The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0050 White Street (2)Mr. Ray Belair Administrative Office City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Project 03055.00.13 South Burlington Traffic Reviews Professional Services from March 01, 2013 to March 31, 2013 Professional Personnel Jacquemart, Georges Totals Total Labor Billings to Date Labor Totals April 17, 2013 Invoice No: Hours Rate 2.00 215.00 2.00 trot• PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT TO: BUCKHURST FISH 9ACQUEMART, ;PAC 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T.212.353,74174 F.212.353.7404 03055.00.6 - 4 Amount 430.00 430.00 430.00 Total Amount Due $430.00 Current Prior Total Received 430.00 2,000.00 2,430.00 430.00 2,000.00 2,430.00 2,000.00 Project 03055.00.E South Burlington Traffic Reviews Invoice 4 Billing Backup Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. Wednesday, April 17, 2013 Invoice 4 Dated 4/17/2013 11:29:09 AM Project 03055.00.E South Burlington Traffic Reviews Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount 00156 Jacquemart, Georges 3/18/2013 2.00 215.00 430.00 Maccu Totals 2.00 430.00 Total Labor 430.00 Total this Project $430.00 Total this Report $430.00 Page 2 USPS.com® - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 English Customer Service USPS Mobile USPS , Quick Tools Ship a Package Send Mail Manage Your Mail Track & Confirm GET EMAIL UPDATES PRINT DETAILS YOUR LABEL NUMBER SERVICE 70100290000022155242 Check on Another Item What's your label (or receipt) number? Register / Sign In Search USPS.com or Track Packages Shop Business Solutions STATUS OF YOUR ITEM DATE 8 TIME LOCATION FEATURES Delivered April 19, 2013, 11:27 am ESSEX Certified Mail - JUNCTION, VT 05452 Arrival at Unit April 19, 2013, 7:37 am ESSEX JUNCTION, VT 05452 Processed at USPS April 19, 2013, 4:23 am ESSEX Origin Sort Facility JUNCTION, VT 05452 Depart USPS Sort April 18, 2013 ESSEX Facility JUNCTION, VT 05452 '.. Processed at USPS April 18, 2013, 11:01 pm ESSEX Origin Sort Facility JUNCTION, VT 05452 Depart USPS Sort April 18, 2013 ESSEX Facility JUNCTION, VT 05452 Dispatched to Sort April 18, 2013. 3:50 pm SOUTH Facility BURLINGTON, VT 05403 Acceptance April 18, 2013, 3:18 pm SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 Find LEGAL ON USPS.COM Privacy Policy > Government Services > Terms of Use I Buy Stamps & Shop, FOIA , Print a Label with Postage No FEAR Act EEO Data, Customer Service > Site Index , Copyright® 2013 USPS. All Rights Reserved ON ABOUT.USPS.COM About USPS Home, Newsroom , Mail Service Updates , Forms & Publications , Careers , OTHER USPS SITES Business Customer Gateway > Postal Inspectors > Inspector General, Postal Explorer , https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction.action 4/22/2013 0iq south uThn. tom PLANNING & ZONING April 18, 2013 Re: #SP-13-04 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board concerning your recent application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) mnnthc If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincer , r R ymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL -Return Receipt Requested # 7010 0290 0000 2215 5242 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: March 28, 2013 P:\Development Review Board\Staff Application received: January 28, 2013 Comments\2013\SP 13 04 50WhiteStreet MACCU.doc Members Advantage Community Credit Union 50 WHITE STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-13-04 Agenda #7 Meeting Date: April 2, 2013 Owner/Applicant Members Advantage Community Credit Union PO Box 745 Barre, VT 05641 Contact Person Property Information David Burke O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive Suite 1 Essex, Jct VT 05452 Location Map r • e 7 w • r 9 'Y . 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Members Advantage Community Credit Union, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting site plan review to amend a previously approved plan for a 2,500 sq. ft. drive-in bank facility. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 703 sq. ft. addition, 2) reducing the number of drive-in lanes to two (2), and 3) increasing the number of parking spaces, 50 White Street. COMMENTS City Planner Cathyann LaRose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the revised plans submitted on January 28, 2013 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS C1 R12 ZoningDistrict Required Proposed w Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 0.89 acres (no changes) Max. Building Coverage 40% 8.2% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 49% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. No changes proposed Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. Minimum Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. �► Front yard coverage 30% 36.2% no changes proposed) �l Zoning Compliance +� Preexisting non-compliance. The lot is actually proposed to be increased in size, not decreased. There are no changes to the height of the building. The proposed addition is within the limitations of the district. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site Dlan armlications: 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING The applicant is proposing an addition of 703 sf to be located to the rear of the building. Access around the site is adequate. The applicant is providing a 13 foot one-way drive around the east side of the building, which widens to greater than 20 feet on the north and west. Based on 3203 square feet of drive through bank use, the proposed building will require 19 parking spaces. The plans provide for 19 parking spaces, including one handicap accessible. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s), or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all buildings) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The majority of the site is pre-existing. Therefore, subsection (b)(iv) applies. The proposed expansion is minor in size relative to the entirety of the property and does not meet a threshold to warrant the movement of what parking already exists. Staff does not propose any changes to the parking layout on site. Section 13.01(G)(5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A bicycle rack is shown on the plans. 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. There are no changes proposed to the height of the existing building. The addition is within the 35' height maximum for the zoning district. 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. 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. The applicant has submitted elevations. 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. See staff notes above on this criterion. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: 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 find the reservation of any additional land is warranted as part of this application. There is an existing connection to the property to the east (Post Office). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 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). The plans show a proposed dumpster, adequately screened. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. The applicant has submitted landscaping plans which exceed the minimum required landscaping budget. These were reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans should show snow storage areas for the subject property. The plans depict adequate snow storage areas. Lighting 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. All lighting shall be shielded and downcast. 1. All lighting shall be downcast and shielded. Flood lighting is expressly prohibited. Existing flood lights shall be removed and all lighting shall be brought into compliance with the existing ordinance. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Other- Traffic The bank building is proposed to be enlarged. However, the applicant has also stated that one of the drive through lanes is to be removed. As a result of this change, the estimated traffic generation is to be decreased from 79 pm peak vehicle trip ends to 73. The addition of the adjacent lot will add to the maximum potential vehicle trip ends. The amount is to be determined; staff expects it to be provided in time for the meeting. See report from applicant's traffic expert, Roger Dickenson and technical review memo by Georges Jacquemart. Staff recommends that the Board invoke technical review after the fact (the applicant has already agreed to this). Respectfully submitted, 4'. Cathya n LaRose, AICP, City Planner SAME, southburlington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SP-- D (office use only APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ❑ Administrative 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. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax ft Members Avantage Community Credit Union (MACCU) attn: Sean Gammon, Cheif Executive Officer P.O. Box 745 Barre, VT 05641 Ph: 479-9411; Fax: 479-3533 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): Vol. 1099, pages 37 - 38 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): Same as Owner 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. 111CILIde name. address, phone & fax #): David Burke, O'Leary, O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 1, Essex Jct., VT 05452 Ph: 878-9990, Fax: 878-9989 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS: dwburke@olearyburke.com 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: #50 White Street 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): Map 21, Parcel 180000050C 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): A proposed 703 s.f. (18' x 39'-1 ") expansion of the existing Bank. b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): 2,500 s.f. Merchant's Bank building. c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): 3,203 s.f. building (2,500 s.f. existing + 703 s.f. proposed) building for Members Advantage Community Credit Union (MACCU). d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): 3,203 s.f. total (2,500 s.f. existing + 703 s.f. proposed). e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): One Story Existing structure. Expansion to match existing approx. 16'-8" peak. f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): N/A. g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): 9 Existing (max.); 9 proposed (max.). h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): Members Advantage Community Credit Union (MACCU) also owns 12 White Street which abuts the westerly side of the 50 White Street parcel. In the 1996 Planning Commission Approval of a Site Plan Amendment for Merchants Bank Findings of Fact #9 that 50 White Street had not merged with 12 White Street. 50 White Street is subject to Traffic Overlay Zone 3 (45 PHT / 40,000 s.f. lot); 82 PHT grandfathered based on 3 existing drive-in lanes. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: 38,935 sf (0.89 Acres) a. Building: Existing 6.4 % (< 40% max.) 2,500 sq. ft. Proposed 8.2 % (< 40% max.) 3,203 sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 50.9% (> 70% max.) 19,820 sq. ft. Proposed 49.0%; *55.0 (70% max.) 19,060 sq. ft.; *21,425 sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing 36.2 % 2,545 sf / 7,023 sf Proposed 36.2 % 2,545 sf / 7,023 sf d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) 12,000 s.f. (0.28 Acres; < 0.5 Acres) * 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): $105,000 b. Landscaping: $ 3,150 (> 3%) c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): $ 40,000 Reconstruct back parking / circulation area. 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 41 PHT In / 41 PHT Out (82 PHT; No change) 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Mondays - Fridays; 9 - 12 Saturdays 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Monday - Friday 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: Spring - Early Summer 2013 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)' regular size copies, one reduced copy (I I" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application in accordance 'th the city's fee schedule. C Administrative site plan applications require three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. 3 Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. 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 CCEo , /I Prrcv) tip - SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line G. PRINT NAME 5 F- AN G a,","o v DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: �DeveloP ment Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: ly/complete ❑ Inco let mm trative Officer Date The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 8 79-56 76 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 DUILDING MOUNTED LUMINAKE DETAIL NTS PERFORMED DY NICOLE SWAN5ON. NUSERYMAN A5 SUB -CONSULTANT TO TK LANDSCAPE ARGHITELT5 Landscaping Schedule (1:1r000sed) / [XIS,RAS RCOV PbE \1 / CIA- XGV fIK Eyl>fWe FEIX.E = G' / l '� / >TourADe . / SAW GUT PAVEAENT UI LOGATIONS SHOWN. REMOVE EXISTING PAVFJ W, GURDING AND GRAVEL AND RECONSTRUCT \ W ITNIN SAME POOTPRIN,. \ II UDING LINE STRIPING DIRECT I— ARROWS. SEE RAN \ S ] FOR TYPIGALS. _ — — — — DETAILS ♦ SPEGIFIGATI— / I �I cnw cerE wALR / \318 �,IH WATgR IAf"GIPw EKIST IIAG n Graphic Scale (h feet 1 1 Yrh - 20 R Owner & Applicant MEMBERS ADVANTAGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION P.O. 60X #745 15ARRE, VT 05641 (802) 479 - 3533 i G S�P1 THE CONTRACTOR SMALL NO PFY 'pCSAFi AT ,�f I-BBB-DIC-SANE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. W�� I-OC811017 P/an NTs Legend PROJECT DOINJAKY ---------- OTHER PROPERTY LINE ------SOS------ GONTOIR LINE 1 U.5.G.5. DATUM 1 O EXISTING IRON PIPE ----�T�--- EXISTIN< ELEC.TRIC/TV/TELEPHONE LINE ---5---- EXISTING SEWEKLINE ---�1----- EXISTING STOKMLINE -----M---- EXISTING WATERLINE .( EXISTING/PROPOSED HYDRANT ° -- - °- EXI5TIN6 FENCE Lot Information: ZONED- C-1, COMMERCIAL I MIN. LOT 51ZE: 40,000 S.F. (36,935 S.F. EXISTING) 5ETDACK5: FRONT YARD 30 FT. 51DE YARD: 10 FT. REAR YARD: 30 FT. WATER MUNICIPAL SEWER MUNICIPAL PARKING 5.6 5PAGE5 PER 1,000 GFA REQUIRED • 19 SPACES PKOPO5EDz 19 5PAGE5 WITH ADDITIONAL FUTURE 5 SPACE PARKING AREA IDENTIFIED (24 TOTAL) Existing Lot Coverage BUILDINGS 2,500 S.Q. FT 16.4 X: <40% MAXI PAVEMENT/WALKS 17,320 S.Q. FT TOTAL 19,620 S.Q. FT (50.9X: <70% MAXI Proposed Lot Coverage BUILDINGS 3,203 5.Q• FT (6.2 X; (40% MAX.) PAVEMENT/WALKS 15,660 S.Q. FT TOTAL 19,060 S.Q. FT (49.0%: <70% MAX.) TOTAL WITH ADDITIONAL PARKING 21,425 S.Q. FT 55.07 (< 707 MAX.) PERFORMED BY TK LANDSCAPE ARGHITELT5 I EXISTING ROOF TD REMAIN EXISTING DRIVE-THRW 70 REMAIN — LuOiwll- II men NMI § = n7L6kkl"',A,1 11 � ins ��L I - mTO RE11AIN EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION ADDITION BUILDING NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING I EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN I IL NEW BRICK EXTERIOR EXISTING BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR TO REMAIN PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING BRICK EXTERIOR TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVE-THRU TO REMAIN PROVIDE �/ 5" --� J jr ROOF PROJECT DVER SHE TOF - REMOVE EXIST'G WINDOW PROVIDE NEW DRIVE UP NEW ATM WINDOW LOCATION 0 EXISTING ROOF 70 REMAIN 0 5 Z w PROP05ED REAR ELEVATION 7O47CHEXISTINGR :!iazksuii�� —PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING I ADDITION EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN ENTRY ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING FRONT ENTRY FIBERGLASS J I NEW S1DE ENTRY COLUMNS NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING CEMENT BOARD HORIZ.SIDING o x y c ioe i � � N �1 �1 ALL NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH E%ISTING NEW BRICK EXTERIOR TO MATCH EXISTING Data: Protect Nome: Sheet Nomeer: INNOVATIVE DESIGN, INC. OI-22-13 MEMBERS ADVANTAGE 8 CARMICHAEL STREET, SUITE #104 S`°I ailr =r-o COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION A 1 ESSEX JCT., VT. 05452 or.. By. South Burlington PHONE: (802) 872-8430 Vermont FAX: 872-8347 Sheet TIWe: Emoll: rmeufree•sover.net `"° N— PROPOSED ELEVATION B FJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc. 115 5th Avenue New York, NY 10003 Tel (212) 353-7474 Fax (212) 353-7494 Memorandum To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer, City of South Burlington From: Georges Jacquemart, P.E.,AICP Tel (212) 353 7477 Email g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Review of Members Advantage Community Credit Union (Maccu) Site Modification Application at 12 & 50 White Street Date: March 18, 2013 We have reviewed the letter prepared by Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE from Lamoureux & Dickinson dated March 6, 2013 regarding the Maccu Application for 12 & 50 White Street. We agree with the trip generation calculations presented by Mr. Dickinson. Since the gross floor area seems to be a slightly better independent variable compared to the number of drive -through lanes we would recommend the calculation that gives greater weight to that variable. This would mean that the site would change from an existing 79 to 73 vtes in the future, a reduction of 6 vehicle trip ends. We question, however, the credit that Mr. Dickinson claims for the removal of a future curb cut. The LDR regulations refer to the elimination of an existing driveway and also mention that the credit may be 20 vtes or, if the existing driveway generates more than 40vte, 50% of the number of trips on that particular driveway. Given that the access management advantage related to the elimination of a driveway depends on the traffic volumes using that driveway, we would not give that credit in the case where no driveway exists. However, the consolidation of the two sites will increase the land area used to calculate the traffic budget applicable to this site, and may therefore increase the allowable traffic budget, unless this budget is exceeded by the "grandfathered" traffic budget. Note that the site is located in Traffic Zone 3 and has a budget of 45 vte per 40,000 SF of land area. Please let us know if you have any questions. Page 1 of 1 ray From: David G. White [dwhite@whiteandburke.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:40 PM To: ray Cc: Roger Dickinson; Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose; David Burke Subject: MACCU - trip generation Attachments: MACCU - Dickinson trip generation letter.pdf HI Ray, I've been engaged to assist with the proposal by Members Advantage Community Credit Union to do a small expansion to the former Merchants Bank branch at 50 White Street. We've also engaged Roger Dickinson to analyze the trip generation relative to the Traffic Overlay District regulations. I've attached Roger's letter, dated March 6, 2013, addressing this question. Kindly let me know if you have any questions. Best, David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F: 802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. 3/14/2013 0 Lamoureux &t Dickinson Civil Engineers Planners Septic Designers Landscape Architects Land Surveyors March 6, 2013 David Burke O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, PLC 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 1 Essex Jct., VT 05452 RE: Members Advantage Community Credit Union 50 White Street, South Burlington Dear David, As requested, we have reviewed the proposed modifications to the former Merchants Bank at 12 Ft 50 White Street and the associated changes that wilt result to the pm peak hour vehicular trip generation. Your January 28, 2013 letter to Ray Belair outlines the proposed modifications; which include: • Consolidating the 12 White Street and 50 White Street parcels into one parcel; henceforth known as 50 White Street. As stated in your letter, this consolidation resulted from the recent property transfer of both parcels from the Merchant's Bank to Members Advantage Community Credit Union. • Expanding the existing 2,500 sf drive-in bank building to 3,203 sf. • Reducing the number of drive-in lanes from 3 to 2. By Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) definition, drive-in lanes include drive -up ATM lanes. One of the three existing drive-in lanes is a drive -up ATM lane. In reviewing the pm peak hour trip generation calculations for the above modifications, we first noted that they were based on the 8`h Edition of ITE's Trip Generation manual. That edition was recently superseded by the 9`h Edition. The calculations presented herein utilize trip generation rates from the 9`h Edition. The ITE Trip Generation manual contains drive-in bank trip generation data for three independent variables; a) employees (number of), b) gross floor area (1,000 sq. ft), and c) drive-in lanes (number of). The first independent variable, employees, falls in the "derived measurement" category of the City's Traffic Overlay District regulations, and thus is not used. The latter two independent variables are bona -fide primary measurements, and are appropriately included in the aforementioned letter. ITE literature, including the Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition and Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development, 2010, recommends that the selection of the independent variable, if a choice is available, should consider (1) measures of "best fit" (standard deviation or coefficient of determination), and (2) sample size. It is further recommended that in cases of multiple independent variables with similar measures of "best fit", the most accurately projected variable should be favored. If there is little difference in the "best fit", ITE recommends that the variable having the larger sample size be favored. 