The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0052 Bartlett Bay RoadPage 1 of 2 Date: October 02, 2007 Case 07-01-1154A LOMA d,,?P,RT Federal Emergency Management Agency 4 Washington, D.C. 20472 ND SECS LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT REMOVAL COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Lot 2, Camp Bartlett, as described in the Warranty Deed recorded in CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT Volume 106, Pages 343 though 346, in the Office of the City Clerk, City of South Burlington, Vermont (TM: 64; TB: R; TL: 00052) COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NO.: 500195 NUMBER:5001950005B AFFECTED MAP PANEL DATE: 3/1611981 FLOODING SOURCE: LAKE CHAMPLAIN APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 44.428,-73.219 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: PRECISION MAPPING STREETS 7.0 DATUM: NAD 83 DETERMINATION OUTCOME 1%ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST WHAT IS CHANCE ADJACENT LOT LOT BLOCK/ SUBDIVISION STREET REMOVED FROM FLOOD FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION SECTION THE SFHA ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION (NGVD 29) NGVD 29) (NGVD 29 2 -- Camp Bartlett 52 Bartlett Bay Road Structure C 102.0 feet 108.5 feet -- Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year base flood). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below. PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Amendment for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the structure(s) on the property(ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document amends the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439. William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Section Mitigation Directorate P.1ge 2 of 2 Date: October 02, 2007 Case 07-01-1154A LOMA Federal Emergency Management Agency a o- Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-64399. & ' `A %�- William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Section Mitigation Directorate vXR Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington,D.C. 20472 4 ND SEG�� MR. FRANK MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DEAR MR. MAZUR: October 02, 2007 CASE NO.: 07-01-1154A COMMUNITY: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT COMMUNITY NO.: 500195 This is in reference to a request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determine if the property described in the enclosed document is Iocated within an identified Special Flood Hazard Area, the area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), on the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map. Using the information submitted and the effective NFIP map, our determination is shown on the attached Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) Determination Document. This determination document provides additional information regarding the effective NFIP map, the legal description of the property and our determination. Additional documents are enclosed which provide information regarding the subject property and LOMAs. Please see the List of Enclosures below to determine which documents are enclosed. Other attachments specific to this request may be included as referenced in the Determination/Comment document. If you have any questions about this letter or any of the enclosures, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439. Sincerely, William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Section Mitigation Directorate LIST OF ENCLOSURES: LOMA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) cc: State/Commonwealth NFIP Coordinator Community Map Repository Region CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 December 8, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Minutes Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the November 9, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, --a6n� wqD'A"�v Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 9 NOVEMBER 2004 Mr. Fay said they are requesting a landscaping waiver. Mr. Belair noted they have run out of room for landscaping. He had no problem granting a $1200 credit. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-04-43 of Champlain Water District subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing: Application #CU-04-11 of Frank &Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to expand a single family dwelling by constructing a covered 10'x30' second story porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Mazur said they were under the impression they had approval for a roof over the porch. It is already built. Mr. Belair explained there was a misunderstanding, and the Mazurs did not do anything intentionally wrong. Mr. Belair noted a stipulation requiring the planting of a tree. Ms. Mazur said it is there. Mr. Belair said he was told today it wasn't, but he will check on it. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Application #CU-04-11 subject to the stipulations in the draft motion amended to eliminate Stipulation #4. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Miscellaneaous application #MS-04-03 of Susan Heiser for approval to alter the existing grade by adding more than 20 cubic yards of fill to the property, 339 Patchen Road: Ms. Heiser said she hadn't been aware a permit was needed to fill. Ms. Heiser also questioned the buffer area and noted it is not a stream but a culvert. Mr. Belair said once a pipe daylights, it is a drainage -way and there is a 50-foot buffer. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant if they are planning any more filling. Ms. Heiser said they are not. Mr. Bolton noted that there is a company with equipment that could get debris out of the drainageway. Ms. Quimby asked if the logs would impede the flow of water. Ms. Heiser said they would not. Members agreed to delete condition #4. mom 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING d& ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 15, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Conditional Use Application #CU-04-11 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur. - Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 11/9/04 (effective 11/12/04). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of this approval or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy NMconough Administrative Assistant Encl. Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested - #7003 3110 0001 3598 4681 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 5, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. lion. Dedicated to making your music sound great. $25 per hour. 496-3166. Moretown, VT. QUESTION MARK PRODUC- TIONS: Audio engineering/pro- duction, live sound, recording. 802-578-9356. REMOTE RECORDING: We just went mobile! Charles Eller Studios is pleased to announce the addition of our new remote recording rig. Record anywhere you want on our new Yamaha 02R96 console with Protools HD for a total of 56 channels at 24bit/96k. Our collection of vin- tage and modern microphones as well as classic outboard gear makes this a unique recording option. Record your next CD for far less than the cost of a studio CD without compromising the quatity! For more info about "Big Blue" see us at charleselLerstu- dios.com or call 802-425-3508. ► musicians wanted BASS PLAYER WANTED for ready to gig band. Local. Stone Temple Pilots, Three Doors Down and more. Contact Cory or Chris, 288-1528. DRUMMER WANTED ASAP: Touring band from Burlington needs experienced drummer under 25. Must travel 3-4 nights/week. Rock, funk, Reggae influence pref. 315-212-0924. ► music instruct. CELTIC FIDDLE instruction with experienced dance band musi- cian. All levels. Technique and style emphasized. Peter Macfarlane, 802-759-2268, petermac@gmavt.net. FUN PIANO LESSONS for all ages. Learn from a patient and experienced teacher. Andric Severance, 802-310-6042. GUITAR: All styLes/levels. Emphasis on developing strong technique, thorough musician- ship, personal style. Paul Asbell (Unknown Blues Band, Kiliman jaro, Sneakers Jazz Band, etc.), 862-7696, www.pautasbell.com. GUITAR INSTRUCTION: Relaxed yet disciplined arena. 20+ years experience. No -pretense environ- ment fosters technique and cre- ativity. Beginners welcome. Refs. avail. 802-877-3624. PRIVATE GUITAR INSTRUC- TION in Essex Jct. Beginner to advanced. Many styles; seven - string, electric, acoustic, bass. 872-8861.fra n ky.a ndreas@veri zon.net. VIOLIN LESSONS with Tom Charpentier. For all ages and abilities. Experience the joy of the four strings of the violin vibrating in harmony under your chin, right from the first Lesson. Impossible you say, call today. Let me know that you saw this ad and receive your first lesson free. For more information, call Tom 434-4449. ► travel CHEAPEST CHINA TOURS: Beijing, 5-days, only $249! MLLC]L Norm Baldwin, P.E. Assistant Director -Technical Services Adopted 10/6/2004; Published 10/20/04; Effective 11/10/04 Material in [Brackets) delete. Material underlined add. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVEL- OPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Application #CU-04-11 of Frank & Mary Mazur for condi- tional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to expand a single family dwelling by constructing a covered 10'x 30' second story porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. Application #CU-04-13 of Nynex Mobile Ltd Partnership 1, d/b/a Verizon Wireless for condi- tional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to: 1) increase height of silo by 10 feet to 85 feet, 2) install telecommu- nications towers on silo, 3) install a 12' x 30' equipment shelter, and 4) install a propane tank and pad, 850 Hinesburg Road. 3. Application #CU-04-12 of Nynex Mobile Limited Partnership 1, d/ba/Verizon Wireless, seeking conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to: 1) install a 60-foot high monopole with hidden antennas, and 2) install a 12'x3O' equipment shel- ter, 1068 Williston Road. 4. Final plat #SD-04-75 of South Burlington Realty Co., to amend a planned unit development con- sisting of: 1) 34,506 sq ft of medical office use, 2) 1,803 sq ft of general office use, and 3) 2,400 sq ft of restaurant and retail use. The amendment con- sists of converting 2,400 sq ft of restaurant & retail use to retail food establishment use with less than 5,000 sq ft, 360 Dorset Street. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board October 20, 2004 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Market Street STP 5200 (17) rrom the Municipal Project Manager - Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, 14 Morse Drive, Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 878-4450. A copy of the RFP and related documents are available for review at the City of South Burlington City Offices, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington. ► support groups DON'T SEE A SUPPORT group here that meets your needs? Call United Way GET -INFO (a confiden- tial help line) 652-4636, Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. SUPPORT GROUP FOR PAINTERS: Borders, upstairs, Thursdays, 12:30-1:30 p.m. Info, contact Jacqueline, 658-2976. INTERESTED IN WRITING for children? Support and critique group meets monthly. Call Anne, 861-6000 or anne@booksbyme.us. MOM SUPPORT GROUP: Mothers of young children meet in a sup- portive environment to talk about what parenting is really like. The Growth Center, 8 Pearl St., Essex Junction. 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. every other Wednesday, beginning November 17. Must pre -register. Info, 879-1207. NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS is a group of recovering addicts who Live without the use of drugs. It costs nothing to join. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using. Info, 862- 4516, or visit www.together.net/-cvana. PARENTING GROUP: Parenting group for parents/guardians of children of any age. Wednesday mornings. Please call River Valley Associates for more infor- mation. 651-7520. AL-ANON/ALATEN: Local meet- ings held in Burlington, South Burlington and Colchester. For more information, call 860-8388 or toll -free, 1-866-972-5266. SURVIVORS OF SUICIDE: Support group for those who have lost a Loved one to suicide. Meets the 2nd Wednesday of every month at the Holiday Inn in South Burlington, (1068 Williston Rd.), from 6-7:30 p.m. For more information, please contact Cory Gould, 223-4111 or cgouldl136 @earthlink.net. Sponsored by the American Foun- dation for Suicide Prevention -VT FREE WORKSHOP FOR SUR- VIVORS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE: The Women's Rape Crisis Center is offering a free workshop series called "Considering the Uses of Adversity: Self -Healing for Survivors of Sexual Violence". This series, designed and facilitated by Gwen Evans, will run Tuesday evenings, October 5 through November 16. Info, 865-0555. SEX AND LOVE ADDICTS ANONYMOUS: 12-step recovery group. Do you have a problem with sex or relationships? We can help. Sunday meetings, 7- 8.30 p.m. Call Valerie, 655-9478. SUICIDE SURVIVORS GROUP: Survivors and their families meet monthly for mutual support in the Burlington area, 6-7 p.m. Call for location, 223-4111. SMOKING CESSATION GROUP: Witting to kick the habit? This free, five -week program helps 11111ffPfG fn fi,Ilnlu Fi. rnn L. are free and confidential. Please call Amy at 247-5460 for more information. WOMEN CHANGING: A continu- ous educational support group for women who are interested in changing patterns in their lives. Wednesdays -ongoing. 12:30-2 p.m. Call Angie at AWARE in Hardwick, 472-6463. SUPPORT GROUP FOR WOMEN who have experienced intimate partner abuse, facilitated by Battered Women's Services and Shelter of Washington County. Please call 1-877-543-9498 for more info. REIKI SUPPORT GROUP: July 18, 1-3 p.m. Fletcher Free Library, Burlington. All levels of students and practitioners are welcome. For more info., contact Joan at 860-4673 or Lynn at 893-3064. WANTED: Fellow painters to get together bi-weekly for coffee and to discuss our work. Support each others creativity! Show your work. Meet at local down- town coffee shops. Call 658- 2976, if interested. AHOY BREAST CANCER SUR- VIVORS: Join our support group where the focus is on living not on the disease. We are a team of dragon boaters. Learn all about this paddle sport and its health - giving, life -affirming qualities. Any age. No athletic experience needed. Call Linda at 802-434- 4423 or email• dragonheartver mont@gmavt.net or go to: www.dragonheartvermont.org EMOTIONS ANONYMOUS: Fridays, 6-7 p.m. The Society of Friends Meeting House, 173 N. Prospect St., Burlington. Free. Info, 479- 0684. 