HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-09-31 SD-09-32 - Decision - 1404 Hinesburg Road#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
BUCKTHORN GROUP — 1404 HINESBURG ROAD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-09-31
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-09-32
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
The Buckthorn Group, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary and
final plat plan approval to subdivide a 6.93 acre parcel developed with an single-family
dwelling into nine (9) lots ranging from 0.39 acres to 1.96 acres, 1404 Hinesburg Road.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on August 18, September 1,
September 15 and October 6, 2009. Patrick O'Brien represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearings and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is seeking preliminary and final plat plan approval to subdivide a 6.93
acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling into nine (9) lots ranging from 0.39
acres to 1.96 acres, 1404 Hinesburg Road.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Estate of R. Furlong, Claire Lewis.
3. The application was received on July 13, 2009.
4. The subject property is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
5. The plan submitted consists of an 17 page set of plans, page one (1) entitled,
"Landscaping Plan Summerfield 1404 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont",
prepared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 7, 2009, last
revised on 9/25/2009.
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
SEQ-NR
Zoning District
Requirement/Limitation
Proposed
Min. Lot Size
12,000 SF
>0.39 acres
4 Max. Density
1.2 units/acre base density= 8
units
9 units
♦ Max. Buildin Coverage
15%
<15%
♦ Max. Total Coverage
_
30%
<30% _
♦ Min. Front Setback
20 ft.
>20 ft.
♦ Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
>10 ft.
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
�+ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft.
zoning compliance
♦ No buildings are proposed at this time; therefore this criterion will be
enforced by the administrative officer at such a time as the applicant
proposes buildings for the lots. The applicant has stated that they
will be within the allowable dimensions.
4 At 1.2 units per acre, the 6.93 acres would allow up to 8 units.
Therefore, the applicant will need to utilize one transferred
development right. This would be well below the allowable 4
dwelling units per acre.
SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
(SBLDR), subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions:
The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the
zoning district(s) in which it is located.
The standards for this criterion are found below in a review of the regulations of the
Southeast Quadrant.
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
for the affected district(s).
The proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the South Burlington
Comprehensive Plan.
Southeast Quadrant District
This ar000sed subdivision is located in the southeast auadrant district. Therefore it is
subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts
The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the
entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District.
A. Height.
(1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or
SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions
of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts.
(2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC
sub -district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section
3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts.
2
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD093I_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
The applicant has stated that the height of the single family residences would not exceed
45 feet. This criterion will be enforced when the applicant applies for zoning permits for
units on the individual lots.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining
parcels
The applicant is proposing eight lots which are similar in size, ranging from .39 to .62 acres.
One lot, which will house the existing single family home, is proposed to be 1.96 acres. The
units are dispersed throughout the seven acres fairly uniformly. While most of the lot will
remain un-improved, there is no designated open space or usable open spaces between
parcels.
The applicant is proposing a 40 foot non -developable area (no swing sets, swimming pools,
etc) which will be located along the northern and southern boundaries of the existing lot
(the rear yards of the newly proposed units). These restrictions have been included on the
plan for easier enforcement by the City.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner
consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing
carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw.
9.07 Regulating Plans
A. Description and Regulatory Effect. The regulatory text of this Article is
supplemented with illustrations, officially known as the Regulating Plan, illustrating the
dimensional and design concepts. The Regulating Plan contains basic land planning and
neighborhood design criteria that are intended to foster attractive and walkable
neighborhood development patterns. Design criteria and guidelines set forth below are
intended to address basic neighborhood design relationships related to scale,
connectivity, and overall orientation that promote pedestrian friendly development as
follows in Section 9.07(C).
The Regulating Plan is an illustrative guide; it does not have the same force of regulation
as does the text in this bylaw. However, the Development Review Board will refer to both
the Regulating Plan and the text of this section in its project reviews
B. General Provisions
(1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR,
SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub -districts.
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub-
district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2),
with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
The applicant is proposing a lot width to depth ratio of only 1: 1.5. This does not meet
the guidelines. The applicant is therefore seeking a waiver of this requirement. Waivers
are permissible under PUD standards, but with the clear stipulation that doing so is to
"encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land...."
C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns
3
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#S D-09-31
#SD-09-32
(1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern
section are intended to provide pedestrian -scaled development patterns and an
interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling
trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips.
(2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of
attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize
connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood
livability.
(3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that
new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian -friendly environment,
while allowing creativity in design.
The subject lot presents a difficult canvas for adherence to these criteria. The 6.93
acres, limited to less than 10 lots to avoid the Act 250 requirements, does not easily lend
to interconnected streets or a circuitous road. Pedestrian scale is somewhat achieved
given the size of the neighborhood. A sidewalk is provided on south side of the street but
ends at the start of the cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac is removed, a design has been
provided which details how the sidewalk will connect to adjacent properties.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing
management shall be established by the applicant.
