HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-15-02 - Decision - 0001 Dorset Street#SD-15-02
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT ---1 DORSET STREET
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-02
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Halvorsen Development, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, is seeking approval under the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations ("LDRs") to amend a previously approved Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") consisting of a 9,356 sq. ft. restaurant building, a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites),
and an 89 room hotel (Homewood Suites). The requested PUD amendment consists of razing the
existing restaurant building and constructing an 11,242 sq. ft. retail building and a 550 sq. ft. detached
accessory structure.
The application was received on January 23, 2015. The Development Review Board, hereinafter referred
to as the Board, held a final plat review hearing on February 17, 2015 and it was closed on this same
date. At the request of the Applicant, the hearing was reopened on March 17, 2017. The reopened
hearing was continued to, held, and closed on April 7, 2015.
The Applicant was represented at the hearing by Debra Bell. The owner of record is Larkin Family
Partnership. Krislin, LLC is the lessee of that portion of the subject property for which the PUD
amendment is requested. The plan set submitted consists of 23 pages. Page five (5) of the plan set is
entitled "Halvorsen Development One Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Existing Conditions", prepared
by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 8/22/14.
Based on the Applicant's testimony, plans and materials contained in the document file for this
application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant is seeking approval to amend a previously approved PUD consisting of a 9,356 sq. ft.
restaurant building, a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and an 89 room hotel (Homewood Suites).
2. The requested amendment consists of razing the existing restaurant building and constructing an
11,242 sq. ft. retail building and a 550 sq. ft. detached accessory structure. The detached accessory
structure has been identified by the Applicant as a pergola.
3. The subject property's street address is 1 Dorset Street. It is located at the intersection of Dorset
Street, Williston Road, and the 1-89 northbound off -ramp.
4. The subject property is a corner lot. As a corner lot, the subject property is deemed to have two
front yards, two side yards, and no rear yard. See Section 2.02, Definitions ("A lot located at the
intersection of two or more streets or abutting a curved street in such a way that the front building line
1
C
#SD-15-02
meets either side lot line at interior angle of less than 135 degrees... A corner lot shall be deemed to
have two front yards and two side yards and no rear yard. " )
5. The property is located in the Commercial 1 — Residential 12 (C1-1112) Zoning District. A portion of
the property is located in the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The property is located in the Traffic
Overly District 2A. The property is located within the City's Core Area as defined in the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
1. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 5.01 of the LDRs, the area, density, and dimensional requirements for the Commercial 1
District are those set forth in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards. The following are the dimensional
standards for the Commercial 1— Residential 12 Zoning District, set forth in Table C-2:
Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size for the C1-R12 district is 40,000 sq. ft. The subject
property contains 5.61 acres. The Board finds that this criterion is met.
Maximum Site Coverage, Buildings Only. The maximum site coverage for buildings in the C1-R12
district is 40%. The proposed project will result in building lot coverage of 17.1%. The Board finds
this criterion is met.
Maximum Site Coverage, Including Buildings, Parking and All Other Impervious Surfaces. The
maximum site coverage in the C1-R12 district, including buildings, parking, and all other impervious
services is 70%. The proposed project will result in total lot coverage of 67%. The Board finds this
criterion is met.
Minimum Front Yard Setback, Williston Road and Dorset Street. See discussion below.
Minimum Side Yard Setbacks. As noted above, pursuant to Section 2.02, Definitions, the subject
property is a corner lot and deemed to have two side yards. The minimum side yard setback for
buildings in the CI-R12 district is 10 feet. The proposed project will have side yard setbacks
exceeding 10 feet. The Board finds this criterion is met for both side yards.
Minimum Rear Yard Setback. As noted above, pursuant to Section 2.02, Definitions, the subject
property is a corner lot and deemed to have no rear yard. The Board finds this criterion is not
applicable.
Maximum Structure Height, Accessory Structure. The maximum accessory structure height in the
C1-R12 district is 15 feet. The proposed pergola structure is 12 feet high. The Board finds this
criterion is met.
Maximum Structure Height, Principal Structure. The maximum principal structure height in the C1-
R12 district is 35 feet. The proposed principal structure is 25 feet high. The Board finds this
criterion is met.
Minimum Front Yard Setback, Williston Road. As set forth in Section 3.06(B) (1), for certain arterial and
collector streets in the City, including Williston Road and Dorset Street, the 50 foot setback is measured
from the edge of the planned right-of-way. The planned right-of-way and exiting right-of-way in this
2
#SD-15-02
location of Willison Road are coincident. The proposed retail structure will be located 9.5 ft. from the edge
of the planned right-of-way for Williston Road. The Board finds that this criterion is not met.
Minimum Front Yard Setback, Dorset Street. The subject property is located north of Swift Street on Dorset
Street. Pursuant to Section 3.06(B) (1), the required front setback is 50 feet from the edge of the planned
right-of-way. The planned right-of-way and exiting right-of-way in this location of Dorset Street are
coincident. The proposed pergola structure will be located six feet from the edge of the planned right-of-
way and the proposed retail building will be located 17.3 feet from the edge of the planned right-of-way.
The Board finds that this criterion is not met.