12-step program designed to help women and men with depression, negative thinking or any mental/emotional problems. SELF -REALIZATION: Social/sup- port group for like-minded peo- ple interested in spirituality, yoga, psychic experiences, tran- scendence and transformation. Burlington. If interested, call Jill at 877-3375 or email jLo@together.net. NAKED IN VERMONT: The pre- mier Nudist/Skinnydipper organi- zation in Vermont offering infor- mation library, message board, chat room, yahoo group, and more. (ALL FREE) Visit www.nakedinvermont.com. SCLERODERMA FOUNDATION New England: Info, Blythe Leonard, 878-0732 or atblythel @aoLcom. WOMEN'S WEIGHT LOSS SUP- PORT GROUP: Do we know what to do? Yes! Do we do it? Not always! Sometimes the answer is mutual support - for free! Let's decide together what works for us. I want to start - do you? Anne, 861-6000. BIPOLAR SUPPORT GROUP open to new members. Meets downtown. Our goal is to become healthy and happy. For info, call Gerhard at 864-3103. ALS (LOU GEHRIG DISEASE) monthly support group: For patients, caregivers and loved ones who are living or have lived with ALS. Third Thursday of the month, 1-3 p.m. Jim's House, 1266 Creamery Rd., Williston. ,_. __A -------- nnn - TRANS PARTNERS sup Meet and talk w/other transgendered/transsexl The second Friday of ev R.U.1.2? Community Ce p.m. 860-RU12. HEPATITIS C SUPPOR Second Thursday of eat McClure MultiGeneratio 6-8 p.m. Those who ha tis, their friends and fz members are welcome. ARE YOU A BUTCH, F, StoneButch, TGButch, 1 Femme, High Femme or description of Butch, H Femme/feminine womai join us as we plan fun ; and offer each other re! support and friendship Butch/FtM-Femme wort( more info, contact Miss at missmorpheusl@yah HARD-OF-HEARINGsu group: I'm starting a sul group for adults who hx ing loss that affects the of their work/family/soc Lets share personal exp( and knowledge of hearin technology. Marlene, 86'. WOULD YOU LIKE to jI thriving, mixed social gi Get together for various ties/friendship in Montp Burlington. 229-4390 o treesha7@email.com. SKINNYDIPPERS UNITE Vermont Au Naturet. Join naturists and like-minded for support, discussions a www.vermonta unatu reL cc PARENTS TOGETHER sul groups: Would you like to share ideas with other pa about the joys and chalLe children? Support groups parents. Connie, 878-709( MENTAL ILLNESSES:Th National Alliance for the Mentally ILL holds suppor ings for the families and of the mentally ill at Hov Center, corner of Flynn a( Second and fourth Tues& every month at 7 p.m. Pa Pine St. lot and walk doA 862-6683 for info. NONCUSTODIAL SUPP01 group for parents. Contac Bagdon, 434-6495. ARE YOU UNABLE TO gel debt? Do you spend more 1 you earn? Is it a problem t Get help at Debtors Anony Wednesdays, 7:30-8:30 p.n Atano Club, 74 Hegeman A Fort Ethan Allen, Cotcheste Contact Valerie P. at 324-7 BRAIN INJURY. Open to t who sustained a brain inju their caregivers and family. speakers often scheduled. Wed. of every month, 6-8 l Fanny Allen Campus, Colcho Call Deb Parizo, 863-8644. LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL Transgender, Queer and Questioning: Support grout survivors of partner violent sexual violence and bias/h crimes. Free and confident SafeSpace, 863-0003 or 86 869-7341 (toll -free). MENTAL HEALTH RECOVE group: support and educati people with psychiatric chz lenges. Joan, 865-6135. FAMILY/FRIENDS OF THO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD \drb\misc\mazur\conditional use.doc Agenda #10 Owner/Applicant Frank and Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road S. Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 27, 2004 Application received: October 4, 2004 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION#CU-04-11 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD date: November 9.2004 Property Information Tax Parcel 0130-00052-R Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\misc\mazur\conditional use.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Frank and Mary Mazur, referred to hereafter as the applicants, are requesting conditional use approval under Section 14.10 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is for permission to expand a single family dwelling by constructing a covered 10' x 30' second story porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. COMMENTS Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Raymond Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments: The porch, which is the subject of this application, is mostly constructed. Staff discovered that the structure was under construction without a zoning permit and requested that the applicant apply to the Development Review Board for approval. Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations, the expansion of and reconstruction of pre-existing structures may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and and the following standards are met: (a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. For purposes of these Regulations, expansion may include the construction of detached accessory structures including garages and utility sheds. The existing single-family dwelling on the subject property was in existence prior to April 24, 2000. (b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. The proposed addition will not extend any closer to the applicable high water elevation than the closest point of the existing structure. (c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. For purposes of these regulations, reconstruction may include razing the existing structure and/or foundation and constructing a new structure in accordance with the provisions of the underlying zoning district regulations and this section. The proposed 300 square foot addition will not create an increase to the existing footprint. (d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. Staff does not feel an erosion control plan is necessary for the proposed project. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drbVnisc\mazurlconditional use.doc (e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. A landscaping plan is not required for the proposed project because the addition is on the second floor. 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 addition to the existing single-family dwelling is in keeping with the planned character of the area as identified in 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 4.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations, The Lakeshore Neighborhood District (LN) is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the /akeshore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Holmes Road. The District is designed to promote the area's historic development pattem of smaller lots and minimal setbacks. Staff feels that the addition to the existing single-family dwelling is keeping in with the purpose of the LN Zoning District. 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 additional structure 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. Staff believes that the additional structure is in keeping with the character of surrounding properties and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the ability to develop adjacent properties. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The additional structure will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect The additional structure is in keeping with applicable bylaws. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING kirb\misc\rnazuAconditional use.doc (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The additional structure will not affect renewable energy resources. (t) General public health and welfare. The additional structure will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare. Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may impose conditions of the following: 1. Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 2. Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 3. Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 4. Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. Other The April 201h, 2004 Decision by the Development Review Board for the approval of the 5' x 14' roof structure stated that "the applicant shall plant a maple tree with a minimum 2.5" caliper in the same general location as the tree that was removed on August 2, 2000, by August 1, 2004." It is staffs understanding that this tree has not yet been planted, which is a violation of the last approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drbVnisc\rnazuAconditional use.doc RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use application #CU- 04-11, conditional upon the applicant addressing the numbered items in the "Comments" section of this document. Res u submitted, bifaK'Robertsoh,'Associate Planner Copy to: Frank and Mary Mazur, applicants Planning 52 BB Rd addition Sunday, November 03, 2 to ' 5' X 14' South side Roof Inadvertently left off plan submitted for building permit PROPOSED ADDITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ADDITION Bedroom Bedroom 10 Bedroom Me 0 /9f CAMP BARTLETT LOT # 2 Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Rd. - So. Burlington, VT 05403 �TU �L'*:"VAT►ork 7 youll ROOF OVER RANCW (NEE N �RIZt4 , PLANTEr(, 2 STEpS - 1 i� cs M A Z V P, Mary Mazur rd52 Bartlett Bay Rd. So• Burlington, VT 05403 Planning 52 BB Road house and lot dimensions Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10' X Io' Po:4c0 RooF Area of Camp Bartlett Lot # 2 GRt &%Aj`,\,- c c K, 70.0 21.7 Calculation method #1 -~ 67.0 22-11 v 45-1 Avg. Width = 64.27 + 67 = 131.27 /2 = 65.6 f11 15-8 9 3�0 Avg. Length = 167 +145.2 = 312.25/2 = 156 11 26-0 Approx. Area = 65.6 X 156 = 10,234 SF 1 11 15-11 v �c Calculation method #2 Avg. Width = 65.6 (calculated above) 15-4 Length = 167.0 Approx. Area = 65.6 X 167 = 10,955 less 1 /2 of 67 X 21.75 = 1452/2 = 729 lI 10,955 - 729 = 10,226 SF 1 11 45.25 * The original lot included a 21 X 64 drivewI which we sold to the city for $1 in 1980 for f� use as a sewer and water right of way. f II **If that area is added back to the lot the TOTAL AREA OF LOT # 2 was 1 10,234 + 1,344 = 11,576 SF 1� *** Since the minimum size lot for S. Burlingt's ' Lakeshore Neighborhood is 12,000 SF CAMP BARTLETT LOT #2 is ± 12,000 SF I� 23-10 421 62 59-6 J 58-0 167'. 64.27 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 /. Permit Number APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Type of application check one: ( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) (Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( ) Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) 3 C U S WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) 'F- ik n ►V K A rU cD N111 rZ y fti1 h? zU i� lr `� b - 3 `i 7' 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) :F 3 1�-1 Iti I /I a At'l i t- tA- C, -# / 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax , c /�v s # t 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: '=i 3 II r� -T t__E 7 7 611`/ at-4 ��. S , b'v ►` fi 6) TAX PARCEL ID 4 (can be obtained at Assessor's Office 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 2 0c, f= 0v'EIR SCCc3tom''p 1=LGog t btRCH Ott; WEST- St lDC� c1l= b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) t0, x 3C'I -k0'r,i-- c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) ', 8 U , t.- n, n1 G- e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) ►v 0 Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing _% Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed (does not apply to residential uses) 9 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ b) Landscaping: $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): L-�: — 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): N ►a b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). p r 1 /1%fy,�{fit � r'G / i�1N sEY•�y/� CIL/f-1-1 -DiCr rZ'F d -? (lf'e r' ` O i—I (I f i I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: ❑ Development Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: ❑ Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date A EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (I I" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. o Lot drawn to scale (20 feet scale if possible). o Survey data (distance and acreage). o Contours (existing and finished). o Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety, and size) as required in Section 13.06(G) of the Land Development Regulations. o Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. o Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways. o Zoning boundaries. o Number and location of parking spaces (as required under Section 13.01(b) of the Land Development Regulations). o Number and location of handicapped spaces (as required under Section 13.01(I) of the Land Development Regulations). o Location of septic tanks (if applicable). o Location of any easements. o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. o North arrow. o Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date. o Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be down casting and shielded. o Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened). o Bicycle rack as required under Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations. o If restaurant is proposed, provide number of seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats. APPLICATION FEE ❑ Appeal of Administrative Officer $ 110.00* ❑ Conditional Use $ 135.00* - -❑ Miscellaneous $ 85.00* ❑ Variance $ 135.00* *includes $10.00 recording fee CITE' OF SOUTH BU LINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 20, 2004 Carol Meserole 54 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, 3ekls� kkz1 L Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVEL- OPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference ` Room, 575 Dorset Street, South j Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: I 1. Variance application #VR-04- 01 of Frank & Mary Mazur seek- ing a variance under Section 3.10(A)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for per- mission to allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of four (4) feet to project four (4) feet into the five (5) foot side set- back requirement, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. Application #CU-04-02 of Frank & Mary Mazur for condi- tional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review of the South Burlington Land - Development Regulations. The request is to construct a 5'x 14' porch roof structure, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development i Review Board March 24, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & zONE,gG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 5, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the April 13, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Betsy onough Administrative Assistant Encl. Raluk -1�6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 13 APRIL 2004 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 April 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; L. Kupferman, M. Kupersmith, G. Quimby, R. Farley, M. Boucher Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Robertson, Associate Planner; M. Mazur, R. Perry, Dr. & Mrs. Sande, T. Peterson, B. Chattman, B. Sessions, S. Sessions, S. Vock, C. Cobb, D. Marshall, T. Chase, R. Negli, Lt. Col. R. Gingras, C. Elliott 1. Other Business: Mr. Belair reminded members of the meeting a week from tonight. 