Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-05-03 - Decision - 0057 Helen AvenueCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LEE WRIGLEY- 57 HELEN AVENUE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-05-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Lee and Caroline Wrigley, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking miscellaneous approval to encroach twelve (12) feet into the front setback requirement, 57 Helen Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public meeting on August 2, 2005. Lee Wrigley was present at the meeting. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public meeting 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 applicants are seeking miscellaneous approval to encroach twelve (12) feet into the front setback requirement, 57 Helen Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Lee and Caroline Wrigley. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 4. The plan submitted consists of a hand -drawn plan depicting the applicant's house and the two (2) houses on either side. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, th_e proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 9. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Residential 4 Zoning District is formed to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. - 1 - The proposed addition will not affect density in the neighborhood, so it is not in conflict with the stated purpose of the R4 Zoning District. However, the Land Development Regulations require that structures in the R4 Zoning District maintain a 30' setback, which this project would be in conflict with. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. The proposed addition will not adversely affect municipal services. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. The proposed addition does create the potential to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Currently, the existing dwellings on this street share a common setback that creates a neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. The "domino effect' that could result from the proposed project would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect The proposed addition is not in keeping with applicable regulations, specifically the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed addition will not affect renewable energy resources. (0 General public health and welfare. The proposed addition will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare. Pursuant to Section 3.06(1)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (a) and (b) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than -2- three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the views of adjoining properties. (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the access of sunlight of adjoining properties. (c) adequate on -site parking; and The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on adequate on -site parking. (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining properties. �J tl DECISION e Motion by ►1� ��/1 seconded by _t to approve Miscell neous Application #MS-05-03 of Lee and Caroline Wrigley, subject to the following conditions: All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicants, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. -3- Mark Behr — yea a abstain/not present Chuck Bolton — ea a /abstain/not present John Dinklage — ye na abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea a abstain/not present Larry Kupferman —yea a abstain/not resent Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain not present Motion failed by a vote of I - 7 - o Signed this 3 day of August 2005, by John Dinklage, Chair 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).