Maximum Front Yard Coverage, Williston Road and Dorset Street. As set forth in Section 3.06(H), in the
case of nonresidential uses, not more than 30% of the area of the required front setback may be used for
driveways and parking and the balance must be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance.
The proposed project will result in 44.3% front yard coverage on Williston Road and 48% front yard
coverage on Dorset Street. The Board finds this criterion is not met for both Williston Road and Dorset
Street front yard coverages.
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
C1 Zoning District
Required
Existing
Proposed
Met?
Minimum Lot Size
40,000 SF
5.61 acres
5.61 acres
Yes
Maximum Site
Coverage, Buildings
40%
17.0%
17.4%
Yes
Only
Maximum Coverage,
Including Buildings,
70%
68.8%
67%
Yes
Parking and All Other
Impervious Surfaces
Minimum Front Yard
50 ft. from edge of planned
9.5 ft.
Setback (Williston
ROW (= 50 ft. from edge of
> 50 ft.
(Principal structure proposed 9.5
Waiver
Road)
existing ROW)
ft. from edge of planned right-
Requested
of -way)
6ft. /17.3ft.
Minimum Front Yard
50 ft. from edge of planned
(Accessory structure proposed 6
Setback (Dorset
ROW (= 50 ft. from edge of
> 50 ft.
ft. from edge of planned ROW.
Waiver
Street)
existing ROW)
Principal building proposed 17.3
Requested
ft. from edge of planned ROW)
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (Williston
10 ft.
> loft.
> 10 ft.
Yes
Road)
Minimum Side Yard
Setback (Dorset
10 ft.
> loft.
> loft.
Yes
Street)
Minimum Rear Yard
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Setback
Maximum Building
15 ft.
n/a
12
Yes
Height Accessory
Maximum Building
135 ft.
I n/a
1 25
1 Yes
#SD-15-02
C1 Zoning District
Required
Existing
Proposed
Met?
Height Principal (Flat)
Maximum Front Yard
Waiver
Coverage (Williston
30%
89%
44.3%
Requested
Road)
Maximum Front Yard
Waiver
Coverage (Dorset
30%
54.9%
48%
Requested
Street)
2. DIMENSIONAL WAIVERS
As noted above, the Applicant is seeking approval to amend a previously approved Planned Unit
Development. In reviewing an application for a PUD, the Board must determine whether an application
has sufficiently adhered to the purposes of a PUD. This is evaluated by considering the project — and
property — as whole.
The purpose of PUD is to "provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in [the
LDRs] in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill
development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan." Section
15.01. In conjunction with PUD review, the modification to the LDRs is permitted "subject to the conditions
and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of the [] Regulations." Section 15.02 (A) (3).
Waivers from dimensional standards are reviewed individually but also considered in their totality to
determine whether a project, as a whole, meets the purpose of the Regulations.
PUD applicants "must provide a list of waivers and other relief sought through PUD review from the strict
dimensional standards, subdivision standards, site plan review standards, or other applicable provisions of
these Regulations." Section 15.04 (B). The Applicant has requested waivers for the Minimum Front Yard
Setback for Williston Road and Dorset Street and the Maximum Front Yard Coverage for Williston Road and
Dorset Street. As set forth above, the Board has found that these criteria have not been met. Absent
waivers for each of these dimensions requirements, the proposed PUD amendment cannot be approved by
the Board. Applicant's waiver requests are addressed below:
Minimum Front Yard Setback, Dorset Street. Applicant has requested a waiver to locate the accessory
pergola structure six feet from the edge of the Dorset Street planned right-of-way and the principal retail
building 17.3 feet from the edge of the Dorset Street planned right-of-way. Both are well within the 50 ft.
setback. In reviewing an application for a PUD and granting waivers from the Board must find, as a whole,
that the project is advancing "innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill
development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan." Section
15.01. Applicant has proposed the pergola to increase the amount of building width in order to comply
with the building width to parking area width ratio. The pergola does not serve any functional purpose for
the shelter or enclosure — as discussed below, its sole purpose is to meet the mathematical ratio of
"buildings" to "parking areas" under Section 14.06 (13)(2)(C). The Board finds that the pergola, and the
proposed project as a whole, do not constitute innovative design and layout or efficient use of land, and do
not increase the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area. For this reason,
the Board denies the waiver for the minimum front yard setback for Dorset Street for both the pergola
structure and the retail building.
Minimum Front Yard Setback, Williston Road. With respect to a waiver for the front yard setback for
Williston Road, the Board notes that the Applicant proposes to locate the principal building 9.5 feet from
4
#SD-15-02
the edge of the planned right-of-way. As the Board has previously found that the proposed project as a
whole does not constitute innovative design and layout or efficient use of land and does not increase the
viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, the Board denies the waiver for
the minimum front yard setback for Williston Road.