2. Minutes of 16 March 2004: Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 16 March 2004 as written. Ms. Quimby seconded. Moiton passed unanimously. ii3ublic Hearing: Application #CU-04-02 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is to construct a 5'x14' porch roof structure, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Belair noted this request is almost identical to the one the Board had approved which has now expired. Ms. Mazur said what has changed is that the first request was for a deck which was approved with a 4 ft. wall and a tree to be planted. Ms. Mazur said they decided not to do that. The structure is in place and they are using it as a side porch. It will be used only as roof, not as a deck. The structure will never become enclosed. They will also put in the tree. Mr. Perry, representing Dr. & Mrs. Sande, noted the decks were built without approval, and when they were approved there were conditions. These included the planting of the tree, a privacy screen and the securing of a building permit. He felt that since the Mazurs are now saying this isn't a deck but a roof, it should be torn down and the original provisions be complied with. The structure is Tx14' with a sliding glass door leading to it. He felt it would be used as a deck. Ms. Mazur said they have never set foot on this structure and will not be on it. There is a bar DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 13 APRIL 2004 across the sliding door leading to the structure. Mr. Belair said he felt that if it isn't used as a deck, it can be called a roof; if it is ever used as a deck, it would be a violation. Ms. Sande asked who would police this. She felt it put them in an awkward position. Ms. Mazur said she will only go out on it twice a year to wash windows. Mr. Kupferman moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Kupersmith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Board agreed they wanted time to deliberate and then issue a decision. Public Hearing: Variance #VR-04-01 of Frank & Mary Mazur seeking a variance under ction 3.10(A)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of four feet to project four feet into the five foot side setback requirement, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Mazur said the wall is 45 inches at its highest and tapers to zero inches. It is a block wall. Ms. Mazur said they did not know they needed a permit to build a wall or that it had the same setback requirements as a fence. It is a foot from the property line. They only knew they were in violation when they got a letter from the city. It was suggested they try to get a variance. The Mazur's lawyer said if the wall stood by itself it could be called a fence and would need no permit. But since there is soil up against it, it is a wall. Mr. Belair said it is a wall because it is holding back the soil. A fence is only a separator. Staff s position is that this is an accessory structure and accessory structures must be 5 feet from the property line. This is only 1 foot from the property line. Mr. Belair added that if the soil were removed, it would be a fence. Ms. Mazur said they would withdraw their variance request and seek guidance on what to do. Mr. Dinklage suggested they discuss this with the Code Officer. Mr. Kupferman said fill is more of an issue to him as it has an impact on drainage. He cited the importance of builders working within the rules. The Mazur's builder asked if it would be a fence if the fill is removed. Mr. Dinklage said he believed so. Ms. Mazur expressed confusion by the zoning regulations. Mr. Dinklage suggested speaking with the Planning Commission which initiates zoning changes. Mr. Perry noted there were truckloads of fill brought in to bring the ground to grade. He noted there is a 20 cubic ft. limit to filling. Mr. Belair read the regulations noting that since this was -2- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 13 APRIL 2004 part of a construction project, it was not subject to the 20 cubic foot fill limit. 5. Sketch Plan Application 4SD-04-14 to amend a planned unit development consisting of the South Burlington High School and Middle School complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 23'x24' accessory structure for storage, 550 Dorset St: Superintendent of Schools Chattman noted that this is one piece of a multi -facet site upgrade. This would be a storage facility for building/grounds upkeep. He showed the location on the plan. Other parts of the overall plan include: replacing the athletic field with a synthetic turf and building a new administration building (site of the old Water Dept. Building), regrading, upgrading other fields, and addressing the wetland area to add synthetic turf, relocating tennis courts for community use, and a small "concession" building near the track. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues with the storage building as presented. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-04-08 of Chittenden County Transportation Authority to replace an existing bus shelter, 575 Dorset St: Mr. Peterson noted that this shelter and the ones in the 2 following applications are all within the city's right-of-way. Mr. Belair said staff had no issues. Mr. Boucher moved to approve Site Plan #SP-04-08 of CCTA as presented. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-04-09 of Chittenden County Transportation Authority to replace an existing bus shelter, 550 Dorset Street: Mr. Boucher moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-04-09 of CCTA as presented. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-04-10 of Chittenden County Transportation Authority to replace an existing bus shelter, Airport Road: Mr. Boucher moved to approve Site Plan #SP-04-10 of CCTA as presented. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. -3- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNgNG & ZONiNG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 5, 2004 Robert J. Perry 3000 Williston Road P.O. Box 2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 52 Bartlett Bay Road and 596 Meadowland Drive Dear Mr. Perry: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the April 13, 2004 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �1 V Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. :l:i f_ CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\varlmazur\variance.doc Frank and Mary Mazur, referred to hereafter as the applicants, have submitted a request for a variance under Section 3.10(A)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is to allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of four (4) feet to project into the five (5) foot side setback requirement, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. Staff discovered the applicants constructed this retaining wall without a zoning permit. Since the structure does not meet the setback requirements, staff requested that the applicant apply for a variance. Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Raymond Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments: VARIANCE REVIEW STANDARDS Title 24, Section 4468 of the Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development Act establishes the following review standards for all variance requests: On an appeal under section 4464 or section 4471 of this title wherein a variance from the provisions of a zoning regulation is requested for a structure that is not primarily a renewable energy resource structure, the board of adjustment or the development review board, or the environmental court created under 4 V.S.A. chapter 27 shall grant variances, and render a decision in favor of the appellant, if all the following facts are found and the finding is specified in its decision. (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. The applicants have stated that the subject lot 2.73' wider on the westerly side and 21.75' longer on the northerly side. However, staff does not feel these dimensions constitute "unique circumstances or conditions" and therefore it is stars opinion that this property does not meet this requirement. The construction of the retaining wall at the requested location is not dependent on the shape, size, or exceptional topographical features of the property. (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\var\mazurlvariance.doc This property does not contain any unique physical circumstances or features, so the subject property does not meet this requirement. In addition, the subject property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, which staff feels is a reasonable use of the property. (3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. The unnecessary hardship is being created by the applicants, as they constructed the retaining wall within the five (5) foot side setback. (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff does not feel that the variance, if authorized, would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would it permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, or be detrimental to public welfare. (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and from the plan. Staff does not feel that the variance, if authorized, would represent the minimum variance that will afford relief or represent the least deviation possible from the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 3.06(J) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, on a lot that was in existence prior to February 28, 1974 and where the primary use is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling, the Development Review Board may approve a structure up to three (3) feet from the side property line, subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. The subject retaining wall is one (1) foot from the side property line, which is not the minimum variance or the least possible deviation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board deny Variance application #VR-04-01, as all five of the above criteria are not met. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: Frank and Mary Mazur, applicants Frank and Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 February 25, 2004 South Burlington Development Review Board Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, When we built our retaining wall last fall we considered it part of our landscaping. We were very surprised to receive a letter from Mr. Hafter dated October 29, 2003 stating we were not in compliance with the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. We contacted Mr. Hafter and Mr. Belair and asked them to inspect the property so we could find out exactly what steps we needed to take. Upon inspection two out of the four issues cited were found by Mr. Belair to be "in compliance." He suggested we seek DRB action for approval for the other two existing conditions to bring our property into compliance. When I consulted the South Burlington Zoning Regulations I could find no section regarding walls as structures. I called Mr. Belair and he told me it was "implied" that walls were structures and I should consult section 28.156 for the definition of a structure. 