Again, at this time, no open spaces or natural areas exist. No common land is proposed.
As such, there is no corresponding plan.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction
and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy
or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. in
making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the
project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The proposed project shall 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
shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
The applicant has submitted a sufficient grading and erosion control plan.
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect
wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner
that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link
fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the
use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged.
The applicant has submitted a wetlands delineation of the site. There appears to be a small
wetland in the southeast corner of the site. This wetland and its buffer shall remain
undisturbed. The plans have been revised to include a note which states that there shall be
no disturbance of the wetland buffer. This includes no mowing and no use of pesticides.
Brush -hogging shall be permissible no more than 3 times per year.
4
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is
encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses
(including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of
agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations
and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for
agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -
supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural
resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly
encouraged.
This criterion is not applicable to this application.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the
Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is
approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and
utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on
the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land,
schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to
meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City
requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation,
and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
The subject lot is not currently on public water or sewer. The applicant is proposing to
connect to both public water and sewer.
The plans have been reviewed by the South Burlington Water Department who has
provided comments in a letter dated July 15, 2009. The SBWD has stated that the water
line shall be continued to the northern property line within the proposed right of way for a
future street connection to the property to the north.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines,
and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of
such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
The applicant has also stated that they will be exploring the easements which exist that
connect the site to the property to the north. It is unclear what the nature of these
easements is and whether any would allow for pedestrian connections. The applicant
has proposed an extension of the street to the property to the north.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a
manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards,
absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has
been approved by the City Council.
The applicant is not proposing any recreation paths, but is proposing a sidewalk at this
time. The plans also show a recreation path easement along Hinesburg Road 20 feet in
width.
(:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that
adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation
including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water
flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.
The City of South Burlington Fire Department has reviewed the plans and provided
comments in a letter dated August 5, 2009. He has specified than an additional hydrant
should be added and the plans reflect this requirement.
E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management
strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to
create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and
emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the
Development Review Board 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.
The Board finds the circulation on the site to be safe. However, in accordance with the
standards below, cul-de-sacs may not be permitted for certain lengths of street. See
comments on this matter below.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of
such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Again, the applicant shall investigate all potential connections to adjacent properties,
planned and unplanned, developed and undeveloped.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway
plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant
related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo dated
August 7, 2009. The applicant shall adhere to these comments.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent
streets and neighborhoods shall apply.
This criterion is not applicable to this project
9.09 SEQ-NR Sub -District; Specific Standards
The SEQ-NR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as
enumerated in this Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300
and 500 linear feet. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or
longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.
6
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#S D-09-32
This criterion is not easily applicable to this application. The development as planned is
too small to warrant neighborhood blocks. However, as previously noted, the applicant
and the board should discuss the general layout of the site.
(2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300
to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets
may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end
streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian
connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section
15.12(D)(4).
The applicant is not proposing a cul-de-sac. The proposed street will end at the
applicant's northerly property line with a temporary turn -around on the adjacent property.
(3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to
the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of
these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets
is strongly encouraged.
There is the potential for this lot to connect with the property to the north. The property to
the north is currently developed with a single family home. However, it is of a similar size
and could support anywhere from 1 to potentially 15 or more additional units. That
property also has an ideal curb -cut directly across from the existing roadway of Butler
Drive. As the potential for connection is possible, potentially even imminent, it is
imperative to at least require an access easement to this property so that shared access
could be made possible. The Board does not support planning the southeast quadrant
into multiple, unconnected cul-de-sacs.
The Board has consistently required that such roads, with strong potential to connect to
adjacent properties, be constructed to the property line by the applicant. This cost should
not fall to the burden of the taxpayers or to the adjacent property. As indicated above,
the applicant will construct the road to the north property line.
(4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
As already stated, the proposed project depicts a width to depth ratio of approximately
1:1.5. The applicant is proposing a lot width to depth ratio of only 1: 1.5. This does not
meet the guidelines. The Board will grant a waiver from this requirement.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and
local) in the VR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that
discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3
and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below.
(2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an
additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk
from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be
7
L Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The
DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this
purpose.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet
wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory
to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size
of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on
center.
The plan shows street trees on the site. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and
provided comments in a memo dated July 20, 2009. The applicant shall adhere to the
comments of the City Arborist. The plans have been revised accordingly.
(4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
There is no on -street parking proposed. No on -street parking should be allowed unless
the roadway is revised to reflect the minimum pavement width for parking on one side of
26'. The roadway as proposed is 24'.
(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian
crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
There are no street intersections as part of this proposal and so this criterion is not
applicable.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14')
shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from
public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -
intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother
levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest
level consistent with public safety.