Maximum Front Yard Coverage, Williston Road and Dorset Street. Applicant has requested a waiver from
the Maximum Front Yard Coverage requirements for Williston Road and Dorset Street. Under the LDRs, in
the case of nonresidential uses, not more than 30% of the area of the required front setback may be used
for driveways and parking and the balance must be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance. The proposed project will result in 44.3% front yard coverage on Williston Road and 48% front
yard coverage on Dorset Street. The Board has previously granted waivers for this property to allow 89%
and 54.9% front yard coverage for Williston Road and Dorset Street. The Board notes that proposed
project would improve compliance with this criterion but, having found that the proposed project as a
whole does not constitute innovative design and layout or efficient use of land, and does not increase the
viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, the Board denies the requested
waiver for the Maximum Front Yard Coverage requirements for Williston Road and Dorset Street.
3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Section 15 of the LDRs addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. It reads, in part, as
follows:
15.01 Purpose
It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to
provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in
order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill
development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is
the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into
a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose
of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to
assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens.
In reviewing a PUD application, the Board must determine whether the proposed project sufficiently
adheres to the purposes of a PUD. The Board evaluates this by considering the project as whole. Adherence
to individual Subdivision and Site Plan standards, and requests for waivers from dimensional standards, the
latter of which may only be granted as part of a PUD approval, are reviewed by the Board individually but
are also considered in their totality to determine whether the proposed project, as a whole, meets the
purpose of the Land Development Regulations. Specifically, the Board must find, that the project, as a
whole, advances "innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill
development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan... for the
purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington...."
Pursuant to Section 15.18(A) of the LDRs, all PUDs must comply with the following standards and
conditions:
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water
#SD-15-02
allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The subject property is served by public water and public sewer. The Applicant has stated that the proposed
conversion from a restaurant to a retail use would not require additional water or wastewater for the PUD.
The City's Water Department and Planning & Zoning Department concur. The Board concurs and finds this
criterion is met.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent
soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and
adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be
covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation.
The Board finds that the proposed project will adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section
16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan will meet the
standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the LDRs. The Board finds this criterion is met.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the
findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City
staff or consultants.
Access to the project is a 55 ft. foot wide entry and exit drive from Dorset Street. This entry drive will be
shared by the Comfort Suites hotel, Homewood Suites hotel and the proposed retail building. The entry and
exit are separated by a 12 ft. wide curb reveal reduction. The Applicant has proposed to lower the curb
reveal island height such that it is flush to accommodate delivery vehicles and fire apparatus. The Applicant
has indicated that the change from a restaurant to a retail use will not result in an increase in p.m. peak
hour trips. The Planning and Zoning Department concurs. The Applicant has proposed that the southwest
entry to the parking lot to be 18 ft. wide and the entry will be striped to indicate it as an entry -only location.
Signage will be installed to direct the retail building users to exit at the southwest corner.
The Board finds that while the proposed project's circulation and traffic are not ideal given the proximity of
the Dorset Street curb cut to the busy Williston Road intersection, this is a pre-existing condition and the
curb cut is located in the best possible location. Further, while the proposed project will increase traffic
over current conditions (as the existing restaurant is vacant), the proposed project does not represent an
increase in traffic over what is presently allowed for the site. The Board finds that access, circulation and
traffic management have been adequately addressed and that this criterion is met.
(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to
wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with
respect to the project's impact on natural resources.
The Board finds there are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site and
that this criterion is met.
0
#SD-15-02
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
As set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project is located within the City's Core Area within
the area described as the Williston Road Area, further described as a Commercial Center:
Existing Land Use the Williston Road Area - Northern Half of the City
Cloverleaf access to the Interstate at Williston Road has encouraged several large shopping centers
and major motel chains to cluster in an area that already has heavy concentrations of traffic. In
1987, the area surrounding Dorset Street and Market Street was designated as the future City
Center of South Burlington. This area is planned to be a downtown consisting of higher density,
mixed uses including residential, retail, office, and the municipal and school complex. This area is
planned to be the focus or physical center of the City where people and visitors can live, work and
shop within a physically attractive, pedestrian friendly environment. (Comprehensive Plan p. 23)
Future Land Use Commercial Centers
These areas generally follow the Shelburne Road and Williston Road Corridors. These areas are
intended to consist predominantly of commercial uses, however, residential and industrial can be
mixed throughout the area. These centers are generally already developed with commercial
establishments. Therefore, growth will occur primarily as infill or conversion development. The City
encourages mixed -use development in these areas (e.g. mixed residential/commercial or mixed
retail/office/restaurant) to encourage pedestrian movement, use of public transportation services,
and shared parking opportunities. These areas are intended to meet both local and regional
shopping and employment needs. (Comprehensive Plan p. 27)
Section 5.01 Commercial 1— C1
Purpose. A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general
retail and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other
uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered
residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not interfere
with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large -lot retail uses, warehouses, major
industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Planned Unit
Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic movements, promote mixed -use
developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and to provide a potential location for high -
traffic generating commercial uses. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those
that are allowed as conditional uses.
The proposed project consists of constructing an 11,242 sq. ft. retail building and a 550 sq. ft. detached
accessory structure (the pergola) at the corner of Williston Road and Dorset Street, adjacent to the 1-89
northbound off -ramp. The PUD consists of these structures and the two Comfort Suites and Homewood
Suite buildings located to the south.