28.156 Structure — Any construction, erection, assemblage or combination of materials upon the land including but not limited to, buildings, mobile homes, swimming pools, tennis courts, antennas, satellite dishes, and utility sheds. If this definition applies to a retaining wall we believe it should also apply to a ten (10) foot hedge which the Sandes planted just one (1) foot south of our property line. Because trees spread out as well as grow higher the hedge has already grown beyond the one foot of their property and encroached into our yard. There is no way for them to contain it by pruning unless they come onto our land. That means they will either let it grow as large as it can or we will have to prune it ourselves to keep it off our property. Neither is acceptable to us. When we contemplated building our retaining wall we thought of a solution that would allow the Sandes access to our property to prune the hedge without having to trespass more than one foot onto our land. We sited the wall one (1) foot north of the property line so they would have one foot to walk on to prune the hedge back to the property line. We thought this would be a win -win situation for us all. We would only lose one foot of useable yard space and they would gain one foot of our land to keep their hedge within bounds. You can imagine how surprised we were when we discovered that the wall is considered a "structure" and that even with the DRB's approval the closest we could construct the wall was three feet from the property line. Since the wall has already been built one foot from the property line and back filled with stone and sand it will be very difficult and expensive to relocate it another two (2) feet from the property line without some of the fill falling into the Sandes' cedar hedge. Since the wall is already built we believe the best solution to this problem is to approve it "as built" on its present site. If we are forced to move it there will be more disruption to the neighbor's hedge than there will be by leaving the wall in place. Therefore we are applying for a variance under Section 26.05 Conditional Uses, Section 25.118 Exceptions to Yard Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, and Section 3.50 and 3.506, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Our request is for approval of an "as built" technically engineered retaining wall that was constructed one foot back from our south property line following the completion of an 8' X 42' addition to our home. 26.05 Conditional Uses 1. The proposed project complies with the stated purpose of the Conservation and Open Space District, "to maintain and improve the quality of natural resources such as soil, air, and water," and does not adversely affect: a. The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities — no effect expected. b. The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor the ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. c. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity — no affect expected. d. Bylaws in effect - no affect expected. e. Utilization of renewable energy resources — no affect expected. f. General public health and welfare — no affect expected. 2. The proposed project also complies with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District which was "formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lakeshore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Holmes Road. The district is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks." 3.50 Nonconforming Uses and Activities The encroachment of a nonconforming use or activity into a CO District is permitted under certain circumstances subject to approval by the Development Review Board as provided below: 3.506 In a CO District along Lake Champlain as described in Section 3.102, the expansion or reconstruction of pre-existing structures, allowance of certain water -oriented improvements, and erosion control improvements may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use provided the following additional criteria are met: a. The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was in existence on April 24, 2000. Our house was built in 1972. b. The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer to high water elevation than the existing structure. The wall is NOT closer to the high water elevation. c. The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty (50) percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully in existence on April 24, 2000. The wall does NOT include any additional footprint. d. Erosion control measures and water -oriented improvements such as docks, seawalls, steps and walkways leading down to the lake, and other similar features may be approved provided the following conditions are met: (i) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The wall is built of technically engineered interlocking cement blocks which resemble stone. (ii) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. The wall was built to eliminate the ground slope between our addition and the property line because the large amounts of rainwater falling from the roof were eroding the soil and washing it into our neighbor's cedar hedge. (iii) The improvement does not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. Most of the wall cannot be seen from the lakeshore. The small section that is visible from the lakeshore is made of the same material as the front stairs leading down from the frontporch so they are complimentary. (iv) The improvement results in minimal removal of trees, shrubs and groundcover. Additional plantings may be required to mitigate removal of vegetation or potential aesthetic impacts. We plan on doing extensive landscaping all around our property. e. Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting and addition of new trees, shrubs and ground cover in order to enhance the aesthetic integrity of the lake shore, provide a visual buffer from the lake and an absorption area for erosion prevention. We will be adding plant material when we do the landscaping. The wall will help hold back the water that falls from the roof and the area between the wall and the house will absorb most of the water that lands on it and prevent erosion. 28.149 Setbacks SETBACK — The distance from the nearest portion of a structure to any property line including the street right-of-way. For purposes of this section, a structure shall NOT include: a: eves, sills, pilasters, gutters, leaders, cornices, and roof overhangs provided such features do not extend more than two (2) feet from the remainder of the structure and b: steps to first floor entries provided such features do not extend more than five (5) feet from the remainder of the structure, and c: ramps for the disabled. We have changed the grade to our side entry to make an access ramp for disabled guests to enter by the side door. 25.118 Exceptions to Yard Setbacks (a) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear yard up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear yard setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side yard setback of less than five (5) feet. (b) 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 section 26.05, 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 trom a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (i) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties. There is a 10' hedge between the wall and the neighbor's property so they cannot see the wall. (ii) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties. The Sandes' cedar hedge is blocking the sun from shining on our solar home, not vice versa. (iii) adequate on -site parking. No affect expected (iv) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property . No affect expected. We believe that the modification of the South Burlington Regulations by the Development Review Board regarding the "as built" wall is permitted if we have met all the requirements listed above and would appreciate your approval of a variance for "as built" wall. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank and Mary Mazur 07.1 V! '19 31 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\misc\mazur\conditional use.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Frank and Mary Mazur, referred to hereafter as the applicants, are requesting conditional use approval under Section 14.10 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is for approval of a 5' x 14' roof structure, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. The applicant originally received approval from the Development Review Board to build a 5' x 14' second story deck on March 4, 2003 (February 18, 2003 minutes attached). The applicant did not obtain a zoning permit to build the structure within the required six (6) month period and therefore the approval was null and void. This application is to obtain approval for the 5' x 14' structure, which is now being proposed as a roof. Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Raymond Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments: Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations, the expansion of and reconstruction of pre-existing structures may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and and the following standards are met: (a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. For purposes of these Regulations, expansion may include the construction of detached accessory structures including garages and utility sheds. The existing single-family dwelling on the subject property was in existence prior to April 24, 2000. (b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. The proposed addition will not extend any closer to the applicable high water elevation than the closest point of the existing structure. (c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. For purposes of these regulations, reconstruction may include razing the existing structure and/or foundation and constructing a new structure in accordance with the provisions of the underlying zoning district regulations and this section. The proposed 70 square feet addition will create a small increase to the existing footprint, but will be significantly less than 50% of the existing structure. (d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The additional has already been constructed, so this criterion is not applicable. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrblrnisclmazur\conditional use.doc (e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The plans that the applicant submitted show the existing landscaping on the subject property. The March 10, 2003 Decision by the Development Review Board for the original approval of the 5' x 14' second story deck stated that "the applicant shall mitigate the visual impact of the second story deck by planting a Maple Tree with a minimum 2.5" caliper in the same general location as the tree that was recently cut down." Although the subject application is for a 5' x 14' roof, rather than a deck, staff suggests that the applicant be required to plant this tree. 1. The applicant shall plant a maple tree with a minimum 2.5" caliper in the same general location as the tree that was removed on August 2, 2000, by August 1, 2004. 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 addition to the existing single-family dwelling is in keeping with the planned character of the area as identified in 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 4.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations, The Lakeshore Neighborhood District (LN) is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Lakeshore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Holmes Road. The District is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and minimal setbacks. Staff feels that the addition to the existing single-family dwelling is keeping in with the purpose of the LN Zoning District. 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 additional structure 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. Staff believes that the additional structure is in keeping with the character of surrounding properties and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the ability to develop adjacent properties. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 1drblmisclmazurlconditional use.doc (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The additional structure will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect The additional structure is in keeping with applicable regulations. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The additional structure will not affect renewable energy resources. (f) General public health and welfare. The additional structure will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare. Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may impose conditions of the following: 1. Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 2. Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 3. Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. 4. Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the additional structure. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\misc\mazur\conditional use.doc RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use application #CU- 04-02, conditional upon the applicant addressing the numbered items in the "Comments" section of this document. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: Frank and Mary Mazur, applicants DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 FEBRUAKY 2003 PAGE 6 plan is conceptually as good as it's going to Oct. If the traffic Study finds it's not a workable plan, it will have to be Scaled back. He asked the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and hear their ideas and concerns. Mr. Kupferman said that if the zoning does not change, he would like some master plan of what might happen with the commercial piece. 4. Continued f uHic Hearing: Application #CU-02-26 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, of the South l r1ington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 5'x14 second story deck, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Belair said he made a site visit and measured the edge of the deck to the south property line which was marked by the 53ndes (neighbors). It is 10.5 ft. The house is 15.2 ft. from the string. There were no other additions other than what was permitted. Mr. Dinklage asked about screening. Mrs. Mazur said they would screen the deck with an opaque railing. 5he said they would not plant a tree on their land. Ms. Quimby moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kupferman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage said the Board would notify the applicants of its decision after a deliberative session. 5. 