelessness, the house was not constructed in compliance with the side and front setback requirements. This application is an attempt to correct that violation. The sketch plan was heard on February 5, 2008 (minutes attached). The Board advised the applicant that they would likely not support approval of any further applications. Section 15.02 C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, pertaining to elective PUD review, specifically states that "any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations." The construction of a single family home does NOT require action by the DRB. Staff does not find that the application may even be reviewed by the Development Review Board. The applicant's attorney has submitted a statement which argues that they may apply under PUD review. The City's attorney is reviewing these documents and should have written comment prior to the hearing on Tuesday. Associate Planner Cathyann La Rose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Juli Beth Hinds, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 28, 2007 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Zonin wi-vlll�.1l{J `:Re 'ui�ecl : ,Pro" osed Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF Max. BuildingCoverage 20% 16% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft Max. BuildingHei ht 40 ft. 27 ft q zoning compliance CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman relimina .doc ♦ Waiver requested The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback waiver of 6.75 feet. These errors would very likely not qualify for a variance pursuant to state and local regulations. The applicant has therefore submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development as the only regulatory mechanism which offers such setback waivers. Planning and Zoning Staff charge that the PUD waiver requirements were intended to allow the DRB to grant waivers of setbacks to improve the design of new projects. The language in Article 15.01, Purpose, says: "...It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan." [emphasis added]. This is a valid statement of the City's intent and it should be respected. Staff urges the Board to look at the purpose of the regulations — which is not to allow everyone a free pass for foul-ups. In fact, using the PUD regulations to give a pass in a case where harm has been done to an adjacent property owner expressly undermines the purposes of the PUD regulations. Even if the Board and other interested parties find that this application may be reviewed as a PUD, there are no sections or subsections of the SBLDRs that require the Board to grant any or all waivers requested by applicants. Staff does not support the requested front or side yard setback waiver. 1. The board should discuss the applicants request for a front yard setback waiver. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback waiver of three feet. Staff does not support the approval of this waiver. 2. The board should discuss the applicants request for a side yard setback waiver. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations the Development Review Board shall consider the following in its review of subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman relimina .doc Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pursuant to Section 15.13(B)(1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the proposed development. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must obtain final water allocation approval from the South Burlington Water Department. Staff does not find that the South Burlington Water Department need review this proposal. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed "structure" has already been built. An erosion control plan was never submitted and will provide little information at this stage. Staff is in discussions with the applicant, and working towards a different application, regarding the placement of substantial amounts of fill on the subject property and adjoining property without approval. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access to the property is proposed via a residential curb cut off of Country Club Drive. There are no changes proposed to this curb cut. Staff has no concerns regarding access, circulation, or traffic management pertaining to the subject property. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site. The applicant has submitted a letter from a certified ecologist attesting to this (attached). The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning districts) in which it is located. The single family residence is in conformance with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 Zoning District per the SBLDR. However, staff notes that Section 4.03(E) of the SBLDR state that all requirements of Section 4.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. Again, the Board shall discuss the applicant's request for front and side setback waivers. CITY OF SO UTH B URLING TON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman relimina doc Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff finds that the above mentioned criteria were adequately addressed at the time of the subdivision of the Country Club Estates area. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candies. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candies average. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Pedestrian movement is adequate. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Given the use on the subject property as a single family dwelling, staff finds the parking layout acceptable and harmonious with other buildings of its type in the area. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The building height is within the guidelines of the SBLDR. E CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary doc (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (t) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted photos of the existing structure, which is to be similar to the existing homes in the area. Staff finds the structure in compliance with these criteria. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any /of for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel there is need for additional access or reservation of land. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). As the subject property contains a single family residential unit, the trash is likely kept in the interior of the building. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As this is a single family residential unit, there is no minimum landscaping budget. However, all existing landscaping on site is shown on the plans. CITY OF SO UTH B URLING TON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman relimina doc Furthermore, all existing landscaping on site shall be maintained. As a Planned Unit Development with site plan components, removal of any landscaping must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board. To ensure that this is recognized and respected by future property owners, staff recommends that the applicant record a Notice of Conditions which clearly identifies the property as a PUD and itemizes all restrictions on the parcel. 3. The applicant shall record a "Notice of Conditions" which clearly identifies the property as a Planned Unit Development and itemizes all restrictions, including any site plan changes, on the parcel prior to issuance of the zoning permit. OTHER Staff notes that the subject lot is a conforming lot. There is nothing unique or otherwise limiting in its shape or size. The required setback lines allow for a sizeable building envelope. The Board should consider this application as though the applicant were proposing the waivers on a vacant lot, prior to construction, and not solely on the need to correct un-permitted errors. Respectfully submitted, �kk o i hya LaRose, As ate Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Jon Anderson, Contact Mark Sperry, Representative for John and Joyce Belter, abutting property owners File } L-(t be rl-1111 SOUTL- JURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT AVIEW BOARD R�� 5 FEBRUARY, 2008 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-01 and Final Plat Application #SD-08- 02 of Trench Boxes, Etc., for a planned unit development to re -subdivide a 41,365 sq. ft. lot developed with three buildings into two lots of 21,815 sq. ft. and 19,550 sq. ft., 80 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Loyer said changes suggested at sketch plan have been addressed. Mr. Belair recommended continuing the hearing so the right-of-way issue can be corrected. Mr. Dinklage noted that the 2 lots would be considered as one PUD for all planning purposes. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-01 and Final Plat Application #SD-08-02 of Trench Boxes, Etc., until 19 February 2008. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Associates appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance until 19 February. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Associates until 19 February 2008. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 0.9 Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-82 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a planned unit development consisting of one lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Belair referred to staff comments as to whether it is appropriate for this request to be heard by the Board. Mr. Anderson, representing the applicant, said the purpose of the sketch hearing is to get feedback. He added that if the Board has jurisdiction to hear a PUD request, he felt the issues are easy to reply to. Mr Farley said he would go with what the Legal Counsel has said on this. Mr. Behr agreed. He felt this would typically come before the Board as a variance request. Mr. Anderson said he would try to convince the City Attorney. Mr. Sperry, representing some of the neighbors, said he agreed with staff that this request doesn't fit the definition of a PUD. SOUTH JUAINGTON DEVELOPMENT AE IEW BOARD 5 FEBRUARY, 2008 Mr. Lieberman said mistakes can be made, and there are times when people can look at a situation and try to help. He said this was an honest mistake, and nobody is trying to gain from it or to set a precedent. Mr. Dinklage said this is essentially an enforcement of a code violation. He added that precedent is very much in the minds of Board members. Staff, the City Attorney and the DRB don't feel the PUD provision was mean it to be an easy out for errors. He hoped it could be resolved with City Administration at the enforcement level. Mr. Behr added that when Staff and the City Attorney stay the Board shouldn't look at this, the Board's hands are tied. Mr. Anderson noted this is holding up the sale of the house, and there is a builder who doesn't know the "cost of repair." Mr. Lieberman noted that at one time people would do good things to help other people. He also noted that he brought the situation to the city's attention and didn't try to hide it. Mr. Cooper said he is very confused about this but wanted to show solidarity with the applicant. Mr. Allen said he is trying to buy the house. He likes South Burlington and wants to live here. He asked what he could do to help. Mr. Anderson said there are other ways to address this without tearing down part of the building. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-08-05 of Sierra Pacific II amending a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 61 room hotel, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building (1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office/day care building, a 3500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive -through service, and a bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 4000 sq. ft. addition to the building at 7 Fayette Drive, and 2) converting 14,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and indoor recreation use to retail use, also at the 7 Fayette Drive Building: Mr. Carroll said this is a pre-existing PUD. He showed the location on the plan and indicated the areas of commercial and residential use. The focus of this plan is on the southern portion of the building. At present, there is no elevator and there are 2 uncovered staircases. This creates a problem with effective use of the site. The proposed elevator will be designed in compliance with guidelines for stretcher use. -5- i PROJECT COMMENTARY Overview Applicants Terry and Bethany Lieberman ("the Liebermans") seek preliminary plat approval for a single lot Planned Unit Development ("PUD") by way of an amendment to a previous Boundary Lite Adjustment and Zoning Permit (ZP-04-375), issued October 13, 2004, located at 44 Country Club Drive in the Residential 4 (R-4) zoning district. The Liebermans also seek approval from the Development Review Board ("DRB") to maintain the existing fill on the rear and northerly side of their lot. This amendment application proposing a PUD will consist of the existing two- story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space. The Liebermans' roughly triangular lot is about 11,095 square feet in area and was created pursuant to a boundary line adjustment made by Jane Harrocks in 2004. The purpose of applying for PUD approval is to obtain a small waiver from the Zoning Regulations' literal requirements for the side and front setbacks on the lot. In particular, the Liebermans seek a waiver to allow their home to encroach by about 9 square feet into the required side yard setback and to allow their front entrance porch, which is about 7%2 feet wide, to encroach into the front yard setback by about 63/4 feet more than is allowed. The Liebermans purchased their single-family house from Rasim and Jasemine Redzic, who constructed it pursuant to a zoning permit (ZP-04-375) issued on October 13, 2004, on May 10, 2006. Their parcel, at 44 Country Club Drive, is adjacent to a 40- foot-wide City of South Burlington sewer -easement, which underlying land appears to be owned by John H. and Joyce Belter (the "Belters"). During construction of the Liebermans' house, the builders accidentally constructed the house about three feet too far to the north. The builders also added front steps to the house, which extend about 7 feet to the east. The result causes the single-family home to encroach minimally on the northerly side setback and front setback. 'Fill was also placed on the rear and northerly side of the lot to level a small portion of the back yard of the property, for which approval from the DRB under Zoning Regulations § 3.12(A) is also sought. The Liebermans' property complies with the Zoning Regulations in all other respects. This amendment application proposes complete compliance with the Zoning Regulations, as the Liebermans seek approval under the PUD provisions for a 7-foot side setback and a 23-foot front setback. In addition, the Liebermans seek approval under § 3.12(A) for fill that was placed to the rear and side of their lot, as depicted in the enclosed plans. Such fill was placed to create an expanded back yard by re -grading a portion of the bank at the rear of their property. The amount of fill placed on the Liebermans' lot was approximately 160 cubic yards. An application for Development Review Board approval of the fill is included herein. Roughly 280 yards of fill was also placed on land owned by the Belters, who have refused to join in this application or otherwise to do anything to bring their land into compliance. The Liebermans are willing to accept a condition requiring their lot to be re -graded to meet any reasonable plan approved for the Belters' lot. Because of the presence of the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement, adjusting the setbacks on the Lieberman parcel allows the house to appear more centered when viewed in relation to the adjacent houses, and is consistent with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood. The CMP drain is located northerly of the centerline for the easement, away from the Liebermans' home and away from the fill area. By designating K } Ithe parcel as a PUD, the parcel's use is improved, as the house is closer to the easement area, which is green space, and further from the closest house to the south. Approval would also result in less disruption to neighboring landowners and is in conformance with all requirements of the Land Development Regulations and the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Development Review Board should approve the Liebermans' amendment application creating a PUD, as well as their fill application. Amendment Application Creating a PUD Is Legal. Concern has been expressed as to- whether the DRB has authority to review the Liebermans' amendment application. Notwithstanding the fact that § 15.02(C) of the Zoning Regulations alone allows elective PUD review for any land development application requiring DRB approval, this application is properly before the DRB for two additional reasons. First, this application is presented as an amendment of ZP-04-375, a permit authorizing a boundary line adjustment, site plan approval, and construction of a single-family dwelling in an existing subdivision. Secondly, approval is needed from the DRB for the fill placed in the Liebermans' rear yard pursuant to § 3.12 of the Zoning Regulations. As such, the DRB should review the Liebermans' amendment application as a PUD. In fact, the DRB must review ' the Liebermans' application as a PUD at the applicant's request. There are no standards provided in Zoning Regulations § 15.02(C) on which the DRB might base a refusal to review the application as a PUD. As such, that section of the zoning ordinance is arguably unconstitutional because it contains no factors to guide the DRB's decision to review a proposal as a PUD. The DRB cannot have unfettered discretion to decide whether to review an application as a PUD, as a decision 3 reached by an administrative board, like the. DRB, without standards or guidelines is unconstitutional. See In re Handy & In re .Tolley Assocs., 171 Vt. 336, 344-47, 764 A.2d 1226, 1234-37. As the Vermont Supreme Court referenced in its Handy & Jolley decision: Without definite standards an ' ordinance becomes an open door to favoritism and discrimination, a ready tool for the suppression of competition through the grant of authority to one and the withholding from another.... A zoning ordinance cannot permit administrative officers or boards to pick and chose the recipients of their favors. Id. at 347, 764 A.2d at 1236 (citing Osius v. City of St. Clair Shores, 75 N.W.2d 25 (1956)). Furthermore, in the absence of standards guiding the DRB's decision for elective PUD review under § 15.02(C), the DRB's election to deny PUD review would constitute a denial of due process. "[A] decision arrived at without reference to any standards or principles is arbitrary and capricious; such ad hoc decision -making denies the applicant due process of law." In re Appeal of Miserocchi, 170 Vt. 320, 325, 749 A.2d 607, 611 (2000). Because the DRB's decision to deny review under § 15.02(C) is constitutionally infirm, the Liebermans' amendment application should be reviewed as a PUD. In addition to being entitled to- PUD review, the Liebermans' amendment application complies with all the requirements of the PUD provisions, as the zoning staff basically noted in its Staff Report on the Liebermans' proposed sketch plan. Those standards enumerated in § 15.18(A) that were'not satisfied at the time of the sketch plan review have since been complied with, as demonstrated by the following application materials. Furthermore, in the absence of an express prohibition on a single lot PUD, all 2 the Zoning Regulations' PUD provisions have been complied with and the DRB should approve the Liebermans' preliminary plat. The Liebermans are also concerned that City zoning staff and authorities might consider this amendment application as being more appropriately addressed through a zoning enforcement or code violation action. If this is indeed the conclusion of the DRB, the board is considering a factor during preliminary plat review that is not enumerated in the zoning bylaws —again denying the Liebermans due process. As a leading zoning treatise outlines, a zoning board's "authority may be exercised only within the bounds prescribed by statute or ordinance." Kenneth H. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 22.41, at 112 (4th ed. 1997). A zoning or planning board is without authority to impose additional standards not enumerated by the zoning regulations. Id. § 23.30, at 234. Thus, during its review of the instant preliminary plat application, the DRB should limit its consideration to the review criteria contained in Zoning Regulations § 15.18(A) and cannot consider any additional factors, including whether the Liebermans should be subject to an enforcement action. Finally, while the DRB or zoning staff may prefer instituting an enforcement action or a code violation, the remedy in such action would be proportional to the minimal harm caused by the minor setback violations on the Liebermans' property. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated the circumstances surrounding a purported violation are relevant to determining the appropriate remedy. In re Cumberland Farms, Inc., 151 Vt. 59, 64, 557 A.2d 486 (1989). Moreover, any penalty resulting from an enforcement matter must be remedial in nature and must be "rationally related to the damages suffered 5 Ifrom the landowner's violation of [a] Town's bylaws." Town of Hinesburg v. Dunklin , g 167 Vt. 514, 528-29, 711 A.2d l l63 (1998). These rules highlighting the equitable nature of enforcement remedies infer that the DRB should address the merits of the instant application in light of the minor nature of the setback noncompliance and the responsibility of the applicants in notifying the City of such noncompliance. Though this • is not an enforcement case, the penalty resulting from such case is likely to be minimal in light of the harm caused; it would be more cost-effective and fair for the DRB to evaluate the Liebermans' PUD and fill applications now, which will bring a faster resolution of this matter. Even if an enforcement action were instituted, it is highly unlikely that it would result in moving or removing the single-family home at 44 Country Club Drive because that remedy, both in terms of cost and practicability, is greatly disproportionate to the harm caused by the minor setback encroachment, the Liebermans' lack of culpability for the alleged violation, and the fact that they did not hide the non-compliance but brought it to the City's attention themselves. In lieu 'of bringing an enforcement action in the Environmental Court, the City can easily get to the bottom of this matter by approving the instant amendment application without resorting to the costly process of litigation. Application of Zoning Criteria for the R-4 District Use Regulations The Liebermans' existing single-family house is a Permitted Use in the R-4 zoning district, which is intended for moderate density residential uses. 32 P1 Density Regulations The existing single family home sits on an 11,095 square -foot (0.255-acre) lot, which exceeds the 9,500 square -foot minimum lot size and satisfies the maximum density of 4 units per acre. Dimensional Regulations Item Allowed Provided Building Coverage 20% 16% Coverage 40% 21 % Setbacks — Allowed to be modified in a PUD Front 30 feet . 23 feet Side 10 feet 7 feet Rear 30 feet approx. 75 feet Parking 2-space min. 2 spaces in enclosed garage Height 40-foot max. approx. 27 feet Application of Planned Unit Development Criteria - 15 18(A) 1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available [to] meet the needs of the project in conformance with the applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. - Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' house. It has also received an exemption under § 1-403(a)(12) of the Environmental Protection Rules from the Wastewater Management Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to a July 22, 2004 letter from Ernest Christianson, Regional Engineer. 2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. 7 No new construction is proposed 'for the site, so no grading or erosion controls are needed. If excavation is required for approval of the Liebermans' fill permit, proper erosion controls will be employed. 3) The project incorporates access,: circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. No new construction is proposed. The Liebermans' house is served by an existing 19' x 30' asphalt driveway, which leads to a two -car garage. There is no unreasonable traffic on adjacent roads. 4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands or other special or unique features of the property, as it is part of the existing Country Club Estates subdivision. 5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district in which it is located. The purpose of the R-4 zoning district is to provide for moderate density residential uses, which the Liebermans' existing single-family home complies with. It is a moderate home of roughly 2,400 square- feet of living space on a quarter -acre lot. The home's position on the lot complies with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision, especially as it is placed slightly closer to the northerly lot line and the 40-foot-wide CMP easement. When viewed in relation to adjacent homes, the Liebermans' house appears more centered on the lot, as there is ample room between the Liebermans' house and their neighbors to the north and south. Consistent with Chapters 5 and 6 of the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the existing house maintains the moderate density character of the Country Club Estates neighborhood. 6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. There is significant open space to the rear and west of the Liebermans' house, consisting principally of the Belter farm fields off Ethan Allen Drive. Moreover, the adjacent forty -foot -wide CMP easement is open space. The addition of fill in the rear yard has also created additional usable open space. 7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, E looping of water lines, water flow and pressure and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The existing house is part of the established Country Club Estates subdivision, which layout and design was likely approved by the relevant authorities for adequacy of fire protection. The proposed amendment to a PUD does not impact or alter any feature of the property that might relate to fire protection or the existence of water lines. 8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' existing home. Landscaping, utilities, and street lighting have already been installed, and no changes are proposed to those features and services. Plans showing the existing landscaping and lighting details are provided with this application. 9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. As noted above, all site infrastructure is already installed in the Country Club Estates subdivision and will remain unchanged by the Liebermans' amendment application to a PUD. 10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Liebermans' amendment application is entirely consistent with the provisions of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family home in an existing medium density residential neighborhood. The house appears centered on the lot in relation to neighboring houses, because the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement provides ample open space between the adjacent structures. 'It also maintains the existing streetscape on Country Club Drive. By approving the Liebermans' amendment application, the status quo is preserved, and the existing neighborhood is protected, consistent with the Objectives and Recommendations of Chapters 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Liebermans' neighbors are concerned about the disruption in their day-to-day lives that might be caused by moving, relocating or rebuilding the house and removing fill if the Liebermans' amendment application is not accepted. a I Application of Site Plan General Review Standards — & 14.06 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the Liebermans'-- house and amendment application, creating a PUD, is consistent with the land use policies of the City, as set forth in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family house in a medium density subdivision. It maintains the existing streetscape and character of the Country Club Estates subdivision, as it appears centered on the lot when the proximity of adjacent houses is considered. Accordingly, the Liebermans' amendment application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1. The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. 3. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. 4. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The existing single-family home was constructed to be consistent with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision. When viewed in relation to the adjacent houses, the Liebermans' home appears centered on its lot. Its scale is also similar to its neighboring structures, as it is a simple two-story home with a pitched roof in an existing neighborhood of similar homes. While parking is not located on the rear or side of the lot, a two -car garage is provided, as with many other homes in Country Club Estates. Moreover, there is no construction proposed in this amendment application, as utilities are provided and the Liebermans do not propose to modify the existing house, absent the removal of fill if required by the DRB. C. Relationship of Structures and Site.to Adjoining_ Area. 1. The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, 10 1 I texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 2. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The design of the existing house is similar to those in the neighborhood. The colors, size, and shape of the house are consistent with those in the neighborhood, as required by the Covenants of Country Club Estates. Approval from the DRB is sought for the fill that was added to the rear and side yards. The fill evened the grade between the Liebermans' yard and the adjacent yards 'to the north and south. Thus the existing house relates harmoniously to its surrounding neighborhood. Application of Site Plan Specific Review Standards — 4 14.07 A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. A driveway in the front yard provides access to the house. This driveway and access layout is analogous to the other homes in the Country Club Estates subdivision. No changes in access are proposed in this amendment application, creating a PUD on the Liebermans' parcel, as it is an existing single-family home on a residential street. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Utility service is already installed, ,primarily underground, and no changes are planned to the existing utilities serving the parcel. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Trash service is provided to the exiting house, and this amendment application is not expected to generate any additional waste.' D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The Liebermans' home is well landscaped with an open front yard, including shrubbery and larger evergreen trees near the front of the house in the CMP easement. There is also a line of cedar trees extending northerly in the back yard from the Liebermans' property on to the Belters' land, providing continuity between the two parcels and making the CMP easement and the Liebermans' parcel appear as a single lot. No additional landscaping is proposed by this application. Existing landscaping will be maintained if the instant fill permit is approved and such landscaping has been depicted on the preliminary plat. As the property is landscaped consistent with neighboring homes, the existing landscaping will be protected by the "Notice of Conditions," proposed herein, requiring DRB approval -for changes to the existing landscaping. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The purpose of the instant amendment application creating a PUD is to remedy builder error, as the existing single-family home was constructed just outside the building envelope created by the front and side setbacks, creating an obvious hardship for the Liebermans, as absent approval of the amendment application, they might have to move or rebuild their home. Such a setback waiver is appropriate as the existing home is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, in all other respects, and as the house appears centered on its lot in relation to the adjacent houses. Though the Liebermans do seek a modification of setbacks, such modification is slight. In no event is the resulting setback less than 5 feet. Moreover, the existence of fill on the lot makes for a more useful and visually appealing rear yard, and removal of such fill would cause the Liebermans extreme hardship and disrupt the neighborhood. Approval of the Liebermans' amendment application is the swiftest, most cost-effective and complying way to handle this matter. Waivers Requested- From The DRB The Liebermans seek a small waiver from the literal side and front setback requirements in this amendment application proposing a PUD. The existing single- family house was constructed 3 feet too far to the north, and the builders added a set of front steps, which slightly encroaches into the front setback by slightly less than 7 feet. S \Chent Mattei sW286\Legal\Prehmmary Plat Project Commentary doc 12 John H. Belter, Jr. Joyce N. Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 April 8, 2008 South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Preliminary Plan Application SD-08-20 and Fill Placement Application - Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman Dear Mr. Belair: We are adjoining property owners to the property of the Liebermans, the applicants in this application. This letter will serve as a "statement of concern related to the subject matter of the proceeding" as required by 24 V.S.A. 4471(a): This project does not qualify for Planned Unit Development or "PUD" treatment. Under Section 2.01 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, a Planned Unit Development or PUD is defined as follows: "Planned unit development (PUD). One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed." Section 2.02 — Definition of PUD emphasis supplied. The application here does not involve or qualify for PUD treatment, because, by the applicants' own admission, the "proposed PUD will consist of the existing two story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space." (Project Commentary, page 1, emphasis } April 8, 2008 Page 2 supplied.) See also 18 and 9 on application form: 8: "Existing uses on properly •- 2 story single family house;" 9: "Proposed uses on proparly — saine — misting single. family house." This prc joet does not involve a parcel of land "to be developed " Rather, i� involves a parcel of land already developed, and nothing nem- is prupwed. 'Dicxcfore, it does not qualify for PUD treAtment or reyle.w. 2. The application fails to'Properly addrzss the 39 truckloads of fill placed on our property without our permission immediately north of llxc Litebennan north. line. Removal of the fill will leave an unsightly drop off at the Lieberman north line, with only at most 7 feet between the house and the drop of. We have no obligation to join in any application to let the fill remain and its presence exposes us to a potential zoning violation elairn. 3. The applicatiors is misleadinS in that it ropresents that "adjusting the setbacks" allows the Liebemiftn house to appear "snore centered on. tbo lot" its raIkitiwi to the adJacetri houses (Project Commentary, p.2). The Liobennan house is about 45 feet frown the house on the south (labeled "#42 Existing House" on the Plan), and. about 105 feet from the Loller house on the not'ih. "Centeri:,g" the Lie'borman house would require. a substantial shift to the north onto the-Balter Property. 4. This ripplicatior► is an attempted misuse of the rUD provisiuis� to allow ZI })Ouse built in, violation of the zoning setbacks. Were the DRB to allow this application, then nothing would stop anybody from building in violation of the 2oning requizements acid then excusing the violation under the guise of a PUD. We therefore object to Pi:.1D review of this application. Sincerely yours, 9A" H. pav�%r. �(/. " John lit. Belter, Jr. oyco F, Belter cc, Jon Anderson, Esq. Mark L. $pony, Esq. LOT 48A W7LLIAM & MELINDA COOPER jf 42 EXISTING HOUSE LEGEND JOHN H. & JOYCE N. BEL TER, JR. ,3.00, \ Z \\ N W BOTTOM OF BANK 1 4TREE 51.4' I e � 20.D' CEDAR \ \\ NEW TOP OF BANK \ LOT 48 DECK o w \ \\ TOP 91 N� K � DECK \ � � v OLD TOP n 0: ro I SETBACK AMROOF HT.= 274' I LINES AMCRD.- 247' DIFF.