Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Burlington DRB hears after‑the‑fact request to regularize 4.33‑foot height increase at Greenfield Capital facility
Summary
Greenfield Capital LLC asked the South Burlington Development Review Board to approve an after‑the‑fact 4.33‑foot increase to a previously approved 130,790‑square‑foot production and office building at 435 Community Drive; applicant said a bank survey revealed the discrepancy and staff said the increase likely won’t harm views or neighboring character.
Greenfield Capital LLC sought after‑the‑fact approval Feb. 3 from the South Burlington Development Review Board to amend a previously approved 130,790‑square‑foot production facility and office building by increasing a portion of the building height from 48.7 feet to 53 feet at 435 Community Drive.
The applicant’s representatives — Zelda (listed in the transcript as Zelda Bagley/Dively), a civil engineer at VHB, and Roland Grunefeld — told the board that construction field modifications and a later survey produced an as‑built height about 4.33 feet higher than the approved plans. “We were very surprised to learn from our bank, that, they were doing a a survey that, the building was higher than it was supposed to be,” the applicant said on the record.
Architect David Roy explained the element that exceeded zoning limits is a clerestory — a non‑usable glazed portion above the predominant roof — which, he said, rose above the previously measured roofline and pushed the central portion past the allowable height. “It’s simply clerestory glazing,” the architect said.
Board members pressed the applicant and architect on when they knew the building did not conform to permitted plans and why the discrepancy went undetected. Several members noted the project received a certificate of occupancy in 2023 and said it was concerning that the issue surfaced only when the owner pursued refinancing. Board member Frank Cokman said he was troubled by the delay: “...somewhere along the line, there was a missing checks and balances,” and pressed staff and the applicant on who bears responsibility for verifying construction matched the approved plans.
Staff told the board that the narrative provided, together with the earlier staff review for SP2146, indicates the proposed additional 4.33 feet will not have an adverse effect on views or the character of neighboring properties, and recommended the board discuss whether any additional conditions are needed under zoning section 14.10(b).
The board closed the public hearing and planned to make its decision in a deliberative session following the meeting.
What happens next: The board will hold a deliberative session to make a decision on the after‑the‑fact site plan and conditional use application; no public comments were offered during the hearing.