5ketch plan application #5D-03-09 of Farwater, Ltd., to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 85 residential units in four buildings, and 88 units of congregate housing in two buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing an additional 44 unit congregate housing facility, and 2) reducing the number of congregate housing units from 44 to 40 in an approved building which is not yet constructed, 525 and 527 Lime Kiln Road: Ms. Hurley distributed comments from the Fire Chief regarding access to the 2 rear buildings. He recommended the changes that are now being proposed. Mr. Rabideau showed what has been previously approved and building and what is under construction and currently permitted. Frank and Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 February 25, 2004 South Burlington Development Review Board Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, We are applying for conditional use approval under Section 26.05 Conditional Uses and Section 3.50 and 3.506, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Our request is for approval of an "as built" 5' X 14' roof over a 12' south facing patio door that was added during the construction of our 8' X 42' addition but was inadvertently left off the plan originally submitted for the building permit. It is within the 10' side setback requirement for the Lakeshore Neighborhood District. 26.05 Conditional Uses CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA 1. The proposed project complies with the stated purpose of the Conservation and Open Space District, "to maintain and improve the quality of natural resources such as soil, air, and water," and does not adversely affect: a. The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities — no effect expected. b. The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor the ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. c. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity — no affect expected. d. Bylaws in effect - no affect expected. e. Utilization of renewable energy resources — no affect expected. f. General public health and welfare — no affect expected. 3.50 Nonconforming Uses and Activities The encroachment of a nonconforming use or activity into a CO District is permitted under certain circumstances subject to approval by the Development Review Board as provided below: 3.506 In a CO District along Lake Champlain as described in Section 3.102, the expansion or reconstruction of pre-exsting structures, allowance of certain water -oriented improvements, and erosion control improvements may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use provided the following additional criteria are met: a. The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was in existence on April 24, 2000. Our house was built in 1972. b. The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer to high water elevation than the existing structure. The roof is NOT closer to the high water elevation. c. The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty (50) percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully in existence on April 24, 2000. The roof does NOT include any additional footprint. d. Erosion control measures: N/A e. Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved. We do not propose any cutting of existing plant material. We believe the roof meets all the requirements listed above and would appreciate your conditional use approval. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank and Mary Mazur 7ur iW. VT 05403 5 �compuserve.com — —lo,- -�- 167.1 _rMAP �I -&4SSW0oD .v '4eC c&♦ 15 Mr. & Mrs. Frank M. Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Rd 3gAiu lington, VT 05403 FRANK mnzvlC(7� RDBLPHOW67 -35 7 rl-�-03 yz z� �9 -Volz A �u - 70 q x3 fo 20 04s4Pt_4E-' i f t , -.VTR ze ,G 1\1 ff Roe. F s� I\ LEI •TNE LOT Is NO-T RcCT%+�l�f.'LAdZ .1 T+ .S R. 73' W I D E r.� Aivo aI�7�/ >,on�C��rZ v/v 'THE NORMI SIDE Dix vt�vA-/ i. -Q,t —iW- Pige, pra- Tv Li llirm SPRve.t3 Alp Ptt' -� plea SrCI N D C 's C N el-1 tc' rlx T� �P fyc�o F U c-4r,- M pz OR'.s R ET)4) ivr A/C. ZNsTA LL ED I' Ne)*.- SANDE S C �DAR TREES IOu4►/Te D I " Sovt'H o F �..I Nt= FRAWk AND M4JRy Miq=vR 5 2, `&9RTL.l..7T SAy Roque,. �AfC-LJ- er.cf-- LA r� ��r Rc908Sr FOR C4PJDATtoV.0t, vSc A-S J3 ul L.T " S"'x I y' R Oo F-- O v c IX Sot, Z-,�4 5 r O e- PAT JO DOO k -r 15--(C\.(A,%(1oc4 lt6 10 G 1 , Q ,. 7 -, yoRCH RooF (N6vt gANG► ,Poach - 1 1 :k" JPLANTEro, 1 2.7 / ISTEpS PC P-M 0 I RCH RQoF j COvE R ED t?oRC 1 wool NI AZUR le pepbx Gj�tu �l��ior� iur ---- - kd Mr. & Mrs. Frank M. Mazur ..- VT 05403 52 Bartlett Bay Rd - 5 5:'Barlington, VT 05403 �compuserve.com = f / FRANK M/aZI�C('� RDE�iH/N•/lic% I ✓ - - --- 7 OpU9 rims a S'Fdi'S9Gi< * �8 pS��D ,v I t �� l z �� TjR I✓15 Ila hj ` I '?a PLA R • LN R/ TE s � 70 — 1� tj NoUSt i GARPCC- DfZFV3W h� - — •— — Pig � -,� 20 _ - vl- v Ifs f 0"), F2T L t ' 6�i - - { f !✓1 Ap�z QQ_ P u C G, f hit L LPL T �Ta'Cc E -� e r✓ 00 c`bf TB 4 cK• iNE l.o-� 1s NO-T �ccTAhJC,,•cAR T 1S a•73' \Pj IUi✓n� aA; ?He w&ST 910E A NO �1.75` 1,ONC-Erb 0AJ THE NOIZT�} Si�F ,<-AIv.Dc `S CJ14 ►" 1� ctNEEN / oReH - a4ti�� l �- 1 1�LANTErZ--t- 2? �'57,EPS ' \X,,Coft MAZUtZ I SA"DE A I, 7 yoRCH --, RooF OVER RANG- CtXEE N foacH l 1 :k' tPLANTEcZ 1 .2 ?"'STEpS j COVE'% ED QRc 1 r ,7 N�AZU I to N6Da SAN,Dt 51DE Doort Woo F zur iW. VT 05403 5 7compuserve.com r - ' I f / 1 — -- — —— — — — —lie Yap FLNvTEQ N4 u S 9 •7r a yz x :.6 i- N J It DECK_- 10' toicA*, Ex15rimc- -._ I I - i°15 -- i 1 Mr. & Mrs. Frank M. Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Rd - - _ -Burlington, VT 05403 FRANK MnzuR(c---., PN1f4,'uC-T �z 6 7 .�" c.�eN F�1Et�'G� OC' F r rrt A PLT TR eQ -TNE LOT !S NO-T RcCTAn1&t,•LgP, 1T I R-73''.J IDF-,�k pAj -THE7 wES-r -SIoE A NO �1�75� t,oNC�ElZ OOJ 'THE NORT!+ Sl�E 1 4 Planning 52 BB Rd addition Sunday, November 03, 20 PROPOSED ADDITION I SECOND FLOOR PLAN i PROPOSED ADDITION Porch 3 30-8 i I 5' X 14' — South side Roof Inadvertently left off plan submitted for building permit I I g Bedroom I Bedroom mm�lili!ffio Bedroom I I I N • Bedroom ME /af CAMP BARTLETT LOT # 2 ua ry s/x I q' SIDE Doott Woo F 9 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vt. 05482 April 6, 2004 Zoning and Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt. 05403 Dear Mr. Belaire, We have a summer residence at 50 Bartlett Bay Road and since we purchased this property we have had our propertyis continually abused by Frank and Mary Mazur. (See attachment # 1 o ice reports). In late 2002 and early 2003 we attended 3 DRB meetings to oppose the construction of an unapuroved deck off the south side of the Mazur's newly constructed addition. A ruling was made which seemed fair to both parties. In the fall of 2003 we learned that the Mazur's were not going to abide by the ruling of the DRB. In preparation for the April 13, 2004 DRB hearing when we believed the Mazur's were to seek approval for 4 items as cited in a letter dated October 29, 20Q,3�, ,fie learn that only items 2 and 4 are now coming before the Board. (AttacL.,n� #2) After speaking with you a request was made by us to see the paper trail so we might learn how number one (1) slated to go before the DRB could just "disappear" and how number 4 could possibly be resolved. On April 3, 2004 we receied&letter that the Mazur's sent to you on November 5, 2003. (AttacMhent #3) We find this letter to be quite entertaining and filled with untruths. 1. This is a total untruth since the soil on the south side of the house was not placed there from excavation of the new addition. On at least two dates, September 12 and 13, 2003 we observed BYGONE Construction Company delivering many loads of dirt and gravel. (See attlMht #4.... pictures of construction) You did a site visit to the property in early 2003 and clearly saw that the ground level had not been raised 4 ft at that time. We believe that the soil from the excavation was placed on the west side of the house toward the lake since the level of the soil there increased as previously stated in our letters to you and the DRB dated October 28,2002. 2. Our question in regards to this unapproved "deck or roof' on the south side of the house is..... What is to prevent this roof from becoming_a deck in the future? It is obviously still a deck in terms of construction and future enforcement of its nonuse will be an ongoing problem for us as well as the City. We feel that the non -compliant deck ftom the previous DRB ruling of March 10, 2003 (#cu-02026-at&I ent #5) should be removed. A roof should then be constructed if this is what the Mazur's desire. 3. The 1" by 8" boards are in the front yard because of the soil that was added to elevate their front yard. No matter how you look at it, they have moved closer to the lake and the new interpretation of that by your office and the Mazur's is quite interesting. These boards that the Mazur's refer to are the retaining walls to contain the fill added to the west side of their property after the original excavation. 4. We are strongly opposed to this structure being 1 foot and in some places 10 inches from our property line. It is not a wall, it is a structure and by definition (Article 2 Page 8) it is not an accessory structure since it is attached to the house. It seems ludicrous to us that Representative Mazur would be unaware that a permit would be necessary for such a structure. The Mazur's seem to have a history of doing work and then applying for permits and variances. At the November 30, 2003 DRB meeting, Mary Mazur was asked by Mr. Dinkledge what were the plans for outside the south sliding door. She stated that there would be steps and possibly a stone patio. In regard to the 3 reasons that the Mazur's have cited for the construction of this stone structure......... If they are concerned regarding the impact on our hedge why have they tried for 4 years to kilUi�f�e notice from Mr. Perry dated June 19,2003 regarding rock salt-atta en #6). We now find that our property is extremely wet when there are heavy rains since all the water from the road and the Mazur's property has no where to go but to our yard. The topography of their property has significantly been altered and the drainage issues are of great concern to us and other neighbors because of the history of flooding in the Conservation District. In regards to the 11� handicapped entrance, it does not need to be 14 feet wide (and 12 inches or less from our property line). It is not our responsibility to provide fire access for the Mazur's although we would not hesitate to let fire or rescue vehicles use our property for access. Access to their house would be easier without this large ramp structure. As stated in our previous letters to the City, the Mazur's addition was too large for the lot and yet was approved by your offices without going before the DRB. As adjacent property owners, we were denied due process at the time of the original construction. At this point we cannot help but wonder if it was an "administrative error" as previously stated by your offices or an intentional omission. Please include this letter and the attachments in your package to the Developmental Review Board Members since we will raise these issues at the hearing. Si� relx, J. Peter Sande and Diane Sande cc. Mr. Charles Hafter Mr. Robert Perry June 18, 2003 At this point we think that it is important for the South Burlington Police Department be aware of the history that we have experienced at our camp since our purchase in 1999. Enclosed please find a police report that was filed against Frank and Mary Mazur in November of 2001. Over the course of the past 3 years our property rights have been repeatedly violated by the Mazurs, including digging up a flower bed on our property (June 12,2000 and again on June 15, 2000), cutting down a tree on our property (August 2, 2000), removing several limbs of our trees that were not overhanging the property line (August 2, 2000), trimming the sides of our row of cedar hedges back far over their property line (throughout the entire Spring, Summer and Fall of 2001), and finally cutting 2 feet off the top of our hedge. (November 2001) At this point we were forced to file the enclosed police report dated November 23, 2001. Prior to the filing of this report and the subsequent filing of the "Notice of No Trespass Warning" on recommendation by the South Burlington Police, all attempts to discuss the above issues and property violations with either Mr. or Mrs. Mazur proved to be fruitless. On May 11, 2003 the Mazur's trespassed and removed a tree from our property. Diane and Peter Sande 50 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington Vermont 05403 0), /,�,& E- S �;� 611 klo 3 6.0,2)0��-W6-i00 PO SCE RE PUP T- 01 Narrative: On November 23', 2001 I met with the complai+Hants, Peter and Diane Sande, concerning. their property.at '50.'.BariIl !tt Bay Road in South Burlington. They advised me that they had p,ldnted a cedar hedge between their property and the neighboripg..property. They advised me that someone had cut the tops off of this hedge.•They further advised that they suspected the neighbors because of past conflicts. In a sworn written statement the Sandes advised the following: "On Thursday November 22, 2001, we went to our camp at SO Bartlett Bay Road. we noticed that our hedge that borders our property to the north side had been trimmed. We estimate that 1- 2 feet had been cut from the tops of the cedar trees. The hedge is planted 1-1 1/2 feet on our side of the boundary line. Over the past 2 years the branches on the north side of the hedge have been continually pruned back by the Mazurs even though they were not overhanging onto their property," On November 23, 2001 I went to the Sande property located at 50 Bartlett Bay Road. I observed the cedar hedge on the north side of the property. It appeared to run east/west from the road towards the lake, between properties 50 a-nd 52. There was a line marker on the north side of the hedge,.