The proposed lighting is in compliance with the SBLDR
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street.
Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street.
Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special
design guidelines apply to arterial streets). A minimum of thirty five percent (35%)
of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south.
The applicant has submitted building elevations which appear to meet these criteria
(2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and
variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified,
8
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
but fagades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony.
Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are
oriented to the street are encouraged.
The applicant has submitted building elevations which appear to meet these criteria.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between
the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk.
Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front
setbacks.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of this provision to provide for a small range of front
yard setbacks, noting that the proposed houses would "meet the spirit of this provision
by being close to the road; however we would like a small range of setbacks, instead of
all the houses having a uniform 25 foot set back. We request a range of 25-40 feet for
the front setbacks." The Board supports this waiver.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The
front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the
house by a minimum of eight feet. Rear Alleys are encouraged for small lot single-
family houses, duplexes, and townhouses.
The applicant has submitted building elevations which appear to meet these criteria
(5) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods
and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and
within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing
types.
This subdivision is currently too small for this criterion to be applicable
OTHER
The Director of Public Works and the Superintendent of the Stormwater Department
have reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memo dated August 6, 2009. The
applicant has addressed the questions and comments raised by these two departments.
The street name originally proposed by the applicant is extremely similar to a street
name already approved for use in the City. The applicant should propose another street
name.
``// DECISION pp
Motion by ��rL� ��m�3 seconded by ilA LE
to approve Preliminary Plat App tion #SD-09-31 & Final Plat Application SD-09-32 of
The Buckthorn Group, subject to the following conditions:
All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended
herein.
9
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat plans submitted by the
applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The plat shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of
the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be
submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the mylar.
a. The final plat plan, sheet C-1 shall be revised to include the signature of the
land surveyor.
b. The plans shall be revised to include the 911 street addresses for each lot and
the approved street name.
c. The plans shall be revised to provide details of the proposed pervious
sidewalk.
4. Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and
after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties.
5. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water
Department per the letter dated July 15, 2009.
6. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Fire Chief per
the memo dated August 5, 2009.
7. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington City Engineer,
dated 8/7/2009.
8. The buildings shall be located between 25 and 40 feet from the road right-of-way.
9. The applicant shall have approved by the Planning Commission an appropriate
street name prior to recording the mylar.
10. In accordance with Section 15.14 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g. roads,
water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the
City Engineer, "as built" construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer.
11. Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the
pavement.
12. The mylar shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance.
13. The DRB hereby approves the transfer of one (1) development right from 127 Hidden
Meadow Lane to this subdivision.
14. Prior to recording the final plat plans, the applicant shall record the document
entitled, "Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights" and a
survey of the area from which the transferable development rights have been
10
I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#SD-09-31
#SD-09-32
severed as required under 24 V.S.A § 4423(b)(4), upon approval of the City Attorney
in the South Burlington land records.
15. All new homes in the development shall comply with the Residential Design
requirement under Section 9.08(c) of the Land Development Regulations.
Compliance with the criteria shall be determined by the Administrative Officer at
permit issuance.
16. The Board grants a waiver from the lot width to depth ratio to allow the lots as
proposed.
17. The applicant shall post a $13,130 landscaping bond for the street trees prior to
issuance of the zoning permit for road construction. This bond shall remain in full
effect for three (3) years from planting to assure that the landscaping has taken root
and has a good chance of survival.
18. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall
submit a Certificate of Title showing the ownership of all property and easements to
be dedicated or acquired by the City to be approved by the City Attorney prior to
recording the mylar.
19. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building or start of utility or road
construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable
offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public road, and utility, sewer,
water, recreation path, and easement deed from the property owner to the north to
the City for the temporary turn -around, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Attorney
for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records.
20. The following restrictions shall apply to the portion of Lot 8 which includes the
wetland and associated buffer:
a. No mowing. Brush hogging shall be permitted no more than three times per
year.
b. No use as traditional lawn or recreational space. No play structures shall be
permitted. A fence shall be permitted only to the extent it delineates the non -
useable area.
c. No use of pesticides within the wetland or wetland buffer.
21. Prior to start of construction of the improvements described in condition #19 above,
the applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements, the
amount of which must be approved by the City Engineer.
22. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
23. The final plat plan (survey plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days
or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk
prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall
require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator.
Mark Behr ea'/nay/abstain/not present
11
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc
#S D-09-31
#SD-09-32
Matthew Birmingham ye /nay/abstain/nQt resent
John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstai1�ent
Roger Farley — e nay/abstain
Eric Knudsen — nay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby a nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — ea ay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of
Signed this day of �G ��'��`� 2009, by
Mark Behr, Vice Chairman
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
12
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Buckthorn_SD0931_SD0932_ffd.doc