The Board finds the proposed project is not visually compatible with the planned development patterns of
the Commercial Centers area in the Comprehensive Plan and the Commercial 1 District of the Land
7
#SD-15-02
Development Regulations. Specifically, the Board finds that the combination of the proposed principal retail
building and the detached accessory pergola are not situated on this prominent City corner lot in a manner
that serves as or enhances a compact central business area and does not sufficiently promote pedestrian
movement. The proposed rectangular principal retail structure does not integrate into the remainder of the
site and its surroundings. The accessory pergola structure is employed to meet a parking requirement but
does not join the site together or support the visual compatibility of the planned development patterns. For
these reasons, the Board finds that this criterion is not met.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
This is among the densest and most urban areas in the City. Large areas of open space would be uncommon
and unfitting. Still, there is a large swath of open land along the property's boundary with the Interstate. No
development is permitted in this Interstate overlay district. As noted for previous applications concerning
this property, the Applicant is also proposing to keep green space along its southern boundary which is
shared with the University Mall. The Board finds that this criterion is met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including,
but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from
two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and
location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
The Fire Chief submitted a letter to staff dated March 25, 2015 in which he indicated that certain issues he
had previously raised with the Applicant were not addressed in the latest set of plans. These issues are:
1. The raised island separating the in/out lanes was supposed to be flush with the road with a
different road surface texture per our February 2015 discussions,
2. The island to the south of the entrance should be tapered on all sides;
3. The parking lot island on the east side should be flush with different road surface texture or
moved two parking spots west.
The Applicant addressed the first item but not the other two items. For this reason, the Board finds that this
criterion is not met.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
The PUD has an approved connection to the property to the south. Sidewalks are existing along Dorset
Street and Williston Road, and additional sidewalks are proposed to connect the building to the pergola and
hotels. Stormwater enhancements are proposed along the western side of the property. See below for
discussion of landscaping. The Board finds that this criterion is met.
8
ri
#SD-15-02
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
Previous plans and discussions of the property showed a need for a pedestrian connection to the mall
property to the south. A connection is shown along the eastern edge of the parking area. The Board finds
this acceptable. The Deputy Director of Public Works, in an email dated February 13, 2015, indicated that
with the response from the Applicant to his comments, he is satisfied with the plans. The Director of Public
Works indicated in an email dated February 13, 2015, that he had no comments on the project. The Board
finds the proposed project to be consistent with the City's roadway plans. For this reason the Board finds
that this criterion is met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
As noted above, the proposed project is located within the Comprehensive Plan's Core Area within the area
described as the Williston Road Area, further described as a Commercial Center. The Comprehensive Plan
contains two Recommendations specific to commercial corridors:
3. Commercial Corridors a) The City should explore and encourage, through whatever means
available, mixed -use development and redevelopment in its existing commercial corridors (i.e.,
Williston Road and Shelburne Road). The City should review its zoning regulations and consider
increasing residential densities or providing other incentives to encourage more mixed
residential/commercial development.
b) Similarly, the City should encourage through its zoning regulations development which promotes
improved aesthetics, public transportation and traffic improvements, and pedestrian amenities.
The Plan also includes a chapter on South Burlington's Visual Design.
Goal Statement. It should be the goal of the City to allow for responsible development that positively
contributes to the landscape while preserving the essential elements of the City's landscape that
define South Burlington for future generations to enjoy.
Objective: The City should encourage through site plan and subdivision review, the incorporation of
techniques designed to improve the aesthetics of new and existing development.
The proposed project is a commercial use and is an infill development. The proposal is to add a retail use to
two commercial hotel facilities on the property. The project is, at a basic level, minimally consistent with the
plan, but does not advance public transportation and traffic improvements significantly, and does not
employ any significant shared parking opportunities. The Board finds this criterion to be met, but notes that
it does not significantly advance the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. SITE PLAN, GENERAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A) (6) of the Land Development Regulations, all PUDs require site plan approval.
Section 14.06 establishes general review standards for all site plan applications. The following site plan
criteria have been considered by the Board under Section 14.06:
101
#SD-15-02
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas.
With respect to the transition from structure to site, the Board finds that the proposed retail building is not
well adapted to the site, evidenced in part by the Applicant's request for multiple dimensional waivers. The
Applicant has proposed a rectangular retail building at the corners of Dorset Street and Williston Road, at
the northbound off -ramp to 1-89. In order to accommodate the parking that the Applicant has requested,
vehicular circulation, loading, and refuse removal, and to employ a floorplan that the proposed tenant
seeks, the plans push the proposed principal retail building to the edge of the site and fill in a portion of the
remainder of the site with a pergola. The Board concludes this requirement of the criterion is not met.
With respect to the transition from structure to structure, the Board finds that the transition from the
proposed retail building to the detached accessory pergola structure to not be well planned resulting in an
awkward transition between the two structures. In addition, the proposed retail building and pergola
employ little transition to the existing buildings on the site, including the Homewood Suites hotel. The
buildings are separated by a large parking lot and are not designed in a manner that links the two to a
single unified plan. The Board finds that the site has not been planned to accomplish a desirable
transition from structure to site or from structure to structure. The Board concludes this requirement of
the criterion is not met.
Adequate planting is addressed in the Landscaping discussion below.