=27' APPLE TREES 6" h "' L0 IMTH S54 :39'W COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE s s s 4 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY O � 0 REFER TO SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK" PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. DATED 4121104 & 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE #436. wy D4 \\m 4pm LOT 47 & PATRICIA LOLLER VOL. 432 PG.431 IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 0 SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET 1 " IRON PIPE TO BE SET • GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD G POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD P SEWER LINE S 0 20 40 60 80 100 WATER VALVE D4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRY & BETHANY MEBERMAN 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WILLISTON ROAD, SUITE 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DATE AUG. 16, 20OZ MARCH 14, 2008 SURVEYED M.W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 11, 2008 \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman_prelim.doc Plans received: March 24, 2008 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-08-20 Meeting date: April 15, 2008 Agenda #7 Owner/Applicant Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 Contact Property Information Jon Anderson, David W. Rugh Tax Parcel 0480-00044 Burak Anderson & Melloni R4 Zoning District; Burlington, VT 05402 11,095 SF Location Map •J t w, :y rL` CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary.do Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking preliminary plat review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. A zoning permit was issued on October 13, 2004 to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The plan submitted with the application indicated that all setback requirements would be met. It was more recently discovered that through carelessness, the house was not constructed in compliance with the side and front setback requirements. This application is an attempt to correct that violation. The sketch plan was heard on February 5, 2008 (minutes attached). The Board advised the applicant that they would likely not support approval of any further applications. Section 15.02 C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, pertaining to elective PUD review, specifically states that "any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations." The construction of a single family home does NOT require action by the DRB. Staff does not find that the application may even be reviewed by the Development Review Board. The applicant's attorney has submitted a statement which argues that they may apply under PUD review. The City's attorney is reviewing these documents and should have written comment prior to the hearing on Tuesday. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Juli Beth Hinds, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 28, 2007 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Reauirements R4 Zoning District Re uired Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF Max. Building Coverage 20% 16% �l Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 % ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft Max. Building Height 40 ft. 27 ft q zoning compliance CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary doc ♦ Waiver requested The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback waiver of 6.75 feet. These errors would very likely not qualify for a variance pursuant to state and local regulations. The applicant has therefore submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development as the only regulatory mechanism which offers such setback waivers. Planning and Zoning Staff charge that the PUD waiver requirements were intended to allow the DRB to grant waivers of setbacks to improve the design of new projects. The language in Article 15.01, Purpose, says: "...It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan." [emphasis added]. This is a valid statement of the City's intent and it should be respected. Staff urges the Board to look at the purpose of the regulations — which is not to allow everyone a free pass for foul-ups. In fact, using the PUD regulations to give a pass in a case where harm has been done to an adjacent property owner expressly undermines the purposes of the PUD regulations. Even if the Board and other interested parties find that this application may be reviewed as a PUD, there are no sections or subsections of the SBLDRs that require the Board to grant any or all waivers requested by applicants. Staff does not support the requested front or side yard setback waiver. 1. The board should discuss the applicants request for a front yard setback waiver. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback waiver of three feet. Staff does not support the approval of this waiver. 2. The board should discuss the applicants request for a side yard setback waiver. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations the Development Review Board shall consider the following in its review of subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary doc Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pursuant to Section 15.13(B)(1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the proposed development. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must obtain final water allocation approval from the South Burlington Water Department. Staff does not find that the South Burlington Water Department need review this proposal. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed "structure" has already been built. An erosion control plan was never submitted and will provide little information at this stage. Staff is in discussions with the applicant, and working towards a different application, regarding the placement of substantial amounts of fill on the subject property and adjoining property without approval. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access to the property is proposed via a residential curb cut off of Country Club Drive. There are no changes proposed to this curb cut. Staff has no concerns regarding access, circulation, or traffic management pertaining to the subject property. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site. The applicant has submitted a letter from a certified ecologist attesting to this (attached). The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The single family residence is in conformance with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 Zoning District per the SBLDR. However, staff notes that Section 4.03(E) of the SBLDR state that all requirements of Section 4.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. Again, the Board shall discuss the applicant's request for front and side setback waivers. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary doc Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff finds that the above mentioned criteria were adequately addressed at the time of the subdivision of the Country Club Estates area. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site Dlan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Pedestrian movement is adequate. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Given the use on the subject property as a single family dwelling, staff finds the parking layout acceptable and harmonious with other buildings of its type in the area. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The building height is within the guidelines of the SBLDR. CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminarydoc (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted photos of the existing structure, which is to be similar to the existing homes in the area. Staff finds the structure in compliance with these criteria. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel there is need for additional access or reservation of land. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). As the subject property contains a single family residential unit, the trash is likely kept in the interior of the building. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As this is a single family residential unit, there is no minimum landscaping budget. However, all existing landscaping on site is shown on the plans. } CITY OF SO UTH B URLING TON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman preliminary doc Furthermore, all existing landscaping on site shall be maintained. As a Planned Unit Development with site plan components, removal of any landscaping must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board. To ensure that this is recognized and respected by future property owners, staff recommends that the applicant record a Notice of Conditions which clearly identifies the property as a PUD and itemizes all restrictions on the parcel. 3. The applicant shall record a "Notice of Conditions" which clearly identifies the property as a Planned Unit Development and itemizes all restrictions, including any site plan changes, on the parcel prior to issuance of the zoning permit. OTHER Staff notes that the subject lot is a conforming lot. There is nothing unique or otherwise limiting in its shape or size. The required setback lines allow for a sizeable building envelope. The Board should consider this application as though the applicant were proposing the waivers on a vacant lot, prior to construction, and not solely on the need to correct un-permitted errors. Respectfully submitted 6a1hyar)' LaRose, Asgoiate Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Jon Anderson, Contact Mark Sperry, Representative for John and Joyce Belter, abutting property owners File SOUTh )LAINGTON DEVELOPMENT I, AEW BOARD RL-. 5 FEBRUARY, 2008 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-01 and Final Plat Application #SD-08- 02 of Trench Boxes, Etc., for a planned unit development to re -subdivide a 41,365 sq. ft. lot developed with three buildings into two lots of 21,815 sq. ft. and 19,550 sq. ft., 80 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Loyer said changes suggested at sketch plan have been addressed. Mr. Belair recommended continuing the hearing so the right-of-way issue can be corrected. Mr. Dinklage noted that the 2 lots would be considered as one PUD for all planning purposes. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-01 and Final Plat Application #SD-08-02 of Trench Boxes, Etc., until 19 February 2008. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Associates appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance until 19 February. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Associates until 19 February 2008. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 09. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-07-82 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a planned unit development consisting of one lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive: Mr. Belair referred to staff comments as to whether it is appropriate for this request to be heard by the Board. Mr. Anderson, representing the applicant, said the purpose of the sketch hearing is to get feedback. He added that if the Board has jurisdiction to hear a PUD request, he felt the issues are easy to reply to. Mr Farley said he would go with what the Legal Counsel has said on this. Mr. Behr agreed. He felt this would typically come before the Board as a variance request. Mr. Anderson said he would try to convince the City Attorney. Mr. Sperry, representing some of the neighbors, said he agreed with staff that this request doesn't fit the definition of a PUD. CzE SOUTH IAINGTON DEVELOPMENT 1" 4EW BOARD 5 FEBRUARY, 2008 Mr. Lieberman said mistakes can be made, and there are times when people can look at a situation and try to help. He said this was an honest mistake, and nobody is trying to gain from it or to set a precedent. Mr. Dinklage said this is essentially an enforcement of a code violation. He added that precedent is very much in the minds of Board members. Staff, the City Attorney and the DRB don't feel the PUD provision was mean it to be an easy out for errors. He hoped it could be resolved with City Administration at the enforcement level. Mr. Behr added that when Staff and the City Attorney stay the Board shouldn't look at this, the Board's hands are tied. Mr. Anderson noted this is holding up the sale of the house, and there is a builder who doesn't know the "cost of repair." Mr. Lieberman noted that at one time people would do good things to help other people. He also noted that he brought the situation to the city's attention and didn't try to hide it. Mr. Cooper said he is very confused about this but wanted to show solidarity with the applicant. Mr. Allen said he is trying to buy the house. He likes South Burlington and wants to live here. He asked what he could do to help. Mr. Anderson said there are other ways to address this without tearing down part of the building. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-08-05 of Sierra Pacific II amending a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 61 room hotel, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building (1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office/day care building, a 3500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive -through service, and a bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 4000 sq. ft. addition to the building at 7 Fayette Drive, and 2) converting 14,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and indoor recreation use to retail use, also at the 7 Fayette Drive Building: Mr. Carroll said this is a pre-existing PUD. He showed the location on the plan and indicated the areas of commercial and residential use. The focus of this plan is on the southern portion of the building. At present, there is no elevator and there are 2 uncovered staircases. This creates a problem with effective use of the site. The proposed elevator will be designed in compliance with guidelines for stretcher use. -5- PROJECT COMMENTARY Overview Applicants Terry and Bethany Lieberman ("the Liebermans") seek preliminary plat approval for a single lot Planned Unit Development ("PUD") by way of an amendment to a previous Boundary Line Adjustment and Zoning Permit (ZP-04-375), issued October 13, 2004, located at 44 Country Club Drive in the Residential 4 (R-4) zoning district. The Liebermans also seek approval from the Development Review Board ("DRB") to maintain the existing fill on the rear and northerly side of their lot. This amendment application proposing a PUD will consist of the existing two- story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space. The Liebermans' roughly triangular lot is about 11,095 square feet in area and was created pursuant to a boundary line adjustment made by Jane Harrocks in 2004. The purpose of applying for PUD approval is to obtain a small waiver from the Zoning Regulations' literal requirements for the side and front setbacks on the lot. In particular, the Liebermans seek a waiver to allow their home to encroach by about 9 square feet into the required side yard setback and to allow their front entrance porch, which is about 7'/z feet wide, to encroach into the front yard setback by about 63/4 feet more than is allowed. The Liebermans purchased their single-family house from Rasim and Jasemine Redzic, who constructed it pursuant to a zoning permit (ZP-04-375) issued on October 13, 2004, on May 10, 2006. Their parcel, at 44 Country Club Drive, is adjacent to a 40- foot-wide City of South Burlington sewer easement, which underlying land appears to be owned by John H. and Joyce Belter (the `Belters"). During construction of the Liebermans' house, the builders accidentally constructed the house about three feet too Ifar to the north. The builders also added front steps to the house, which extend about 7 feet to the east. The result causes the single-family home to encroach minimally on the northerly side setback and front setback. -Fill was also placed on the rear and northerly side of the lot to level a small portion of the back yard of the property, for which approval from the DRB under Zoning Regulations § 3.12(A) is also sought. The Liebermans' property complies with the Zoning Regulations in all other respects. This amendment application proposes complete compliance with the Zoning Regulations, as the Liebermans seek approval under the PUD provisions for a 7-foot side setback and a 23-foot front setback. In addition, the Liebermans seek approval under § 3.12(A) for fill that was placed to the rear and side of their lot, as depicted in the enclosed plans. Such fill was placed to create an expanded back yard by re -grading a portion of the bank at the rear of their property. The amount of fill placed on the Liebermans' lot was approximately 160 cubic yards. An application for Development Review Board approval of the fill is included herein. Roughly 280 yards of fill was also placed on land owned by the Belters, who have refused to join in this application or otherwise to do anything to bring their land into compliance. The Liebermans are willing to accept a condition requiring their lot to be re -graded to meet any reasonable plan approved for the Belters' lot. Because of the presence of the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement, adjusting the setbacks on the Lieberman parcel allows the house to appear more centered when viewed in relation to the adjacent houses, and is consistent with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood. The CMP drain is located northerly of the centerline for the easement, away from the Liebermans' home and away from the fill area. By designating 0) Ithe parcel as a PUD, the parcel's use is improved, as the house is closer to the easement area, which is green space, and further from the closest house to the south. Approval would also result in less disruption to neighboring landowners and is in conformance with all requirements of the Land Development Regulations and the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Development Review Board should approve the Liebermans' amendment application creating a PUD, as well as their fill application. Amendment Application Creating a PUD Is Legal. Concern has been expressed as to- whether the DRB has authority to review the Liebermans' amendment application. Notwithstanding the fact that § 15.02(C) of the Zoning Regulations alone allows elective PUD review for any land development application requiring DRB approval, this application is properly before the DRB for two additional reasons. First, this application is presented as an amendment of ZP-04-375, a permit authorizing a boundary line adjustment, site plan approval, and construction of a single-family dwelling in an existing subdivision. Secondly, approval is needed from the DRB for the fill placed in the Liebermans' rear yard pursuant to § 3.12 of the Zoning Regulations. As such, the DRB should review the Liebermans' amendment application as a PUD. In fact, the DRB must review the Liebermans' application as a PUD at the applicant's request. There are no standards provided in Zoning Regulations § 15.02(C) on which the DRB might base a refusal to review the application as a PUD. As such, that section of the zoning ordinance is arguably unconstitutional because it contains no factors to guide the DRB's decision to review a proposal as a PUD. The DRB cannot have unfettered discretion to decide whether to review an application as a PUD, as a decision 3 Ireached by an administrative board, like the DRB, without standards or guidelines is unconstitutional. See In re Handy & In re Jolley Assocs., 171 Vt. 336, 344-47, 764 A.2d 1226, 1234-37. As the Vermont Supreme Court referenced in its Handy & Jolley decision: Without definite standards an ordinance becomes an open door to favoritism and discrimination, a ready tool for the suppression of competition through the grant of authority to one and the withholding from another.... A zoning ordinance cannot permit administrative officers or boards to pick and chose the recipients of their favors. Id. at 347, 764 A.2d at 1236 (citing Osius v. City of St. Clair Shores, 75 N.W.2d 25 (1956)). Furthermore, in the absence of standards guiding the DRB's decision for elective PUD review under § 15.02(C), the DRB's election to deny PUD review would constitute a denial of due process. "[A] decision arrived at without reference to any standards or principles is arbitrary and capricious; such ad hoc decision -making denies the applicant due process of law." In re Appeal of Miserocchi, 170 Vt. 320, 325, 749 A.2d 607, 611 (2000). Because the DRB's decision to deny review under § 15.02(C) is constitutionally infirm, the Liebermans' amendment application should be reviewed as a PUD. In addition to being entitled to PUD review, the Liebermans' amendment application complies with all the requirements of the PUD provisions, as the zoning staff basically noted in its Staff Report on the Liebermans' proposed sketch plan. Those standards enumerated in § 15.18(A) that were'not satisfied at the time of the sketch plan review have since been complied with, as demonstrated by the following application materials. Furthermore, in the absence of an express prohibition on a single lot PUD, all Ithe Zoning Regulations' PUD provisions have been complied with and the DRB should approve the Liebermans' preliminary plat. The Liebermans are also concerned that City zoning staff and authorities might consider this amendment application as being more appropriately addressed through a zoning enforcement or code violation action. If this is indeed the conclusion of the DRB, the board is considering a factor during preliminary plat review that is not enumerated in the zoning bylaws —again denying the Liebermans due process. As a leading zoning treatise outlines, a zoning board's "authority may be exercised only within the bounds prescribed by statute or ordinance." Kenneth H. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 22.41, at 112 (4th ed. 1997). A zoning or planning board is without authority to impose additional standards not enumerated by the zoning regulations. Id. § 23.30, at 234. Thus, during its review of the instant preliminary plat application, the DRB should limit its consideration to the review criteria contained in Zoning Regulations § 15.18(A) and cannot consider any additional factors, including whether the Liebermans should be subject to an enforcement action. Finally, while the DRB or zoning staff may prefer instituting an enforcement action or a code violation, the remedy in such action would be proportional to the minimal harm caused by the minor setback violations on the Liebermans' property. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated the circumstances surrounding a purported violation are relevant to determining the appropriate remedy. In re Cumberland Farms, Inc., 151 Vt. 59, 64, 557 A.2d 486 (1989). Moreover, any penalty resulting from an enforcement matter must be remedial in nature and must be "rationally related to the damages suffered k, from the landowner's violation of [a] Town's bylaws." Town of Hinesburg v. Dunkling, 167 Vt. 514, 528-29, 711 A.2d 1163 (1998). These rules highlighting the equitable nature of enforcement remedies infer that Ithe DRB should address the merits of the instant application in light of the minor nature Iof the setback noncompliance and the responsibility of the applicants in notifying the City of such noncompliance. Though this -is not an enforcement case, the penalty resulting from such case is likely to be minimal in light of the harm caused; it would be more cost-effective and fair for the DRB to evaluate the Liebermans' PUD and fill applications now, which will bring a faster resolution of this matter. Even if an enforcement action were instituted, it is highly unlikely that it would result in moving or removing the single-family home at 44 Country Club Drive because that remedy, both in terms of cost and practicability, is greatly disproportionate to the harm caused by the minor setback encroachment, the Liebermans' lack of culpability for the alleged violation, and the fact that they did not hide the non-compliance but brought it to the City's attention themselves. In lieu -of bringing an enforcement action in the Environmental Court, the City can easily get to the bottom of this matter by approving the instant amendment application without resorting to the costly process of litigation. Application of ZoninE Criteria for the R-4 District Use Regulations The Liebermans' existing single-family house is a Permitted Use in the R-4 zoning district, which is intended for moderate density residential uses. 0 Density Regulations The existing single family home sits on an 11,095 square -foot (0.255-acre) lot, which exceeds the 9,500 square -foot minimum lot size and satisfies the maximum density of 4 units per acre. Dimensional Regulations Item Allowed Provided Building Coverage 20% 16% Coverage 40% 21 % Setbacks — Allowed to be modified in a PUD Front 30 feet 23 feet Side Rear Parking Height 1) 10 feet 7 feet 30 feet approx. 75 feet 2-space min. 2 spaces in enclosed garage 40-foot max. approx. 27 feet Application of Planned Unit Development Criteria - � 15.18(A) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available [to] meet the needs of the project in conformance with the applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' house. It has also received an exemption under § 1-403(a)(12) of the Environmental Protection Rules from the Wastewater Management Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to a July 22, 2004 letter from Ernest Christianson, Regional Engineer. 2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. 7 No new construction is proposed for the site, so no grading or erosion controls are needed. If excavation is required for approval of the Liebermans' fill permit, proper erosion controls will be employed. 3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. No new construction is proposed. The Liebermans' house is served by an existing 19' x 30' asphalt driveway, which leads to a two -car garage. There is no unreasonable traffic on adjacent roads. 4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands or other special or unique features of the property, as it is part of the existing Country Club Estates subdivision. 5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district in which it is located. The purpose of the R-4 zoning district is to provide for moderate density residential uses, which the Liebermans' existing single-family home complies with. It is a moderate home of roughly 2,400 square- feet of living space on a quarter -acre lot. The home's position on the lot complies with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision, especially as it is placed slightly closer to the northerly lot line and the 40-foot-wide CMP easement. When viewed in relation to adjacent homes, the Liebermans' house appears more centered on the lot, as there is ample room between the Liebermans' house and their neighbors to the north and south. Consistent with Chapters 5 and 6 of the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the existing house maintains the moderate density character of the Country Club Estates neighborhood. 6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. There is significant open space to the rear and west of the Liebermans' house, consisting principally of the Belter farm fields off Ethan Allen Drive. Moreover, the adjacent forty -foot -wide CMP easement is open space. The addition of fill in the rear yard has also created additional usable open space. 7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The existing house is part of the established Country Club Estates subdivision, which layout and design was likely approved by the relevant authorities for adequacy of fire protection. The proposed amendment to a PUD does not impact or alter any feature of the property that might relate to fire protection or the existence of water lines. 8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' existing home. Landscaping, utilities, and street lighting have already been installed, and no changes are proposed to those features and services. Plans showing the existing landscaping and lighting details are provided with this application. 9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. As noted above, all site infrastructure is already installed in the Country Club Estates subdivision and will remain unchanged by the Liebermans' amendment application to a PUD. 10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Liebermans' amendment application is entirely consistent with the provisions of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family home in an existing medium density residential neighborhood. The house appears centered on the lot in relation to neighboring houses, because the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement provides ample open space between the adjacent structures. -It also maintains the existing streetscape on Country Club Drive. By approving the Liebermans' amendment application, the status quo is preserved, and the existing neighborhood is protected, consistent with the Objectives and Recommendations of Chapters 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Liebermans' neighbors are concerned about the disruption in their day-to-day lives that might be caused by moving, relocating or rebuilding the house and removing fill if the Liebermans' amendment application is not accepted. 1 Application of Site Plan General Review Standards — 4 14.06 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the Liebermans' house and amendment application, creating a PUD, is consistent with the land use policies of the City, as set forth in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family house in a medium density subdivision. It maintains the existing streetscape and character of the Country Club Estates subdivision, as it appears centered on the lot when the proximity of adjacent houses is considered. Accordingly, the Liebermans' amendment application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1. The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. 3. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. 4. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The existing single-family home was constructed to be consistent with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision. When viewed in relation to the adjacent houses, the Liebermans' home appears centered on its lot. Its scale is also similar to its neighboring structures, as it is a simple two-story home with a pitched roof in an existing neighborhood of similar homes. While parking is not located on the rear or side of the lot, a two -car garage is provided, as with many other homes in Country Club Estates. Moreover, there is no construction proposed in this amendment application, as utilities are provided and the Liebermans do not propose to modify the existing house, absent the removal of fill if required by the DRB. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining 1. The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, 10 texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 2. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The design of the existing house is similar to those in the neighborhood. The colors, size, and shape of the house are consistent with those in the neighborhood, as required by the Covenants of Country Club Estates. Approval from the DRB is sought for the fill that was added to the rear and side yards. The fill evened the grade between the Liebermans' yard and the adjacent yards 'to the north and south. Thus the existing house relates harmoniously to its surrounding neighborhood. Application of Site Plan Specific Review Standards — 14.07 A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. A driveway in the front yard provides access to the house. This driveway and access layout is analogous to the other homes in the Country Club Estates subdivision. No changes in access are proposed in this amendment application, creating a PUD on the Liebermans' parcel, as it is an existing single-family home on a residential street. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Utility service is already installed, primarily underground, and no changes are planned to the existing utilities serving the parcel. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Trash service is provided to the exiting house, and this amendment application is not expected to generate any additional waste. 11 D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The Liebermans' home is well landscaped with an open front yard, including shrubbery and larger evergreen trees near the front of the house in the CMP easement. There is also a line of cedar trees extending northerly in the back yard from the Liebermans' property on to the Belters' land, providing continuity between the two parcels and making the CMP easement and the Liebermans' parcel appear as a single lot. No additional landscaping is proposed by this application. Existing landscaping will be maintained if the instant fill permit is approved and such landscaping has been depicted on the preliminary plat. As the property is landscaped consistent with neighboring homes, the existing landscaping will be protected by the "Notice of Conditions," proposed herein, requiring DRB approval for changes to the existing landscaping. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The purpose of the instant amendment application creating a PUD is to remedy builder error, as the existing single-family home was constructed just outside the building envelope created by the front and side setbacks, creating an obvious hardship for the Liebermans, as absent approval of the amendment application, they might have to move or rebuild their home. Such a setback waiver is appropriate as the existing home is consistent with the Zoning Regulations in all other respects, and as the house appears centered on its lot in relation to the adjacent houses. Though the Liebermans do seek a modification of setbacks, such modification is slight. In no event is the resulting setback less than 5 feet. Moreover, the existence of fill on the lot makes for a more useful and visually appealing rear yard, and removal of such fill would cause the Liebermans extreme hardship and disrupt the neighborhood. Approval of the Liebermans' amendment application is the swiftest, most cost-effective and complying way to handle this matter. Waivers Requested From The DRB The Liebermans seek a small waiver from the literal side and front setback requirements in this amendment application proposing a PUD. The existing single- family house was constructed 3 feet too far to the north, and the builders added a set of front steps, which slightly encroaches into the front setback by slightly less than 7 feet. S \Ghent Matters\80286\Legal\Preltmmaty Plat Project Commentary doc 12 John H. Belter, Jr. Joyce N. Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 April 8, 2008 South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Preliminary Plan Application SD-08-20 and Fill Placement Application - Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman Dear Mr. Belair: We are adjoining property owners to the property of the Liebermans, the applicants in this application. This letter will serve as a "statement of concern related to the subject matter of the proceeding" as required by 24 V.S.A. 4471(a): This project does not qualify for Planned Unit Development or "PUD" treatment. Under Section 2.01 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, a Planned Unit Development or PUD is defined as follows: "Planned unit development (PUD). One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed." Section 2.02 — Definition of PUD emphasis supplied. The application here does not involve or qualify for PUD treatment, because, by the applicants' own admission, the "proposed PUD will consist of the existing two story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space." (Project Commentary, page 1, emphasis April 8, 2008 Page 2 supplied.) Set also ¶8 and 9 on application form: 8; "Existing uses on property -.- 7--story sin*lc fitmily house;" 9: "Proposed uses on properly — same -- w:isting single, family house.." This project does not involve a parcel of land "to be developed " Rather, i� involves a parcel of land thready developed, and nothing new is prupQsed. Tlicmfore, it does not qualify for PUD treatment or review. 2. The application fails to properly addrzss the 39 truckloads of fill placed on our property without mu permission immediately north of the Lieberman north. line. Removal of the fill will leave an unsightly drop off at the Lieberman noitb line, with only at most 7 feet between the house and the drop off- Wo have no obligation to join in any application to let the fill romain and its presence exposes us to a potential zoning violation claim. 3. The applicatiort is misleadizag in that it r-c.presents that `adjusting the setbacks" allows the Lieberman house to appear "more centered on. thn lot" in rciatic►r► to the adjac.-m houses (Project Commentary, p.2). The Licbemmn house is about 45 feet from the house on the south (labeled "#42 Existing I-Iouse" on the flan), and. about 105 feet from the Loller house on the north. "Centering" the Liebarrnan house would require- a substantial shift to the north onto the-Belter property. 4. This application is an attempted misuse of the PUD provislou-, to allow t1 laouse built in violation of the zoning setbacks. Were the DRR to allow this application, then nothing would stop anybody from building in violation of the zoning requirements and tlten exousing the violation under the guise of a PUD. We therefore object to PUD review of this application. Sincerely yours, 9A" H. pavtv"�. John 1-1. Belter, Jr. oycc ]?. Better cc: Jon Anderson, Esq. Mark L. Sperry, Esq. J r 4-F Ai7zi; southburlington PLANNING & ZONING February 26, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David W. Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Minutes — Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved February 5, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me Sincerely, N -'& Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: January 29, 2008 \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman_sketch.doc Plans received: December 28, 2007 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-07-82 Meeting date: February 5, 2008 Agenda #9 Owner/Applicant Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 Contact Property Information Jon Anderson, David W. Rugh Tax Parcel 0480-00044 Burak Anderson & Melloni R4 Zoning District; Burlington, VT 05402 11,095 SF Location Map t 3 f` y 1 an,„r i'• / Y rJ f CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are requesting sketch plan review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. A zoning permit was issued on October 13, 2004 to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The plan submitted with the application indicated that all setback requirements would be met. It was recently discovered that through carelessness, the house was not constructed in compliance with the side and front setback requirements. This application is an attempt to correct that violation. The sketch plan was originally scheduled for January 22, 2008, but continued to February 5, 2008 as there were not enough members of the Board present at the hearing to reach a quorum. PLEASE NOTE Section 15.02 C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, pertaining to elective PUD review, specifically states that "any applicant for site plan, conditional use, and or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations." The construction of a single family home does NOT require action by the DRB. Staff does not find that the application may even be reviewed by the Development Review Board. The City's Attorney agrees on this matter. The decision to review this application will be left to the Development Review Board. Despite staff concerns to the contrary, staff notes have nonetheless been included should the Board choose to review the application under PUD review. COMMENTS Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Juli Beth Hinds, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 28, 2007 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R4 Zoning District Required] Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF �l Max. Building Coverage 20% 16% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 % ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft �1 Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft + Max. Building Height 40 ft. zoning compliance ♦ Waiver requested + Height is unclear; applicant has merely stated 2 stories. CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc The applicant should provide the height of the building, from the average pre -construction grade. As fill has been added to the property, the applicant should be mindful to use and provide the average grade of the land below the existing house, as it was before the start of any construction or deposit of fill. The height of the building shall be measured in accordance with the definition of `Height' in Article 2 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as SBLDRs). 1. The applicant shall provide the height of the structure measured from the average pre - construction grade. The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback waiver of 6.75 feet. These errors would very likely not qualify for a variance pursuant to state and local regulations. The applicant has therefore submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development as the only regulatory mechanism which offers such setback waivers. Planning and Zoning Staff charge that the PUD waiver requirements were intended to allow the DRB to grant waivers of setbacks to improve the design of new projects. The language in Article 15.01, Purpose, says: "...It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan." [emphasis added]. This is a valid statement of the City's intent and it should be respected. Staff urges the Board to look at the purpose of the regulations — which is not to allow everyone a free pass for foul-ups. In fact, using the PUD regulations to give a pass in a case where harm has been done to an adjacent property owner expressly undermines the purposes of the PUD regulations. Staff does not support the requested front or side yard setback waiver. 2. The board should discuss the applicants request for a front yard setback waiver. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback waiver of three feet. 3. The board should discuss the applicants request for a side yard setback waiver. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS _Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations the Development Review Board shall consider the following in its review of subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc applications: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pursuant to Section 15.13(B)(1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the proposed development. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must obtain final water allocation approval from the South Burlington Water Department. Staff does not find that the South Burlington Water Department need review this proposal. However, the plans should be revised to show all water and sewer lines on the subject property. 4. The plans shall be revised to depict all water and sewer lines on the subject property. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed "structure" has already been built. An erosion control plan was never submitted and will provide little information at this stage. Staff is in discussions with the applicant, and working towards a different application, regarding the placement of substantial amounts of fill on the subject property and adjoining property without approval. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access to the property is proposed via a residential curb cut off of Country Club Drive. There are no changes proposed to this curb cut. Staff has no concerns regarding access, circulation, or traffic management pertaining to the subject property. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site. The applicant has submitted a letter from a certified ecologist attesting to this (attached). The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. CITY OF SOUTH B URLING TON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc The single family residence is in conformance with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 Zoning District per the SBLDR. However, staff notes that Section 4.03(E) of the SBLDR state that all requirements of Section 4.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. Again, the Board shall discuss the applicant's request for front and side setback waivers. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff finds that the above mentioned criteria were adequately addressed at the time of the subdivision of the Country Club Estates area. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. 5. The applicant shall submit lighting cut sheets and a point -by -point plan with the submittal of the preliminary plat application. They shall be in compliance with the SBLDR. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Pedestrian movement is adequate. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc Given the use on the subject property as a single family dwelling, staff finds the parking layout acceptable and harmonious with other buildings of its type in the area. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff has already addressed the issue of building height pertaining to this site. Again, the applicant shall provide more information as part of the preliminary plat application. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted photos of the existing structure, which is to be similar to the existing homes in the area. Staff finds the structure in compliance with these criteria. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel there is need for additional access or reservation of land. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). CITY OF SOUTH B URLING TON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc As the subject property contains a single family residential unit, the trash is likely kept in the interior of the building. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As this is a single family residential unit, there is no minimum landscaping budget. However, all existing landscaping on site shall be shown future plans. 6. The plans shall be revised to reflect all existing landscaping on site. Furthermore, all existing landscaping on site shall be maintained. As a Planned Unit Development with site plan components, removal of any landscaping must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board. To ensure that this is recognized and respected by future property owners, staff recommends that the applicant record a Notice of Conditions which clearly identifies the property as a PUD and itemizes all restrictions on the parcel. 7. The applicant shall record a "Notice of Conditions" which clearly identifies the property as a Planned Unit Development and itemizes all restrictions, including any site plan changes, on the parcel prior to issuance of the zoning permit. OTHER Staff notes that the subject lot is a conforming lot. There is nothing unique or otherwise limiting in its shape or size. The required setback lines allow for a sizeable building envelope. The Board should consider this application as though the applicant were proposing the waivers on a vacant lot, prior to construction, and not solely on the need to correct unpermitted errors. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend that the Board even consider the application under PUD review. Should it choose to do so, staff recommends denial of future applications. Respectfully submitted, ' ' CathyYn LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Jon Anderson, Contact Mark Sperry, Representative for John and Joyce Belter, abutting property owners File Oakledge Environmental Services, Inc. P.O. Box 4065, Burlington, VT 05406 (802) 660-8312 August 15, 2007 Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Dept. of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Wetland Evaluation of Lieberman property 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, VT Dear Mr. Belair: At the request of Mark Ward of Vermont Land Surveyors, I conducted a site visit to the Lieberman property at 44 Country Club Drive in South Burlington on August 15, 2007, to identify any wetlands on the parcel. I examined the section of the property downslope from the residence, and also examined the areas on either side of the backyard, where I understand fill was recently placed. Uplands characterize all of the areas that I examined. Based on my evaluation, there are not any wetlands located on the parcel or in the undisturbed areas adjacent to the fill, and there is no evidence that wetlands were disturbed where any fill was deposited. All recent impacts, therefore, appear to be at least 50 feet from any wetlands. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, l Jeff 3�Severson Principal/Ecologist Cc. Mark Ward MIDDLBBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F. Langrock ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael W Wool Ellen Mercer Fallon Mark L. Sperry William B. Miller, Jr. A Limited Liability Partnership Christopher L. Davis James W. Swift Thomas Z. Carlson Emily J. Joselson Including a Professional Corporation Susan M. Murray Mitchell L. Pearl Alison J. Bell Kevin E. Brown Lisa B. Shelkrot Frank H. Langrock Eric M. Knudsen Beth Robinson David W. M. Conard F Rendol Barlow 'Thomas J. Sherrer D wm McLaughlin Sarah Gentry Tischlet Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin Miller Hems Erin E Ruble Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO - Burlington Office January 14, 2008 South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Sketch Plan Application SD-07-82 - Application of Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman Dear Ray: Enclosed please find the following: 1. Notice of Appearance of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP in the above matter on behalf of John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter; and 2. A Statement of Concern signed by the Belters. I understand there will be a hearing on this application on January 22, 2008. Would you kindly e-mail to me a copy of the Agenda and a copy of any staff report, which I assume you will be sending out by the end of the week. Also. if the City attorney has rendered any opinion on this application, and it can be disclosed to me, I would appreciate a copy of that. If you would send these to me by e-mail that would be most helpful. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Spe y MLS:mns Enclosures - c: Jon Anderson, Esq John and Joyce Belter 447723 1 MIDDLEBURY. ill S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email. attomeys (dgangrock.com • Website, www langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 72.1 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864.0217 • Far (802) 864-0137 • Email. a,torneys (yjangrock corn • Webstte: www.iangrock.corn STATE OF VERMONT SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD IN RE: Application of Terry R. and State File No. Sketch Plan Application Bethany Lieberman SD-07-82 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Now comes Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP and hereby enters its appearance in the above proceeding on behalf of John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Better, adjoining property owners to the applicants. 4477261 l.nnrc;r OCK til'ERRY 8 Wk)(rw, IAJI DATED at Burlington, Vermont this J-L-- day of January, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. Sperry PO Box 721, 0 College Street Burlington, T 05402 (802) 864-0217 PROJECT COMMENTARY Applicants Terry and Bethany Lieberman ("the Liebermans") seek sketch plan approval for a single lot Planned Unit Development ("PUD") located at 44 Country Club Drive in the Residential 4 (R-4) zoning district. The proposed PUD will consist of the existing two-story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space. The Lieberman's roughly triangular lot is about 11,095 square feet in area and was created pursuant to a boundary line adjustment made by Jane Harrocks in 2004. The purpose of applying for PUD approval is to obtain a small waiver from the Zoning Regulations' literal requirements for the side and front setbacks on the lot. In particular, the Liebermans seek a waiver to allow their home to encroach by about 9 square feet into the required side yard setback and to allow their front entrance porch, which is about 7% feet wide, to encroach into the front yard setback by about 61/4 feet more than is allowed. The Liebermans purchased their single-family house from Rasim and Jasemine Redzic, who constructed it pursuant to a zoning permit (ZP-04-375) issued on October 13, 2004, on May 10, 2006. Their parcel, at 44 Country Club Drive, is adjacent to a 40-foot-wide City of South Burlington sewer easement, which underlying land appears to be owned by John H. and Joyce Belter (the "Belters"). During construction of the Liebermans' house, the builders accidentally constructed the house about three feet too far to the north. The builders also added front steps to the house, which extend about 7 feet to the east. The result causes the single-family home to encroach minimally on the northerly side setback and front setback. The Liebennans' property complies with the Zoning Regulations in all other respects. In order to come into compliance with the Zoning Regulations, the Liebermans seek approval for a 7-foot side setback and a 23-foot front setback. IBecause of the presence of the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement, adjusting the setbacks on Ithe Liebermans' parcel allows the house to appear more centered on the lot when viewed in relation to the adjacent houses and is more consistent with the existing development pattern of Ithe neighboring homes. The CMP drain is located northerly of the centerline for the easement, Iaway from the Liebermans' home. By designating the parcel as a PUD, the parcel's use is improved, as the house is closer to the easement area, which is green space, and further from the Iclosest house to the south. The proposed PUD complies with all requirements of the Land IDevelopment Regulations and the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Development Review Board should approve the Liebermans' minor PUD application. IApplication of Zoning Criteria for the R-4 District Use Regulations The Liebermans' existing single-family house is a Permitted Use in the R-4 zoning district, which is intended for moderate density residential uses. Density Regulations The existing single family home sits on an 11,095 square -foot (0.255-acre) lot, which exceeds the 9,500 square -foot minimum lot size and satisfies the maximum density of 4 units per FoMW ] Dimensional Regulations Item Allowed Provided Building Coverage 20% 16% Coverage 40% 21 % Setbacks — Allowed to be modified in a PUD IFront 30 feet 23 feet I I2 Side 10 feet 7 feet Rear 30 feet approx. 75 feet Parking 2-space min. 2 spaces in enclosed garage Height 40-foot max. 2 stories below a pitched roof Application of Planned Unit Development Criteria - § 15.18(A) 1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available [to] meet the needs of the project in conformance with the applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' house. It has also received an exemption under § 1-403(a)(12) of the Environmental Protection Rules from the Wastewater Management Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to a July 22, 2004 letter from Ernest Christianson, Regional Engineer. 2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. No new construction is proposed for the site, so no grading or erosion controls are needed. 3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. No new construction is proposed. The Liebermans' house is served by an existing 19' x 30' asphalt driveway, which leads to a two -car garage. There is no unreasonable traffic on adjacent roads. 4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands or other special or unique features of the property, as it is part of the existing Country Club Estates subdivision. 5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district in which it is located. 3 The purpose of the R-4 zoning district is to provide for moderate density residential uses, which the Liebermans' existing single-family home complies with. It is a moderate home of roughly 2,400 square feet of living space on a quarter -acre lot. The home's position on the lot is in conformance with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision, especially as it is placed slightly closer to the northerly lot line and the 40-foot-wide CMP easement. The house thus appears more centered on the lot, as there is almost an equal distance between the adjacent houses to the north and south. Consistent with Chapters 5 and 6 of the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the existing house maintains the moderate density character of the Country Club Estates neighborhood. 6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. There is significant open space to the rear and west of the Liebermans' house, consisting principally of the Belter farm fields off Ethan Allen Drive. Moreover, the adjacent forty -foot - wide CMP easement is open space. 7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The existing house is part of the established Country Club Estates subdivision, which layout and design was likely approved by the relevant authorities for adequacy of fire protection. The proposed PUD does not impact nor alter any feature of the property that might relate to fire protection or the existence of water lines. 8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Municipal water and sewer serve the Liebermans' existing home. Landscaping, utilities, and street lighting have already been installed, and no changes are proposed to those features and services. 