•''I, also observed that the tops of the hedges' appeared to have been freshly cut. I photographed the hedge and apparent cutting. I then went to the Mazur residence at 52 Bartlett Bay Road. Thi= residence is directly to the North and across the cedar hedge from the Sande property. I met with Mary Mazur who asked me in. I e;�.plained to her that I was investigating a report that the Hedge on the Sande property had been cut and asked her if she knew anything about it. Mazur advised me that she had trimmed her side. I advised her she could trim any overhang. on her property but not the tops of the hedge. She advised me "I did it. Put me in jail." She explained how there were drug dealers that don't go to Sail and that she would not go to jail. I explained to her that she might end up there if she kept up and that she may face civil liability and treble damages. Mazur advised that the law says it has to be one foot from the property edge. She stated "they are fighting for every inch of their property, so are we. She also advised that they (Sandes) complained that her husband had put stakes out for the si"bwplow six..,inches on their property. She advised -she had to tell him to move them when he got home that night. Mazur also advised that they (Sandes) had agreed to keep it neat and trimmed and it wasn't so she "trimmed it up a little". I advised her it was not hers to decide. She advised that -she lived there and had to look at it year round. She said it wasn't fair. They (Sandes) were only there four months. I asked her if she had asked the Sandes if she could trim the hedge. She advised that they were never around to ask. She further advised me that she was a master gardner and knew how to trim the hedges as,needed. On December 26,.2001 at 1624 hours, I issued a notice of trespass ,�; on behalf of the Sandes for their property at 50 Bartlett Bay Road. The notice was hand delivered to Mary Mazur in the presense of her husband Frank Mazur. Mary Mazur signed the notice. She advised her husband that his name was on it also and asked him if he wanted to sign. He advised that he would not sign anything. I advised them both that it did not need to be signed but had the full effect of the law. Mary Mazur advised that there was a common element or right of way in regards to the properties, I advised her that the notice covered the Sande, property at 50 Bartlett Bay. The Sandes also provided me with a written estimate of damage to their property. The estimate was prepared by Warren Spinner of Shade Tree Associates in Essex Junction. He is a Consulting Arborist. Spinner estimated that the approximate 100-foot long section of Eastern White Cedar hedge on the Sande property had a replacement cost of $1,667.25; a compounded cost of annual maintenance of $1,142.40; and the value of one 5.5" caliper "Crimson King" Norway Maple as $590.00 for a total of $3,399.65. This written report by Spinner is on file. *** PAPERWORK IN FILE *** if R GPo R I � tt- vN 4 a 3J01 doo) S f3 oS1Z O p/}N FrTz� #to 846-4111 South Burlington Police Department .575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 054.03 1 I, o. e M - l f Z �e rf , an officer for the South Burlington Police Department (offi er) • / .. on this date- -/a I have given notice to /'a h µ.w /''� R 2 (,, r' 2 D !! (recipient) of �� /-��'' t�` 10)-that I -am acting as an agent for (008) 2 (Ad ress) . 1 ,f'j t 'S -S O f �"'' fi�e �, Z 96` �u�.��N��^57��^ L)TThis is to notify you that you are not to enter onto or remain on the property/premises of :�'o (owner) at Such act will constitute oca n a trespassing violation as described in Title 13, Section 3705, VSA and will result in the criminal charge of Unlawful Trespass as noted in said statute. FI=ICER Case # 0 1 0 �J"j -7 R'ECIPIE �lrAwK MAZE'w /h `-/MH(/ reel/-C'l 4jr WITNESS 1�.) O \ , s TITLE 13 SECTION 3705 UNLAWFUL TRESPASS I 0-1 (a) A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.00, or both, if, without legal authority or consent of the person in lawful possession, he enters or remains on any land or In any place as to which notice against trespass Is given by: (1) Actual communication by the person in lawful possession or his agent or by law enforcement officer acting on behalf,of such, person or ,his agent: or (2) Signs or placards •so designed and situated as to give reasonable "�' notice. Narrative: m677 On May 19, 2003, Complainant Diane Sande gave a sworn written statement documenting a long history of a neighborhood dispute against MAry Mazur. Sande stated on 05/11/2003, she found a note attached to her door.The note made reference to a Blue Spruce Tree that Sande had removed from the north side of her lawn. Mazur stated the tree belonged to her, and she wanted it back. Sande stated the tree was clearly on their property, and they moved it within a short distance of where it was originally located. Sande said when the arrived back at the camp location on 50 Bartlett BAy Road, they found the tree gone. Mary Mazur was issued a notice of Trespass by SBPD Corporal Fitgerald for the Sande residence back in 2001, and the Sande's believe Mazur trespassed on the residence twice, once to leave the note, and the other time to take the tree. This trespassing incident in 2001 involved the Mazur's trimming down a section of the shrubs bordering the Sande household. On June 19, 2003, Sande submitted another statement to SBPD documenting other incidents that have occurred involving the Mazur's. Sande said the Mazur's had dug up a flower bed, cut down a tree on their property, and removed several limbs off trees clearly on their property. In 2001, they cut two feet of hedge off the top area, and this resulted in the police report that Cpl Fitgerald submitted. On July 9, 2003, I was finally able to get a hold of Mary Mazur and discuss the incident. Mazur said she did not know where the Blue Spruce tree went, but admitted to leaving the note on the door. Mazur stated the tree was hers' and was given to her by an old friend. She said the Sande's confiscated it, and it was in fact on her land befor? they moved it. Mazur stated the neighbor hood dispute seems to involve boundry lines. Based on the above information, I will reissue a notice of trespass to MAzur, and contact SBPD supervisors to determine if charges are warranted. P� AnAdpqk_ nmpvknn' WANT LIST DISTRIBUTORS OF QUALITY PLUMBING & HEATING PRODUCTS BURLINGTON, VT LEBANON, NH PORTLAND, ME 802-864-6806 603-448-1030207-871-1101 1-800-5-KOH LER NH 1-800-3-KOHLER 1-800-464-1103 VT 1-800-4-FAUCET FAX 802-864-0149 FAX 603-448-2839 FAX 207-871-0921 r CIO- /ntLf- Qa_ czc� S/antFnr'� i BOIL ERS•BkSEBOARD• FIN TUBE f Ci City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON,.VERMONT 05403 TEL. (802) 846-4107 FAX (802).846-4101 CITY MANAGER CHARLES E. HAFTER October 29, 2003 Mr. & Mrs. Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 Dear Frank and Mary, I recently held a'review session with the Planning and Zoning staff regarding the City's enforcement schedule for properties in the City that are not currently in compliance with the Land Development Regulations. As you are aware, your property has several issues that need to be addressed before the qry can certify compliance with those Regulations. Prior to commencing any,legal action, I would like to take this opportunity to review the issues, with you and seek voluntary;action to bring the property into compliance by remedying the violations orseeking appropriation Board action to get approval for existing conditions. There are four issues that need to be corrected. They are summarized below. Placement of Fill Violation: It appears from our inspection of your property that fill in excess of 20 cubic yards has been placed on the south side of your house. This requires approval by the DRB pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations, and issuance of a zoning permit thereafter. Remedy: Application for approval of the placement of fill must be made under §3.12 to th e DRB. A zoning'permit_must be obtained subsequent to that approval. ," 2. ' Second -Floor Deck Violation: The second -floor deck on the south fagade of your house differs substantially from what was approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) in March, 2003. Because that DRB approval has expired, and because we understand you intend for keep the,deck- as -b ujlt,mther, than constructing,what,was approved; you must seek re-approval.forihis condition. , UG Mr. & Mrs. Frank & Mary Mazur October 29, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Remedyi ��ppiicapop for re -approval of,the second -floor deck must be made under § 12.01(1�),� he tand Development Regulations, and must meet the five-foot side,yard setback'requiye&for this district. A zoning permit must be obtained subsequent to an approval. 3. Retaining Wall on West Side of House Violation: It appears from our inspection that a retaining wall has been constructed on the west side of your house, which is within one hundred fifty feet of Lake Champlain. This is a violation of § 12.01(D)(2)(b) of the Land Development Regulations, which prohibits any expansion or structure closer to the Lake than the closest point of the existing house. Remedy: There is no remedy under the City's Land Development Regulations for this retaining wall. You may apply for a dimensional variance, but the DRB can only grant one upon a finding that this structure meets all five criteria for hardship under State law. Therefore, we must ask that this be removed within two weeks of receipt of this letter, or that you apply to the DRB fax a variance within this. two week period, or a Notice of Violation will be issued. 4. �' Four -Foot Wall on South Side of House Violation: We have observed from the road that a four -foot high wall has been constructed on the south side of your house. You did not, to our knowledge, apply for any permit to construct this wall'. This wall is within'five feet of the side property line between your house and the Sande residence. The wall constitutes an accessory structure to your residential use, rather than being a "fence." Under §3.10(A)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, no accessory structures may be placed within five feet of any side yard line. Remedy: If you wish to retain this wall, it must be relocated so that it will be a minimum of five feet from all property lines. You will need to apply for DRB approval for the wall if you choose to -relocate it, pursuant -to § 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations. A zoning permit must be obtained subsequent to an approval. Alternatively, you may apply for a dimensional variance fro' m the DRB, if you feel that this property and the wall qualify for one under all of the hardship criteria, as for the retaining wall in (3) above. The Planning Commission is in the process of approving changes to the Land Development Regulations that'will facilitate review of your applications to the DRB. I expect that these regulations will be in effect by January 7, 2004. Therefore, we ask that you apply for DRB approval of the second -story deck, the plagen= f1jLand the relocation of th�all_ijLyour side yard (items 1, 2 and 4-above) during the month -of January, 2604'. If the DRB has not k� ?00000*, Mr. & Mrs. Frank & Mary Mazuf October 29, 2003 Page 3 of 3 received arx-application by February 2, 2004, we will have to assume that it is not your intention to apply for City approval for your property. No action will be taken on these three items until February 2,,2004. However, attention needs to be given to item 3 according to the time frame in that paragraph. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration: Sincerely, Charles E. Hafter, City Manager Q �.0110 f FRANK AND MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD ` SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 November 5, 2003 Charles E. Hafter S. Burlington City Manager 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Hafter, Thank you for agreeing to meet with us to review the issues noted in your letter of October 29, 2003 so we can remedy the problems and get approval for existing conditions. We would like to explain the rational behind each item you noted. 1. Placement of Fill: The soil excavated from the 8' X 42' X 3' crawl space of the new addition was placed on the south side of the building's exterior. We concurr that it is in excess of 20 cubic yards but we needed it to build a grade sloping away from the building. 2. Second —Floor Deck: We did not apply for a second floor deck because we have decided that we do not need or want a deck under the circumstances required by the DRB. Instead we have decided to keep the cantilevered overhang to serve as a roof over the sliding glass door on the first floor and as an emergency escape from the second floor in case of fire. The sliding glass door on the second floor that accesses the structure is in our bedroom and we have installed a barrier rail to remind us not to use that door. It is similar to the barrier rails installed in The Landings' units across their second floor sliding glass doors above their main entrances. Retaining Wall on West Side of House: We are unclear what you are referring to as a "retaining wall on the west side of the house" because the wall we built IS NOT closer to the lake than the closest point of the house. We purposely set that cement block wall back 6" from the front of the house so there would be no problem with it. We are wondering if you were referring to the 1" X 8" boards around the front bank as a retaining wall because that i� clearly closer to the lake than the house. If that is the case the boards can be easily removed. They were placed there to prevent erosion until we could get some grass and plants established to hold the bank in place. We've always had flowers planted on the bank and did not think that was a violation of any rules. 4. Four —Foot Wall on South Side of House: We did not know we needed a permit to build this wall. When we consulted the City about the hedge the Sandes planted in 2000 we were told that hedges and walls were part of the landscaping and were not �7) regulated as fences are. Since the Sandes placed their hedge only one foot south of the boundry line, we built our wall one foot north of it. We had three reasons for building the retaining wall. While our construction was under way we noted that a large volume of water came off our roof and ran south onto the Sande's land. It carried the excavated soil into their hedge and over time would have changed the soil level and killed their cedar trees. We constructed the retaining wall to allow the roof run-off to stay on our land and not impact their vegetation. 