Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-99-02 - Decision - 0052 Bartlett Bay Road#VR-99-02 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: APPLICATION OF FRANK & MARY MAZUR This matter came before the South Burlington Development Review Board pursuant to the provisions of 24 VSA 4468 on application of Frank & Mary Mazur, hereinafter "Applicants" for approval of a variance to enclose a 10' x 20' portion of an existing deck for use as a three (3) season porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. The Applicants were present at the public hearing held relative to this application. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing and as part of the application, the Development Review Board hereby renders the following decision on this application: FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The owners of record of this particular property are Frank & Mary Mazur. 2) This property located at 52 Bartlett Bay Road lies within the Conservation & Open Space District (C.O.). 3) A single family dwelling is neither a conditional nor a permitted use in the C.O. District. 4) A variance was granted on 6/21/72 to construct the single family dwelling for which expansion is being requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topography or other physical conditions peculiar to this particular property. The unnecessary hardship is not due to such conditions. It is due to the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. 2) Because there are no physical circumstances or conditions, there is a possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore not necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. The property is currently developed with a single family dwelling which is a reasonable use of the property. 3) The unnecessary hardship is being created by the appellant by proposing to expand a nonconforming use which is prohibited by the zoning regulations. 4) The variance, if authorized, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. 5) The authorization of a variance would not represent the minimum variance that would afford relief and would not represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington Development Review Board hereby denies the Applicants' request for a variance to enclose a 10' x 20' portion of an existing deck for use as a three (3) season porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road, for the following reason: The five (5) criteria necessary for the granting of a variance pursuant to 24 VSA 4468 have not been met. Dated this eday November, 1999 at South Burlington, VT. Chairman 6r Clerk uth Burlington Development Review Board 2