9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. As noted above, all site infrastructure is already installed in the Country Club Estates subdivision and will remain unchanged by the Liebermans' proposed PUD. 2 10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Liebermans' proposed PUD is entirely consistent with the provisions of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family home in an existing medium density residential neighborhood. The house is centered on the lot in relation to neighboring houses, particularly when the adjacent 40-foot CMP easement is considered. It also maintains the existing streetscape on Country Club Drive. By approving the PUD, the status quo is preserved, and the existing neighborhood is protected, consistent with the Objectives and Recommendations of Chapters 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. Application of Site Plan General Review Standards — 4 14.06 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the Liebermans' house and proposed PUD is consistent with the land use Ipolicies of the City, as set forth in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. It is a single-family house in a 1 medium density subdivision. It maintains the existing streetscape and character of the Country Club Estates subdivision, as it is centered on the lot when viewed in relationship to the adjacent Ihouses. Accordingly, the proposed PUD is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1. The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. 3. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. 4. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The existing single-family home was constructed to be consistent with the existing development pattern of the Country Club Estates subdivision. The house appears centered on its lot when viewed in relation to the adjacent houses to the north and south. Its scale is also similar to its neighboring structures, as it is a simple two-story home with a pitched roof in an existing neighborhood of similar homes. While parking is not located on the rear or side of the lot, a two- 5 car garage is provided, as with the other homes in Country Club Estates. Moreover, there is no construction planned for the PUD, as utilities are provided and no modification to the existing construction is proposed, absent the removal of fill if required by the DRB. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 2. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The design of the existing house is similar to those in the neighborhood. The colors, size, and shape of the house are also similar to those in the neighborhood, as required by the Covenants of Country Club Estates. Thus the existing house relates harmoniously to its surrounding neighborhood. Application of Site Plan Specific Review Standards — & 14.07 A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. A driveway in the front yard provides access to the house. This driveway and access layout is analogous to the other homes in the Country Club Estates subdivision. No changes in access are proposed in the creation of the PUD for the Liebermans' parcel, as it is an existing single-family home on a residential street. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Utility service is already installed, primarily underground, and no changes are planned to the existing utilities serving the parcel. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). ITrash service is provided to the exiting house, and the creation of the single lot PUD is not expected to generate any additional waste. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The Liebermans' home is well landscaped with an open front yard, including shrubbery and larger evergreen trees near the front of the house in the CMP easement. There is also a line I of cedar trees extending northerly in the back yard from the Liebermans' property on to the Belters' land, providing continuity between the two parcels and making the CMP easement and the Liebermans' parcel appear as a single lot. No additional landscaping is proposed by this application, as the parcel is properly landscaped consistent with neighboring homes. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The purpose of the instant PUD application is to remedy builder error, as the existing single-family home was constructed just outside the building envelope created by the front and side setbacks, creating an obvious hardship for the Liebermans, as absent approval of the PUD, they would be forced to rebuild their home. Such a setback waiver is appropriate as the existing home is consistent with the Zoning Regulations in all other respects, and as the house appears to be centered on its lot in relation to the adjacent houses. Though the Liebermans do seek a modification of setbacks, such modification is slight. In no event is the resulting setback less than 5 feet. Waivers Requested From The DRB The Liebermans simply seek a waiver from the literal side and front setback requirements in applying for a PUD. The existing single-family house was constructed 3 feet too far to the north, and the builders added a set of front steps, which slightly encroaches into the front setback by slightly less than 7 feet. S \Ghent Mattel s\80286\Legal\Sketch Plan Project Cotnrnenaaty doc 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 31, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David W. Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: 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, February 5, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. cerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. C C : L clocytA&n Ns JIOHN H. & JDYCE N. aEL 7E % JR A a "e ,ZQP 1 � -1 BOTTOM OF BANK \\ 1 51.4' \ 20 0' V� LOST 48A CEDAR EW' TOP OF BANK WLUAM & MEUNDA COOPER I ` DECK \` `\ �� LOT 47 OFF N DEW F71 142 EXIS NG HOUSE a Q` DwK ' r 0 �� . m NE1L & PA7R/C/A LQLLER SEIBA LOT 48 \ �d d ° • VOL. 432 PG.431 LINES i \ OVMANG ;I \� 4 39 29 722, 7 m COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE m a 60 FT. RIGHT OF WAY j 0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR REFER TO SURVEY PLAT EN777LED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR JANE EVANS HARROCK' PREPARED BY VERMONT LAND TERRY & BETHANY MCBERVAAl SURVEYORS INC. DATED 4121104 ct 4126104 AND RECORDED ON SLIDE 1436. 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO BURLINGTON, VERMONT LEGEND IRON PIPE —ROD FOUND 1' IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FELD SEWER LINE WATER VALVE 0 SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET • —G- -P- -N 0 20 40 60 80 100 A VERMONT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 4050 WiLLISTON ROAD, SU17F 112 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. 05403-6063 (802) 862-5661 DA 7F AUG. 16, 2007 SURVEYED M.W. & B.H. DRAWN MARK V. WARD PROJECT 2717A 01•'l1•'08 15,08 t! 802 864 0137 ..� Langrock,SXierr,-Mbol Bur "IN 10002 John H. Belter, Jr. Joyce N. Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Jai.. lry 14, 2008 South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Sketch Plan Application SD-07-82 — Application of Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman Dear Mr. Belain We are adjoining property owners to the property of the Liebermans, the applicants in this application. This letter will serve as a "statement of concern related to the subject matter of the proceeding" as required by 24 V.S.A. 4471(a): 1_ This project does not qualify for Planned Unit Development or "PUD" treatment, Under Section 2.01 of the South Burlington Zoning Rmdaticns; a Planned Unit Developin}nt or PLTD is defined as follo,,vs: "Planned unit development {PUT]), tine or more parcels of land to be dcvetoped as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density* or intensity transfers or increases. as well as the mixing of land uses, This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of stiuciares and uses per lot as established in any one or more district_-, created under the provisions of these regulations, The specific requirements of a PLTD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modifies' are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed." Section 2.02 — Definition of PUD emphasis supplied. The application here does not involve or qualify for PUD treatment; because, by the applicants' own admission, the "proposed PUD will consist of the existing two story home with approximately 2,400 square feet of living space. (Project Commentary, page I, emphasis 01. 11- ps 15 -13 FAX 801 864 0137—..,_ _ Langrock, Sperlll Otool Bur 101 10003 January 14, 20. Pao - 2• supplied.) -S. fl,8 ..._ , on application form: 8: "Existing lases on property — 2 story single family Douse; ?roposec - ses on property— same— existing single family house." T' ' ' project does not involve a parcel of land "to be developed." Rather, it involves a parcel of I -heady developed, and nothing new is proposed. Therefore, it does not qualify for PUD treatment or review. 2. The application does not mention the 39 truckloads of fill placed or, our property without our permission immediately north of the Lieberman north line. Removal of the fill MR leave: an unsightly l)' ,,_ -� T - -~,an north line. with only at most 7 feet between the house and the drop off. 3. The application is misleading in that it represents that "adjusting the setbacks" allows the Lieberman house tc -Il- "more centered on the lot" in relation to the adjacent houses (Project Commentary, p.2). i ._e Iieberman Douse is about 45 feet from the house on thw south (labeled "442 Existing Rouse" on the Plan), and about 105 feet from the Loller house on the north. "Centering" the Lieberman house would require a substantial shift to the north onto the Belter property. 4. This application is an attempted misuse of the PUD provisions to allow a house built in violation of tiie zoning setbacks. Were the DRB to allow this application, then nothing tt`ould stop anybody from building in violation of the zoning requirements and then excusing the violation under the guise of a PUD. We therefore object to PUD review of this application_ Sincerely yours, John H, Belter; Jr. MLS'mns cc: Jon Andcrson, Esq, Mark L. Sperry, Esq. YI, 'P�� 4ZZ� Joyce A(. Belter .l` southburlin,ritou VE 0M0N1 January 10, 2008 John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: a City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 Enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda (please check our website www.sburl.com for the official agenda, posted the Friday before the meeting) for the January 22, 2008 Development Review Board meeting. It includes a proposal that abuts property you own. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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 scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 18, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Sperry: 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, January 22, 2008 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, Betsy M D nough Brown Planning Zoning Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 2, 2007 Terry & Bethany Lieberman 44 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation — Altering Grade Without Approval Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lieberman: " 2�� - 6 bc�y It has come to our attention that you have placed fill in an amount greater than 20 cubic yards behind your house at 44 Country Club Drive. Please be aware that Section 3.12(A) of the Land Development Regulations requires approval from the Development Review Board for the placement of fill on a property in an amount greater than 20 cubic yards. Since approval was not obtained for the placement of this fill, you are in violation of the zoning regulations. Please contact this office within ten (10) days of the date of this letter to discuss the steps necessary to obtain approval. Failure to obtain approval will result in legal action to obtain compliance. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincere Raymond and J. Belair Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: January 17, 2008 \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc Plans received: December 2',§0Q207 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 'Ice SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-07-82 Meeting date: January 22, 2008 00)�. V� A ends #13 A6 - Owner/Applicant Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 Contact Property Information Jon Anderson, David W. Rugh Tax Parcel 0480-00044 R4 Zoning District; 11,095 SF Location Map y I. R � W � Y f¢�•, f 4• ,r CITY OF SOUTH B URLING TON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc Terry & Bethany Lieberman hereafter referred to as the applicants, are requesting sketch plan review for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side setback and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. A zoning permit was issued on October 13, 2004 to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The plan submitted with the application indicated that all setback requirements would be met. It was recently discovered that through carelessness, the house was not constructed in +z compliance with the side and front setback requirements. This application is an attempt to correct that violation. Associate Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 28, 2007 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R4 Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 S.F. 11,095 SF Max. Building Coverage 20% 16% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 21 % ♦ Front Setback 30 ft. 23.3 ft ♦ Side Setback 10 ft. 7 ft Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft 4 Max. Building Height 40 ft. zoning compliance ♦ Waiver requested Height is unclear; applicant has merely stated 2 stories. The applicant should provide the height of the building, from the average pre -construction grade. As fill has been added to the property, the applicant should be mindful to use and provide the average grade of the land below the existing house, as it was before the start of any construction or deposit of fill. The height of the building shall be measured in accordance with the definition of `Height' in Article 2 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as SBLDRs). 1. The applicant shall provide the height of the structure measured from the average pre - construction grade. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc The structure on the subject lot was built in disaccord with the dimensional standards of the district and in conflict with the issued zoning permit. The house was constructed approximately seven feet from the northern property boundary, or three feet into the required side setback. Previous owners also built a front entrance porch, with roof, within the required front yard setback. This porch encroaches nearly seven (7) feet into the front yard setback. These errors would very likely not qualify for a variance pursuant to state and local regulations. The applicant has therefore submitted the request as a Planned Unit Development as the only regulatory mechanism which offers such setback waivers. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback waiver of seven feet. 2. The board should discuss the applicants request for a front yard setback waiver The applicant is requesting a side yard setback waiver of three feet. 3. The board should discuss the applicants request for a side yard setback waiver. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations the Development Review Board shall consider the following in its review of subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pursuant to Section 15.13(B)(1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the proposed development. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must obtain final water allocation approval from the South Burlington Water Department. Staff does not find that the South Burlington Water Department need review this proposal. However, the plans should be revised to show all water and sewer lines on the subject property. 4. The plans shall be revised to depict all water and sewer lines on the subject property. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed "structure" has already been built. An erosion control plan was never submitted and will provide little information at this stage. Staff is in discussions with the applicant, and working CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc towards a different application, regarding the placement of substantial amounts of fill on the subject property and adjoining property without approval. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Access to the property is proposed via a residential curb cut off of Country Club Drive. There are no changes proposed to this curb cut. Staff has no concerns regarding access, circulation, or traffic management pertaining to the subject property. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site. The applicant has submitted a letter from a certified ecologist attesting to this (attached). The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The single family residence is in conformance with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 Zoning District per the SBLDR. However, staff notes that Section 4.03(E) of the SBLDR state that all requirements of Section 4.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. Again, the Board shall discuss the applicant's request for front and side setback waivers. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff finds that the above mentioned criteria were adequately addressed at the time of the subdivision of the Country Club Estates area. h I CITY OF SO UTH B URLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. 5. The applicant shall submit lighting cut sheets and a point -by -point plan with the submittal of the preliminary plat application. They shall be in compliance with the SBLDR. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff feels the proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Pedestrian movement is adequate. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Given the use on the subject property as a single family dwelling, staff finds the parking layout acceptable and harmonious with other buildings of its type in the area. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff has already addressed the issue of building height pertaining to this site. Again, the applicant shall provide more information as part of the preliminary plat application. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch doc (t) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted photos of the existing structure, which is to be similar to the existing homes in the area. Staff finds the structure in compliance with these criteria. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel there is need for additional access or reservation of land. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already stated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). As the subject property contains a single family residential unit, the trash is likely kept in the interior of the building. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As this is a single family residential unit, there is no minimum landscaping budget. However, all existing landscaping on site shall be shown future plans. 6. The plans shall be revised to reflect all existing landscaping on site. Furthermore, all existing landscaping on site shall be maintained. As a Planned Unit Development with site plan components, removal of any landscaping must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board. To ensure that this is recognized and respected by future property owners, staff recommends that the applicant record a Notice of Conditions which clearly identifies the property as a PUD and itemizes all restrictions on the parcel. 7. The applicant shall record a "Notice of Conditions" which clearly identifies the property as a Planned Unit Development and itemizes all restrictions, including any site plan changes, on the parcel prior to issuance of the zoning permit. CITY OF SOUTH B URLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\lieberman\lieberman sketch.doc OTHER Staff notes that the subject lot is a conforming lot. There is nothing unique or otherwise limiting in its shape or size. The required setback lines allow for a sizeable building envelope. The Board should consider this application as though the applicant were proposing the waivers on a vacant lot, prior to construction, and not solely on the need to correct unpermitted errors. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board focus on the applicant's request for front and side setback waivers through a Planned Unit Development application. Respectfully submitted, 1 athyar LaRose, Associate Planner Copy to: Terry and Beth Lieberman, Property Owner Jon Anderson, Contact Mark Sperry, Representative for John and Joyce Belter, abutting property owners File BURRK,,A DERSON �L MELLONI PLC Counsellors at Laxv VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael L. Burah Jon Andenym Thomas It. Dlclloni" Michael B. Itoscnberg• Shane W. McCormack"r W. Scott Fem ell o .1nja Freiburg Dal id A1: ltugh Gateway Square • 30 Main Street Post Office Box 787 Burlington, Ncnnont 05402.0787 Phone: 802 862-0500 Fax: 802 862-8176 thou Lcum 'Also admitted in Nca )orl, 'Also admitted in iMarrlaod •Also admitted iu the Dktriei of Colombia admitted in SL"aeho.ettn "Also admitted in Conocetiew k I'enoSchania March 24, 2008 Re: Lieberman Preliminary Plat and Fill Placement Applications, 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Belair: Please find enclosed the preliminary plat application for a planned unit development and an application for fill placement at 44 Country Club Drive. Please let me know if the application is incomplete in any way, and we look forward to meeting with you soon. Surely LIZ David W. Rugh, Esq. DWR/alb Enclosure S:\Client Matters\80286\Letters\dwr belaindoc TERRY AND BETHANY LIEBERMAN' S PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FILL PLACEMENT APPLICATIONS Prepared by: BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONI, PLC Counselors at Law 30 Main Street P.O. BOX 787 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0787 Telephone 802/862-0500 Facsimile 802/862-8176 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR LIEBERMAN PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FILL PLACEMENT APPLICATIONS 1) Application for Subdivision Plat Review -Preliminary Plat 2) Application for the Development Review Board — Fill Placement 3) Project Commentary 4) Abutters List 5) Notice of Conditions To Be Recorded Upon Final PUD Approval 6) Pictures of Lieberman House a) Front of Liebermans' house b) View of northeasterly side and evergreen trees in CMP easement c) View of southwesterly side d) View southwesterly side and southerly neighbors' house e) View driveway and northerly neighbors' house on either side of CMP easement f) View northeasterly side with side and rear porches and rear yard g) View of rear of house with rear porch, looking southwesterly h) View evergreen trees in CMP easement i) View of trees in CMP easement northerly of the Liebermans' back yard j) View rear yard with cedar trees and fence at top of bank extending behind the Liebermans' house k) View from top of bank looking towards Liebermans' rear property line 7) Preliminary Plat Plans — five copies + one 11' x 17' 8) Plan Showing Pre -Fill Elevations — five copies + one 11' x 17' 9) Plan Showing After Fill Elevations — five copies + one 11' x 17' 10) Lighting Cut Sheet 11) Lighting Point -By -Point Plan S \Chen Matters\80286\Lcgal\Preliminary Plat and Fill Application Table of Contents doc Subdivision Plat Application Permit Number SD - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW iz Preliminary ❑ Final PUD Being Requested? Ki Yes ❑ No All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman, 21 Johnson Circle, North Andover, MA 01845 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 748, Page 505 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Terry and Bethany Lieberman Contact information same as above 4. CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Jon Anderson, Esq. , David W. Rugh, Esq., Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787; (802) 862-0500; (802) 862-8176 fax a. Contact email address: drugh@vtlawl . com 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 44 Country Club Drive 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0480-00044 1 Subdivision Plat Application 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General Project Description (describe what you are proposing): Single lot PUD for a single-family home b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): Two-story single-family home c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Existing 1,780 ft2 two-story single-family house d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): 1,780 square foot single-family house, garage, side and back porch, and front steps e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): 27 feet, basement and two stories f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): One g. Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): N/A h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): N/A Subdivision Plat Application i. List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. No changes proposed other than a small waiver of front and side setbacks 9. LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a. Size of Parcel: 11,095 square feet (acres /sq. ft.) b. Building Coverage: Existing 1, 780 square feet 16 Proposed Same square feet Same % c. Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc): Existing 2,350 square feet 21 % Proposed Same square feet Same % d. Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only): Existing square feet % Proposed square feet % 9. WETLAND INFORMATION a. Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? ❑ Yes z No b. If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands Iassociated 50' buffers (describe) j c. If yes, please submit the following with this application: f 1. A site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City's wetland map. 2. Response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development I Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria) 3 Subdivision Plat Application No construction 10. AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: proposed SQ. FT. *Projects disturbing more than one (1) 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 (1) acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 11. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ N/A b. Landscaping: $ N/A Please submit itemized list of landscaping proposed) c. Other site improvements (please list with cost) Existing single-family home to remain, no new construction 12. 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): 13. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 14. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: As soon as permitted 4 Subdivision Plat Application 16. PLEASE LIST ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, INCLUDING THOSE ACROSS THE STREET. You may attach on a separate sheet. 17. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best oo y knowledge. l SIGNAT/ E OF APPLICANT I NATURE OFP OPERTY OWN; PRINT NAM Do not write below this line 5 DATE OF SUBMISSION. '� q I L I have reviehed this preliminary plat application and find it to be: �❑ complete ❑ Incomplete Director of glanning & Zoning or n- Subdivision Plat Application ee Date Subdivision Plat Application EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. o Complete survey of property by a licensed land surveyor drawn to scale (20 ft. is preferred). o Name, license number, seal, and contact number of licensed land surveyor & date prepared. o Survey data (acreage, property lines, zoning boundaries, watercourse, base flood elevation, etc.) o Location of easements, public lands, r.o.w.s, sidewalks, and public or private street (w/names) o Five foot contours (existing and finished) o Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. o Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks, and other public opens spaces. o Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. o Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative water supply. o Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. o Details of storm water facilities in the form of a drainage plan. o Details of all proposed bridges or culverts. o Location of temporary markers. o All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and associated conditions. o A list of waivers desired (if any). o Development timetable (including number of phases and start and completion dates). o A report addressing planned residential/unit development criteria of the Zoning Regulations. o Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety and size). o Location of abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping o Number and location of parking spaces ( see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations) o Number and location of handicapped spaces (see Section 26.253(a) of the Zoning Regulations) o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard o Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be downcasting and shielded. o Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened) o Bicycle rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations o If restaurant is proposed, provide number seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats Subdivision Plat Application APPLICATION FEE Please call the Planning & Zoning office for fee information. 802-846-4106 Permit Number - - APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide 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 hearing. Type of application check one: ( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) ( ) Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance (x) Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) Section 3.12 (A) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? None. Approval of DRB required for fill placement 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman, 21 Johnson Circle, North Andover MA 01845 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 748, Page 505 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Terry and Bethany Lieberman Contact information same as above 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Jon Anderson, Esq., David W. Rugh, Esq., Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787; (802) 862-0500; (80Z) 862-8176 (fax) 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 44 Country Club, Drive 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0480-00044 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use 1,780 square foot single—familv house b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) ISame, existing single—family house c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 1,780 square feet 1 d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) 27 feet, two stories with basement e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) One f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) Not annlicable g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, I please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): Approval sought for existing 160 cubic yards of clean fill placed to level and expand back yard 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 16 % Proposed Same % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 21 % Proposed Same % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % (does not apply to residential uses) 2 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ N/A b) Landscaping: $ N/A c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): No modification to existing single—family house or property 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 ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). 3 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. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT �i" �. (-l(.` i(-� ��E��' �,.++,NATURE F PROPERTY I �J Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have r eviewe is site plan application and find it to be: Zy Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of_] & Zoning or Designee 4 Date EXHIBIT A PLAN The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a final plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information, Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. o Complete survey of property by a licensed land surveyor drawn to scale (20 ft. is preferred). o Name, license number, seal, and contact number of licensed land surveyor & date prepared. o Survey data (acreage, property lines, zoning boundaries, watercourse, base flood elevation, etc.) o Location of easements, public lands, r.o.w.s, sidewalks, and public or private street (w/names) o Five foot contours (existing and finished) o Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. o Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks, and other public opens spaces. o Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. o Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative water supply. o Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. o Details of storm water facilities in the form of a drainage plan. o Details of all proposed bridges or culverts. o Location of temporary markers. o All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and associated conditions. o A list of waivers desired (if any). o Development timetable (including number of phases and start and completion dates). o A report addressing planned residential/unit development criteria of the Zoning Regulations. o Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety and size). o Location of abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping o Number and location of parking spaces ( see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations) o Number and location of handicapped spaces (see Section 26.253(a) of the Zoning Regulations) o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard o Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be downcasting and shielded. o Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened) o Bicycle rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations o If restaurant is proposed, provide number seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats APPLICATION • FEE Fee $85.00* * Includes $10.00 recording fee ABUTTERS LIST FOR 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE William & Melinda Cooper 42 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 Janine Kirchgassner 45 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 Neil & Patricia Loller 46 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter — owners of 102 Ethan Allen Drive 2 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 S \Client Mattes\80286\Legal\abuttns list doc 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE — NOTICE OF CONDITIONS The following Conditions shall be run with the land, and be binding and enforceable upon receipt by Terry and Bethany Lieberman of planned unit development ("PUD") approval from the City of South Burlington Development Review Board for the single-family house constructed on Lot 48 in the Country Club Estates subdivision, located at 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. 1. Any material modifications to this project, as approved by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board shall require an amendment to the permit. I 2. By acceptance of the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board without appeal, the applicant agrees to allow representatives from the City of South Burlington access to the subject property to assure compliance with the permit. I 3. By acceptance of the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board without appeal, the applicant confirms for themselves and all assigns and successors in interest that the conditions of the I permit shall run with the land and the land uses herein permitted, and will be binding upon and enforceable against the applicant and all assigns and successors in interest. 4. The subject property has been approved as a PUD pursuant to the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board on .2008. 5. Pursuant to its approval as a PUD, any changes to the subject property, including changes, removal or modifications to the single-family house, its landscaping, screening, lighting, access, or any other feature, shall be subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board and will require additional approval(s) for such modifications. 6. The City of South Burlington Development Review Board maintains continuing jurisdiction during the lifetime of the permit, and may periodically require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the conditions of the permit are being adhered to. 7. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions shall constitute a violation of the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board. S \Ghent Mattets\80286\Legal\Notice of Conditions doc rr southhurlington PLANNING & ZONING March 26, 2008 Terry & Bethany Lieberman 21 Johnson Circle North Andover, MA 01845 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 abuttin ro e owners to make aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the pp (cation development. g p d rty 9 proposed Also enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda. Please note that the agenda also includes another application for the property at 44 Country Club Drive. This is for miscellaneous approval to alter the grade of the property. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulator proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to a y evelopment approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." Please call our office at 846-4106 if you have any questions. Sincerely Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. cc: Jon Anderson, Esq. & David Rugh, Esq. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com PC ;w 0 konAll W116L I :6.0�11 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 25, 2008 William & Melinda Cooper 42 Country Club 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 that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Also enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for 4/15/08, Please note that the agenda also includes another application for the property at 44 Country Club Drive. This is for miscellaneous approval to alter the grade of the property. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com r NO southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 25, 2008 Janine Kirchgassner 45 Country Club 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 that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Also enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for 4/15/08. Please note that the agenda also includes another application for the property at 44 Country Club Drive. This is for miscellaneous approval to alter the grade of the property. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." 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, "I Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802,846.4101 www.sburl,com southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 25, 2008 Neil & Patricia Loller 46 Country Club 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 that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Also enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for 4/15/08. Please note that the agenda also includes another application for the property at 44 Country Club Drive. This is for miscellaneous approval to alter the grade of the property. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimon a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." y' 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, g ---66N " �Z� Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 te1 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com r �lei s southburlington qzp PLANNING & ZONING March 25, 2008 John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an applicatio for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you n aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Also enclosed is a copy of the draft agenda for 4/15/08. Please note that the agenda also includes another application for the property at 44 Country Club Drive. This is for miscellaneous approval to alter the grade of the property. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulator proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to a y eveloment approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that art cppati n in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimon statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." y' a If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this offic at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. e Sincerely, g Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com legals hearing will be held unless, on before April 8, 2008, a party ifies the District Commission an issue or issues requiring presentation of evidence at earing or the commission sets matter for hearing on its n motion. Any hearing request 11 be in writing to the address ow, shall state the criteria or criteria at issue, why a hearing equired and what additional fence will be presented at hearing. Any hearing request an adjoining property owner )therinterested person must .ude a petition for party status. rr to submitting a request for earing, please contact the dis- t coordinator at the telephone fiber listed below for more rrmation. Prior to convening a ring, the District Commission ;t determine that substantive res requiring a hearing have n raised. Findings of Fact and clusions of Law will not be Jared unless the Commission Is a public hearing. uld a hearing be held on this jest and you have a disability which you are going to need )mmodation, please notify us kpril 8, 2008. ies entitled to participate are Municipality, the Municipal ruing Commission, the Re- ial Planning Commission, Aning property, owners, other rested persons granted party us pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 5(c). Non-party participants also be allowed under 10 A. § 6085(c)(5). !d in Essex Junction, Vermont, 12th day of March 2008. 's/Peter E. Keibel iral Resources Board rict #4 Coordinator West Street !x Junction, VT 05452 02-879-5658 eter.keibeL@state.vt.us 250 NOTICE OR APPLICATION /.S.A. §§ 6001-6092 Aarch 7, 2008, Technology Partners, filed application )190-8D for a project generally ribed as: rges to the entrance plaza, :ation of the sidewalk, addi- of a sidewalk to the parking deletion of the recreation relocation of the MTC cabi- shift the ROW of Community incorporation of revised spot 44 find it here'. msevendaym.com No hearing will be held unless, on or before April 8, 2008, a party notifies the District Commission of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shall be in writing to the address below, shall state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the dis- trict coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by April 8, 2008. Parties entitled to participate are the Municipality, the Municipal Planning Commission, the Re- gional Planning Commission, adjoining property owners, other interested persons granted party status pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c). Non-party participants may also be allowed under 30 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(5). Dated in Essex Junction, Vermont, this 13th day of March 2008. By /s/Peter E. Keibel Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802-879-5658 E/ peter.keibel@state.vt.us CHARLOTTE PLANNING COM- MISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Title 24 Chapter 117 V.S.A. and the Charlotte Land Use Regulations, the Charlotte Planning Commission will meet on Thursday April 17, 2008 at the Town Hall to hear the following application: 7:30 PM Final Plan Hearing for David Schermerhorn for a 4 lot subdivision reviewed as a Planned Residential Development. Property is located at 383 Hinesburg Road Application material can be viewed at the Planning and Zoning Local Federation Applicants or Local Unaffiliated Organization Applicants may obtain 2008 appli- cation forms by visiting http:// www.opm.gov/cfc/Charities/mod- elcharityapp.asp. Completed applications must be submitted to Green Mountain United Way; 963 Paine Turnpike N#2, Montpelier, VT 05602-9163, Attn: Nancy Zorn by Wednesday April 9, 2008. 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, April 15, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Final plat application #SD-08- 18 of John Larkin and Cupola Golf Course to amend a previously ap- proved planned unit development consisting of five (5) multi -family dwellings for a total of 160 units and a 40 unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the width of the proposed public street from 30 ft to 28 ft and 2) site modifica- tions to the two (2) multi -family dwellings on Larkin lot #2, Quarry Hill Road. 2. Final plat application #SD-08- 19 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna for a boundary line adjustment be- tween two (2) previously approved lots, 1450 Hinesburg Road. 3: Preliminary plat application #SD-08-20 of Terry & Bethany Lieberman for a planned unit development consisting of one (1) lot developed with a single family dwelling. The purpose of the PUD is to obtain approvals for waivers to allow the building to encroach three (3) feet into the side set- back and 6.75 feet into the front setback, 44 Country Club Drive. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. March 26, 2008 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S0179-07 CnC Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Plaintiff V. Stephen J. Morisseau, Amy L. Morisseau f/k/a Amy L. Demore, Beneficial Mortgage Co. of New Hampshire And Occupants residing at 77 Milton Falls Court, Milton, Vermont, Defendants Being Unit No. 4 along with 16.66 percent of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities of the Milton Falls II Condominium, so-called, situated on Lot No. 20 depicted on a survey entitled, Mil- ton Falls Subdivision Phase I and II, Milton Vermont Property Plat, drawn by Leonard Lamoureux, Dated April 21, 1988 and Recorded in Map Slide #32-B of the Land Records of the Town of Milton. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Milton. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlington, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. By: Corey J. Fortin, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. SO453-06 CnC Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Plaintiff V. Robert L. Inselberg, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, Denis O'Brien, Isela O'Brien And Occupants resid- ing at 77 Westall Drive Extension, Richmond, Vermont, Defendants NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in a certain mortgage given by Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB to Robert L. Inselberg dated January 10, 2005 and recorded in Volume 161, Page 371 of the Land Records of the Town of Richmond, of which mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purposes of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auction at 10:00 A.M. on April 16, 2008, at 77 Westall Drive Exten- sion, Richmond, Vermont all and singular the premises described in said mortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to the Mort- gagor herein by Warranty Deed of Denis P. O'Brien and Isela M. O'Brien dated January 10, 2005, and recorded in Volume 161, Page 369 of the Town of Richmond Land Records. Armel Mends -Cole And Occupants residing at 122 Shelburne Road, Burlington, Vermont, Defendants NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in a certain mortgage given by Countrywide Home Loans, -Inc. to Armel Mends -Cole dated October 23, 2006 and recorded in Volume 978, Page 253 of the Land Records of the Town of Burlington, of which mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purposes of foreclos- ing the same will be sold at Public Auction at 2:15 P.M. on April 2, 2008, at 122 Shelburne Road, Burlington, Vermont all and singular the premises described in said mortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to Travis Lapointe and Karra Gonyeau by Warranty Deed of Jutta Rentrop and Wilhelm Rentrop dated April 24, 2004 and of record in Volume 868, Page 172 of the Burlington Land Records. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Burlington. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlington, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S0363-07 CnC LaSalle Bank National Associa- tion, as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2006, GSAMP Trust 2006-HE3, Plaintiff V. Richard C. Rearic, Mortgage Elec- tronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for SouthStar Funding, LLC And Occupants residing at 125 Kennedy Drive, Unit 21, South Burlington, Vermont, Defendants NOTICE OF SALE By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in a cer- tain mortgage given by SouthStar Fundinq, LLC to Richard C_ Rearir D G P, D G P V. Ti El Ir H rE 51 D, B, th a cr Ti 2( PZ th in pr cc fo sa tir at Br la m, To BE pr lei C. Ju un of Te pa tir at th pri sa ov r 40 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 11, 2008 Jon Anderson, Esq. David Rugh, Esq. Burak Anderson Melloni PO Box 787 Burlington, VT 05402-0787 Re: 44 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Rugh: 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, April 15, 2008 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, TCW%2� Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TERRY AND BETHANY LIEBERMAN' S SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION Prepared by: BURAK ANDERSON & MELLONI, PLC Counselors at Law 30 Main Street P.O. BOX 787 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0787 Telephone 802/862-0500 Facsimile 802/862-8176 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR LIEBERMAN SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION 1) Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan Review 2) Abutters List 3) Project Commentary 4) Pictures of Lieberman House a) Front of Liebermans' house b) View of northeasterly side and evergreen trees in CMP easement c) View of southwesterly side d) View southwesterly side and southerly neighbors' house e) View driveway and northerly neighbors' house on either side of CMP easement f) View northeasterly side with side and rear porches and rear yard g) View of rear of house with rear porch, looking southwesterly h) View evergreen trees in CMP easement i) View of trees in CMP easement northerly of the Liebermans' back yard j) View rear yard with cedar trees and fence at top of bank extending behind the Liebermans' house k) View from top of bank looking towards Liebermans' rear property line 5) Sketch Plans — five copies + one 1 F x 17' S \Client Matters\80286\Legal\Sketch Plan Table of Contents doc Permit Number SD- = - (�'A APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax # Terry R. and Bethany Lieberman, 21 Johnson Circle, North Andover, MA 01845 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 748, Page 505 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Terry and Bethany Lieberman, contact information same as above 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) Fee simple, joint tenants 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Jon Anderson, David W. Rugh, Burak Anderson & Melloni, plc, P.O. Box 787, Burlington, VT 05402-0787; (802) 862-0500; (802) 862-8176 fax 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 44 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, VT 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0480-00044 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 2-story single-family house b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) Same, existing single-family house c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 1,780 ft2-existing house, garage, side and back porch and front steps 1 d) Proposed height of building (if applicable) same as now - 2 stories and pitched roof e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain 1 existing single-family house f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) Minor 1-lot PUD application to modify front and side setbacks 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 16 % Proposed Same b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 21 % Proposed Same c) Front yard (along each street) Existing 16 % Proposed Same 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) 5-foot easement for utilities on side and rear lot lines; 40-foot right-of-way for sewer on northerly side of lot 1 1) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) None 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet) 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE As soon as possible 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is $125. 1 I hereby certify that all the information re que ted as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knoyAgdge. A SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT vATURE F PROPERT u Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: F- Com 1 p ete Z--) El Incomplete of ning & Zoning or Designee 3 EXHIBIT A SKETCH PLAN The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (I V x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses, o Name and address of owner of record and applicant. o Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. o Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. o Location map showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. o Boundaries and area of all contiguous land belonging to the owner of record. o Boundaries and area of the proposed subdivision. o Existing and proposed layout of property lines. o Type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land (easements, covenants, etc.). o Location, names and widths of existing and proposed streets or private ways. o Existing zoning boundaries. o Existing watercourses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. o Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. o Number and location of parking spaces (see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations). o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. o A list of waivers desired (if any). o All applicable information required for a site plan application shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, planned unit development, or planned residential development (please see site plan application). APPLICATION FEE ❑ Sketch Plan Application $125.00 4 ABUTTERS LIST FOR 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE William & Melinda Cooper 42 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 Janine Kirchgassner 45 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 Neil & Patricia Loller 46 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter — owners of 102 Ethan Allen Drive 2 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 S \Ghent Matters\80286\Legal\abutteis list doc ;� £� ,.�, .N.�, ; ..,� � Y, `�� f f lu r� „��tr�r,�Ill� _ _~ 5 ,� „- ,: .»:. Y i �` :. � � � - a� Y `� �{j .� $ N � � ; o- « �� - $. � � �s �i � ��.. ' � � � r; .� c �, d � - �� t � t ccq i �` 2 � j/ ♦ A ST �``' � � P $ 1�1A R s ` yz k � �� ,T•( T � � �� jyj� �i�` i, � .. `.:� _ ,,d 1 � �1* iie' Y � 'r s +R, ..v�r. � �.1, � � t ;cal k ,� z ., Oz ,gam t 1 •„r :� vw t a v A i x .n WR �` yn%M�f`1Fl 'n f -rc fd" xa G A a MF ° 'er ^ � I ,r 4 a�sMAYkImh�M a P'A^4a54w�h r � v p :,t , e. 7,4 Is , ��a r.a , I1I � k a . ^ffi' :e .• .. ". wW war. r r„ a , � Lr I kk Tt ,y4 w All vlo VS �" say,"x � .•'' � ,�• w i i �a. r�K y� y ai „ .'••-, f",.aA " �r�;wi�ir`!�,,,, �"s,. vw.,`.. ,•,°a,.,h 'IW O, fI1�ww-;-.; ^� ,s,��r,_..+.. "+!x . v — , . j s 0�% ALMwri� FIRM, 1 �t &y eyM� 1 ^C � 1 0 i ' a r � i Sa i;"a uW s 0 n 3 .y 3a� s� 4Ye n t a �' No Text c »«\\ 5 y No Text 0 m 11 mw�� h k IN, N' a �$ TO f CEDAR o 00 001 0.01 0.01 0.01 000 001 001 001 002 0.01 0.01 0.01 0,02 ON ONO3 0 01 0.02 0.04 0�E0 07 O O O 001 002 004 \ \ B 0 T TOM OF BANK 0.01 \ \ NEW TOP OF BA NK 002 0.03 0.02 0,04 002 0, 0.03 0.02 )910/f,03 0.02 0 01 \ 0,01 LOT 48 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.02 ALL LIGHTS 100 WATT INCANDESCENT MOUNTED AT A HEIGHT OF 7' EXCEPT FOR THE EAST FACING DECK LIGHT WHICH IS MOUNTED 14' ABOVE GROUND LEVEL LEGEND IRON PIPE -ROD FOUND 1 " IRON PIPE TO BE SET GAS LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD POWER LINE AS MARKED IN FIELD SEWER LINE WA TER VALVE EXISTING HOUSE LIGHT 100 WATT INCANDESCENT BULB 013 0.08 012 005 004 005 0.02 0.02 0.02 COON TR Y CL UB • -G -S 60 FT. RIGHT OF D4 N He wetted by UUft 293 on 3/21rM N615 PM 002 001 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.02 018 007 002 018 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 1 22.76 ' DRI VE WA Y TOP OF BANK 0 LIGHTING PLAN FOR TERRY & BETHANY LIEBERM" 44 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT OLEARY-BURKE CIVIL ASSOCIAPES 1 CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE #1 ESSEX JUNCTION, VT 05452 (802) 878-9990 DA TE MARCH 21, 2008 DRA WN PJO PROJECT 8007