With respect to safe pedestrian movement, the Applicant has shown pedestrian connections between
buildings and from the sidewalks to the building. The Applicant has proposed an operable entrance at
the easterly portion of the building fagade facing Williston Road. This door is to be two-way operable
during all business hours. No doorway is proposed on the Dorset Street front of the building. The Board
concludes that this requirement of the criterion is met.
With respect to adequate parking areas, the total proposed parking spaces are 233. This is comprised of
79 spaces for the Comfort Suites hotel, 97 spaces for the Homewood Suites hotel and 57 spaces for the
proposed retail store. Four of the parking spaces will be marked for disabled parking. The Board finds
that total proposed parking spaces match the number required under Table 13-2 of the LDRs. The Board
finds that this requirement of the criterion is met.
The Applicant has proposed a parking area between the proposed retail store and the two existing hotel
buildings. The Board finds that the parking is located "to the rear or side of buildings" as required under
Section 14.06(B) (2) (a). The Board finds that this requirement of the criterion is met.
Under Section 14.06 (13)(2)(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 building(s) located at the building line." The Board notes that the basic intent of this
provision is to limit the amount of area dedicated to parking between buildings along a street.
The Applicant has proposed 550 sq. ft. pergola along Dorset Street which, if deemed to be a "building",
increases the amount of building width in order to comply with the building width to parking area width
ratio. The Board finds that the proposed pergola does not meet the definition of a building.
Section 2.02 of the LDRs define a building as follows:
10
{
#SD-15-02
{
Building. A structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, and used or intended for the
shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, or equipment, goods, or materials of any kind. The
connection of two buildings by means of an open porch, breezeway, passageway, carport, or
other such open structure, with or without a roof, shall not be deemed to make them one
building. Buildings shall be classified as Principal or Accessory.
The Board finds that the proposed pergola has a roof and is supported by columns but does not serve any
functional purpose for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, equipment, goods, or materials of any
kind. While it would include a seating area, there are no discernable relationships of this structure to the
remainder of the site or off -site improvements. Its sole purpose, plainly stated, is to meet the mathematical
ratio of "buildings" to "parking areas" in 14.06 B (2) (c). The purpose of this section is to create an
environment that is principally a built environment and to limit the amount of parking that separates two or
more buildings along a street front. The pergola does not serve this purpose. A different arrangement of
buildings on the site could meet the standards; indeed, such a proposal was offered at the sketch plan level
of this project review but the Applicant elected to change the design of its own accord at the preliminary /
final plat stage.
The Board concludes that because the pergola does not meet the definition of a building, the total width of
all parking areas located to the side of buildings at the building line exceeds one half of the width of all
buildings located at the building line. The Board finds that the adequate parking requirement criteria,
specifically the requirement for width of parking areas between buildings in Section 14.06 (B) (2) (c) is not
met.
Section 14.06 (B) (2) (d) requires that there be sufficient landscaping to "screen the parking from view of the
Interstate." The Board finds that this requirement is met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of
each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.
The proposed principal building is in part two stories with the top floor consisting of a small mezzanine 25 ft.
high, which is below the limit of 35 ft. for this zoning district. The proposed pergola is 12 feet high. The
Board finds that this criterion is met.
(4) 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.
With respect to the relationship of structures and site to the adjoining area, Section 14.06(C) (1) provides:
(1) 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 not addressed the fact that there are two existing four story buildings within this PUD.
There is no significant commonality in materials or architectural styles between the existing buildings and
11
#SD-15-02
the proposed principal structure, and consequently there is no attractive transition between the new retail
building, the new accessory structure and the existing buildings. There does not appear to have been any
consideration for this fact in the design of the project. For these reasons, the Board finds that this criterion
is not met.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
As described more fully above, the proposed retail building does not relate harmoniously to the proposed
pergola, nor to the existing buildings on the property. They are of a much different mass, architecture, and
scale and would be located very close to both streets without providing an entrance on Dorset Street.
Further, the proposed retail building presents a predominantly blank face to the northbound off -ramp of I-
89, one of the principal visual gateways to the City. The Board finds this criterion is not met.
5. SITE PLAN, SPECIFIC CRITERIA
In addition to the general review standards addressed above, site plan applications must meet the following
specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
As noted above, the entry drive will be shared by the Comfort Suites hotel, Homewood Suites hotel and the
proposed retail building. The entry and exit are separated by a 12 ft. wide curb reveal reduction. The
Applicant has proposed to lower the curb reveal island height to flush to accommodate delivery vehicles
and fire apparatus. The southwest entry to the parking lot will be 18 ft. wide and the entry will be striped
to indicate it as an entry -only location. Signage will be installed to direct the retail building users to exit at
the southwest corner. The Board has previously found that while the proposed project's circulation and
traffic are not ideal given the proximity of the Dorset Street curb cut to the busy Williston Road intersection,
this is a pre-existing condition and the curb cut is located in the best possible location. The Board finds that
this criterion is met.
B. Utility Services. 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. The Board finds that this criterion is met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly
screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The plans show proposed dumpsters or other waste facilities, adequately screened. The Board finds that
this criterion is met.