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 t: 802.878.4450 f: 802.878.3135 www.LDengineering.com ♦ 25 Years Serving Fellow Vermonters 4 David Burke March 6, 2013 Page 2 Applicable pm peak hour trip generation data from the 91h Edition of Trip Generation are shown in the following table. Only average rates are given; fitted curve equations are not available. Independent Variable Gross Floor Area Drive -In Lanes Avg. Rate (vte/hr/ksf) Standard Deviation Std. Dev. / Avg. Rate # of Studies Avg. Rate (vte/hr/ksf) Standard Deviation Std. Dev. / Avg. Rate # of Studies 24.30 16.24 67% 102 33.24 24.48 74% 85 In comparing the two independent variables; gross floor area and drive-in lanes, we find that both have a standard deviation/average rate ratio of less than 110%; which the ITE states is indicative of good fits with the data. Gross floor area does have a lower ratio; 67%, compared with 74% for drive-in lanes. Thus it could be considered to the more accurate independent variable. Although both have a large sample size, gross floor area also has the larger number. It would seem, therefore, that gross floor area should be selected as the preferred independent variable for a drive-in bank. However, both independent variables have robust sample sizes and are well below the ITE 110% threshold of having a good fit. Additionally, both attributes; gross floor area and the number of drive-in lanes, cumulatively determine the pm peak hour trip generation. It is our opinion, therefore, that a better estimate of how a drive-in bank's pm peak hour trip generation will change as the result of modifications to both independent variables can be obtained by utilizing both. Essentially, there are 187 studies of drive-in bank trip generation that are based on a primary measurement; 102 of which used gross floor area as the independent variable plus 85 that used the number of drive-in lanes. There are two ways to calculate the pm peak hour trips using both variables: The first is to simply average the two; the calculations for which follow: Existing = [(2.5 ksf x 24.30 vte/hr/ksf) + (3 drive-in lanes x 33.24 vte/hr/lane)] / 2 = 80.2 vte/hour (round to 80 vtelhour) Future = [(3.203 ksf x 24.30 vte/hr/ksf) + (2 drive-in lanes x 33.24 vte/hr/lane)] / 2 = 72.2 vte/hour (round to 72 vtelhour) The second is to give greater weight to the gross floor area due to its greater sample size; essentially assigning 55% (102/187) of the weight to gross floor area and 45% (85/187) to drive-in lanes. The calculations for this method follow: Existing = [2.5 ksf x 24.30 vte/hr/ksf x (102/187)] + [3 drive-in lanes x 33.24 vte/hr/lane x (85/187)] = 78.5 vte/hour (round to 79 vtelhour) Future = [3.203 ksf x 24.30 vte/hr/ksf x (102/187)] + [2 drive-in lanes x 33.24 vte/hr/lane x (85/187)] = 72.7 vte/hour (round to 73 vtelhour) David Burke March 6, 2013 Page 3 Regardless of which method is used, the results show that the proposed modifications will reduce the pm peak hour trip generation at 50 White Street. A further factor to consider is the consolidation of 12 White Street with 50 White Street. This effectively removes a future curb cut onto White Street. Per LDR Appendix B, Section B.3, this qualifies for a 20 vte credit. In combination with the grandfathered existing trips of either 79 or 80, this gives a total traffic budget of either 99 or 100 vte, of which only 72 or 73 will be used by the proposed Members Advantage Community Credit Union. This leaves 28 or 26 vte in reserve for potential future use on the property. Based on this, we support the outcome of your previous analyses and concur that the proposed modifications at 50 White Street will not cause the pm peak hour trip generation to exceed this site's traffic budget. Should you have any questions concerning the above, or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, � C)�, � v I jvyl�� Roge rickinson, P.E., PTOE cc. David White P:\2013\13006\burke trip generation letter.wpd David Burke From: Sent: To: Subject: OK to submit revised package. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com ray <ray@sburl.com> Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:10 AM David Burke RE: 2012-46: MACCU Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. if you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David Burke [mailto:dwburke@olearyburke.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:53 PM To: ray Subject: RE: 2012-46: MACCU Ray: In light of the timing and in order for tomorrow's submittal to address your review comments, please review the attached and additional below responses and let me know that its OK to submit revised packages. David From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:16 AM To: David Burke Cc: Cathyann La Rose Subject: RE: 2012-46: MACCU See my responses below. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information resting to uty business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David Burke[mailto:dwburke(cbolearyburke.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:31 PM To: ray Cc: Peter Heil; sgammon(-Omaccu.orq Subject: 2012-46: MACCU Ray: I was out yesterday afternoon and just received your 12:50 PM phone message from yesterday. We will provide responses to your review questions as quickly as possible, as based upon our January 28`h submittal (nearly 2 months) and the small scope of the proposal, we hope that the pending Staff Notes will allow for DRB approval at their April 2nd hearing. Based on Staff Notes being worked on, our initial responses area as follows: Drive-thru lanes / Application: The proposal per the 1/28/2013 submittal and the recent "traffic" follow-up does include removal of a drive thru lane. The inside lane will have a drive -up ATM, followed by a teller window (which will be temporarily not in use, when an ATM transaction takes place. The second lane will remain as is and the existing teller box for the third lane will be removed. We will add a note regarding 3 lanes to 2 on the application and the Plan. No other changes are necessary as the third lane was an exterior / unprotected area (see Plans); OK We have added a note to the Site Plan stating "Existing drive thru lane, call box to be removed". Lighting Details: The only "New" light is specified as a "Relocated and/or new 12' high wall pak light". This represents no change from the current 12' high wall pak light at the back center of the building. We will forward a picture of the existing light and a cut sheet for a new light, should the existing light not be utilized; If there are currently any non-downcasting light fixtures, they probably will have to be replaced with the appropriate fixture and we will need the cut -sheets. Rather than having issues with existing lighting, notes have been added to the Site Plan calling for removal of the existing flood light at a northwest corner of the existing building and replacement of the existing wall pak lights at the back center of the building and southeast corner of the building with a cut-off light fixture "New 12' high downcast light (See detail on this sheet". The detail is a previously approved fixture in South Burlington, with a 100 watt lamp. Angled Parking: The angled parking is existing per the previous Site Plan approval and will remain unchanged; What is the angle? The angle was 56 degrees and based on the LDR, Table 13-8, the combined length for the spaces and travel lane was just short. Rather than rely on the existing previously approved conditions, we have changes the striping to 50 degrees. The note on the Plan reads "Provide new line striping per LDR, Table 13-8, 50 degree parking & Handicap space symbol". Landscaping (Full Size): The Site Plan includes a "Full Size" of the Landscaping. Any additional information from the 1/28/12 submittal will be added to the Site Plan along with the Landscaper's information. When will you be able to provide the revised plans? We would like any revised plans by the end of the day tomorrow so we have an opportunity to have it reviewed by the City Arborist. The attached Site Plan has been revised to include all Landscaping information. See highlighted area at the lower left portion on the attached. As noted on the Site Plan, the proposed Landscaping was performed by TK Landscape Architects and he sub -contracted Nicole Swanson, Nurseryman as a sub -consultant to identify all of the existing landscaping. 5. 24" Dia. Spruce: This existing tree will be removed if and when the additional parking area is constructed. As stated on the Site Plan, the additional parking is "subject to approval". While the need for additional parking is not anticipated, we wanted to show the ability and specifically include the potential future impervious in the "proposed Lot Coverage" information to show that the total would remain well below the maximum allowed 70%. We are also in hopes that with the additional parking shown "subject to approval' that Staff may be afforded to possibility of Staff approval, if formally proposed. The additional landscaping to replace the value of the 24" dia. Spruce is appropriate if and when future approval for the parking is requested. Not clear if you are requesting the Board approve this additional parking area now or not. If now, we will have to treat the new lot as if it happening now or you can come back in later for approval if and when it is deemed necessary. We are not asking for Board approval, as we have not performed sufficient design for this potential future additional parking. The Site Plan is clearly marked "Additional parking subject to approval'. Per our earlier response, we wanted to show this future ability and the resulting lot coverage at well below the max. 70%. We are in hopes that if and when this additional parking is pursued that Staff will have the ability to either approve administratively and/or to ease DRB approval. We will formalize the above as soon as possible this coming week and provide you with the requisite copies. In the meantime, should you have any comments on the above, please let me know. David W. Burke 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): A proposed 703 s.f. (18' x 39'-1 ") expansion of the existing Bank. b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): 2,500 s.f. Merchant's Bank building with three (3) drive thru lanes. c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): 3,203 s.f. building (2,500 s.f. existing + 703 s.f. proposed) building for Members Advantage Community Credit Union (MACCU). Reduction from three to two drive-thru lanes. d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): 3,203 s.f. total (2,500 s.f. existing + 703 s.f. proposed). e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): One Story Existing structure. Expansion to match existing approx. 16-8" peak. f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): N/A. g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): 9 Existing (max.); 9 proposed (max.). h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): Members Advantage Community Credit Union (MACCU) also owns 12 White Street which abuts the westerly side of the 50 White Street parcel. In the 1996 Planning Commission Approval of a Site Plan Amendment for Merchants Bank Findings of Fact #9 that 50 White Street had not merged with 12 White Street. 50 White Street is subject to Traffic Overlay Zone 3 (45 PHT / 40,000 s.f. lot); 82 PHT grandfathered based on 3 existing drive-in lanes. Site Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 I � � � r I EX/5TlNG / COMA ARM LIGHT, Col 3-02 GMP � EX/5T/NG 46" � p/AA�TER WILLOW i ' ' — — _ I EX/STING 12' pIAMETER WHITE G CEDARS 1 i 1 1 I EXIST/NG I BITUMI 1 24 CURB GI OIAMMR SP RUCE 1 I � Y 1 I 1 - 011 rf-�' LA" biOYUl.4�5 ��) .SPIR4 Pmr4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 22"d day of March, 2013, a copy of the foregoing public notice for Site Plan application #SP-13-04, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the owners of all properties adjoining the subject property to development, without regard to any public right-of- way, and including the description of the property and accompanying information provided by the City of South Burlington. I further certify that this notification was provided to the following parties in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: List of recipients: (full names and addresses) Parcel ID#: 1800-00008 8 White Street LLC 8 White Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Parcel ID#: 0650-00005 Bensen Development Company LP I Executive Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Parcel ID#: 18 00-00060 Parsons & Sons Lumber 50 Woodbridge Road York, ME 03909 Parcel ID#: 1810-01272 Great Birches LLC 75 South Winooski Ave. Burlington, VT 05407 Parcel iD#: 1810-01270 E & M Realty (c/o JA Belisle) 47 Park Street Essex Jct., VT 05452 Dated at Essex, Vermont, this 22°d day of March, 2013. Printed Name: Peter F. Heil El, CPESC Phone number and email: hone: 802-878-999 ail: VheiKWleqL1Lburke.com Signature: Date: arch 22 2013 Remit to: City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Sample Ceilifcate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 �YERMONT State of Vermont AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division Essex Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Telephone: (802) 879-5656 March 15, 2013 David W. Burke O'Leary — Burke Civil Associates, PLC 1 Corporate Drive Suite #1 Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Subject: Request for an exemption determination under Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules, Section 1-304(a)(11)(A)(ii) for properties (12 White Street — The Merchants Bank Vol. 88, P. 394 and Merchants Properties, Inc., - Vols. 76, 85 Pgs. 89, 254), located off White Street, South Burlington, VT. Dear David. The Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division has concluded based on the information submitted by you (O'Leary — Burke Civil Associates, PLC) that the above referenced boundary line adjustment qualifies as exempt under Section 1-304(a)(11)(A)(ii) and no permit is required from this office. We understand all the property owners of the affected lots are in agreement with the boundary line adjustment as presented to this office. We relied entirely on the information submitted to us in issuing this opinion and the landowners are responsible for its accuracy. This letter will not prevent the Agency from taking appropriate enforcement actions should it be determined in the future that the facts were not as stated. A copy of the diagram and this letter are required to be in the City of South Burlington land Records in order to comply with the exemption criteria. For the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division A'A illiam E. Zabiloski Assistant Regional Engineer Enclosure cc: City of South Burlington ,doe `O YERMONT State of Vermont A GENCY OF NA TURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division Essex Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Telephone: (802) 879-5656 March 15, 2013 David W. Burke O'Leary — Burke Civil Associates, PLC 1 Corporate Drive Suite # 1 Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Subject: Request for a determination under Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules, Section 1-303 for an addition to an existing commercial building (50 White Street —Merchants Properties, Inc., - Vols. 76, 85 Pgs. 89, 254), located off White Street, South Burlington, VT. Dear David. The Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division has concluded based on the information submitted by you (O'Leary — Burke Civil Associates, PLC) that the above referenced project does not meet the definition of "Permit Required" under Section 1-303 and no permit is required from this office. We relied entirely on the information submitted to us in issuing this opinion and the landowners are responsible for its accuracy. This letter will not prevent the Agency from taking appropriate enforcement actions should it be determined in the future that the facts were not as stated. For the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division illiam E. Zabiloski Assistant Regional Engineer Enclosure cc: City of South Burlington Independent Technical Review Invoice Application #SP-13-04 Applicant: Members Advantage Community Credit Union Date: March 15, 2013 Sean Gammon, Chief Executive Officer MACCU PO Box 745 Barre, VT 05641 Pursuant to a decision made by the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) to invoke Technical Review of information presented as part of the above -listed application and as required by the "Planning and Zoning Fee Schedule' adopted by the South Burlington City Council on April 20, 2011 (as amended), please remit the following amount to be used to pay for the Independent Technical Review: Amount requested: $ 500 No Independent Technical Review shall be authorized by the City without receipt of these funds. The City shall hold these funds and use them only to pay for the required Independent Technical Review. If at any time the amount being held is reduced to $200, the City shall request an additional amount sufficient to cover estimates costs from the applicant prior to authorizing any further expenditures of the Independent Technical Reviewer. Following the issuance of a decision by the DRB, any unused funds shall be returned to the applicant. Further, the applicant retains, at all times, the right to request any unused funds be returned. Upon receipt of any such request, in writing, the city shall inform the Independent Technical Reviewer of this request and require that they cease any further work. Following the payment of any work done to date, the city shall return unused funds and inform the DRB that the Technical Review has been ceased at the request of the applicant. Checks should be made out to the "City of South Burlington" Please remit payments to: Raymond Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street Scuth Surlingtcn, VT 05403 tel 802.1.46.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.conl 1M*A/, iMembers so.Burlington Office Tricorp Federal Credit Union NO. 51984 Advanta,orp 340 Dorset Street, Suite 4 Westbrook, Maine 04092 The F.ducated Choice PAY ***FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS*** TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RE: WHITE ST 03/15/13 ******500.00** a6u�-� 6&�X Pagel of 8 ray From: David G. White [dwhite@whiteandburke.com] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:20 PM To: ray Cc: Paul Conner Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Hi Ray, David Burke says the small lot is 11,225 sq ft. So, 11,225 / 40,000 = 0.280625 x 45 = 12.63 trips. I assume this rounds up to 13 trips. So, 79 + 13 = 92 total trip allocation. Less 73 used for the current plans = 19 remaining for potential future use. Please confirm you agree with this. And do you need a more formal memo with this info, or is this sufficient? Best, David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE r White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F:802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/29/2013 5:06 PM, David G. White wrote: Hi Ray, I got your voice message today. Thanks. As I understand your message Jacquemart agrees that the Trip Budget for the vacant 4/15/2013 Page 2 of 8 parcel being merged can be added to the grandfathered trips on the bank parcel to determine the total available trip allocation. I believe the vacant parcel is about one -quarter acre. Based on this it would have 12 trips (one -quarter acre at 45 trips per 40K SQ FT). Added to the 79 grandfathered trips (Per Jacquemart's memo), gives a total of 91 trips for the emrged lots, of which 73 are being used for the current plan. This leaves 18 for potential future use. I've emailed David Burke asking him to double check the size of the vacant lot and verify my calculations. So please don't take the foregoing as the final word. We will plan to have the information before Tuesday's DRB hearing. Thanks for all your help with this! Best, David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE y White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F:802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/28/2013 9:51 AM, ray wrote: Hi David, In order to answer your last question, we will need to confer with Georges Jacquemart which will drive up the cost of the technical review. Are you OK with that? Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburi.com www. sbaathtosustainabil itv.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper 4/15/2013 Page 3 of 8 copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. !f you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David G. White fmailto:dwhite(a)whiteandburke.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:50 AM To: ray Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Ok. I will call in about 10 min. David Sent from my Phone. Please forgive errors and brevity. ----- Reply message ----- From: "ray" <raycr,sburl.com> To: "David G. White" <dwhite a, whiteandburke.com> Subject: MACCU - trip generation report Date: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 8:07 am Paul and I are available between 9 & 9:30 this am. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. /f you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David G. White fmailto:dwhite@whiteandburke.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:12 PM To: ray Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Hi Ray, Sounds good. How about right now? David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE X+ W+B Logo White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 4/15/2013 Page 4 of 8 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F: 802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/26/2013 3:31 PM, ray wrote: Hi David, I spoke to Paul about this and he suggested we discuss this in a conference call. Let us know if you would like to do this and if so, when. Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sboathtosustainabilitv.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David G. White[mailto:dwhite@whiteandburke.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:06 AM To: ray Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Ray, I prefer to be on the same page with staff. Will staff take a position on this? David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE r _ I I X! w+B I White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. 4/15/2013 Page 5 of 8 PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F: 802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/25/2013 11:04 AM, ray wrote: You will have to take this up with the DRB since they are the ones that approve the credits. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbr)athtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. /f you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David G. White rmailto:dwhite0whiteandburke.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:36 AM To: ray Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Ray, I'd like to resolve the question of trip credits for the forgone curb -cut. How should we do this? Best, David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE 4/15/2013 Page 6 of 8 X W+B White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P:802-862-1225 x13 F:802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/19/2013 4:42 PM, David G. White wrote: Ray, While we don't need the credits for the current project, MACCU has made a big investment and wants to know that it has future expansion potential. David David G. White, MS CED, EDFP, CCIM, CSM, CRE X W+B White+ Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. PO Box 1007 168 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1007 P: 802-862-1225 x13 F:802-862-3601 www.whiteandburke.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. 4/15/2013 Page 7 of 8 This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e- mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. On 3/19/2013 4:28 PM, ray wrote: You don't need these credits now so does it really matter? Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbr)athtosustainabilitv.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David G. White [mailto:dwhite@whiteandburke.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:20 PM To: ray Subject: Re: MACCU - trip generation report Ray, We appreciate Mr. Jacquemart's support of Roger's trip analysis. On the other hand we disagree with his question about the 20 trip 4/15/2013 Page 8 of 8, credit for the cub cut on the second lot. By law, a lot having frontage on a public highway has access rights whether it is developed or not, See 19 VSA Section 1111: "The agency or legislative body, within their respective jurisdictions, may make such rules to carry out the provisions of this section as will adequately protect and promote the safety of the traveling public, maintain reasonable levels of service on the existing highway system, and protect the public investment in the existing highway infrastructure, but shall in no case deny reasonable entrance and exit to or from property abutting the highways [emphasis added], except on limited access highways ... &q 4/15/2013 O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, PLC CIVIL ENGINEERING I REGULATORY AND PERMIT PREPARATION I LAND SURVEYING I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES I LAND USE PLANNING "p w A ff�_ January 28, 2013 �rJ Mr. Ray Belair / Zoning Administrator 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 50 White Street — Members Advantage Community Credit Union Dear Ray: We are writing on behalf of Members Advantage Community Credit Union (MACCU), new owners of the Merchant's Bank at 12 & 50 White Street, Specifically, we are requesting a Site Plan Amendment for a 703 s.f. expansion of Bank, reworking the back parking area and use by MACCU. The 0.89 acre parcel has been the long term home of a Merchant's Bank branch office within a 2,500 s.f. building with three (3) drive-in lanes. In 1996, the attached Site Plan Amendment was approved for a boundary line adjustment with 12 White Street to correct an encroachment and a revision of the back parking area to reduce the total impervious area from 71.5% to 69%. The recent purchase by MACCU determined 12 White Street and 50 White Street were one "merged" parcel and conveyed 50 White Street as a single parcel. The proposed 703 s.f. (18' x 39'-1") expansion will increase the existing 2,500 s.f. Bank building to 3,203 s.f.. The maximum impervious area for the C-1, Commercial 1 Zoning is 70%. The proposed building coverage increases from 6.4% to 8.2% versus 40% max. and the proposed total coverage reduces from 50.9% to 49.0% versus 70% max. The total lot coverage with the identified future five (5) space parking area would be 55.0%. The 1996 plan showed eighteen (18) parking spaces. The actual current parking is twenty-one (21). The required parking for the proposed 3,206 "Drive-Thru Bank" is 5.8 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA or 19 spaces (3,203 s.f. / 1,000 s.f. x 5.8 spaces = 18.6) and nineteen (19) spaces are proposed. In addition, a five (5) space parking area is identified for potential future construction, subject to future approval, if required. The parcel is subject to the "Traffic Overlay Zone 3", which has a baseline of 45 PM peak hour trip ends per 40,000 s.f. of land. In this case, the grandfathered trips for the existing long term Bank prevail. The Institute of 1 CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE #1 ESSEX JUNCTION VERMONT 05452 TEL 802 878 9990 1 FAX 802 878 9989 1 obca@olearyburke.com Mr. Ray BeLair January 28, 2013 Page 2 Traffic Engineers (ITE) 8th Edition results in eighty-two (82) PM peak hour trip ends for a "Drive -In Bank" with three (3) Drive -In lanes, which is higher than the sixty-five (65) PM peak hour trips generated by a 2,500 s.f. Drive -In Bank. As we can't exceed the "Grandfathered" trip ends, the proposal for 703 s.f. of additional gross floor area is offset by the proposed reduction from three (3) existing to two (2) proposed drive-in lanes. Per the attached ITE information, a bank with two (2) Drive -In lanes only produces 55 PM peak hour trip ends and a 3,503 s.f. Drive -In Bank produces the grandfathered eighty-two PM peak hour trip ends from the existing three (3) drive-in lanes. The proposed addition will match the existing brick structure as shown on the Existing Elevations and Proposed Elevations by Michelle Dufresne of Innovative Design, Inc. Please find the following attached information for your review: 1) Site Plan Amendment application; 2) Application fee of $70.30 fee ($0.10/sf x 703 s.f.); 3) ITE information; 4) Plant Schedule, TK Landscape Architects with Unit Price and total price; 5) Five (5) 24" x 36" copies of the Site Plan, Sht. 1, Typicals, Details & Specifications, Sht. 2, Existing Conditions Plan, Sht. EX, Existing Elevations, Sht. E1 and Proposed Elevations, Sht. Al; 6) One (1) 11" x 17" Site Plan, Sht. 1, Typicals, Details & Specifications, Sht. 2, Existing Conditions Plan, Sht. EX, Existing Elevations, Sht. E1 and Proposed Elevations, Sht. Al; 7) Digital Copy of Plans. If you have any questions or comments, please call. ;Sinc ely, David W. Burke Enc. cc: Sean Gammon 2010/2 01 0-46/si tepla ncoverletter ..- 07. 10' 55- E 147.89 -- SEE NOTE 4 GIP FOi GFwF 4 10 WHITE STREET aµ, THE MERCHANTS BANK ` y p t > VOL ISB PG!25 - 126 S. �'- VOL. 26 PG. 31 PLAN 0 —s LEE ZACHARY 'JOL. 211 PGS. 246 - 247 _5 04 8 WHITE STREET THE MERCHANTS BANK :C_. 175 CGS. 63 - E,5 ... t — '- -• � TCTAL ARE.: 0.83 ACRES - Z 12 WHITE STREET THE MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK W S' VOL. BB FG. 394 O O, r VCL. 80 PG. 40 P' i N 25.26'15" r'W 0 l 17.82' L, 609 \`/ - `•_'e _ •,SEE NOTE /. NOS' 57' 20_W \ - NOl'3r 45' 1 N/3e s A. ..��' J� 59.24' "-AMf5 TE0 FIOLPDARr LM'EI-- 2 v� MERCHAN PROPERTIES, INC. VOL. 78 PG.89 I ,, z cl VOL. 85 PG. 254 Y �e / VOL, 80 PG, 58 PLAN 0.64 ACRES N OS•5z20" w . f ^ O.1.3`s EXISTNG DRIVE '. m AND P4,WWG BANK �i rf 01 o � —WALKS' NORTH LEGEND ---- PROPERTY LINE --- - - - --- FORMER PROPERTY LINE (/ M. H. PARSONS AND SONS LUMBER CO. — — —TIE LINE \ '\ f' 47.07' \ _ VOL. 85 PGS. 255 - 256 9a•=---� CURB LINE 5 05' 46' 35' E ,ET POWER POLE \ s\ 0 IRON PIPE WITH SIZE FOUND \ Q 5/8" REBAR WITH SURVEY MARKER TO BE SET '� HANDICAP PARKING 4-1, .IGHT POLE nS LOCATION MAP: SCALE I" . 3520' r= NOTES: l THE BOUNDARY SURVEI WAS PERFORMED WITH A THEODOLITE, / ELECTRONIC DISTANCE METER, AND A STEEL TAPE. 2. THE BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMICAL NORTH DETERMINED BY SOLAR OBSERVATIONS ON JANUARY II, 1996, 3. WHITE STREET RIGHT OF WAY WAS ASSUMED AT 49.50 FEET WIDE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTATION AND THE TRAVELED PORTION. S 79. 54' S5" W 4. THIS JOG IS BASED ON THE RECORD DESCRIPTION IN VOL. 35 PG. 13.36' 539. H. B 4 E. B. 5. N0. 8 WHITE STREET HAS A RIGHT OF WAY OVER THIS AREA, REFERENCE VOL.35 PG.539. BENSEN CTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RECOGNIZES THAT THESE V. L 96 FG. '' 4 j THREE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS ARE NOW CONSIDERED ONE VOL. 80 PG, 88 PLAN PARCEL, 7. A RECORDED EASEMENT WAS NOT LOCATED FOR ANY OF THE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES. 8. THE -ARCELS SHOWN ARE IN THE C!1V.WERCIAL I ZONING DISTRICT. '3. THE BOUNDARY AUJIUSTMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NET AREA OF EITHER PARCEL. FRONT YARD COVERAGE FRONT YARD AREA = 6000 sq. It. BUILDINGS , PVMT. = 1820 sq. fL -RoPOSED WOOD TOTAL FRONT YARD COVERAGE - 70% STOCKADE FENCE LOT COVERAGE 8 - IO -12 WHITE STREET r BUILDINGS 1790 sq. fl. PAVEMENT 2845s N. TO AL 4635 aq.rt.__ I3% zfafx Ar I uwwq uxfre.eaau:vn •ANan� T �cEaTrFr nMr rHS PUTrs msEO ON Date Ch'k'd • Revision RECQ4D RFSf4aCH f,ELD ENAENCE cTNEa aEarwENT vrmWrrAv aNc Drawn by MHO Date JAN. 1996 r0.VFO.gMS W!'M 1NE aEOUNE•EN-5 r YSA 27 RcnO'.v01 Checked by Sim Sate MERCHANTS BANK PARCEL _mOFOSED s f t BUILDINGS 2570 W, ft. 2570 sq. 1f'. WALKS !ISO 0%fL 580 p. n. ENT PAVEM'6,800 rq ft r6,000 qq ir. s TOTAL 19.950 sq H. - 7!5 % 19, 00 w N. - 6^ BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES OF THE MERCHANTS BANK, THE MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK AND MERCHANTS PROPERTIES, INC. SHEET CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. SHEUXJRW . VEFtN Zo72-Y6 . 27-Jan-13 Spl.a�lc..k ITE Trip Generation Rates - 8th Edition Pass -by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook - 2nd Edition Instructions: Enter Expected Unit Volumes into Column •M' Description/ITE Code Units ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rates peak hours are for peak hour of adjacent street traffic unless hi hli hte Expected Units Total Generated Trips Total Distribution of Generated Trips Weekday AM PM Pass -By AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Daily AM Hour PM Hour AM In AM Out Pass -By PM In PM Out Pass -By Drive-in Bank 912 Dn� . Lanes 9.44 27.41 47 % 58 % 42 % 49 % 51 % 3.0 418 28 82 9 6 13 21 22 39 Drive-in Bank 912 KSF 148.15 12.35 25.82 47 % 56 % 44 % 50 % 50 % 2.5 370 31 65 9 7 15 17 17 30 788 59 147 18 RED Rates = CAUTION - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size Green Rates = Peak Hour of Generator - (no peak rate for the rush hour of adjacent street traffic) Blue Rates = Saturday Daily total - (no weekday daily rate) *Pass -By % are Rates from Weekay PM Peak Period *The Total Pass -By Trips will be Distributed: 50% IN / 50 % OUT NA = Not Available KSF - Units of 1,000 square feet DU = Dwelling Unit Fuel Position = the number of vehicles that could be fueled simultaneously Occ.Room = Occupied Room 27-Jan-13 14 28 38 39 69 27-Jan-13 Spacksro,, ITE Trip Generation Rates - 8th Edition Pass -by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook - 2nd Edition Instructions: Enter Expected Unit Volumes into Column 7r Description/ITE Code ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Expected Units peak hours are for peak hour of adjacent street traffic unless hi hli hte Units Total Generated Trios Total Distribution of Generated Trips Daily AM Hour PM Hour AM In AM Out Pass -By PM In PM Out Pass-B Weekday I AM I PM �Pass-Byl AM In I AM Outl PM In I PM Out Drive-in Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes 9.441 27.41 47 % 58 % 42 % 49 % 51 % 2A 279 19 55 6 4 9 14 15 26 Drive-in Bank 912 KSF' 148.151 12.351 25.82 47 % 56 % 44 % 50 % 50% 3.2 473 39 82 12 9 19 1 22 22 39 751 58 137 17 RED Rates = CAUTION - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size Green Rates = Peak Hour of Generator - (no peak rate for the rush hour of adjacent street traffic) Blue Rates = Saturday Daily total - (no weekday daily rate) *Pass -By % are Rates from Weekay PM Peak Period *The Total Pass -By Trips will be Distributed: 50% IN 150 % OUT NA = Not Available KSF 2 - Units of 1,000 square feet DU = Dwelling Unit Fuel Position = the number of vehicles that could be fueled simultaneously Occ.Room = Occupied Room 27-Jan-13 13 27 36 37 64 PLANT 5CHEDULE - MAGGU 50 WHITE STREET. SOUTH BURLINGTON TK LAND5GAPE ARCHITECT5 1-25-13 QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME 51ZE NOTE UNIT PRICE PRICE 3 DONALD WYMAN CRABAPPLE Malus 'Donald Wyman' 2.5" CAL. BBB. MATCHED 575 1725 G PYRAMIDAL UPRIGHT JAPANE5E YEW Taxus cuspidata 'Gapitata' 4'-5' HEIGHT BBB 255 1710 TOTAL NEW PLANT MATERIALS $3.435 PLANT 5CHEDULE - MAGGU 50 WHITE STREET. SOUTH BURLINGTON TK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1-25-13 QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME SIZE NOTE UNIT PRICE PRICE 3 DONALD WYMAN CRABAPPLE Malus 'Donald Wyman' 2.5" CAL. BBB. MATCHED 575 1725 G PYRAMIDAL UPRIGHT JAPANESE YEW Taxus cuspidata 'Capitata' 4'-5' HEIGHT BBB 285 1710 TOTAL NEW PLANT MATERIALS $3.435 MACCU Existing Plant Inventory TKLA 1-28-2013 Fxistinn Plants to Remain Quantity Common Name Botanic Name 2 Crabapple Malus(variety unknown 7 Dark Green Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis ni ra 12 Goldflame S irea S irea x bumalda goldflame 4 Dense Spreading Yew Taxus x media 'densiformis' 3 Crimson Pygmy Barberry Berberris thunber ii atro ur urea nana 1 PJM Rhododendron Rhododendron 6 Daylily Hemerocallis(variety unknown Existina Plants to be Removed for Addition Quantity Common Name Botanic Name 3 Hosta Hosta(variety unknown 2 Dense Spreading Yew Taxus x media 'densiformis' 23 Daylily Hemerocallis(variety unknown 1 Rudbekia Rudbekia(variety unknown F / IR°„ rlrc / cso su'o n \ exlsrnw aai rvrc ExIsrlNv rENce ° � °�' FdIO I 1 I I /I [xb T.lA5 sr s,AL2 \ wrsr.EincrN �oweE \ ExIY Gn TE Wr1 � `\ /// pOtIOM lrlO r AROFOSCD AREA FOR °� ` RlM-OFF . SNOW STORA \.r r I\ / / / I/ I / UU OF "ISTING CURBING / SAW WT rAVpENT W L TICN5 SNIOWN KE ANDEX1511N6 FAVEYIT. CUtDIN6 / .IF GRAVEL AID RECONSTRUCT \ WITHIN SNL raoTXw' NLLIlDlN1G LINE STMING OREGTR]IML ARROW. xs R/u. - \ DETAILS SPECIFICATIONS Al I \ P (s�AVITT /HIGH All I / l / �A J� 1 A/L/ LNIT ]OJ SF 110X -fl BUILDING AODITI II / CXI3IAW / 1 / WATCH FIN FLR ELEVATIONI i"A A v, I OrA1C ICR � xLOw I • CURD • _ - - CIIAIc� u f. XIST / • • F:.o00 I uarscRs � I My • • l FTFf' EXI5TIN(G 2.5W I t • TWI' 60LDIN6. FJ1- 1 I ROCK[ l �xI5rING FLR • 317.7� m. II uAm•As / / \ COVERED covExco RV. I I I [xrSrFRY B/iWl C 14) L I6HT Lwr"ER \ O i •*• I 1 I •4F •* AT A Iw I D°YA�O A-- I-Atra -Tel CXrf I fCRYILC 1 I 1 LRADIRCC ' iEWER Landscaping Schedule �OEWALK ExjSTitJV Off S /\ REtE C 6 I / — — T Co 15 ING ,Et1R 'IL Ex1ST m� "00 I G PYRA"DAL UPRIGHT JAPANE5E YEW Tax°s L Pldata 'Gapltata 4'-5' HEIC41T BBB I ♦ .w01(.AI frALC S1f001. cxrsrinr. .� aKRcrc w \ ,Lvn srOs µ- ..-- IIJ LRE1E ��V EET Fy,IN CATER M�j6IFw Ex15T ItJb Graphic Scale m (CI WIl 1IId1-NIR Owner & Applicant MEMDER5 ADVANTAGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION P.O. DOX f 745 DARRE, VT 05641 (8021 479 - 3533 5Wr/ �- TE CTOR SHALL NOTIFY -IG A 1 HaBa DIGASAFE PRIOR TO EOXCAVAPONT S; FRRAN� ANY IYIN11 \\ Location Plan NT5. Legend rROJECT DOUHJARY -------- OTHER FROrERTY LINE ------SO°------ CONNTOU[ LIW 1 VS.G5. DATUM I 0 EXI51`ING IRON FIFE — — — -f — — — EX I5TING ELECTRIC/TV/TELEPHONE LINE -----s---- EXI5TING 5EWERLIW EXISTING 5TORMLINE ��--�'---- EXI5TI% WATERLINE EXI5TING?ROP05ED HYDRAM EXISTING FENCE Lot Information: ZONED: G - I. GOMMERGIAL 1 MIN. LOT 51ZE- 40,000 5.F. (38.935 5.F. EXI5TIN61 5ETDAGKS- FRONT YARD 30 FT. 51DE YARD 10 FT. REAR YARD- 30 FT. WATER- MUNICIPAL 5EWER- MUNICIPAL PARKING- 5.6 51PAGE5 PER 1,000 GFA REQUIRED - 19 5PAGE5 PROP05ED 19 5PAGE5 WITH ADDITIONAL FUTURE 5 5PAGE PARKING AREA IDENTIFIED (24 TOTALI Existing Lot Coverage DUILDING5 2.500 5.Q. FT 164 Z <407, MAXI PAVEMENT/WALKS 17,320 5.Q. FT TOTAL 19,620 5.Q. FT (50.9% <70% MAXI Proposed Lot Coverage DUILDING5 3.203 5.Q. FT (8.2 %; <402 MAX.) PAVEMENT/WALKS 15,660 5.Q. FT TOTAL 19,060 S.Q. FT (49.0%: <70% MAX.) • TOTAL WITH ADDITIONAL PARKING 21,425 5.Q. FT 55.0% (< 70% MAX.) GENERAL GON5TRUGTION NOTES WORK AND NMATERIAL, SHALL DE AMROVED DY AIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH M LEAST VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION ITAXDARD-111GATIOM FOR GOMTRULTION TIE ON UNIFORM TE� 1-11O. DEVICES, THE TOWN d ESSEX REQUIREMENTS. THE EN WRITTLAL SPECI ATIONS. AIO THESE 1LAAM, TAN HE CONTRACTOR SHALL GOttALT NL UTILITIES BEFORE EXCAVATION TO VERIFY L40GATION Y UI ISROND L THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY bIGSAFE MIOR TO ANY RGAVATIGN UTILITIE5 INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED FRON BEST AVAILABN.E SOLRLE5 ANO MAY OR MAY NOT BE EITER ACCURATE OR LOMLETE. M -ACTOR SHALL VERIFY TIE Ew,Gr LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ND SHALL ee RexaMlele FOt ANY DAMAGE To ANY UTILITY. -11 CA rRIVATE, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN KKEOA THE LONTRAGTOR -1 G G REGONEGT All UTILITIES TO THE HEAREST SOURCE THROUGH —NATION WITH UTILITYOWN THE GONIRACTOK STALL DE RESPOMIdF FOR -ITION NO REMOVAL OF - EXISTING VEGETATION PAVEXENi ANO STRUCTURES IEGESSARY TO CONTRACT THIS MOJEGT E55 OTHERWISE TEXAS GIN THESE RAM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EXCESS IATERIAL fXDR15 AND MASH FROM THE SITE IFdN GOMLETION 01 GOMTItULTION UVLSS OTHERWISE CREATED AS A -T a GOMTRUGTION OOE5 NOT CREATE A 5AN Ot A 5APCTY HAZMD. WHERE AND WHEN OEFJm NELE- DY THE ENGINEER THE CONTRALT0A SHALL. BE REOUIROD TO WET -IONS OF THE GOM TMULTIW AREA WITH WATER APPLY -UN I HOt10E Ot SWEET ASIH T ADS POWER OROOM AS C E CONTROL B. ANY SUPILINI ES. OR STRUCTURES WHIGH HAVE BEEN DAMAGED DY 1F! GONTIUGTOA` CE RESTORED TO THE LOD AL RQ1O THAT IN WHIGN THEY WERE fOLHO IMEDIAT- -OR TO THE DEGAIN.. OF Or TIOM. 7. THE DESIGN ON THESE RAM SHALL DC IMrELTED DY O' Y-DUIUE CIVIL SSOG $. PLC. aF esseX UNCTION VERMOR, TO eNxRE GOMLINKE WITH THIS -OVEO RAM ANO KEWMETENTS. OIPARY-BIRtKE WAIVE5 ANY AND ALL R ON51DILITY AND LIADILITY FOR M 10, THAT MAY RISE FROM THIS FAILURE of THE CONTRACTOR TO F0.LOW THESE PLANS. SPELIFIGATla6 AAD THE DESIGN INTENT THAT THE RAM CONVEY, AND FROM FAILURE TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFI® TO INSPECT M VAR 5 AND MSTS IN MOGKE55. D. FOR ANY WORK WITHIN THE HIGHWAY RIGM-OF-WAY A Y TRAFFIC SHALL W MAINTAINED AT ALL TIKS. LONTINJOI5 TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WILL DE REWIRED AT NGIPM, OLRINIS -HOURS. . AND WNrOSSIDLE DURING GONS G AMULTIW A tVITIE5. LOKIMCD TRAFFIG CONTROL OMIGERS SHALL OIRELT TRAFFIC DURING PEA HOURS WHEN THERE IS ONE-WAY TRAFFIC OR WHEN OFAEO HEKSMRY BY � TOWN OR 5TA TOAOKARY COMMUCTIOI 15 HNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL >IGM SIML I.ERD ECTED GONTRALTOt GCORDAME WITH STATE AND TOWN 5TANDARDS,. 