HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-08-03 - Decision - 0002 0004 Market Street#AO-08-03
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
CENTURY PARTNERS, LP
APPEAL #AO-08-03
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Century Partners, LP, hereafter referred to as the appellant, is appealing the decision of
the Administrative Officer to deny Certificate of Occupancy application #CO-08-26, 2
Market Street.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Erin
Heins 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:
On March 13, 2008, Century Partners, LP, hereinafter referred to as "Appellant",
submitted an application for Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance (C.O.). The
application was for work completed in June, 1997 as authorized under zoning
permit #ZP-96-280 dated 12/13/96 (Exhibit A)
2. On March 18, 2008, the Administrative Officer denied the application and
detailed the reasons for the denial in a letter to the Appellant dated March 18,
2008 (Exhibit B).
3. On March 28, 2008, the Appellant appealed the decision of the Administrative
Officer to deny C.O. application #CO-08-26 (Exhibit C).
4. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on April 16, 2008.
5. The building located at 2 Market Street (formerly 2 Corporate Way) was issued a
temporary C.O. on 3/21/97 and was valid for 90 days or until 6/21/97. This
building, used for general office use, has been used continuously since March,
1997, or over 11 years without a C.O. in violation of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
6. The building at 2 Market Street was approved as part of a multi -building planned
unit development (PUD), the plans for which have been amended many times.
The last plan amendment was on September 4, 2007.
7. A review of the entire PUD on March 13, 2008 for compliance with approved
plans revealed a number of discrepancies. They are as follows:
a. The dumpsters located on the north side of the building at 4 Market Street
are not screened as required under the last approved PUD plat. The plan
- 1 -
#AO-08-03
indicates that the dumpsters would be screened from all sides and as can
be seen on the enclosed photo (Exhibit D), the dumpsters are clearly
visible.
b. The dumpsters located on the east side of the building at 102 Dorset
Street are not screened as required under the last approved PUD plat.
Those dumpsters are required to be screened and as can be seen in the
attached photo (Exhibit E), the dumpsters are clearly visible.
c. The landscaping located between the Dorset Street right-of-way and the
row of 35 parking spaces westerly of the Dorset Street building is new
and was installed a few years ago without amending the landscape plan
for the PUD.
d. A new "service area" for dumpsters has been added to the north side of
the 100 Dorset Street building without approval from the Development
Review Board (see photo Exhibit F enclosed).
e. A pole light on the parking area located between the 100 Dorset Street
building and Dorset Street has been replaced with an unapproved light
fixture which is not downcasting and shielded (see photo Exhibit F
enclosed). As of the date of this memorandum, it is believed that this
discrepancy has been remedied.
8. Suite 21 within the 100 Dorset Street building has been converted from general
office use to medical office use for Rushford Family Chiropractic without the
necessary approvals and zoning permit. The last three (3) amendments to the
PUD for the subject property, SD-05-87, SD-06-61 and SD-07-47 did not include
a request for conversion of any general office use to medical office use. All three
(3) applications requested the applicant to provide a detailed description of the
project including existing and proposed uses (see exhibits H-J enclosed). As can
be seen on all these applications, medical office use was never listed as either
an existing or proposed use. The Appellant has indicated that the space
occupied by Rushford Family Chiropractic has been used for medical office use
since 5/1/97. This being the case, it appears that the Appellant has
misrepresented information on the last three (3) applications which may
invalidate the approvals associated with those applications.
9. The above items numbered 7 and 8 constitute discrepancies from the approved
PUD plat. However, because these discrepancies do not directly pertain to 2
Market Street, and because the C.O. application was limited to 2 Market Street,
after review of the Appellants' statement of proffered grounds for appeal it would
appear appropriate for the DRB to find that the above items numbered 7 and 8
do not constitute grounds for denial of the C.O. application for 2 Market Street. It
should further be noted, however, that the determination that these discrepancies
are irrelevant to the C.O. application is neither a grounds supporting the
application.
10. Since March 13, 2008, improved weather has allowed an inspection of
landscaping around 2 Market Street. An inspection conducted May 2, 2008
reveals that landscaping around 2 Market Street does not comply with the
-2-
#AO-08-03
landscaping plan that is a condition of the Planning Commission's PUD approval
(per its meeting December 10, 1996 and by written Findings of Fact and Decision
dated January 14, 1997). The Administrative Officer issued a Notice of Violation
for 2 Market Street on 5/5/2008. This violation at 2 Market Street was not
observable at the time of the March 13, 2008 inspection.
11. In light of the new information gathered at the May 2, 2008 inspection, remand to
the Administrative Officer is appropriate for an initial determination whether such
information affects the application for a C.O. for 2 Market Street.
DECISION
Motion by seconded by
to remand the application for a C.O. for 2 Market Street to Administrative Officer.
Mark Behr yea nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain of pTese�
John Dinklage �e�nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley ea ay/abstain/not present
Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain of resen7
Peter Plumeau yea nay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby ea nay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of S- D - U
Signed this day of w 2008, by
�7 —ice,.-� cJ�-( /i•,/C��-�i, �
John Dinklage, Chai
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).
-3-