12
I
#SD-15-02
I
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening
and Street Trees.
See Landscaping discussion below.
6. LANDSCAPING
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening are required
for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and
landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Landscaping must be
adequate "to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy
and comfort of abutting properties." Section 13.06(B).
Pursuant to Section 13.06 (B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown
on the plans. The plans show adequate snow storage areas for the subject property. The Board finds that
this criterion is met.
Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the LDRs. The
landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape
designer. The Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan and itemized budget totaling $25,965. Based on
$1,779,020 in building costs, the plans shall include a minimum of $25,490 in new trees and shrubs. This
requirement is being met. The Board finds that this criterion is met.
The proposed parking areas contain more than twenty-eight (28) parking spaces, and therefore shall be
landscaped in accordance with Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations. The site plan shows
proposed landscaping on the interior of the proposed parking area meeting the minimum 10% requirement.
The Board finds that this criterion is met.
Section 14.06(B) (2) (d) requires that parking areas adjacent to the Interstate be screened with sufficient
landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. The Board finds this criterion to be met.
The Applicant proposed landscaping along Dorset Street which changes significantly at the edge of the lease
line. The shrubs proposed to be planted in front of the pergola, on the north side of the lease line, would
mature to 4-6 feet in height while the shrubs on the southerly side of the lease line would be trimmed to
approximately two (2) feet in height. This would lack continuity of the landscaping as required by 15.13(E)
(1) and would not provide adequate screening of the parking. The Board finds that while the amount of
landscaping is sufficient, the property is not integrated. This criterion is not met.
7. EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Section 13.07(A) sets forth general requirements for project lighting. Section 13.07(A) incorporates
Appendix D by reference. Appendix D sets forth acceptable and unacceptable lighting fixtures. Under
Section 13.07(A), all exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one -family and two-family uses
"shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and
will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street."
The Applicant has provided a point -by -point lighting plan. Lights are directed downwards and the plan
indicates that light levels are to remain at or below maximum levels indicated in the Performance
13
#SD-15-02
Standards, except in one area where the Applicant noted that the city street light along Dorset Street is
the source of the light levels that will exceed the standard. The Board finds this criterion is met.
Light sources for parking areas must also comply with the specific lighting standards set forth in Section
13.07(B):
(1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be
determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the
desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting
shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four
times the mounting height.
Lighting levels are evenly distributed as evidenced by the point by point lighting plan submitted. This
criterion is met.
(2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from
becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent
properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming
a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the
traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be
minimized to drivers on adjacent streets.
The lighting design will result in minimal lighting with a maximum of 6.4 foot candles (FC) and an
average of 2.36 FC. This criterion is met.
(3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural
material, with a decorative surface or finish.
No information was submitted to make a positive finding with respect to this criterion. This criterion is
not met.
(4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize
underground wiring.
No poles will exceed 30 feet in height. This criterion is met.
(5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize
underground wiring.
No poles will exceed 30 feet in height. This criterion is met.
(6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure,
whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher
that the roof of the structure.
The proposed principal building will not exceed 25 ft. in height so any building mounted fixture will not
exceed 30 feet in height. This criterion is met.
14
#SD-15-02
(7) Safe pole locations: Breakaway poles shall not be used in parking lots. Poles shall not be
erected along the outside of roadway and ramp curves or where vehicles must make sharp turns.
Poles should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes. Poles located
behind longitudinal traffic barriers should be offset sufficiently to allow for barrier deflection
under impact.
No information was submitted to make a positive finding with respect to this criterion. This criterion is
not met.
(8) Pole location in parking lots: Pole locations shall be coordinated with stall and aisle layouts.
Where practical, poles should be near the end of parking rows or around the perimeter of the lot.
When located at parking stall boundaries, light poles should be mounted on concrete pedestals.
Where raised medians or islands are used to separate adjacent stalls, light poles should be
placed in these areas unless pedestrian traffic will be inconvenienced. Where light poles are
placed between parking rows in the interior of the lot, the poles should be located on the center
line of double rows of parking stalls and on the center line of two opposing stalls and should not
be placed on the stall line between cars where fender damage might occur.
Not enough information was submitted to make a positive finding with respect to this criterion. Pole
locations do not appear to be shown on any plans. This criterion is not met.
Other lighting standards for non-residential uses are found in the Performance Standards set forth in
Appendix A. The performance standards for lighting found in Appendix A are incorporated by reference
through Section 3.13(A) (2):
A.9. Direct Glare
(a) Direct glare is defined for the purposes of these Regulations as illumination within property
lines caused by direct or spectrally reflected rays from incandescent, fluorescent, or arc lighting,
or from such high temperature processes as welding or petroleum or metallurgical refining.
(b) No such direct glare shall be permitted, except that parking areas and walkways may be
illuminated by luminaries so hooded or shielded that the angle of maximum candlepower shall
be sixty degrees (60') drawn perpendicular to the ground. Such luminaries shall be placed not
more than thirty feet (30') above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level
shall not be in excess of an average of three (3) foot candles.
A.10 Indirect Glare
(a) Indirect glare is defined for the purposes of these Regulations as illumination beyond property
lines caused by diffuse reflection from a surface such as a wall or roof of a structure.