1. TO ASSURE GOMYINKE WITH THE RAND1, THE -A SHALL NOTIFY THE TOWN ENGIN¢K AND THE LONSLLTING ENGINPlR 46 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF STATING ANY WORK. GUTTING T��VEMOIT. BEGINNING THE IMTALLATIONI UTILITIES. BRINGING IN ANY NEW GRAVEL FOR USE. PAWING AID FINAL IWIS1110N. RI. THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTIG ^ WAATION FOR SEWER AND WATER LIVES SHALL DE IMTALLED yN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST ETE T EDITION OF EN 5TAtt STANDARDS - RE—TANDADS fat WATER' It TWSOIL SHWJ. DE STOLRFILCD. SEEDED. IHIO MASHED UNTIL REUSED. HAY DICES SHALL BE BALED AND STAKED GONE 14ASUALY AOINO THE BOTTOM OF TIE TOHOIL TILES O. HEALTHY RIlTINS iR65 AS SHOWN ON THIS SITE RANN TO DE SAVCD SHALL DC MOTCGTCD DY TIE CONTIULTOR. U. OP@I GUT AREAS SHALL DE MAIL- OUTSIDE OF ACTUAL WORK -Al AND MAY DALES SMALL W EM'LOYED TO COFIK SHEET WASH AND RUNOFF TO THE IMAEOIAM OVEN AREA AS ORDERED BY THE ENGINEE, M. AT GOPLETION OF GRADING, SLOT DITOES, .NND ALL DISTURBED AAEA5 !HALL BE SMOOTH AND FACE OF POCKETS WITH SUFFICIENT SLOK TO EMUtE DRAINAGE, D. NA FILL SHALL BE rLAGEO IN G INCH LIFTS ANO THOROUGHL A CORA—— TO Y OF MAXIMUM DEIDITY AT -ITEM MOI TURF CONTENT AS DETERMINED DY STM O >TANDARD MOCTOR -11 OTHERWISE x F10O. p. TE GONTRALTOR SMALL IMTN.L EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AS HCEDED TO MEVONT SEDIMENTATION THE HAYDNE GAMS, SILT FENU5. DIT % AND OTER CRO5ION GONTRW DEVICES. SHALL DE MAINTAINED AND RERANUD DY THE CONTKAGTOR AF1R EVERY RAINFALL OF V2 INCH OR ACRE UNTIL ALL DISTUtDEO ARG5 HAW BECN 64ASSED AND APMOVED BY TK ENG1.11 THE WNRO A OF THE ROSION IONTRO. OEYICCS WILL INCLUDE REMOVAL OF ANY TIED SEDINENTATION NOTES : 1) CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 1/8" MINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2) CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED O MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASH10 DESIGNATION M-153 ( 1/2" SPONGE RUBBER OR CORN. ) 3) ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO RECEIVE 2 COATS OF AN ANT-SPAIIING COMPOUND. 1/2" RADIUS 1/4" RADIUS 8" 18' " EMULSIFIED ASPHALT 3.500 PSI CONCRETE END AREA - 0.94 S.F. GONC,KETE GUfZff5 N15 &KADAT I ON KEQU I KEMENT5 51EVE PERGENT III MATERIAL 51ZE PASSING DENSE GRADED (,RUSHED STONE 3 1/2" 100 2 VT 5PEG 704.015 3" 90 -1002 2" 75-XJOZ F 50-80X M2' 30-60Z R4 6-40% 4200 O-6 X 1 1/2" THICK TYPE 11 15A5E COURSE 1" THICK TYPE III TOP COUR5E 12" 4" TOPSOIL 5HOUL0E9 4 4 12" DEN5E GRADED CRU5jED 5TOW (VT. .5PEG..704.061) a \ d 4, PROVIDE MIRAFI 50OX FABRIC UNDER GRAVEL PAKr, I NC7 AKEA CK055 - 5EGT ION NT5 5" THICK 3500 P.S.I. CONCRETE 2 WALK 4"TOPSOIL 5' FT TO ROAD 12" CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE 704.05-FINE) (VT. SPEC. ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO RECEIVE 2 COATS OF AN ANTI-SPALUNG COMPOUND. TYPIGAL 51[--)EWALK 5EGTION N15 EK05 I ON GONTKOL 5PEG I F I GAT I ON5 I. ALL P15TURDED AREAS SHALL DE 5TABILIZED WITH SEEDING AND K) GHING PRIOR TO OCTODER I OF EACH YEAR ANY DI5TARDED AREAS OUT5IDE OF THE PAVEMENT SHALL DE IMMEDIATELY SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 15 DAY5. 4. THE EK05ION GONTROL METHODS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROGEED IN THE FOLLOWING 5EGXIENI A) THE GONTRAGTOR SMALL IN51`ALL AND MAINTAIN HAY BALE DAMS, SILT FENCES, AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IF REQUIRED, AS ORDERED DY THE ENGINEER. THIS EROSION CONTROL MEA51.RE5 SHALL DE MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS ARE PAVED AND ALL DISTURISED AREAS HAVE BEEN GRASSED. THE REPAIR OF THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL INCLUDE REMOVING ANY SEDIMENTATION. THE SEDIMENT MAY DE PLACED AS FILL IN THIS LOW AREAS, IF APPROVED DY THE ENGINEER. D) THE TOPSOIL SHALL DE REMOVED FROM THE AREA5 TO DE GRADED AND 5TOGKPILED. STAKED HAY DALE5 OR A SILT FENCE SHALL DE PLACED CONTINUOUSLY AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE, CJ IN AREAS NEAR THE NEW GON5TRUCTION, THE CONTRAGTOR SHALL ENCLOSE THE TRUNKS OF TREE5 TO DE SAVED WITH WOODEN SNOW FENCING ALONG THE DRIPLINE TO PROTECT THEM FROM IN RY. DI THE SITE GRADING WILL THEN DE DONE, AND THE PIPELINES WILL DE INSTALLED IMMEDATELY FOLLOWING GRADING. THE CONTRAGTOR WILL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN HAY DALE INLET PROTECTION AROUND THE CATCH BASINS UNTIL THE ROADWAY HAS BEEN PAVED AND GRA55 HA5 BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE SLOPES. E) THE GONTRAGTOR WILL TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MJLGH THE DISTVRDED AREAS AS SOON A5 P055I151-E FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION. F) OPEN GUT AREAS SHALL BE MIA.GHEe OUTSIDE OF ACTUAL WORK AKEA5. AND HAY DALE5 SHALL DE EMPLOYED TO CONFINE SHEET WASH AND RUNOFF TO THE IMMEDIATE OPEN AREA AS ORDERED BY THE ENGINEER. 0 NOT H TRUNK 4" SAUCER WITH EXCAVATED SOIL MENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED NE SOIL QUALITY, MIX WITH THE EXISTING SOIL NOTES 1. REMOVE ALL NURSERY TAGS. ROPE, STRING. AND FLAGGING PRIOR TO PLANTING TO PREVENT GIRDLING. 2. PLANT 5HRUB 50 THAT TOP OF ROOT FLARE 15 EVEN WITH THE FIN5HED GRADE. 3. 5HRUB5 5HALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER PLANTING. 5HRUB PLANTING DETAIL NT5 I� �p No. 4� 5477 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT 'i ✓/ Y0 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. ,AAAR to �RI LAND5GAP I NG 5PEG I F I GAT I ON5 ALL D1511KDED AREAS SHALL BE 5TADILUIED WITH SEEDING AND MA.GHING MIOR TO NOVEMBEK I OF EACH YEA. ANY DISTURBE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL DE INDATELY SEEDED AND M.UED AWITHIN ISDAY5. WORK fERFORNAED AFTER NOVEMDER OF EACH YEAR DE STADILIZEO WITH MACH OR NETTING 'A.fFIGIEM TO MEVENT EROSION ANO SHALL DE WI ISPIATELY SEEDED AND AEA ILLIEO AS SOON AS WEATHER MRMIT5 IN THE STRING ALL CItTRRAED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMN FO10WI SEED MMURE IN ALL AREAS SHALL BE MERMAN MIX GOIFORMING TO THE TABLE ON THE RAMS. FOR SEEDING BETWEEN WMMSER I AND NOVEMOER I. WINYEA RYE SHALL DE USED AT AN APPL IGATION RATE OF RID rou nS TER ACRE FERTILIZER SHALL IK STANDARO COMMERCIAL GRADE GOFORMING TO THIS STATE FEKTILIZR LAW AND TO THE STANDARDS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL -11TS. MY 11 U5ED. -1 DE ARIEO AT TIRE RATE OF S00 FOUNDS TER GRE. LIWIO FERTILIZER IF USED, "A" DE AFPLIED IN A 1-2-1 RATIO WITH TIE MINIMN A— TO INCLVOE DO FORDS OF NITROGEN AO FOODS OF PHOSPHAM, AND IOU rOLNOS OF rOTA5H PER ACRE. 5TANOAR05 OF TIE ASSOCIATION OF OM' I AGRICU.TUKAL CHEMISTS. THE LIMESTONE SHALL DE A ISD AT A RATE OF TWO TONS PER ACRE OR A5 DIAELTPD. 4. WITHIN 24 HOURS OF APPLICATION OF PRTILIIIIC LIME. AND SEED, THE SURFACE SHALL DE MLGHED WITH A HAY M1A.UM MULCH SHALL DE SPREAD UNIFORMLY OVER THE AEA AT A HUM OF TWO TONS PER ACRE OR AS ORDERED DY THE ENGINIF URBAN MIX GRASS SEED t BY WEIGHT LBS, LIVE SEED PER ACRE TYPE OF SEED 37.5 45 CREEPING RED FESCUE 37.25 37.5 KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS 31.25 37.5 WINTER HARDY, PERENNIAL RYE 100 120 / LIVE SEED PER ACRE FLAT WOVEN WEBBING FOR STAKING TES (2 TO 3) 2" X 2" HARDWOOD STAKES DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUB - GRADE PRIOR TO BACKFIWNG, WHEN REWIRED (SEE NOTE /2); STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHS DR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT. STAKES SHALL BE CAPABLE OF STANDING FIRM FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR FORM 4" SAUCER UNDISTURBED SOIL BAGKFILL 'NTH EXCAVATED SOIL IF SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO IMPROVE SOIL QUALITY, MIX COMPOST WITH THE EXISTING SOIL PLUMB TREE TRUNK 3" MULCH - DO NOT APPLY AROUND TRUNK WT AND REMOVE WIRE MESH BASKET, ROPE AND/ OR BURLAP 'WRAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL BREAK APART EDGE OF EXCAVATION W/SHOVEL AND BLEND PLANT MIX WITH EXISTING SOIL TO PROVIDE SOIL TRANSITION NOTE: 1. PUNT TREE SO THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE. 2. STAKING AS REQUIRED ONLY IN SITUATONS WHERE TREES WILL BE SUBJECTED TO WINDY CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. TREES SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER PLANING. 4. EXAMINE ENTIRE TREE AND REMOVE ALL NURSERY TAGS, ROPE, STRING AND SURVEYOR TAPE PRIOR TO PUNTING TO PREVENT GIRDLING. TREE PLANT I NCB NTS NOTES I THE TREES TO DE PRESERVED SHALL DE PROTECTED DY SILT FENDING AND/OR GON5TRUC.TION FENCING PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION. 21 THE TREES 5HALL HAVE A 3 YEAR GUARANTEE FROM THE TIME OF PLANTING. O 3 / - _ _ � — � _ •�n �AYa, I PIPE A II _ _ 1 1 1 VS r05T / OFFICE \ M101W s ' rnNn ARcn 1 v 1 _ Ex�sTIN6 LMCRC)C W \N r UNWIPA �. 11N�JC i Ex1h \ ,Cale eo I qp 1I LOC8110P P/arI NTS I I Legend rROJEGT 00111ICARY -------- OTIER MOKRTY LIE ------Sue------ GOWOLIK LINE 1 U.SI". DATLY 1 0 EXISTING IRON rlrE -----ETC---- EXISTING ELEGTRIG/TV/TELErHONE LINE ----_5---- EXI5TING 5EWERLINE EXISTING, STOKWINE --��r'____ EXISTING WATERLINE X( EXI5TINGT[0r06ED NYDRAW EXI5TIN, FENCE Lot Information: MIN. LOT 51ZE: 40,000 S.F. 136.935 S.F. EXISTING) 5ETbAGK5: FRONT YARD 30 FT. 510E YARD 10 FT. REAR YARD: 30 FT. WATER: MUNICIPAL 5EWEK MUNICIPAL PARKING 5.6 SPACES PER 1,000 GFA REQUIRED 15 SPACES EXI5TING: 21 SPACES 1996 517E PLAN: 16 SPACES Existing Lot Coverage 6UILDING5 2,500 5.Q. FT (6.4 X- (40% MAX.) PAVEMENT 16,850 5.Q. FT WALK5 462 5.Q. FT TOTAL 19,612 5.Q. FT (50.9%; <70% MAX.) Owner & Applicant MEMDEK5 ADVANTAGE COMMUNITY GKEDIT UNION P.O. BOX t 745 6AKKE, VT 05641 (602) 479 - 3533 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY-DIGSAFE• AT 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION 3/14" - 1-0' EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/Ic - 1'-0' INNOVATIVE DESIGN, INC. 8 CARMICHAEL STREET, SUITE #104 ESSEX JCT., VT. 05452 PHONE: (802) 872-8430 EAX 872-8347 Email: rmdufres®sover.net Date: 2-s-12 ProJecl Name: MEMBERS ADVANTAGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION South Burlington Vermont Sheet Number: E 1 5 da3�16" =I'-o D.e. sY File Name: Sneel lltle: EXISTING ELEVATIONS EXISTING DRIVE-THRU TO REMAIN EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 0 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 0 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING ENTRY TO REMAIN EXISTING BRICK EXTERIOR TO REMAIN ADDITION BUILDING I NEW ROOF TO EXISTING ROOF TO EXISTING DRIVE-THRU MATCH EXISTING REMAIN TO REMAIN I I NEW BRICK EXTERIOR EXISTING BRICK REMOVE EX15T'G TO MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR TO REMAIN WINDOW PROVIDE NEW DRIVE UP NEW ATM WINDOW LOCATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION f0� YKUf'USEL) WEAR ELEVATION ffi llip PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/14" = 1'-0' TOW MATCH EX15TING� I EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION EXISTNEW ROOF TO REMAIN ROOF TO I MATCH EXISTING RE ENTRY ROOF TO CEMENT BOARD MATCH EXISTING HOR12 SIDING FRONT ENTRY } s� a aT y rr a.� 1 X ice{ YY f5FRGLA55 NEW SIDE ENTRY ALL NEW WINDOWS COI. LIMNS TO MATCH EXISTING NEW BRICK EXTERIOR TO MATCH EXISTING Dote: Project N°me: Sheet Number: INNOVATIVE DESIGN, INC. OI-22-13 MEMBERS ADVANTAGE 8 CARMICHAEL STREET, SUITE #104 ESSEX JCT., VT. 05452 COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION A 1 PHONE: (802) 872-8430 Drown By. South Burlington Vermont FAX: 872-8347 Email: rmdufres0sover.net F°sneer rlue:° N°me: PROPOSED ELEVATION Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c JOHN M. DINSE, COUNSEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW STEVEN L. KNUDSON ROBERT H. ERD`.SANN NOAH PALEY SPENCER R. KNAPP 209 BATTERY STREET SANDKA A. STREMPEL KAREN MCANDREW P. 0. BOX 988 B.ARBARA E. CORY BURLINGTONVERMONT 05402-0988 MOLLY K. LEBOWITZ ROBERT R. MCKEARIN , PIETRO J. LYNN JAMES W. SPINK TELEPHONE FACSIMILE PHILIP C. WOODWARD JOHN D. MONAHAN, JR. 802.864-5751 802-862-6409 JEFFREY J. NOLAN EMILY R. MORROW DOUGLAS D. LE BRUN RITCHIE E. BERGER SHAPLEIGH SMITH, JR. USTIN D. HART SAMUEL June 14� 1996 JEFFREY J. MCMAHAN SAMUEHOAR, JR. Mr. Fred Blais, Chairman South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: The Merchants Bank - 50 White Street Dear Chairman Blais: I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission, dated May 28, 1996. This Decision was issued by the Planning Commission in connection with The Merchants Bank's application for site plan approval for the 50 White Street lot. Since one of the issues now before the ZBA is the owner's compliance with site plan approvals, I thought that these findings would be helpful in the ZBA's current consideration of this matter. Please note especially Finding #9, in which the Planning Commission specifically finds that the bank branch has been in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of approvals granted. The Planning Commission went on to conclude that 50 White Street exists as a separate, independent, and approved lot that has not merged with any of the lots at 8 White Street, 10 White Street, or 12 White Street. I am enclosing four additional copies of this letter, with the enclosed Findings of Fact and Decision, in the hope that you could arrange to have copies made available to the other members of the Board at or prior to the re -convened public hearing on June 24. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, DINSE, ERDMANN, KNAPPP & MCANDREW, P.C. Austin D. Hart ADH:emh Enclosure cc: Dick Ward (w. enclos.) Norman Smith, Esq. (w. enclos.) Robert Perry, Esq. (w. enclos.) Rex Bell (w. enclos.) TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES ea,Zd�� 152 BANK STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE 802-864-7463 MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRUCE E. HOUGHTON, P.E. PRINCIPAL ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER-17, 1979 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS PROJECT #f 7 9 3 3 3. PROJECT: Merchants Bank White Street I have reviewed the site plan of the Merchants Bark branch - on White Street and find that the addition of an "Automatic Teller Machine" should not significantly affect traffic conditions in that area. In fact, an ATM most likely will reduce peak drive-in window activity generated by roadway peak hour commuter traffic. The installation of ATM's has somewhat reduced the adverse traffic impact caused by drive- in window service of branch banks because of the 24-hour availability to do most general banking business. STITZCL & PAGE, P.C. X1 I'ORNEYS AT LAW 171 BA'1 1'ERY S'1'10EE-I' PO 130X 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICIJPDD) STE V EN F. STITZE• L FAX (802) 660.2552 PAT'n R. PAGE' JOSEPH S. 111 LEAN (-ALSO ADMMU) IN N.Y.) July 16, 1996 Judith C. Whitney, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 149 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-4201 Re: In re: The Merchants Bank 50 White Street So. Burlington, VT Dear Judy: OF COUNSEL ARTIIUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E. FLETCIIER Enclosed for filing with the Court please find a Notice of Appeal and the requisite filing fee of $150.00 relative to the above -referenced matter. Sincerely, Joseph S. McLean JSM/maf Enclosures cc: Norman C. Smith, Esq. Austin D. Hart, Esq. Robert Perry, Esq. Raymond Belair SON3066.COR BERGERON, PARADIS, FITZPATRICK & SMITH INVOICE AMOUNT INVOICE AMOUNT OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNT - BURLINGTON P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 802-863-1191 CHITTENDEN TRUST COMPANY BURLINGTON, VERMONT 58-6 116 4367 CHECK AMOUNT I S'-D 11° 000L, 36 Ti- 1:0 1 160CJ06 21: 111 4011146111 L 29 5,111,110 IN RE: THE MERCHANTS BANK ) 50 WHITE STREET ) SO. BURLINGTON, VT ) NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Lee Zachary hereby appeals to the Vermont Environmental Court the decision of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 24, 1996, with respect to its determination that 12 White Street and 50 White Street had not merged. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 8th day of July, 1996. NCS\Zachary3.App LAW OFFICES BERGERON, PARADIS FITZPATRICK & SMITH Norman C. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Lee Zachary Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith 27 Main Street P.O. Box 925 Burlington, VT 05402-0925 (802) 863-1191 Lee Zachary's Pizza House, Inc. 1891 Williston Rd. S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-864-7410 June 24, 1996 Zoning Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Lot 8, 10, 12. and 50 White Street Dear Board Members, I have taken the time to write down my thoughts about this decision you have to make. I get upset when I speak of this, so I ask my letter be read into the record. First I would like to go over why this is a problem for me. • It is a one acre zone. • The bank has a preexisting, nonconforming lot. The bank, itself, is a big traffic generator. It needs and has used its adjacent land to function, i.e., storm water, snow storage, excess lot coverage (that allowed more parking and utility), encroachment, and aesthetics. It looks nice the way it is. Lot 50 has substantially utilized Lot 12. If they did not own those parcels, this would not have happened. The bank had the foresight to acquire these three extra lots. The zoning has changed, the courts have said merger happens. So it is only logical that they should go through subdivision to do what they want. • We went to the bank and tried to develop a joint master plan. They would not cooperate. They have placed themselves in this position and they and their advisors/consultants made choices. Now they have to live with the consequences. • The bank plans to upgrade this site. Yet they are trying to sell, as a contiguous parcel, a second preexisting, nonconforming lot with a proposal for another excess of maximum development. This would mean two maxed out, overdeveloped, nonconforming lots with no master plan, no cross -lot parking/traffic, no economies of scale. The bank is trying to take the good stuff of the new Planning and Zoning regulations, i.e., height, but not meet the minimum standards for lot size. They are trying to get too much for too little. I believe there are enough preexisting, overdeveloped lots spilling their problems over onto their neighbors already. Please do not double an existing problem at a critical location and traffic area. cAwpdocsW624zom Despite the legal mumbo jumbo the facts are still quite clear. The bank encroached on Lot 12 with Lot 50's use. Lot 50 was not in compliance with its permits. Case closed. There is no double speak here. • If they meant to do it, it happened, it was material and it is too late. It does not matter. • If they knew they did it, it happened, it was material and it is too late. It does not matter. • It does not matter. It happened, it was material and it is too late. • If it was 6" of encroachment or 60' of encroachment, it happened, it was material and it is too late. It does not matter. So far I do not feel the City's lawyers have had all of the facts, have fully understood the situation, have been to the site or have heard my perspective. From my perspective it is a good day for lawyers if they are right one out of every two tries. In this case I ask you to just take the lawyer's opinions as one separate piece. If the lawyers were the last word, then we could do away with the Planning and Zoning boards, the administrators, the judges and the juries. If they were always right, we would just need to have one lawyer for everything. I do not know what your lawyer has said. However, any opinion with full knowledge of the facts that says Lot 50 and 12 have not merged is wrong. I am less certain about what has happened to Lot 8 and Lot 10. I do not know if Lot 10 merged with Lot 12 or if it merged with Lot 8. The issue of nonconforming is less clear. I do know the attempt to sell Lots 8, 10, and 12 as a preexisting, nonconforming lot with a boundary adjustment is also wrong. I ask this Board to take in all of the data, look at all of the facts, forget the issues of intent, and balance information and decide to tell the bank, "NO, you cannot overdevelop two nonconforming lots!" Please remind them that they must comply with the City's regulations and the law. Sincerely, Lee Zachary President LZ/me c:lwpdocs\0624zoni STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STE VEN F. SI=L PATII R. PAGE' JOSEPH S. McLEAN ('ALSO ADM ED AI N.Y.) Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/FDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 June 19, 1996 Re: Merger of Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street Dear Dick: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E. FLETCHER I am writing in response to your request relative to the above -referenced matter. Specifically, you have asked whether the lots located at Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street have merged to create a single lot under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. It is our opinion that these lots have merged to create a single lot. It is my understanding that the properties located at Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street are situated in the Commercial 1 (Cl) District. Lot No. 8 contains a residence that is currently used for rental purposes. Lots Nos. 10 and 12 contain open land and essentially constitute the "front yard" of Lot No. 8. The Merchants Bank owns all of the lots, which are contiguous and do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the C1 District. The Bank also owns a lot located at No. 50 White Street containing a branch office building with drive -through facilities and parking lot. Section 28.125(b) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, which sets forth the definition of "lot," provides in pertinent part that "[w]hen a lot owner owns a lot which fails to meet minimum lot size requirements and such lot is contiguous to another lot owned by the same lot owner, such contiguous lots shall constitute a single lot [unless one of three exceptions are met]." None of these exceptions appear to apply in this case. Exception (1) provides that contiguous lots do not merge if they were devoted to "separate and independent uses" as of June 7, 1947 and continue to be devoted such separate uses. I am not aware of any evidence indicating that these lots were devoted to separate and independent uses as of June 7, 1947, nor do they Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington June 19, 1996 Page 2 appear to be dedicated to separate and independent uses today. Exception (2) provides that contiguous lots devoted to uses approved as separate uses do not merge as long as those separate uses are conducted in compliance with the terms of their approvals.' Lot Nos. 8, 10, and 12 are not devoted to uses approved as separate uses. On the contrary, these three lots are all essentially dedicated to residential use. Access to the residence located on No. 8 White Street is via a driveway located on No. 10 White Street. Further, lot No. 12, which is situated directly to the south of lot No. 8 and easterly of lot No. 10 appears to serve as the front lawn to the residence. Exception (3) provides that contiguous lots do not merge if they are shown on a plat approved by the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to subdivision regulations. The lots in question are not shown on an approved plat. As noted above, the lots located at Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street have a common owner, are contiguous and do not meet the minimum lot size requirements. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the lots constitute a single lot within the meaning of 528.125(b) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. You should note that failure to comply with the terms of an approval, as described in §28.125(b)(2), does not automatically trigger a merger. 24 V.S.A. §4444(a), which sets forth the enforcement authority of the zoning administrator, provides that no action may be brought under that section unless the alleged offender has had at least seven days' warning notice and an opportunity to cure. Accordingly, in the event of a violation of the terms of an approval, you must provide the property owner with notice and an opportunity to cure. Only the failure to timely effect a cure potentially results in a merger. Given the circumstances of this case, it is our opinion that the minor encroachment of the driveway for the bank located at No. 50 White Street onto No. 12 White Street did not effect a merger of those two lots. The encroachment constituted an undiscovered zoning violation brought to your attention by the property owner. Thus, the offender provided you with notice of the violation and you appropriately provided two options to cure: (1) immediately remove the driveway encroachment or (2) submit to a boundary adjustment and property exchange to preclude any extension of a non -conforming use. The property owner chose the later option and has cured the violation, preventing the merger of lot Nos. 12 and 50. Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington June 19, 1996 Page 3 I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Joseph S. McLean /jsm SON3034.COR JOHN J. BERGERON VINCENTA. PARADIS EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH PRISCILLAB. DUBS DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OFCOUNSEL: JOYCE H. ERRECART June 10, 1996 BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 (802) 863-1191 FAX (802) 863-5798 South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustments South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: The Merchants Bank Site Plan Approval 50 White Street Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802) 879-6533 REPLY TO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 This office represents Lee Zachary, who owns property adjacent to the property owned by The Merchants Bank on White Street. The Bank has applied to amend a previously approved site plan for a bank with drive -through service at 50 White Street. The original site plan was approved on October 25, 1983. As the April 4, 1996 Staff Notes to the Planning Commission state, it was recently discovered that a portion of the drive -through lane encroaches onto the adjacent lot owned by the Bank at 12 White Street. The proposed site plan included a boundary adjustment to resolve the encroachment problem. By letter dated April 9, 1996, we asked the Zoning Administrator to determine that 12 White Street and 50 White Street had merged. Mr. Ward responded by letter dated April 10, 1996, deferring his decision to the Planning Commission. We appealed that decision by letter dated April 25, 1996. On May 7, 1996, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the Bank's site plan application, and granted the request. Mr. Ward then issued a May 10, 1996 letter to Stuart Morrow of Civil Engineering Associates. In the letter, Mr. Ward stated that, the boundary adjustment proposed in the site plan did not constitute a subdivision for the following reasons: 1. This is not a resubdivision because the boundary line adjustment does not change an approved or recorded subdivision plat. 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in any new development lots. 3. The boundary line adjustment does not result in the enlargement of either lot so that it capable of subdivision into more lots than before the adjustment. South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 1996 Page 2 On the basis of the above, Mr. Ward administratively approved the boundary line adjustment. We respectfully disagree with Mr. Ward's decision, and submit that the lots at 50 White Street and 12 White Street have merged. FACTS The lot at 50 White Street was purchased by Merchants Properties, Inc. in 1965. Merchants Properties, Inc. was merged into The Merchants Bank in 1979. The lot at 12 White Street was purchased by Merchants National Bank in 1968. According to the Vermont Department of Bank and Insurance, The Merchants National Bank became The Merchants Bank in 1979. In 1983, The Merchants Bank sought and obtained site plan approval for a drive -through facility at 50 White Street. The site plan, as approved, showed the entire project to be on 50 White Street (see the attached Plan marked Exhibit I.) In the Spring of 1996, it was discovered that a portion of the driveway for the drive -through encroached upon 12 White Street. It was also discovered that, "the site plan for the Merchants Bank property is somewhat different from the original plan approved on October 25, 1983...." (see March 8, 1996 and April 5, 1996 Staff Notes). In fact, the lot coverage exceeds the 19,200 square feet lot coverage approved in 1983 (See the May 7, 1996, letter of Austin Hart). As a result of these discrepancies, the Bank has sought site plan approval of the site at 50 White Street with reduced lot coverage, but basically as it currently exists. It also proposed a boundary adjustment to resolve the encroachment issue. At a hearing on May 7, 1996, the Planning Commission approved the site plan. That decision has been appealed. As noted above, the Zoning Administrator also approved the boundary adjustment by letter dated May 10, 1996. That decision has been appealed and is now before this Board. ARGUMENT We contend that 50 White Street and 12 White Street have merged and that therefore, the "boundary adjustment" is really a subdivision. Both properties are in the Commercial I Zoning District. The minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet. Neither 12 White Street nor 50 White Street meets that requirement. They are therefore pre-existing small lots. Under §25.111 of the Zoning South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 1996 Page 3 Ordinance, the lots may be developed separately if they are in individual and separate and non-affiliated ownership. The two lots in this case have become affiliated, however, by virtue of 50 White Street's encroachment upon 12 White Street. The Bank has tried to fall within the exceptions set forth in §28.125(b), the definition of a "Lot". Subsection (b) provides that pre-existing, small lots merge, except under three conditions, only one of which applies to this situation. Subsection (b)(2) provides: contiguous lots which are devoted to uses approved as separate uses under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations shall constitute separate lots provided such uses are conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions of the approvals granted. The Bank claims it falls within this exception. The Bank was before the Planning Commission for 50 White Street, however, because its site plan was not in compliance with the approvals granted in 1983. Therefore, its use of 50 White Street was not in compliance with the approvals. It follows that the Bank's use of 50 White Street does not fall within the exception of §28.125(b) (2) outlined above. The Vermont Supreme Court has noted that a goal of zoning is to phase out non -conforming uses and lots. Drumheller v. Shelburne Zoning Board of Adjustment, 155 Vt. 524, 529 (1990). Given that goal, the Board in this case should construe the exception in §28.125(b)(2) to prevent the boundary adjustment at 50 White Street, and to rule that 12 White Street and 50 White Street have merged. Respectfully submitted, Norman C. Smith Attorney for Lee Zachary E —� S 66. 0a" ♦5 w LEE ZACHARY i• 10' S5" E L� 6.00' VOL 211 PISS. 246 - 247 147.09' -- YE_IE4—` SO4. 4r 05-E c✓ •M 1p DRIVE N 10 WHITE STREET _ 8 WHITE STREET THE MERCHANTS BANK THE MERCHANTS BANK V01- 158 PGS. 125 - 126 VOL 175 PGS. 63 - 65 \K VOL 28 PG. 31 PLAN D \\ o�'/O0 P•El ___SEE No7E6 E,0 +EExPT[t PROPERTY LINE ---- — FORMER PROPERTY LINE — — TIE LINE CURB LINE POWER POLE 0 NICK PIPE WITH SIZE FOUND 0 5/6' RE BAP WITH SURVEY MARKER TO BE SET © HANDICAP PARKING LIGHT POLE TOTAL AREA. 033 ACE. hOU5E o 3 12 WHITE STREET % $ THE MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK / LOCATION MAP: SCALE r . 552o" VOL BB PG. 394 Z, � VOL BO PG. 40 PLAN NOTES: lvg.�y1' l THE BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED A THEODOLITE, ELECTRONIC DISTANCE METER, AND A STEELEL TAPE. 2- THE BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMICAL NORTH DETERMINED BY SOLAR OBSERVATIONS ON JANUARY It 1996. N 25'26' IS- W 6090. A. 3. WHITE STREET MIGHT OF WAY WAS ASSUMED AT 4930 FEET I7.e2' L • _ _ )JGO, 1 x >r w' w - [ WIDE DETERMINED BY EXISTING MOWMENTATION AND THE _ $,E,-7r 1 , TRAVELED PORTION. R W I S 9. 54' ' w 4. THIS JOG M BASED ON THE RECORD DESCRIPTION IN VOL 35 M N Or 3r 45' E ADAASTED BgADART IYEI� t 13'K 539, O 5924' H. B AND E. B. S NO. It WHITE STREET HAS A RIGHT OF WAY OVER THIS AREA. REFERENCE VOL35 PG 539. MERCHANTS PROPERTIES, INC. I I BENSEN VOL. 7PG e9 S. THE CRY OF SOUTH 9URLINGTON RECOGNIZES THAT THESE 6 1 VOL BS PG. 254 VOL 69 PG. 12o VOL Bo P6. N PLAN THREE INDIVIDUALINDIVIDUALINDIVIDUALPARCELS ARE NOW CONSIDERED ONE 3 VOL e0 PG. 58 PLAN N 05.52'20' INPARCEL 5 0.64 ACRES also' ?.A RECORDED EASEMENT WAS NOT LOCATED FOR ANY OF THE JIE MI>E. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES fl ri IM • THE PARCELS SHOWN ARE IN THE COMMERCIAL I ZONING x ias axa, G + DISTRICT. EASTWG DRIVE 9. THE BOUNDARY AMSTMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NET AND PARR]VO AREA OF EITHER PARCEL iAroi oN om a (] 1 FRONT YARD COVERAGE YARD FRONT TARO AREA . 6000 K IL 600 m !� . P WT.AREA BUONT .4. H. TOTAL FRONT YARD COVERAGE • 70% 6T"ENCE LOT COVREAGE 0 - 10 12 WHITE STREET STEP 3V! BUILDINGS 1790 K It I N. PAVEMENT 29/5 fnN. _ y TOTAL 4635M 13% 1ST aT Z5 MERCHANTS SAW PARCEL p—SED BU L.DWGS 2570 K It. 2570 K n. 5.0 ,A n. S 23• PAVEMENT 16.e00 .4 ff. 16.000.4 H. TOTAL �9pao Nyh.-lux 1.o'3'T3-K�.-rr% M H. PARSONS .w SONS LUMBER CO. m 21.41 e o I'E0 .0 40 0 or__ Ila E VOL e5 M. 2" -256 GRAPHIC SCALE E E BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES or THE MERCHANTS BANK, APR 1 8 1996 _ '"'" `"'"� THE MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK It— AM P "'•'°""° "" f°'4 � Aw MERCHANTS PROPERTIES, INC.. l ccxTr. lHfr TMN nATs usm Ov D.le Ch•k'B It-ision VERMONT City of So. Burlington o ran 4rxAxcn fm twfxcC ^��^•^��° °ratan by '"° °•�• JAN 196 SHEET coWoan .mI rNr.EOWWNv/n CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ch...6 bySaM Sc.I. r. zn SIELBLXeNIE,VETWKWT APDrOVeA bY— Prai—No. 95318 JOHNJ.BERGERON VINCENTA. PARADIS EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH PRISCILLA B. DUBS DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OF COUNSEL: JOYCE H. ERRECART April 9, 1996 BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 (802) 863-1191 FAX (802) 863-5798 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator South Burlington Zoning Office 545 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank White Street Property Dear Richard: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802) 879-6533 REPLY TO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON. VT 05402 I represent Lee Zachary and it has come to our attention that, the Merchants Bank has requested a Boundary Adjustment for 50 White Street. The request results from the fact that a portion of the driveway on 50 White Street encroaches upon 12 White Street. Please consider this letter a request on behalf of Lee Zachary that, you determine that 12 White Street and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of the encroachment and the Bank's failure to comply with the Site Plan Approval given for 50 White Street in 1983. Very truly yours, Norman C. Smith, Esq.. NCS/mlr cc: Lee Zachary 6X14(a(T 3 PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 •� FAX 658-4748 A /�Q ~�( ZONI DMINISTRATOR l9 April 10, 1996 Attorney Norman Smith Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05407-0925 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Attorney Smith: Be advised that all issues regarding the status of lots 12 and 50 White Street owned by the Merchants Bank are currently being reviewed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should be considering formal action no later than May 7, 1996. If you have any questions pertaining to any of these issues, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 JOHN J. BERGERON BURLINGTON, VERMONT 03402 VINCENTA. PARADIS ()-�� EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH FAX (802) 863.5798 PRISCILLA S. DUBE DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OF COUNSEL' JOYCE H.ERRECART April 25, 1996 Lance Llewellyn, Secretary South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment c/o Richard Ward South Burlington Planning Office 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Mr. Llewellyn: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)679-6304 FAX (802) 879-65M REPLYTO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 We have received Richard Ward's April 10, 1996 letter, a copy of which is attached. Please consider this a notice of appeal of Mr. Ward's decision not to address the concern outlined in our April 9, 1996 letter. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4465, we provide the following: Name and address of the Appellant: Lee Zachary c/o Lee Zachary's Pizza House 1891 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Property description: 8, 10, 12 and 50 White Street Regulatory references: Zoning Bylaw - Section 28.125(b) - definition of a lot. Section 25.111 - pre-existing small lots. Subdivision Regulation - definition of subdivision. The Appellant requests the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine that 12 and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of their being pre- existing small lots which have become affiliated. The lots do not meet the exception outlined in the Zoning Bylaws. Please set this matter before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Very truly yours, Norman C. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Lee Zachary, Appellant NCS/hhf (--X4(DI T n NRY 10 19G 07:56 CITY OF S BURLINGTON P.1/1 City of South. Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 1558-A74a PLANNER 65&7%55 May 10, 1996 Stuart J. Morrow Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, Vermont 05482 ZONING A_CM!NtST"i.ATOR 6 5-5-7 S S8 Re; Boundary Line Adjustment Between 50 White Street and 12 White Street Dear Mr. Morrow; The boundary line adjustment between 5o White Street and 12 White Street as shown on the plan entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment Between the Properties of the Merchants Bank, The Merchants National Bank and Merchants Properties, Inc., South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Civil gngineeringAssociates, Inc., dated January 1996, last revised April 17, 1996 does not constitute a subdivision. This boundary line adjustment does not constitute a subdivision for the following reasons 1. This is not a resubdivision because the boundary line adjustment does not change an approved or recorded subdivision plat. 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in any new developable lots. 3. The boundary line adjustment does not result in the enlargement of either lot so that it is capable of subdivision into more lots than before the adjustment. Therefore, based on the above information, this boundary line adjustment is administratively approved - Post-Ir Fax Note —.c %�_ V 7671lFax D"° .S /rl ®s�� /G/� . Grattione � : Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Pl+O►i- E 0 Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 10 Lighting: Exterior lighting will consist of the following: --- six (6) 400 watt metal halide lamps with downcasting shielded fixtures mounted on 16 foot poles. four (4) 175 watt metal halide lamps mounted on the building with downcasting shielded fixtures. 7) MERCHANTS BANK - SITE MODIFICATIONS - SITE PLAN This project consists of amending a previously approved site plan for a bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of site modifications to paved areas serving the drive -through service. This site was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on 10/25/83 (minutes enclosed). It was discovered that a portion of the drive -through lane encroaches onto the adjacent property (i.e., 12 White Street). The applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment to correct the situation. This boundary line adjustment requires• only administrative approval, it does not require Planning Commission approval. Since the site plan for the Merchant's Bank property is somewhat different from the original plan approved on 10/25/83, it requires Planning Commission approval to amend. This property located at 50 White Street lies within the Cl District. It is bounded on the north by a residential/commercial complex, on the west by a single family dwelling (proposed to be developed with a motel), on the east by a post office and on the south by White Street. Access/circulation: Ac a 47 foot curb cut on W Post office also exists Staff suggests that the the proposed motel site motel plans but not this Circulation is adequate. cess is provided by a 24 foot curb cut and bite Street. A 27 foot wide access to the No changes proposed to these accesses. applicant consider providing an access to to the west. This access is shown on the plan. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 9.2% (maximum allowed is 30t). Overall coverage is 70% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is 70% (maximum allowed is 30%). This is an existing situation which will not be made worse by this application. 10 F,x 4 161'1" F Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1996 agenda items March 8, 1996 Page 11 The existing bank building does not meet the front yard setback requirement and is therefore a noncomplying structure subject to the limitations of Section 26.002 of the zoning regulations. Parking: Not affected. Dumpster: The dumpster storage area will be screened. 8) HOMER & MARIE DUBOIS - 42 LOT PRD - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of subdividing a 32.89 acre parcel into 42 lots. This would be a continuation of the 57 unit Ledgeknoll development approved on 5/29/84. A sketch plan for the subdivision of this property into 68 lots was reviewed on 10/26/93 (minutes enclosed). This property located easterly of the Ledgeknoll development lies within the Southeast Quadrant District. It is bounded on the north and east by undeveloped land owned by Green Acres, on the south by a residential lot and undeveloped land and on the west by a wetland area. Access: Access will be provided by extending Dubois Drive, a cul- de-sac street. This cul-de-sac street currently provides access to 50 dwelling units and this extension would add 42 more units for a total of 92 units. Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a cul-de-sac to 50 units. The applicant is reserving a 60 r.o.w. for possible future connection to development on the adjacent property to the east. Staff suggests that a r.o.w. be reserved to the south between lots #6 and 7 or in the vicinity of lot #3. Density: Since this project is an extension of an existing 57 lot development, density is based on the original lot size of 86 acres. This lot therefore generates a maximum of 103 units for development (1.2 x 86). Since 57 units are already developed, 46 units would be available for development. The applicant is proposing 42 lots. Non -buildable area: Portions of lots 10-13, 20, 21, 35-39 and 42 are located in a non -buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. Since development activity is proposed in a restricted area, the applicant must address the criteria in Section 6.606 of the zoning regulations. For preliminary plat review, applicant should 11 Memorandum - Planning April 9, 1996 agenda items April 5, 1996 Page 4 5) MERCHANTS BANK - SITE MODIFICATIONS - SITE PLAN This project consists of amending a previously approved site plan for a bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of site modifications to paved areas serving the drive -through service. This application was continued from the 3/12/96 meeting (minutes enclosed). It was discovered that a portion of the drive -through lane encroaches onto the adjacent property (i.e., 12 White Street). The applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment to correct the situation. This boundary line adjustment requires only administrative approval, it does not require Planning Commission approval. Since the site plan for the Merchant's Bank property is somewhat different from the original plan approved on 10/25/83, it requires Planning Commission approval to amend. This property located at 50 White Street lies within the C1 District. It is bounded on the north by a residential/commercial complex, on the west by a single family dwelling (proposed to be developed with a motel), on the east by a post office on the south by White Street. Access/circulation: Access is provided by a 24 foot curb cut and a 47 foot curb cut on White Street. A 27 foot wide access to the post office also exists. No changes proposed to these accesses. Circulation is adequate. Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 9.2% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 70% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is 70% (maximum allowed is 30%) . This is an existing situation which will not be made worse by this application. The existing bank building does not meet the front yard setback requirement and is therefore a noncomplying structure subject to the limitations of Section 26.002 of the zoning regulations. Parking: No changes proposed. Dumpster: The dumpster storage area will be screened. 4 F0(44ialr G JOHN M. DINSE, COUNSEL ROBERT H. ERDMANN SPENCER R. KNAPP KAREN MCANDREW BARBARA E. CORY ROBERT R. MCKEARIN JAMES W. SPINK JOHN D. MONAHAN, JR. EMILY R. MORROW RITCHIE E. BERGER AUSTIN D. HART SAMUEL HOAR, JR. Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW STEVEN L. KNUDSON NOAH PALEY 209 BATTERY STREET SANDRA A. STREMPEL P. 0. BOX 988 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0988 MOLLY LEBO�VITZ PIETRO J. 1. L2'NN TELEPHONE FACSIMILE PHILIP C. WOODWARD 802.864.5751 802.862-6409 SUSAN J. FLYNN JEFFREY J. NOLAN DOUGLAS D. LE BRUN SHAPLEIGH SMITH, JR. JEFFREY J. MCMAHAN May 7, 1996 City of South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank/50 White Street --Application for Site Plan Approval Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter on behalf of The Merchants Bank in support of the pending application for site plan approval for 50 White Street. The specific purpose of this letter is to respond to legal objections that have been raised to approval of the site plan application. 50 White Street Has Not Merged With 12 White Street The Merchants Bank has been using the lot at 50 White Street as a bank branch since some time prior to 1983. In 1983, the Bank received site plan approval from the Planning Commission for an addition to the White Street branch. Throughout this period of time, the lots located at 8 White Street, 10 White Street, and 12 White Street have been used for separate residential uses. Section 28.125(b)(2) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations provides that contiguous lots owned by the same owner that do not comply with minimum lot size requirements shall not be merged into a single lot if the lots are devoted to uses approved as separate uses under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and if the uses are conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions of the approvals granted. Under Section 28.125(b)(2), the 50 White Street lot does not merge into the adjacent 12 White Street lot or 8 White Street lot. The Bank's use of 50 White Street has complied in all material respects with all approvals granted by the City of South Burlington. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the Bank has recently discovered that a portion of its driveway encroaches onto the 12 White Street lot. The 1983 site plan did not show the encroachment because the Bank relied on the tax map, which showed that the Bank had sufficient distance between the existing building and the property line to construct the driveway and comply with all applicable set -backs. It was only when the Bank performed the full survey that it discovered the encroachment. LAW OFFICES OF Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c. City of South Burlington Planning Commission May 7, 1996 Page 2 This inadvertent and minor encroachment does not constitute the kind or degree of non- compliance that would justify merging 12 White Street and 50 White Street into a single lot. Furthermore, the boundary adjustment applicatiion that is currently pending will cure the encroachment issue. In conducting the survey, the Bank also discovered that its lot coverage at 50 White Street exceeds the 19,200 square foot lot coverage approved in the 1983 site plan. Consequently, after consulting with staff at the Planning Office, the Bank has revised the site plan to eliminate paving in the parking area to bring the site plan in line with the 1983 site plan approval. The revised site plan shows 19,200 square feet of lot coverage. The Bank accomplishes this without losing any parking spaces. The proposed site plan ensures that the lot will continue to be used in compliance with all approvals from the City. No Expansion of Non -Conforming Use Approval of the revised site plan, together with the boundary adjustment, will not constitute any expansion of a non -conforming use. As indicated on the site plan, the boundary adjustment will not change the size of either the lot at 50 White Street or the lot at 12 White Street. The small portion of the lot at 12 White Street that is being added to the lot at 50 White Street is balanced by the small portion of the lot at 50 White Street that is being added to the lot at 12 White Street and 8 White Street. Furthermore, nothing is being added to the facilities at 50 White Street that will allow any more intense use of the property than what was approved in 1983. On the contrary, as discussed above, the revised site plan will result in a decrease in lot coverage by reducing the size of the parking area. In considering this issue, the Planning Commission should keep in mind that the Zoning Regulations allow the alteration or increase of a non -conforming structure by up to 25 % of fair market value. I understand that the Planning Commission will issue a written decision incorporating its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is important to the Bank that those findings and conclusions clearly reflect the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions that the lot at 50 White Street has not merged with any of the lots at 8 White Street, 10 White Street, or 12 White Street. Accordingly, the Bank requests that the Planning Commission include the following findings and conclusion in its written decision. LAW OFFICES OF Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c. City of South Burlington Planning Commission May 7, 1996 Page 3 The lot at 50 White Street is devoted to a use approved as a separate use under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The use of 50 White Street as a bank branch has been in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of approvals granted, including the 1983 site plan approval. Provided that the Bank complies with the terms and conditions of this site plan approval, the Planning Commission finds and concludes that the lot at 50 White Street exists as a separate, independent, and approved lot that has not merged with any of the lots at 8 White Street, 10 White Street, and/or 12 White Street. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, DINSE, ERDMANN, KNAPP & McANDREW, P.C. Austin D. Hart ADH:lsm cc: Rex Bell s: \... \caybelhweith.507 \ '' ~-------- \�J ' \~ ` v/ `� ` T � /�--! ^� / ------- '' ---- '- --- _ L/' '--'---^-----'-----'-' -- Lee Zachary's Pizza House, Inc. 1891 Williston Rd. S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-864-7410 Hand Delivered June 10, 1996 Zoning Board of Adjustment City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Lot 8, 10, 12. and 50 White Street I am writing to you to speak to the issues surrounding my appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision pertaining to lots 8, 10, 12, and 50 White Street. My purpose in this appeal is that the City and State laws and regulations have not been followed and my rights as an adjacent property owner will be severely and adversely affected. I think that the City Attorney has been given erroneous information and that his opinion included requirements that could not and have not been met`. History and Facts • Four old lots are involved. Two have improvements and two are partially used by either of the existing improved lots. The bank is on lot 50, the house is on 8. • The bank's lawyers presented, in sworn testimony, and in an application for subdivisions (they referred to it as a boundary adjustment) of lots 12 and 50, the following. In essence, "the bank obtained permits to develop and lot 50 and they are not in compliance with those permits. The improvements as constructed were not the same as permitted and as actually made employed the undeveloped lot 12 in combination with lot 50. " • Lot 8 was and is used as a residential rental income property. This sentence is hearsay as nobody will release the legal commentary to us. However, I believe my statement to be accurate. c:\wpdocs\0606whit • The bank lot 50 and the administrators proposed combination of the three lots leave both packages as noncomplying lots. This is not reasonable. The following are the reasonable options: Note: the concept of merger as applied to this situation could occur in either of two forms depending upon interpretation and impact of use, if actual use applies at all. All lots are affiliated by common ownership, all titled holders are either d.b.a. 's or subs of the Merchants Bank. Option 1 - All four lots have merged and the combined lots are in total area complying, but have a grandfathered noncomplying, mixed use. (Bank branch and residential income property). To do anything would require subdivision approval which could not be done without a variance. Option 2a - Lot 50 has merged with lot 10. This is a function of size of each (nonconforming) and the fact that lot 50 was not in compliance with its permits and physically employed lot 12 through the construction of improvements on lot 12. Lot 12 was not in anyway employed in residential use. Option 2b - Lot 8 and lot 10 have merged due to size and use and are noncomplying, both in size and use. My Position Mergers. I feel it is clear that one of the above two merger options has occurred. I respectfully submit that the third option as put forth by the other parties has no factual or logical base other than development opportunity which is not in the regulations. That is, there is no rational reason to merge lot 12 with 8 or 10. It was used by lot 50. Variances. Since none of the scenarios produce a conforming lot and use that any change in use or improvements requires a variance. The administrator has not just ignored the merger question, but he has also sent the project(s) onto the Planning Commission as follows: • A so-called boundary adjustment to cut off a portion of lot 12 and give to lot 50 and to cut off a portion of lot 50 and give to lot 12. Since neither lot is conforming, this should require a variance at a minimum and, in my opinion, is an illegal subdivision. • To retroactively approve the permit violations of the bank's improvements on lot 50 favoring lot 12 so as to undo the merger. This is the equivalent of fixing up a car you smashed and after it is repaired to say it never happened. I could not find any "back to the future" clause in the regulations or in State law. When the bank employed lot 10 in combination with lot 50 and was not in compliance with its permits, they merged. • To take the now illegally subdivided lot 12, combine it with lots 8 and 10, then sell them off to a third party as a single, noncomplying lot and allow, beyond anyone's reason, an c:\wpdocs\0606whit extensive noncomplying development and not require a variance to be obtained is what has been approved by the Zoning Administrator. My request is simply as follows: The City previously required me to combine my complying lot with my adjacent noncomplying lot in order for me to construct improvements on my noncomplying lot. (Same circumstances as the bank, except my big lot conformed, so I should have been treated more leniently, not less). These properties are adjacent to the Merchants Bank's properties and in the same zone. Why can the bank have special benefits/rights that I could not have? Further, Why are all these decisions not being made in writing, in the light of day with explanations we can all understand? Why can the Bank get a retroactive approval of permit violations and not get burdened with the same requirements that I have been burdened with? (Landscaping bonds, traffic studies, driveway easements, etc.) Why can all of this be done or proposed to be done without getting variances .from this Board? Why aren't the City employees and counsel placing the burden on the land owner/developer to prove his case? Why is the City facilitating a subdivision of obviously merged lots without due process? Why are my objections essentially being ignored? I would like to say the failure to treat these items fairly and objectively up to this date has caused me considerable stress, expense, and pitted me against my neighbor when it was not necessary. I respectfully ask this Board to right these wrongs and determine, in their good judgement, which of the merger scenarios apply and soundly reject the bank's selfserving theory with no basis in fact or reality. The Board should reject the process of no variances required for noncomplying lots and retroactive permits and boundary adjustments that are self-serving. Please do your good work and let me go back to my pizzas! Just for the record, my principle problem with the illegal overdevelopment of noncomplying lots is this. My complying property is misused and abused by the existing, neighboring, noncomplying lots. I am now burdened to protect my property and as a business person, I risk offending potential customers because of other people's selfishness and failure of enforcement. I am the victim, but I have to look like the bad guy. It is not fair. That is what zoning, State laws concerning merger, administrators are supposed to prevent. Please do not make a bad situation worse and continue this illogical position into the courts and waste more of the taxpayers and my time and money. Please put the burden on the parties who are trying to benefit at the City's and neighbors expense. They should know what is right and be obliged to follow the rules. Apply for a subdivision and take their chances just like the rest of us. Sincerely, Lee Zachary President c:\wpdocs\0606whit BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 JOHN J. BERGERON BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 VINCENTA. PARADIS (802) 883-1191 EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH FAX (802) 863-5798 PRISCILLA B. DUBE DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OFCOUNSEL: JOYCE H.ERRECART April 25, 1996 Lance Llewellyn, Secretary South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment c/o Richard Ward South Burlington Planning Office 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Mr. Llewellyn: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802) 879-6304 FAX (802) 879-8533 REPLYTO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 We have received Richard Ward's April 10, 1996 letter, a copy of which is attached. Please consider this a notice of appeal of Mr. Ward's decision not to address the concern outlined in our April 9, 1996 letter. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4465, we provide the following: Name and address of the Appellant: Lee Zachary c/o Lee Zachary's Pizza House 1891 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Property description: 8, 10, 12 and 50 White Street Regulatory references: Zoning Bylaw - Section 28.125(b) - definition of a lot. Section 25.111 - pre-existing small lots. Subdivision Regulation - definition of subdivision. The Appellant requests the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine that 12 and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of their being pre- existing small lots which have become affiliated. The lots do not meet the exception outlined in the Zoning Bylaws. Please set this matter before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Very truly yours, N man C. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Lee Zachary, Appellant NCS/hhf PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748- S. s ZONI DMINISTRATOR "6 8-7958 April 10, 1996 Attorney Norman Smith Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05407-0925 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Attorney Smith: Be advised that all issues regarding the status of lots 12 and 50 White Street owned by the Merchants Bank are currently being reviewed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should be considering formal action no later than May 7, 1996. If you have any questions pertaining to any of these issues, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp JOHN J. BERGERON VINCENT A. PARADIS EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH PRISCILLA B. DUBE DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OF COUNSEL: JOYCE H.ERRECART April 9, 1996 BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 (802) 863-1191 FAX (802)863-5798 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator South Burlington Zoning Office 545 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank White Street Property Dear Richard: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, V ERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802)879-6533 REPLY TO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 I represent Lee Zachary and it has come to our attention that, the Merchants Bank has requested a Boundary Adjustment for 50 White Street. The request results from the fact that a portion of the driveway on 50 White Street encroaches upon 12 White Street. Please consider this letter a request on behalf of Lee Zachary that, you determine that 12 White Street and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of the encroachment and the Bank's failure to comply with the Site Plan Approval given for 50 White Street in 1983. Very truly yours, Norman C. Smith, Esq. NCS/mlr cc: Lee Zachary JOHN M. DINSE, COUNSEL ROBERT H. ERDMANN SPENCER R. KNAPP KAREN MCANDREW BARBARA E. CORY ROBERT R. MCKEARIN JAMES W. SPINK JOHN D. MONAHAN, JR. EMILY R. MORROW RITCHIE E. BERGER AUSTIN D. HART SAMUEL HOAR, JR. Mr. Joseph Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW STEVEN L. KNUDSON NOAH PALEY 209 BATTERY STREET SANDRA A. STREMPEL P. 0. BOX 988 - BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0988 MOLLY K. LEBOWITZ PIETRO J. LYNN TELEPHONE FACSIMILE PHILIP C. WOODWARD 802-864-5751 802.862.6409 SUSAN J. FLYNN JEFFREY J. NOLAN DOUGLAS D. LE BRUN SHAPLEIGH SMITH, JR. JEFFREY J. MCMAHAN May 10, 1996 Re: Merchants Bank/50 White Street - Application for Site Plan Approval Dear Joe: I am writing to follow up on a couple of the issues left unresolved after the public hearing before the Planning Commission on May 7. 1. I submitted to the Planning Commission at the May 7 hearing a letter asking that certain language be inserted in the findings and fact and conclusions of law that would confirm that the lot at 50 White Street has not merged with the lots at 8 White Street, 10 White Street, or 12 White Street. I would repeat my request that this or comparable language be included in the written findings and fact and conclusions that you are drafting on behalf of the Commission. In any case, I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the findings and conclusions as soon as those are available. 2. In a letter dated April 25, Norm Smith, on behalf of Lee Zachary, appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment the decision contained in Dick Ward's letter, dated April 10, 1996. Is the ZBA going to honor Norm Smith's request? If so, I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the notice of hearing before the ZBA. If the ZBA is going to honor Norm Smith's request, The Merchants Bank would request that the ZBA rule on the merits of the merger issue, and not just on Mr. Ward's decision to defer to the Planning Commission. 3. Since the Planning Commission approved the 50 White Street site plan at the May 7 hearing, is Dick Ward now in a position to issue a decision as Zoning Administrator that the lot at 50 White Street has not merged with adjacent properties? LAW OFFICES OF Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.c. May 10, 1996 Page 2 I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, DINSE, ERDMANN, KNAPP & MCANDREW, P.C. Austin D. Hart ADH: emh cc: Joe McLean, Esq. Rex Bell 4. Continued site plan application of Merchants Bank to amend a previously approved site plan for a bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of site modifications to paved areas serving the drive -through service and revising the parking layout, 50 White Street: Mr. Bell said the bank owns #8, 10, and 12 on White Street and also 50 White Street. The city approved a plan which was slightly different from what was built. In the process of considering a piece of the land, they found an encroachment onto the adjacent lot and also coverage of the lot at 50 White Street in excess of what was approved. The bank would like to deal with the encroachment with a boundary line adjustment. To deal with the coverage issue, they want to shave off a portion of the pavement in back. This would bring coverage down to what was approved. The also want to put a door in back of the building and restripe parking to add a handicapped space near the new door. They currently have 23 parking spaces but are required to have only 14. The additional spaces are utilized. Mr. Teeson asked if this is a non -conforming lot. Mr. Weith said it is but the City Attorney says that as long as the amount of coverage on the lot does not exceed what was approved, he didn't see it as a problem. Mr. Hart of Merchants Bank said they are asking -the Commissi-on"to decide that this PLANNING COMMISSION 7 MAY 1996 PAGE 3 lot has not merged into 8-10-12 White Street. The lots have been under separate uses. He asked that the Commission specifically incorporate a conclusion that lot 50 is a separate lot as far as the Planning Commission is concerned. He gave the Commission a copy of the language the bank would like to have included. Mr Weith said he would have to discuss this with the City Attorney before the findings of fact are signed. Mr. Teeson noted that essentially there never was compliance with the approvals and asked if this made a difference. Mr. Weith said he didn't think it did. Mr. Hart said the original application was done without a survey and the encroachment was was not intentional Mr. Smith, representing Lee Zachary, said they still feel the lots have merged. The Bank has not complied with the 1983 approval, and he didn't feel the lots could be "unmerged" by fixing it now. Mr. Smith noted that he had written to the Zoning Administrator on 9 April asking whether the lots have merged. The Zoning Administrator said this was being decided by the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said they are appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Zoning Board. Ms. Barone then moved the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Merchants Bank to amend a previously approved site plan for bank with drive -through service. The amendment consists of site modifications to paved areas serving the drive - through service, 50 White Street, as depicted on a plan entitled "Boundary Adjustment Plat Between the Properties of the Merchants Bank, The Merchants National Bank and Merchants Properties, Inc., South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated January, 1996, last revised April 17, 1996, with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. Any new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting shielded fixtures so as not to cast light beyond the property line. Any change in lighting shall be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning Wrmit for the site modifications within six months or this approval is null and void. 4 The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the site modifications. 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. Mr. Beaudin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. JOHN J. BERGERON VINCENT A. PARADIS EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH PRISCILLA B. DUBE DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OF COUNSEL: JOYCE H. ERRECART April 9, 1996 BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 BtiRLINGTO'-,', VERMONT 05402 (802) 863.1191 FAX (802) 863.5798 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator South Burlington Zoning Office 545 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank White Street Property Dear Richard: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802) 879-6533 REPLYTO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 I represent Lee Zachary and it has come to our attention that, the Merchants Bank has requested a Boundary Adjustment for 50 White Street. The request results from the fact that a portion of the driveway on 50 White Street encroaches upon 12 White Street. Please consider this letter a request on behalf of Lee Zachary that, you determine that 12 White Street and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of the encroachment and the Bank's failure to comply with the Site Plan Approval given for 50 White Street in 1983. Very truly yours, Norman C. Smith, Esq.. NCS/mlr cc: Lee Zachary MAY 10 196 07:56 CITY OF S BURLINGTON City of South Burlington 575 OORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNFR 658-7955 May 10, 1998 Stuart J. Morrow Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. P . O . Box 485 Shelburne, Vermont 05482 ZONING ACMIMSTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Boundary Line Adjustment Between 50 White Street and 12 White Street Dear Mr. Morrow: The boundary line adjustment between 50 White Street and 12 White Street as shown on the plan entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment Between the Properties of the Merchants Bank, The Merchants National Bank and Merchants Properties, Inc., South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. , dated January 1996, last revised April 17, 1996 does not constitute a subdivision. This boundary line adjustment does not constitute a subdivision for the following reasons: 1. This is not a resubdivision because the boundary line adjustment does not change an approved or recorded subdivision plat. 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in any new developable lots . 3. The boundary line adjustment does not result in the enlargement of either lot so that it is capable of subdivision into more lots than before the adjustment - Therefore, based on the above information, this bounaarY line adjustment is administratively approved - Very truly, Post-tr fax Note 76,77 Pate .S jp # �� Richard Ward, Ta �� S- F. ♦�/� G J Zoning Administrative officer It Fax City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 28, 1996 Attorney Austin Hart Dinse, Erdman, Knapp & Andrew P.O. Box 988 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Lee Zachary/Norman Smith Appeal Dear Mr. Hart: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the appeal of Lee Zachary is scheduled as appeal #3 for June 10, 1996, at 7:00 P.M. Enclosed is a copy of the notice. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp PLANNER 658.7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 May 28, 1996 Attorney Norm Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Administrative Decision Dear Norm: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, June 10, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your appeal from an administrative decision regarding a property located at 50 White Street. Please plan to attend this meeting. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp 1 Encl STITZEL & PAGE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401-5210 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/IUD) STEVEN F. STMLEL FAX (902) 660-2552 PAT77 R. PAGE' JOSEPH S.McLEAN (W30 ADUMM IN N.Y.) VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL March 18, 1996 Raymond Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Gabriel Handy Proyosal; White Street Dear Ray: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E. FLETCHER I am writing in response to your request relative to the above -referenced matter. Specifically, you have asked whether the White Street lot on which the Merchant's Bank branch office is located has merged with adjacent properties to create a single lot under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. It is my understanding that Mr. Gabriel Handy has submitted an application for site plan approval to construct a sixty (60) room hotel and parking lot on the properties located at Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street, in the Commercial 1 (Cl) District. Mr. Lee Zachary, a neighboring property owner, objects to this proposal. You have received a letter from Mr. Zachary's attorney, Norman Smith, Esq., arguing that the three lots that are the subject of Mr. Handy's proposal have merged with a fourth lot, located to the east, on which the Merchant's Bank branch office is situated. A small portion of the branch office's parking lot is located on the 12 White Street property. The Bank has applied to the Planning Commission for a boundary adjustment to rectify this situation. The above -referenced lots are contiguous and do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the C1 District. It is our opinion that the lot on which the Merchant's Bank branch office is located has not merged with the lots at Nos. 8, 10, and 12 White Street. Section 28.125 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, which sets forth the definition of "lot," provides in pertinent part: (b) When a lot owner owns a lot which fails to meet minimum lot size and such lot is contiguous to another lot owned by the same lot owner, such contiguous lots shall constitute a single lot except that: Raymond Belair March 21, 1996 Page 2 (2) contiguous lots which are devoted to uses approved as separate uses under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations shall constitute separate lots provided such uses are conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions of the approvals granted . . . See South Burlington Zoning Regulations, §28.125(b)(2). As indicated above, the lots at issue in this case are contiguous. Further, these lots have heretofore been devoted to separate uses. The branch office lot was separately approved by the Planning Commission on October 25, 1983. The site plan for that lot depicts only the commercial banking facility and parking lot. The plan does not evince any intent to join the Bank lot with any other lot. In addition, the adjoining property at No. 8 White Street is devoted to a separate and distinct use as a private residence.' Finally, the boundary adjustment proceeding instituted by the Bank constitutes an attempt to comply with the terms and conditions of the October 25, 1983 approval.L Therefore, the branch office lot has not merged with the other three lots, but rather constitutes a separate lot under §28.125 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Joseph S. McLean SON2057.COR ' This letter does not address whether the lots at Nos. 8, 10 and 12 White Street have merged since the applicant proposes to treat them as a single lot. 2 As opposed to a merger of properties, the encroachment of the branch office parking lot onto the lot located at No. 12 White Street is best characterized as a zoning violation that escaped the attention of the South Burlington Zoning Administrator. Clearly, absent a boundary adjustment, the encroachment of the parking lot onto the adjoining property constitutes a violation of the Bank's October 25, 1983 site plan approval. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 10, 1996 Stuart J . Morrow Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 485 Shelburne, Vermont 05482 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Boundary Line Adjustment Between 50 White Street and 12 White Street Dear. Mr. Morrow: The boundary line adjustment between 50 White Street and 12 White Street as shown on the plan entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment Between the Properties of the Merchants Bank, The Merchants National Bank and Merchants Properties, Inc., South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. , dated January 1996, last revised April 17, 1996 does not constitute a subdivision. This boundary line adjustment does not constitute a subdivision for the following reasons: 1. This is not a resubdivision because the boundary line adjustment does not change an approved or recorded subdivision plat. 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in any new developable lots. 3. The boundary line adjustment does not result in the enlargement of either lot so that it is capable of subdivision into more lots than before the adjustment. Therefore, based on the above information, this boundary line adjustment is administratively approved. Very truly, f �a,I fit✓ Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp PLANNER 658.7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 ." l FAX 658-4748 rp( ZON DMINISTRATOR "6 8-7958 49,96 April 10, 1996 Attorney Norman Smith Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05407-0925 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Attorney Smith: Be advised that all issues regarding the status of lots 12 and 50 White Street owned by the Merchants Bank are currently being reviewed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should be considering formal action no later than May 7, 1996. If you have any questions pertaining to any of these issues, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, _ Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 JOHN J. BERGERON BliRLINGTON, VERMO:CT 05402 VINCENT A. PARADIS (802) 863-1191 EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH FAX (802) 863-5798 PRISCILLA B. DUBE DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OF COUNSEL: JOYCE H. ERRECART April 25, 1996 Lance Llewellyn, Secretary South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment c/o Richard Ward South Burlington Planning Office 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Mr. Llewellyn: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802) 879-6633 REPLY TO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 We have received Richard Ward's April 10, 1996 letter, a copy of which is attached. Please consider this a notice of appeal of Mr. Ward's decision not to address the concern outlined in our April 9, 1996 letter. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4465, we provide the -'-following: Name and address of the Appellant: Lee Zachary c/o Lee Zachary's Pizza House 1891 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Property description: 8, 10, 12 and 50 White Street Regulatory references: Zoning Bylaw - Section 28.125(b) - definition of a lot. Section 25.111 - pre-existing small lots. Subdivision Regulation - definition of subdivision. The Appellant requests the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine that 12 and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of their being pre- existing small lots which have become affiliated. The lots do not meet the exception outlined in the Zoning Bylaws. Please set this matter before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Very truly yours, N man C. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Lee Zachary, Appellant NCS/hhf Lee Zachary's Pizza House, Inc. y 1891 Williston Rd. S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-864-7410 E Hand Delivered rune 10, 1996 Zoning Board of Adjustment City of South Bur'tngton 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 I am writing to you to speak to the issues surrounding my appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision pertaining to lots 8, 10, 12, and 50 White Street. My purpose in this appeal is that the City and State laws and regulations have not been followed and my rights as an adjacent property owner will be severely and adversely affected. I think that the City Attorney has been given erroneous information and that his opinion included requirements that could not and have not been met'. History and 'Fa. -It's. Four old lots are involved: Two have improvements and two are partially used by either of the existing improved lots. The bank is on lot 50, the house is on 8. • "l ne bank's lawyers presented, in sworn testimony, and in an application for subdivisions (they referred, to it as a boundary adjustment) of lots 12 and 50, the following. In essence, "the bank obtained permits to develop and lot 50 and they are trot in compliance with those permits. The improvements as constructed were not the same as permitted and as actually made employed the undeveloped lot 12 in combination with lot 50." • Lot 8 was and is used as a residential rental income property. This sentence is hearsay as nobody will release the legal commentary to us. However, I believe my statement to be accurate_ C: \wpooc6A6W*bat JUH 09 '96 19:53 P.1/2 • The bank lot 50 and the administrators proposed combination of the three lots leave both packages as noncomplying lots. This is not reasonable. The following are the reasonable options: j Note: the concept of merger as applied to this situation could occur in either of two forms depending upon interpretation and impact of use, if actual use applies at all. All lots are affiliated by common ownership, all titled holders are either d. b. a. 