HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-06-05 - Decision - 0030 Community Drive#AO-06-05
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
TECHNOLOGY PARK PARTNERS — COMMUNITY DRIVE
APPEAL #AO-06-05
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Technology Park Partners, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is appealing the
Administrative Officer's decision that a six (6) lot subdivision (a.k.a. Cynosure
Subdivision) located off from Kimball Avenue approved by the Planning Commission
on 4/4/95 expired on 4/4/98. The Development Review Board held a public hearing
on December 19, 2006. Mark G. Hall, Esq., represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans
and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the
Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 16, 2006, the Administrative Officer received a request dated
October 13, 2006 from Mark Hall, Esq. representing Technology Park. This
request was to make a determination as to whether the April 4, 1995 subdivision
for the Technology Park property located off Kimball Avenue and Community
Drive was valid if the 8/6/96 subdivision has expired.
2. On November 14, 2006 the Administrative Officer rendered a decision that a six
(6) lot subdivision (a.k.a. Cynosure Subdivision) located off Kimball Avenue and
approved by the Planning Commission on 4/4/95 expired on 4/4/98.
3. On November 22, 2006, Technology Park Associates, Inc., filed a Notice of
Appeal appealing the Administrative Officer's decision rendered on November
14, 2006.
4. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on November 29,
2006 for a public hearing to be held on December 19, 2006.
5. Condition #6 of the April 4, 1995 approval required the construction of a 10-foot
wide recreation path along the entire frontage on Kimball Avenue. This condition
has not been met.
6. The approved subdivision included the requirement that certain infrastructure,
sewer line extensions and sewer manholes, be constructed. To date, none of
this infrastructure has been constructed.
7. No extension of the expiration date of the April 4, 1995 approval has ever been
requested or granted pursuant to Section 14.04(C)(1) of the Land Development
Regulations.
- 1 -
#AO-06-05
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 17.04(C)(1) of the Land Development Regulations states in part that "if
no action is taken by the subdivider to construct substantially his proposed
subdivision within three years of the final plat approval said approval shall
become null and void....". To date, none of the required infrastructure has been
constructed and condition #6 has not been met. This constitutes a failure "to
construct substantially" the subdivision.
2. Based on the failure to construct substantially the subdivision within three years
of the final plat approval, the Development Review Board concludes that the
approval granted this subdivision expired on April 4, 1998, and is null and void.
�J DECISION
Motion by P�TFr� �� ���( seconded by h&,"4 F ��
to uphold the decision of the Administrative Officer.
Mark Behr — "enay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain of present
John Dinklage — ea/nay/abstain `ot presen
Roger Farley — e nay/abstain/not presen
Eric Knudsen — e nay/abstain/not present
Peter Plumeau — e nay/abstain/not press
Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstai of present
Motion carried by a vote of i' -& -6
Signed this �` —day of� i 13- 2006, 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 VRCP 76 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).
-2-