2. We have a sliding glass door on the south side of our house that we need access to. It is about three feet from the original ground level so we needed to either build a deck or porch in front of it or raise the ground level. Raising the ground level seemed to us to be the best way to solve the problem of the roof run-off and the access problem. Mary's mother is 83 and has osteoporosis. She has fallen several times and broken bones. We know that the time is coming when she can no longer live alone and we will be able to take her into our home if she does not have to climb any stairs. By sloping the south side of the yard up to the sliding glass door level we will not have to build a wooden ramp to provide access for her and other handicapped friends who come to our house. As far as building the retaining wall five feet from the boundry line it would severly limit the ability of firetrucks or rescue vehicles to gain access to the south side of our house if that area were narrower. the Sandes original hedge did not go all the way to the lake so there was a way a vehicle could go around it to get to the lake side of the house in case of fire or a need to rescue someone from the second floor. When our construction was nearing completion they extended their hedge all the way to the lake so there is no longer any access to our property from the south. It appears that they intend to let the cedar trees grow to their full height so in the future even a ladder truck will not be able to access our house. We hope this will explain the reasons for our actions. If more information is needed please do not hesitate to contact us. We want to do whatever is necessary to obtain approval of the south side roof and fire exit, the retaining wall in its present location, and the fill required to bring the south side yard level up to that of the first floor sliding door on that side of the house. As you requested we will apply for DRB approval of these items in January, 2004 and hope they will take our unusual circumstances into consideration when they are discussing changes to the Land Development Regulations. Sinc ly, J ) F an Mary Mazur J i. r 'R \ 1 f ,f' PERRY, ROBERT J. PERRY RICHARD R. OOLDSBOROUGH WILLIAM E. HAZEL, JR. SCHMUCKER & GOLDSBOROUGH, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5000 WILLISTON ROAD _ P. O. BOX 2525 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05407 TELEPHONE: (502) 545-4555 TELECOPIER: (502) 042-0957 OF COUNSEL Info®vtlawflrm.com RONALD C. SCHMUCKER LEGAL ASSISTANTS LAURIE A. ST GELAIS NANCY L. BENSON June 19, 2003 HEIDI R. FITZGERALD CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. & Mrs. Frank Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: As I believe you are aware, I represent the Sandes. I have just been advised that a ditch has been constructed along your southerly border and filled with rock salt. Given the lack of vegetation on your land and the proximity to the hedge on the Sandes' lot; it must be assumed that the work was donb to destroy the hedge. This is probably more effective than trimming the hedge. Your intentional conduct can have no purpose other than damaging the Sandes' property and is entirely illegal. Hopefully you can be persuaded to remove the rock salt from the ditch. If not, you are placed on notice that you will be responsible for the cost of a replacement hedge, which would cost approximately $10,000.00. In addition, your conduct gives rise to a claim for punitive damages and, as a result, recovery of the Sandes' legal fees. Please give the situation your immediate attention. Sincerely, Robert J. Perry, Esq. RJP/nlb L40' printed on recycled paper �q S MPLt,UtSUNIPIIUN p anting: woody ornamentals HOME GROUNDS established 3 years soil texture: sandy soil drainage: good size of area: < 1 acre 985 "87 — REPORT FOR: Diane Sande 149 Vista Dr Shelburne VT 05482 SOIL TEST RESULTS Avail.phosphate(ppm P) 7.4 Potash (ppin K) 56 Magnesium (ppm Mg) 208 pH 6.1 Calcium (ppm Ca) 1690 SOIL TEST REPORT AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LABORATORY AND UVM EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT LAB 0W92/03 094RTENDEN 34 FIELD NAME 50 Bartlett Bay Rd LOW MEDIUM OPTIMUM EXCESSIVE organic fertilizer and pH information enclosed ** Please refer to the back side for a more detailed description of the test Based on your soil test, we recommend: ppH ��ist plants do well in the pH range of '5.5 to 7.0. Please refer to the enclosed pH information sheet for recommendations for specific types of plants. We estimate that if you wished to raise your soil pH to 6.8, 10 lbs per 100 sq ft of limestone would be needed. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium ommercia y soid fertilizer, manure, and composts are labeled by their nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P205), and potassium (K20) content, in that order. For example, a bag of 5-10-10 is 5% N, 10% P205, and 10% K20. Your soil tested OPTIMUM in phosphorus and MEDIUM in potassium. Use one of the following fertilizers or similar recommendation from your local supplier. These rates should supply about 1/4 lb per 100 sq ft of potassium. lbs per 100 sq ft ----------------- 2-3 2 fertilizer analysis ---------------------- 5-5-S 1.0-10-10 0-0-22 Magnesium and Calcium Y. o not neeT Uo add magnesium at this time. Your calcium level is sufficient. Established evergreens, shade trees and shrubs growing in lawn areas may receive sufficient fertilizer from proper lawn fertilization. Lawn fertilizers containing herbicides to kill weeds should not be used around them. For trees in non -lawn areas, apply fertilizer starting 2 1/2 ft. out from the trunk to a distance extending 25% beyond the spread of the branches. Where roads or sidewalks take up a portion of the area, reduce the amount of fertilizer accordingly. If the rate indicated is in excess of 10 lbs per 100 sq. ft. of area, apply one-half the amount in 2 equal portions at four- to six -week intervals, the first application being early spring. For shrubs in non -lawn areas, broadcast fertilizer around evenly, in 2 intervals as for trees. Alternatively, fertilizer stakes can be used according to package directions. => If you have questions about your soil test, please read both sides of this report carefully If you still have questions, call the UVM Extension System Home Gardening Hotline; from Burlington: 656-5421; from all other parts of the state: 1-800-639-2230 pg 1 of 2 '), 0 i UVM AGRICULTURAL TESTING LAB ANALYSIS RESULTS L 30632 09/02/03 LAB # Date Completed PACKAGE 1 MICRONUTRIENTS * (ppm in soil) Your results Avg. levels in Vermont soils Sodium (Na) 55.0 20.0 Iron Boron (Fe) 2.5— ( B) 0.4 7.0 0.3 J X Manganese (Mn) 10.1 14.0 qe� Copper (Cu) <.2 0.4 ✓ ` �• Zinc (Zn) 8.7 1.0 Q * Micronutrients are not usually deficient in Vermont soils. The average levels are provided for comparison only and are not, necessarily optimum levels for plant growth. Additions of micronutrient fertilizers should be done with caution because of the narrow range between deficiency and toxicity. Organic residues such as manure, are usually good sources of micronutrients. PACKAGE 2 METALS ** (ppm in soil) Your results Formal levels High levels Copper (Cu) <.2 0.5 more than 10 Cadmium (Cd) <.2 0.2 more than 2 Chromium (Cr) <:5 1.0 more than 20 Zinc (Zn) 8.7 10 more than 80 Nickel (Ni) 1.5 1.0 more than 20 Lead (Pb) 1.7 1.0 more than 50 ** Normal levels are given for comparisons. Results higher than normal but lower than the "high level." are not considered dangerous for growing vegetables. Conductivity = 0.09 Na = 55ppm Q A m GL of a Dilute Mlxhxe with water of the materials Indcabd below. = = i; �' - -Z€'iT�•: : '::.t= c-11 '- 'a.'�z .r. "t - ,"`.:.Y r`z':-' Cl REFER TO THE LIST OF MATERIALS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE FOR THE ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE APPLIGRION AS INDICATED IN -THE BOXES) BELOW: INVOICE' CUSTOMEP NO.PRICE T TAX INVOICE NO. TOTAL —91 Va. 91 b. TARGET PEST EXAMPLES Fl RTIUZER ' INSECT mi E CONTROL MOM,* wti ftIM DISEASE CONTROL We -.b. -V bl^ P--y . mt, ORNAMENTAL BED WEIR CONTROL anal ad PMgr m w b—cMd—da. RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS. reaper _ _ _ _ FERTILIZER: (1) urea nitrogen, ammonium phosphate, potassium chloride (2) urea and urea fnitrogen, formaldehyde ammoniur _ - - - - - - — phosphate, potassium chloride (3) urea and methylene urea nitrogen, ammonium phosphete,Epotassium chloride (4) ire � '30�, �t _ W. REMITTANCE STUB PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE. RETURN THIS PpwmoN wTTH PAYMENT. 00G%50 913S-t?EAD7 ``tC" fwl CHARGE THIS APPLICATION TO MY: ❑ DISCOVER CARD ❑ MASTERCARD ❑ VISA CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER z t �. �_c z _ �•.. r_ EXPIRATION DATE PRICE SIGNA E Tyr. t_ _ i 1 `Q; TOTAL CONTROL MATERLAS: (amt. per 100 GL water) CONTROL MATERIALS: (amt. per 100 GL wate (A) Sevin SL 10.8, 32 A. oz. - M Heritage 50 WDG 1.0, 2.0 o (E) Orttrone T, TTfO 0.33, 0.67. 1.0 Ib. (V) Cleary's 3336 WP 16 o (E1) Dendrex (1.5 g/ 91 /cap) A of Caps (V1) Cleary's 3336F 10� 16. 20 fl. o (F) Insecticidal Soap 1.0, 2.0 gl. (V2) Bayleton 50 TdO 2.0 c Bacillus Thuralgiensis 2.0. 4.0, 6.0, 8. (V3) Ea0e 3.0, 6.0 o Horticultural Oil 1.0, 1.5, 2. 5 (W) Benner MAX( 2.0 A. o Tempo 20 WP 1 oz (amL of materiel per 1000 sq. f I (L) Merit 75 WSP 0.53. 1.6, 17.6 oz. QQ Vantage 0.8, 1.05, 1.3 it. 0 i (LI) Merit 2F 1.5. 53.0 ft. oz. ((1) Roundup Pro 1.5. 22. 3.0 A. o M Astro 3.2 EC 2.66, 32.0. 64.0 fl. oz. ((2) Surflan A.S. 1.5 A. o (Ml) Ficam 76 WP 1.31 lb. 0(3) Pendulum WDG 120, 1.66, 2.4 o (N) Talstar Flo 5.0, 8.0, 10.0 A. oz. (X4) Snepalwt 2.5TG 2.3, 3.45, 4.61 (P) Hexygon 1.0, 2.0 oz. Q(5) Razor 1.5, 22, 3.0 A. c (R) Floramite 2.0, 4.0 oz. (Z1) (S) Conserve SC 6.0.11.0 A. oz 'Products used for spray applications are diluted with water. The end -use dilution applied to your ornamentals has a maximum pesticic concentration of 2.5 percent (%). For more detailed product information conceming today's service visit call your branch custorrn service center at the telephone number fisted above. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 21, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Conditional Use Application 4CU-04-02 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 4/20/04 (effective 4/20/04). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of this approval or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Encl. Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested - #7003 3110 0001 3598 5497 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPAHTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 21, 2004 J. Peter & Diane Sande 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, VT 05482 Re: Mazur Findings of Fact & Decision Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sande: Enclosed is the Findings of Fact & Decision for the Mazur property at 52 Bartlett Bay Road. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincere y r ay o d . Belair Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLI GTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 9, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Sincerely, �Gy U �ymonrd J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPAffiTMENT OF PLANNffNG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802)846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 9, 2004 Robert Perry, Esq. 3000 Williston Road PO Box 2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Staff Comments on Mazur Property Dear Mr. Perry: Enclosed are the staff comments to the board and a copy of the Development Review Board Agenda for the April 13, 2004 meeting. If you have any questions, please give our office a call. Sincerely, �k�dyu4k--- Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant .1 EP�il� T �Y' 1u1 �: P'L`111 i17�TtG i�I�T�I�I 575 DCRSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMOP,71 05403 (802) 846-4106 EAX (802) 846-4101 To: Fax: SY-0 Pages: including cover sheet Phone: Date: q - R - a 24 Re: �6- 4CL-Lo 2 CC: ❑ Urgent Q For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: e Or � whin CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONI E4G 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLiNGTOI",1, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the reauested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month . That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Type of application check one: ( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) ( ) Request for a conditional use (ko?Mfuest for a variance ( ) Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) 3 - � Q (0 T ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? V A It P � A rvc. L . , . _ V Sid e- v 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) Zv L ne ' (n 1:; 11!�- ` 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Vol_ �J p �y , Lf5 4 — 45 � 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Sig v" E A S 1 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) S (I ►n i c A S 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: B A R I LL T [ BA-") Ron D 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0 13b — V()CU 5 -�, 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing _% Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed (does not apply to residential uses) 9 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations): $ - G - b) Landscaping: $ W 4 I I wcc s 2ca ),+ o. l ct nd sC Ct P r K+ �� '� d C o s c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): {"'A TO -?