HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-08-14 - Decision - 0002 0004 Market Street#AO-08-14
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
CENTURY PARTERS, LP — APPEAL #AO-08-14
2 MARKET STREET
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Century Partners, LP hereinafter referred to as the appellant, is appealing the decision of
the Administrative Officer to deny Certificate of Occupancy #CO-08-26, 2 Market Street.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 2008.
Erin Miller Heins, Esq. represented the appellant.
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 March 18, 2008 the Administrative Officer denied Century Partners a
Certificate of Occupancy (hereinafter referred to as a C.O.) #CO-08-26 for 2
Market Street (EXHIBIT 1).
2. The C.O. denial was appealed to the Development Review Board (hereinafter
referred to as the DRB). The DRB rendered a decision dated 6/3/08 (EXHIBIT 2)
which remanded jurisdiction of the C.O. application back to the Administrative
Officer.
3. The Administrative Officer on June 30, 2008 then denied CO-08-26 for the
following reason:
"The landscaping adjacent to the 2 Market Street building is significantly different
from the landscaping shown on the landscaping plan approved by the Planning
Commission on 12/10/96. Specifically, all the landscaping approved behind the building
is missing and the landscaping along the east side of the building along the parking
garage is totally different from that shown on the approved plan". (EXHIBIT 3)
4. On July 15, 2008 the DRB issued two (2) decisions #AO-08-09 (EXHIBIT 4) and
#AO-08-10 (EXHIBIT 5) in which the Board upheld the Administrative Officer's
Notices of Violations, which included 2 Market Street that "the landscaping for the
area to the east and north of the building at 2 Market Street has been altered
from what was approved on 12/10/96".
5. On June 30, 2008, the Administrative Officer inspected the landscaping around 2
Market Street and found that the conditions remained unchanged from those
described in paragraph 3 above. (EXHIBITS 6-9)
#AO-08-14
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The variation of landscaping at the subject premises from the landscaping
depicted in the 12/10/96 landscaping plan constitutes an unpermitted change of
use, and thus said variation represents land development without a permit in
violation of the Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations.
2. Section 17.03 of the Land Development Regulations states in part that "it shall be
the duty of the Administrative Officer to have made a final inspection thereof and
issue a Certificate of Occupancy if the project is found to conform with the
provisions of this ordinance....". Since the subject property is not in compliance
with the provisions of the Land Development Regulations, the Administrative
Officer does not have the authority to issue the requested C.O.
1�77i��9[�7�I
Motion by y�- U ' seconded by
to uphold the decision of the dministretive Officer to deny Certificate of Occupancy
#CO-08-26, 2 Market Street.
Mark Behr yea/?nay/abstain/not present _
Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain/ of present
John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not presen
Roger Farley — yyealnay/abstain/not _ en
Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain/not preseerq
Peter Plumeau _ ea/ ay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby r ea ay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of L--2- -
AJ
Signed this day of �� �'� 2008, by
rk Behr, Vice Chair
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
-2-