's or subs of the Merchants Bank. Option 1 All four lots have merged and the combined lots are in total area complying, but have a grandfathered noncomplying, mixed use. (Bank branch and residential income property). To do anything would require subdivision approval which could not be done without a variance. Optiion 2a - Lot 50 has merged with lot 10. This is a function of sire of each (nonconforming) and the fact that lot 50 was not in compliance with its permits and physically employed lot 12 through the construction of improvements on lot 12. Lot 12 was not in anyway employed in residential use. Option 2b Lot 8 and lot 10 have merged due to size and use and are noncomplying, both in size and use. My Position Mergers. I feel it is clear that one of the above two merger options has occurred. I respectfully submit that the third °option as put forth by the other parties has no factual or logical base other than &velopn ei nt opportunity which is not in the regulations. That is, there is no rational reason to merge lot 12 with 8 or 10. It was used by lot 50. Variances. Since none of the scenarios produce a conforming lot and use that any change in use or improvements requires a variance. The administrator has not just ignored the merger question, but he has also sent the project(s) onto the- Planning Commission as follows: • A so --called boundary adjustment to cut off a portion of lot 12 and give to lot 50 and to cut off a portion of lot 50 and give to lot 12. Since neither lot is conforming, this should require a variance at a minimum and, in my opinion, is an illegal subdivision. • To retroactively approve the permit violations of the bank's improvements on lot 50 favoring lot 12 so as to undo the merger. This is the equivalent of fixing up a car you smashed and after it is repaired to say it never happened. I could not find any "back to the future" clause in the regulations or in State law. When the bank employed lot 10 in combination with lot 50 and was not in compliance with its permits, they merged. • To take the now illegally subdivided lot 12, combine it with lots 8 and 10, then sell them off to a third party as a single, noncomplying lot and allow, beyond anyone's reason, an extensive noncomplying development and not require a variance to be obtained is what has been approved by the Zoning Administrator. My request is simply as follows: The City previously required me to combine my complying lot with my ads gent noncomplying lot in order for me to construct improvements on my noncomplying iot. (Same circumstances as the bank, except my heo lnr c^.^�s^,'n:ed, so I s LVUA%. ha'vc uccu Lfeated more leniently, not less). These properties are adjacent to the Merchants Bank's properties and in the same zone. Why can the bank have special benefits/rights that I could not have? Further, Why are all these decisions not being made in writing, in the light of day with explanations we can all understand? Why can the Bank get a retroactive approval of permit violations and not get burdened with the same requirements that I Have been burdened with? (Landscaping bonds, traffic studies, driveway easements, etc.) Why can all of this be done or proposed to be done without getting variances from this Board'? Why aren't the City employees and counsel placing the burden on the land owner/developer to prove his case? Why is the City facilitating a subdivision of obviously merged lots without due process? Why are my objections essentially being ignored? I would like to say the failure to treat these items fairly and objectively up to this date has caused me considerable stress, expense, and pitted me against my neighbor when it was not necessary. I respectfully ask this Board to right these wrongs and determine, in their good judgement, which of the merger scenarios apply and soundly reject the bank's selfserving theory with no basis in fact or reality. The Board should reject the process of n4 variances required for noncomplying lots and retroactive permits and boundary adjustments that are self-serving. Please do your good work and let me go back to my pizzasl ,rust for the record, my principle problem with the illegal overdevelopment of noncomplying lots is this. My complying property is misused and abused by the existing, neighboring, noncomplying lots. I am now burdened to protect my property and as a business person, I risk offending potential customers because of other people's selfishness and failure of enforcement. I am the victim, but I have to look like the bad guy. It is not fair. That is what zoning, State laws concerning merger, administrators are supposed to prevent. Please do not make a bad situation worse and continue this illogical position into the courts and waste more of the taxpayers and my time and money. Please put the burden on the parties who are trying to benefit at the City's and neighbors expense. They should know what is right and be obliged to follow the rules. Apply for a subdivision and take their chances just like the rest of us. Sin�e�ly, Lee Zachary President lwpd" •utu6wnii s°(,r jOM soa accord ° SOlet h a i 1 ul tioo"? g/on With rh . �Oaa �ur/i�9, SA bore a o n Ce So`tpud alas finon, 0 n �g l S ice O aROffrtm91orn9 al l �Ver ot , Sort' CO St ' COnfe� une nt h e por t° 10 On ur/; Set cOnsider1996 at M n9ton, cia nagpeal the toto�O�MY, Cole Of h Val fr So Neil yAlter.°jh Oct. eking an, pi jillrao S On of on OS pp, eg per in S.tio, q 2 he South n t g, is/ e9u 9 r eur, 1600 t30On tOe it is 9u/a, 1 rear cab;C (appr an ar for ,,roar f an YaiaS X'mat f Coin catea eXistin� to thtY eln Appea; Bt 10 a "Cl, m tiOomfagenSe seekin Grga Pn9ton 12 nal us hon 19 app "ter sub20 Cos s�'20 CorOva/ dooOf r secho na11io b sect/ Re th Re atio2'2p2 uses Sr��perh�SurR Burl cIl tY ; cOu t tk Ss on agues 91on tl>X,St h,g 1n Con paad/e CO, S Cis eurienn sanction Tsrace caeatat coTesWet ; 3) 12 17 a gp0eal East �$ man S of fee Iacha� q n mitt? 9a q Asr ati 0%1 agent \ 0 eX/stirs 9 a 'rut Ory;O of thg e0e,9ed b mal%r�9 thaer re the oachme virtaets ha o 4�wh t St chaeetnts canto an a at Glase flea/ of from seek.TOM bona/ Sectio ng a ana ✓ill teSS 13 tiak sn su20 Cor°val Southn restart and se°fj n� Re9ul eur/i Grant aelica_ aor peatIorInins n9ton 2 f the fires aueriv ana n °Qelic° "quest n n� m'Xe 62p0nOaeatate Sete s va ,- use e bu,.1o16 oot 2600itio pea perm; also lot, 6 65 h na/ us 'ttea t for suar co17rat/p/e use(Sect and 30 j e f nin sJ o n S) 3 wil/iS on locate sg0 & -4ri °ad. at pp °oa/ Saoiva erg er r n o 0 f W subs Con °m seekin n aav c ct;on ditonalSecbo 9 South are cenla 2p2 a ses fo e9u/atio uri;n9to s o f cult s n ape%m s, Re9u 2On n e t n est 9 ur at It feej) to CenteOperato set th n (2q0 o c so- SY pr �eed9at �neO0 ry�, e On ana Burl; file gated 2Oninn9ton path the �gg r On rse j Str ?it Office nnin9 Ric and V e mans u h eb?S five Of.. In Alcor 2 ma), 25 �9 gamin;sIto 96 City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date May 17, 1996 Applicant Lee Zachar Owner, leasee, agent c/o Norman C. Smith Address 27 Main St. PO Box 925 Telephone # Burlington VT 05402-0925 Official Use APPLICATION # _ HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT 802-863-1191 Landowner The Mechants Bank Address 123 Church St. Burlington VT 05401 Location and description of property 50 White Street Type of application check one (X ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to0cpa hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. U . Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Sections 25.111 and 28.125(b) Reason for appeal 50 White Street has merged with 12 White Street, making the "boundary adjustment" invalid. The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. C- Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Norman C. Smith ------------------------ Do not write below this line --Attorney for -Lee- Zachary__ ---------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time A Appeal of +"i G► t✓.c-!+.;' se-ek-kng_ a. from Section of the South Burlington_Z-oning Regulations. Request ia-far-permission to Dinse, Erdmann, JOHN M. DINSE, COUNSEL STEVEN L. KNUDSON ROBERT H. ERDMANN Knapp & McAndrew, P C. Knapp NOAH PALEY SPENCER R. KNAPP 1drew SANDRA A. STREMPEL KAREN MCANDREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW BARBARA E. CORY MOLLY K. LEBOWITZ ROBERT R. MCKEARIN PIETRO J. LYNN JAMES W. SPINK 209 BATTERY STREET PHILIP C. WOODWARD JOHN D. MONAHAN, JR. P.O. BOX 988 JEFFREY J. NOLAN EMILY R. MORROW BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0988 DOUGLAS D. LE BRUN RITCHIE E. BERGER SHAPLEIGH SMITH, JR. AUSTIN D. HART TELEPHONE TELECOPIER JEFFREYJ. MCMAHAN SAMUEL HOAR, JR. 802-864-5751 802-862-6409 May 20, 1996 Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Merchants Bank - 50 White Street Dear Dick: I received today a copy of Norman Smith's application on behalf of Mr. Zachary for an appeal to the ZBA. I would appreciate it if you would let me know when this matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the ZBA and send me a copy of the notice of hearing. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, DINSE, ERDMANN, KNAPP & MCANDREW, P.C. Austin D. Hart ADH: emh cc: Rex Bill „_ D I-; t .. 1 i'j I)11i JOHn j AEACICRON 'J'N(;4NTA PA9AO:3 EDWAFID DFiT_FnT PI_F, NC;RMAN C. SMITH Pkli.CIk.6A 60NDv OLUZ OOUGLAEG KAl, 214 OAN.EL P O FC'RKE 1.fJZvfx FROM: FAX NUMBER: '3EI2GF.Pc:�',, PAR.iDi'�, & `S'MTH ATTORNEYS AT LAW :i MAIN STRCE-T PO. BOX 92, BCR S'\CTi, ViLli\16.NTON402 IyG�; lkiJ -91 f„7C ;Ea2) 653.5799 PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: NUMBER OF PAGES IN TRANSMISSION: (Including this coVer letter) - sr:r JUNCTION OFF,CE a CLr ARI—STRF-ETPC BO}: 174 E,:EY. &I rJCTiON v £Rr.4OvT O;,ar FAX LLIC2; 779 61-33 r+EPLV To r•o. E+ox 925 E1 jr,LINGTOA. VT pja r,? IF YOU DO NOT rZECEIVE ALL COPIES OR CO2'Y IS NOT LEGIBLE, PLEASE CALL (802) 863-1191 AS SOON AS POSSIBLF. DATE: y g OPERATOR: CJ MESSAGE: THIS TRANSMITTAL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AriD IMAY CCNTATN IN'FOPYATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND FROM PROTECTED DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS TRANSMITTAL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGE-14T RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE TRA3vSMIETTAL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HERESY NOTIFIED ` H—X'^ A.NY DISSSMINA` TON, DISTPISTTTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Ir YCU HAVE. RECEIVED THIS COMMC,fit�CA�'inN IN ERROR, P ,EAS;w NOTIFY US Y_'4N:FCITATELY BX TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGIN:-. MESSAGE TO US AT I -'HE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL Sh-KVICr. THANK YOU. 04 09 96 15: 1- FAt �O�iN J, dEgOEii�r� v�NI:E N'" A. ?ARwO�o EiY1Aa0 G. �RZF.a!RiCn: NORMAN C. 8MIT7. PRILCILLA 8. OUBE OOUGLAS G. KALLEN OANIEL A O*RG;JgKE OF COUNSEL JOYCE M ERRECANT April 9, 1.996 BI PGERO-N, P,f.RADIS, FIfiZPATRICK A SMITH ATTORNEYS AT laW 27 MAIN SiF+EET P 0. 0OX 925 IFr'XL.TV(:T0 V, VEIRMONT 05402 (802) "j- 1101 FAX WZ-) F63.5T88 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator South Burlington Zoning Office 545 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank wbite :Street Property near Richard: ESSEJ. JUNCTION (FF:CE- -:a PEARL STAEET PO acx -74 EG.rEX!UNCT-ON VERM0NTo64s-- kW'2) 0763 8=4 FAX jaQ2)B79-9S99 REPLY TO P.O BOX B`a BURLINGTON, VY 05402 I represent Lee Zachary and it has come to ou-r attention that, the Merchants Bark has requested a Boundary Adjanttaent for 50 White Street. The request resn is from the fact that, a portion of the driveway on 50 White Street encroaches upon 12 White Street. Please consider this letter a recpaest on behalf of Lee Zachary that, you determine that 12 White Street and. 50 White Street have merged by virtue of the encroachment. arnd the Bank's failure to comply with the Site Plan Approval giver.. for 5o White Street in 1983. Very truly yours, C 'L, :?y C. Smith, Esq. NCS/ml.r cc: Lee Zachary PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 April 10, 1996 Attorney Norman Smith Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05407-0925 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Attorney Smith: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that all issues regarding the status of lots 12 and 50 White Street owned by the Merchants Bank are currently being reviewed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should be considering formal action no later than May 7, 1996. If you have any questions pertaining to any of these issues, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp JOnNJ.BEROEAQN VINCENTA_ PARAZ2I5 EOWARt) O. FfTZPATRICK NORMAN C. 5M( H PRISCG4)Aa o(.,aP OOW06AZ 0. KALLEN OANIEL P O'ROURKE of Co—C, JOYCE M. ERRECART April 9, 1996 BERGERON, PARAD15, FITZPATRICH BSc SN11TH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 BUALINGTON, V ERMONT 03402 (602) 863-1191 FAX (002) 883-5798 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator South Burlington Zoning Office 545 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank White Street Property Dear Richard: ES3CX JUNCTION OFFICE 5n PEARL STREET P.C. BOX 174 E$9EX JUNCTION, VERMONT 0545,3 (002) 8796.306 FAX (902) 879•6SW REPLY TO PO. BOX 826 SURLINCTON. VT OS402 Y represent Lee Zachary and it has come to our attention that, the Merchants Bank has requested a Boundary Adjustment for 50 White Street. The request results from the fact that a portion of the driveway on 50 White Street encroaches upon 12 White Street. Please consider this letter a request on behalf of Lee Zachary that, you determine that 12 White Street and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of the encroachment and the Bank's failure to comply with the Site Plan Approval given for 50 White Street in 1983. Very truly yours, —/� C Norman C. Smith, Esq.. NCS/mlr cc: Lee Zachary PLANNER 658.7955 City of South $urthiortori 575 DORSET STREET � SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMCNT 05403 141 FAX 658.4746 ' 4,D 20N1 0 INISTRATC� 'fi d•7958 April. 10, 1996 Attorney Norman Smith Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick & Smith P.O. Box 925 Burlington, Vermont 05407-0925 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Attorney Smith: Be advised that all issues regarding the status of lots 12 and 50 White Street owned by the Merchants Bank are currently being reviewed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should be considering formal action no later than May 7, 1996. If you have any questions pertaining to any of these issues, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, ) Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative officer RW/mcp �a 43 0 . 00 � �4 IzGA2. 3�ci• 05 2.2 S'o' � � �•8Z ACE � 3 0 cq 1, + 2 ACRES 5 DUMK�N �N f 17 7-A0 cw4ul Z I a a�GE R 0 A1? )V uM 84'R rN �►/��+'!' SHO'>rl r JVERF+GN►� fi�i F N t O M A _ LANI)11ApI K,1- 3LUL• 9U LE PLANTINCI LATIN NAM& k11n, I(O.—{CCIVI)ITION S4M. TILL LEAP LINA* = AL- CHCnATA ' OALn OUPUP AWWA1MA01IVITAI TNVlA OCCI*ENTAUS A' 4 RLLm ftALAP d SMCn111i•J1JIkiPCQ .1t7NiPl4Vt CMINENSS 14- 14' MALLT0 4~49 bVCIN4 twin *V•N`1''AU1 ALAwl 74• U' SALLO• •LnjAA 4 n 0 LILNjIN1I jVijkNl; iN1: _ Aee w f's Mk111 YAl1nk }L-Nf[II LZy3 wr f ' 1A-j , LId UTINA TYSTkAl IW4._ Af40 Y- %IaDGI NJ.MVS-A•17{•)NN-}- 7W Rif lr•T. 1751V 5VOW 4 &TAL HALIQk 6P, _A },r }LAf Lk Nf 170V As -ArA EL—k MJ NU FACTJIjkn 6V - PoLk J tldujuJC, sysjkm, INL. C P.J. dv% A I:.3 L,NLIIJNATI,JHIv i 3, 3 4r:dr- s I � A- - ' h I 1 FI0.GR, F I otn`# LI e, UTI h14 o4 PSU ILAInIG rI-41 LIGuT .PoLE5 Jz ALE:YQ - I-o' 1 V45T1RG- Turf LINE J �• r. \ tic MOTE L - 60 TOOMt A STORIEI • y F A O NO� I I r t� s � � c L41 ; c u 'A ,QtJE .VP t MEtLL P'L r O 4 \ / O TycE 1C� ut. '.IA Mv7Tlt[ �� 7 • .17•st1cAAAr _• ra�.� I I wa I I awve � I "L s I I I �) " I i JtPLILILIt14; r I 4 NOT E S ALL 71MEH 110 NS TO CE 4CVIt'IFO AT 111E SITE 1SY THE CONTOACTOQ• ANY FCiZoQ O¢ POIRIT IN �ZUESZtON MV1T 6E QGF CCPEIS -Td THE p17CNITCLT OQ Ot',NE2 FoP A D:C G1'+1GN BE Te¢� P¢oCEE91NL WI7u TNN - NdTCS' A PATICIA(G Fe(? CAWS - 62 SPACES LOT CcYEPA46 • L&4'�e e .. LA.NOSCAPen AREA1 31.G: B FRONT `/t e 4 COVCOA4 E • 29 S I T E P L A N— LAN1)SCAP' 1W6 / JLALE: I- • ILO' R E C E I V E U"' APR 0 11 1996 City of So. Burlington Rm)m k ocvlse� 2 2sa�M � Rt�l, t R•V,oION/ eV -• I-1L-7F rn'� t- S-St Z-Zf•_M. any r. �• ZOG-. CIOrIf C, dl L=1 LA t--- v r,-, r� c-1 rr- r ;:�) p:) —� )AN. 1•�Mf. �awu 11NfN• �o }CCU Jael Na. abet rr.-r•r 1..r„rr BERGERON, PARADIS, i' ITZPATRICK & S:MITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET PO BOX 925 JOHN J. BEAGERON BIIRLINGTON, VF,RMONT 03,102 VINCENT A- PARADIS (9D2) 863-1191 EDWARD D. FTZPATRICK NORMAN C. 3MITH FAX (902)103-6790 PRISCILLA B. OUSE OOUaLAA G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE JOYCE M. ERRECART April 25, 1996 Lance Llewellyn, Secretary South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment c/o Richard Ward South Burlington Planning Office 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank Property, White Street Dear Mr. Llewellyn: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P,O, BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 06467 (W2)a7o-d3G4 FAX (802) a70-e S39 REPLY TO P.O eox 92s BUFILING-MN. VT 00.402 We have received Richard Ward's April 10, 1996 letter, a copy of which is attached. Please consider this a notice of appeal of Mr. Ward's decision not to address the concern outlined in our April 9, 1996 letter. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. S4465, we provide the following: Name and address of the Appellant: Lee Zachary c/o Lee Zachary's Pizza House 1891 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Property description: 8, 10, 12 and 50 White Street Regulatory references: Zoning Bylaw - Section 28.125(b) - definition of a lot. Section 25.111 - pre-existing small lots. Subdivision Regulation - definition of subdivision. The Appellant requests the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine that 12 and 50 White Street have merged by virtue of their being pre- existing small lots which have become affiliated. The lots do not meet the exception outlined in the Zoning Bylaws. Please set this matter before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Very truly yours, N an C. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Lee Zachary, Appellant NCs/hhf BERGERON, PARADISE FITZPATRICK & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 925 JOHN J. BERGERON BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 VINCENTA. PARADIS (),�� EDWARD D. FITZPATRICK NORMAN C. SMITH FAX (802) 863-5798 PRISCILLA B. DUBS DOUGLAS G. KALLEN DANIEL P. O'ROURKE OFCOUNSEL: JOYCE H. ERRECART May 17, 1996 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 Re: Merchants Bank Property, So White Street Dear Mr. Ward: ESSEX JUNCTION OFFICE 34 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 174 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 (802)879-6304 FAX (802) 879-6533 REPLY TO P.O. BOX 925 BURLINGTON, VT 05402 Enclosed is my Application to Board of Adjustment for filing with respect to the above. This Application relates to both your April 10, 1996 letter and your May 10, 1996 letter regarding the boundary adjustment for 50 White Street owned by The Merchants Bank. Our check in the amount of $50.00 is also enclosed for the filing fee. Very truly yours, Norman C. Smith, Esq. NCSJkdj Enclosures cc: Lee Zachary Austin Hart, Esq. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: 12 & 50 White Street Date: May 31, 1996 The issue is a merger of existing small lots and a encroachment by the Merchants Bank onto lot 12 White Street. Regarding the lot merger, Section 28.125 definition of lots includes exceptions which provides for existing small lots which "have not merged." The City's opinion is that the lot in question is developed separately with a residential non conforming use from the bank lot. Regarding the encroachment, the encroachment by the bank was recently discovered by a survey. The Merchants Bank extended a minor portion of it's drive by area into lot 12 White Street. A property line adjustment was granted on May 10, 1996. The City's subdivision regulations allows for minor property line adjustments. See letter to Stuart Morrow dated May 10, 1996. A revised site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. Enclosed are copies of the May 7, 1996 minutes. A copy of the tax map which defines the lots in question is enclosed. The Merchants Bank developed 50 White Street and purchased the additional land at a later date. The City's opinion is that lot #8, 10 and 12 White Street have merged. In 1983, the bank added additional drive-in tellers, the encroachment occurred at that time. We are of the opinion that with the approval of a revised site plan and the granting of a property line adjustment that all issues are resolved. Lots #81 10 & 12 White Street will be sold to Gabe Handy and developed with a permitted use. Lee Zachary adjoining property owner objects to the development of the lots in question. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the City Attorney's office. They are of the opinion that the lots have not merged.