HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-06-05 - Decision - 0049 Barrett Street#MS-06-05
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MARK JUDGE/ANNE MOYSTON - 49 BARRETT STREET
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-06-05
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Mark Judge, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval to
construct a 10'x12' deck to project twelve (12) feet into the front setback requirement, 49
Barrett Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 1, 2006.
The applicant was present at the meeting.
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. The applicant is seeking miscellaneous approval to construct a 10'x12' deck to project
twelve (12) feet into the front setback requirement, 49 Barrett Street.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Anne Moyston.
3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District.
4. The plan submitted consists of two (2) hand drawn plans, one marked "Exisiting" and
one marked "Proposed".
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
1. 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
-1-
#MS-06-05
compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those
neighborhoods.
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' front 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(J)(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
-2-
#MS-06-05
provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than
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;
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.
DECISION
Motion by ekil K &06� seconded by
to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-06-05 of Mark Judge.
Mark Behr —yea/nay/abstai �)resMatthew Birmingham —yea/ ot present
Chuck Bolton — ye na bstain/not present
John Dinklage — yea/ a bstain/not present
Roger Farley — yea abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/ of rese
Motion FAILED by a vote of v-? - 0
Signed this / day of 2006, by
John Dinklage, Chair'
-3-
#MS-06-05
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).
-4-