(b) Indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles
maximum, and 0.1 foot candles average.
(c) Deliberately induced sky -reflected glare, as by casting a beam upward for advertising
purposes, is specifically prohibited.
The Applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing existing foot candle values at the property. Existing
light values due to intersection lighting currently exceeding the maximum standard and the average
15
'l 1
#SD-15-02
standard. The lighting plan indicates that the project's luminaries shall not exceed existing levels. The Board
finds this criterion is met.
8. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT
The purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ("IHO district") to "provide for a safe and
aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land
uses within South Burlington." Section 10.04(A). The IHO district includes "all land within one hundred
fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights -of -way, and within fifty (50)
feet horizontal distance of the interstate ramps rights -of -way, both existing and planned, as depicted in
Figure 10-1". Section 10.04(B). Pursuant to Table 10-1, the IHO district extends 50 ft. along the interstate
ramp right-of-way all the way to the Williston Road right-of-way. The interstate ramp right-of-way projects
50 feet into the subject property along its western edge.
Pursuant to Section 10.04(C) (1), no building of any kind, including parking facilities or lots, are permitted in
the IHO district, except that the following structures and infrastructure are allowed under 10.04(C) (2),
subject to conditional use approval by the Development Review Board:
(a) Public recreation paths
(b) Roadways or access drives for purposes of accessing a preexisting or approved structure
within the WO district and no other reasonable provisions for access can be made.
(c) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water.
(d) Stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance thereof, including necessary removal of
vegetation and dredging.
(e) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure, including parking
lots or facilities, is located outside the IHO district.
(f) Hydro -electric power generation
(g) Municipal buildings, subject to the provisions of Section 10.03(D).
The proposed retail building lies within 15 feet from the interstate ramp right-of-way and is therefore
located within the IHO district. The proposed retail building is not listed as an allowed structure in the IHO
District pursuant to Section 10.04 (C) (2). The Board finds that this requirement is not met.
The Applicant is also proposing parking in the IHO District. This infrastructure is not allowed within this
District pursuant to Section 10.04 (C) (2). The Board finds that this requirement is not met.
A new dumpster enclosure is proposed within the IHO District. This infrastructure is not allowed within this
district pursuant to Section 10.04 (C) (2). The Board finds that this requirement is not met.
16
#SD-15-02
New stormwater infrastructure is proposed in to serve the project and is located within the IHO district.
Stormwater treatment facilities are allowed within the IHO district. The Board finds that this requirement is
met.
9. TRAFFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT
The purpose of the Traffic Overlay District to "provide a performance -based approach to traffic and access
management associated with development and re -development of properties in high traffic areas of the
City" and to "provide a means by which the allowable uses and the arrangement and intensity of uses on a
given parcel may be regulated, above and beyond District regulations, based on traffic generated and
impacts on City access management goals." The Traffic Overlay District to provides, "incentives to improve
site design and access management during the development and redevelopment process, in keeping with
the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan." Section 10.02(A).
The Board finds that the subject property is located Traffic Overlay Zone 2A. The maximum permitted peak
hour volume per 40,000 square feet of land area in this zone is 20, Section 10.02(G). The Board finds that
the maximum permitted peak hour volume for the subject property is 122.25. No additional traffic is
expected to be generated by the removal of a 175 seat restaurant and its replacement by an 11,242 sq. ft.
retail building. The Board finds that no additional traffic will be generated by this project. The Board finds
this criterion to be met.
10. LEASE LINE ADJUSTMENT
The Applicant is proposing to make a minor boundary line adjustment between the two parcels within the
PUD so that the porte-cochere of the existing Comfort Inn is solely located on the southernmost parcel and
so that the pergola associated with the proposed retail store is solely located on the northernmost parcel.
Pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the Land Development Regulations, this constitutes a subdivision
of land. In the context of a Planned Unit Development, the Board had in previous decisions specifically
stated that while the lease line exists and constitutes a subdivision of land, the lot is not recognized for
planning and zoning purposes as it cannot stand on its own and meet the requirements of these
Regulations. The adjustment to the lease line, in and of itself, has no bearing on this application. The Board
finds this criterion to be met and re -affirms that the lease line is not recognized for planning & zoning
purposes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. As set forth in Section 3.06(B) (1), for certain arterial and collector streets in the City, including Williston
Road and Dorset Street, there is a 50 foot front yard setback is measured from the edge of the planned
right-of-way. The proposed retail structure will be located 9.5 ft. from the edge of the planned right-of-way
for Williston Road. The proposed pergola will be located six feet from the edge of the planned right-of-way
for Dorset Street and the proposed retail building will be located 17.3 feet from the edge of the planned
right-of-way for Dorset Street. The Board concludes that this criterion is not met for both Williston Road
and Dorset Street front yard setbacks. For the reasons previously discussed, waivers for the minimum front
yard setbacks for Williston Road and Dorset Street are denied.
2. As set forth in Section 3.06(H), in the case of nonresidential uses, not more than 30% of the area of the
required front setback may be used for driveways and parking and the balance must be suitably landscaped
and maintained in good appearance. The proposed project will result in 44.3% front yard coverage on
17
#SD-15-02
Williston Road and 48% front yard coverage on Dorset Street. The Board concludes that this criterion is not
met for both Williston Road and Dorset Street front yard coverages. For the reasons previously discussed,
waivers for the maximum front yard coverage requirements for Williston Road and Dorset Street are
denied.
3. As set forth in Section 15.18(A)(5), the project must be designed to be visually compatible with the
planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the
zoning district(s) in which it is located. The proposed project is not visually compatible with the planned
development patterns of the Commercial Centers area in the Comprehensive Plan and the Commercial 1
District of the Land Development Regulations. The combination of the proposed principal retail building
and the detached accessory pergola are not situated in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact
central business area or sufficiently promote pedestrian movement. The proposed retail building does not
integrate into the remainder of the site and its surroundings. The accessory pergola structure is employed
to meet a parking requirement not join the site together or support the visual compatibility of the planned
development patterns. For these reasons, the Board finds that this criterion is not met.
4. Section 15.18(A) (7) requires the layout of a PUD to be reviewed by the Fire Chief to ensure that
adequate fire protection has been provided. The Chief has indicated that the island to the south of the
entrance should be tapered on all sides and that the parking lot island on the east side should be flush with
different road surface texture or moved two parking spots west. The Applicant has not addressed these two
items. For this reason, the Board concludes that this criterion is not met.
5. As set forth in Section 14.06(B)(1), a site shall 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. The proposed retail building is not well adapted to the site, as
evidenced by the Applicant's request for multiple dimensional waivers. In order to accommodate parking,
vehicular circulation, loading, refuse removal, a floorplan that the proposed tenant seeks, the proposed
principal retail building is located at the edge of the site and a portion of the remainder is filled in with a
pergola. The transition from the proposed retail building to the detached accessory pergola structure is not
well planned. This results in an awkward transition between the two structures. In addition, the proposed
retail building and pergola employ little transition to the existing buildings on the site, including the
Homewood Suites hotel. The buildings are separated by a large parking lot and are not designed in a
manner that links the two to a single unified plan. The Board concludes this criterion is not met.
6. Under Section 14.06 (13)(2)(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 building(s) located at the building line." The Board finds that the proposed pergola does
not meet the definition of a building found at Section 2.02. Because the pergola does not meet the
definition of a building, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of buildings at the building
line exceeds one half of the width of all buildings located at the building line. The Board concludes that the
adequate parking requirement criteria, specifically the requirement for width of parking areas between
buildings in Section 14.06 (B) (2) (c) is not met.
7. As set forth in Section 14.06(C)(1), PUDs are encouraged to have a combination of common materials
and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive
transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. There is no significant commonality in
materials or architectural styles between the existing buildings and the proposed principal structure, and
18
r t�
#SD-15-02
consequently there is no attractive transition between the new retail building, the new accessory structure
and the existing buildings. The Board concludes that this criterion is not met.
8. Section 14.06(C) (2) requires proposed structures to be related harmoniously to themselves, the
terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures. The proposed retail building does not relate harmoniously to the proposed pergola. They are
of a much different mass, architecture, and scale and would be located very close to both streets
without providing an entrance on Dorset Street. The Board concludes this criterion is not met.
9. Section 13.06(G) (2) of the LDRs requires a minimum amount of landscaping be provided on the site.
The Applicant is proposing to plant $25,490 in new trees and shrubs. The Applicant proposed
landscaping along Dorset Street which would not be at a consistent height. The shrubs proposed to be
planted in front of the pergola, on the north side of the lease line, would mature to 4-6 feet in height
while the shrubs on the southerly side of the lease line would be trimmed to approximately two (2) feet
in height. This would lack continuity of the landscaping and would not provide adequate screening of
the parking. The Board concludes that while the amount of landscaping is sufficient, the property is not
integrated. This criterion is therefore not met.
10. With respect to requirements for exterior lighting, there is either not enough information or no
information is available with regards to Sections 13.07 (B) (3), (7) & (8) to make positive findings on
whether these criterion are met. The Board therefore concludes that these criteria are not met.
11. Section 10.04(C) (1) prohibits building of any kind within the Interstate Highway Overlay District and
only allows certain structures and infrastructure with conditional use approval under Section 10.04(C)
(2). The proposed retail building lies within 15 feet from the interstate ramp right-of-way and is therefore
located within the IHO district. The proposed retail building, reconfigured parking, and dumpster are not
listed as an allowed structure in the IHO district pursuant to Section 10.04 (C) (2). Therefore, the Board
concludes that this criterion is not met.
19
#SD-15-02
E
nmrzinN
Motion by Bill Miller, seconded by Mark Behr, to approve final plat application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen
Development:
Tim Barritt—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Mark Behr—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Brian Breslend —
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Bill Miller—
_yea
nay
abstain
not present
David Parsons —
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Jennifer Smith —
yea
nay
abstain
not present
John Wilking—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Motion failed by a vote of 2— 5 — 0. The application is denied.
Signed this C day of I" "Jv'' c/ 2015, by
f,.
1rim'115arritt, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontoudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
20