/4 v E R S. [ o ,S E f NSTA LL CID L !U S V M Y I l=. FZ --? (3 0 q 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out) b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: n Gz N A NA NX 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: IV A 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: A UG- UST aoo q 14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). ;5o 3PriTCCTT Brq`/ R-D D/,,9Alt -/- f ETEA S/9IVD 15� 11 It 11 — 0 11 QoL fVjESCRoLL I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. d SIGMA OF AWLICANT SIGNATU� OF PROOERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: V15evelopment Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete ❑ Incomplete � � y irector Planning & Zoning or Designee date A CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEIPARTMENT OF PLANN�TG & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number C 0 q - 0 9\ APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the reauested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month . That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Type of application check one: ( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) ( equest for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( ) Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) 2(, 05 3, 50 -4- 3 - S O (6 WHAT ACTION OF TIDE ADMINISTRATIVE, 9FFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? APPROVAL OF AIQ ''AS BUILT" SK 04 ROOF OVER 8 12'50UTH E)90r�MO,D00j 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) ---RANK zv A/UD t--1 C, zv a ZARTLFTT 314J Rj? 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) VOL (b 4 pq 4SY --Y 5 ,6 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) SAME A S 4 1 �� 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) S 6 m E 6S iik 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 5 3A 92-r L-E T-, u 114,11-/ -1?10A.D ❑r 6) TAX PARCEL ID 9 (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0 13 0 — 0 00 S--Z — R 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 5 X I N Roo F STRocTU R,a" To SNpnE- &iuV SNF—LTCR 200 R FRo M RAW b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) c) Total building square footage On property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed (does not apply to residential uses) RAI ri F 9) COST ESTIMATES w -4s a) Building (including interior renovations): $ --PART OF R e m o DG a ry C„ COST- W07 XNo w &J b) Landscaping c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12) PEAK BAYS OF OPERATION: 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). TE-Tc/�, d--"DWA-We S4iu Dc-- — So 3ARTLE-TT C3/4-/ ROA-D CAROL M F-SE tZOLC — 5`I 0,4kTLETT E?>A` fFOAJ I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. �nSIn OF 4PLICANT v( SIGNA OF PR RTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: V REVIEW AUTHORITY: /Development Review Board ❑ Directory Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: L? Complete ElIncomplete Zj Planning & Zoning or Designee A PROPOSED ZONING MAP and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS South Burlington Planning Commission December 9, 2003 At a duly warned Public Hearing on Tuesday, December 9, 2003, the South Burlington Planning Commission considered the following amendments to the Official Zoning Map and the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: Rezone properties east of Kennedy Drive on south side of Williston Road from Commercial 1-Residential 12 to Mixed Industrial -Commercial, as shown on a map entitled "Proposed Zoning Change, South Burlington, VT," dated October 10, 2003 and prepared by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 2. Create a Commercial 1-Airport zoning district within the Commercial 1-Residential 12 district west of Kennedy Drive, south of Airport Road, and on the north and south sides of Williston Road, as shown on a map entitled "Proposed Zoning Change, South Burlington, VT," dated October 1o, 2003 and prepared by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 3. Create a Commercial 1-Drive Through zoning district within the Commercial 1-Residential 12 district west of White Street and east of the Windjammer Drive, on the north and south sides of Williston Road, as shown on a map entitled "Proposed C1-DT Overlay Zoning District, Williston Road Area," with the notation "PC Amendment 11/11/03 Warned for Public Hearing." 4. Amend Table C-1, Table of Uses in the Land Development Regulations, as follows: a. Add "congregate care" as a conditional use in the Commercial 2 district; b. Delete "service station with convenience store" as an allowable use in the C1-Airport district; c. Add "warehousing" as a conditional use in the C1-Airport district; d. Delete "light manufacturing" as an allowable use in the C1- Airport district; e. Add the following as permitted uses in the LN-Lakeshore Neighborhood District: single-family dwellings; horticulture and forestry, with on -premise sales; horticulture and forestry, no on -premise sales; parks; recreation paths. PROPOSED ZONING MAP and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS South Burlington Planning Commission December g, 2003 f. Add the following as conditional uses in the LN-Lakeshore Neighborhood district: Accessory residential units (restrictive standard); public utility substations and transmission facilities; cemeteries; day care facility. 5. Amend Table C-2, Dimensional Standards of the Land Development Regulations, as follows: a. Industrial -open space district: Change building -only coverage from 25% to 30% b. Industrial -open space district: Change maximum total site coverage from 40% to 50%. 6. Add new Section 5.o8(E) to the Land Development Regulations regarding drive -through restaurants, as follows: §5.o8(E), Drive -Through Restaurants. In certain districts labeled "Ci-DT" on the Official Zoning Map, restaurants with drive -through facilities may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to §14.11(K) of these Regulations. Such facilities must meet all other applicable standards for the underlying Commercial 1 district. Conditional use review shall be required even if application for such facility is made pursuant to the Planned Unit Development provisions in Article 15 of these Regulations. 7. Add new Section 14.ii(K) to the Land Development Regulations regarding drive -through restaurants, as follows: §14.11(K) Drive -Through Restaurants. Drive -through restaurants may be allowed as a conditional use in certain areas of the Ci district labeled "Ci-DT" on the Official Zoning Map. Such uses shall be subject to the following standards and must be found by the DRB to be in conformance with these standards, irrespective of whether the application is proposed as a site plan with conditional use or a Planned Unit Development: (1) Such facility must meet all dimensional standards for the underlying district and all provisions of the Traffic Overlay District, if applicable. (2) Drive -through restaurants may be combined in a single building with other uses allowed in the underlying district, subject to all standards and regulations for multi - tenant buildings. (3) Parking requirements for drive -through restaurants combined in the same principal building with another use or uses shall be calculated per Section 13.01 of these I PROPOSED ZONING MAP and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS South Burlington Planning Commission December 9, 2003 Regulations. Spaces at gasoline pumps shall be counted towards the total parking requirement for the proposed uses at a ratio of one required space for every four (4) gasoline fueling positions approved. This specific ratio for the number of fueling positions that counts for one (i) required space shall not be allowed to be waived or modified by the DRB under §i3.oi(N)(2) or (3) of these Regulations, even if an overall parking wavier is granted. (4) All applications for drive -through facilities shall be subject to the City Center architectural design standards in §ii.oi of these Regulations, and shall require review by the Design Review Committee prior to DRB action on the application. (5) New drive -through restaurants shall be permitted only upon a demonstration by the applicant that one or more access management improvements will be made as a result of the application, including but not limited to closing of one or more curb cuts, creation of one or more internal access points between properties, signalization of an intersection or access point, improved safety and visibility of access points, and/or provision of additional access points on secondary streets. (6) All applications for drive -through restaurants shall require submittal of a traffic and stacking analysis and shall be subject to technical review per § of these Regulations. 8. Amend §14.05 to clarify that field changes and as -built plans apply to PUDs and other approvals as well as to site plans, by renumbering §14.05 A through J and amending §14.05(I): §14.05(-IH) Field Changes and As -Built Plans (3) The provisions of this Section 14.o5(H) shall apply to all types of approvals granted by the DRB and or Administrative O fficer, including but not limited to subdivisions, PUDs, site plans, miscellaneous approvals, and conditional use permits. 9. Amend §17.04(B) to clarify expiration of approvals: §17.04(B) Expiration of Approvals. Conditional uses, variances and site plan approvals shall expire six (6) months from the date of their approval by the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, unless there is a reasonable amount of objective evidence of PROPOSED ZONING MAP and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS South Burlington Planning Commission December g, 2003 _ intent to pursue the furtherance of the project for which the permit was issued. The Development Review Board may grant a longer period of approval for multi -phase development or for other projects that may reasonably require a longer period before start of construction. In addition, one (1) extension to an approval may be granted if reapplication takes place before the approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the DRB may specify a period of time of up to one (1) year for the extension. lo. Amend §15.12(B), Standards for Roadways, Parking & Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions, to clarify relationship to Traffic Overlay District: Insert new subsection (B), renumber the section B through N, as follows: §15.12(B) Relationship to Traffic Overlay District. In all PUDs and subdivisions in which the provisions of the Traffic Overlay District in §10.02 of these Regulations apply and in which the Traffic Overlay District provisions conflict with those of this section, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. 11. Add new section 15.o8(A)(ii) to require a complete survey of the project for preliminary plat applications for major subdivisions and PUDs, as follows: §15.o8(A)(11): A complete survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land, including, but not limited to access ways and utility easements. Where applicable this information shall be tied to reference points previously established by the city. 12. Add new section 15.o8(1))(11) to require a complete survey of the project for final plat applications for major subdivisions and PUDs, as follows: §15.o8(1))(11): A complete survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land, including, but not limited to access ways and utility easements. Where applicable this information shall be tied to reference points previously established by the city. M PROPOSED ZONING MAP and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS South Burlington Planning Commission December 9, 2003 MOTION to forward to City Council for consideration made by: Seconded by: d i i APPROVED this 9tn day of December, 2003: South Burlington Planning Commission Mdreel BeaLfdin, Chairman Randall Kay Timothy Duff Am'y,Je ts,' David Boyle John Zwick Lynn Fife 5 � `'I � I .fit .� . it• --u. I I d ..._ •- f++ �,i i r 4 Mf -J Y t yy I KF +a _ t91 " r r �r LOLL,a 44. FRANK AND MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail memazurlu;adelphia.uet November 12, 2003 Charles E. Hafter S. Burlington City Manager 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Hafter, My son came by today to remove the cement block flower planter from the west side of our enclosed porch. I asked him to wait until I had removed the bulbs I had planted in it. While he was waiting he walked around the front yard looking at the land and came back and asked me to show him the letter 1 had received from you regarding the planter, what you called the "retaining wall on West Side of House." After he read the section about the planter lie said that it was NOT "closer to the lake than the closest point of the existing house" because the land in front of the house is NOT parallel with the front of the house. The north border is 167 feet long and the south border is 145.2 feet long. The west border that connects the two sides is angled and the lot is 21.8 feet longer at the north-west corner than at the south-west corner. Just looking at the land it is evident that there is a much greater distance from the planter to the lake shore than there is from the south-west corner of the house to the lakeshore. We forgot about that fact and we're wondering if the city planner and city attorney also overlooked it. We have five different maps and plot plans which clearly show the angled west border. I believe you also have them on file in our folder. However, I am willing to provide copies of them for you if you think it is necessary. Today is a holiday and you probably won't get this message until Wednesday. We hope that will give you enough time to investigate the situation and get back to us before the end of the week. We need to hear from you by Friday whether the three feet deep planter is actually in violation under the circumstances I have just pointed out to you. If it is we will keep our word and remove it. We do not have our hearts set on keeping the planter. We would much rather give up the planter and keep the south retaining wall where it is because of the time and expense of building it. We hope there is a way to work out a win -win solution for all of us so the Sandes will be happy, the city will be following correct procedures and we will have the full use of what little land we have surrounding our house. Sincerely, Frank and Mary Mazur Frank Mzzur 52 Lartlutt L—, i,.d. Son( �.url ;;, -. i, VT 05403 1-802-JJ ,-:,�75 e=mall: fmazurCc,;mpuserve.com ef tjay�oad_ -S� ar%l71 1�7,o G� I ✓ JO': f Mozvr �5 8 -3' I !s I ! 1-C)U3E 5oILi 1N 1 5 f D_CK 3U ILi IN i i 1 7 9 I ! �Ioust i GIa. rzrl-C.'= ,4D j��D� C V ��f� ` 70 I - - 1- — — !�� - -- — — — — — zL 4a X .Z6 - I L2CR IN 1380 - 11 EX L57 G- % AL)DED AWNING- 10 A AO _ (i�� ; gx l S - I 19 CK I c.. IQ, X 20' - I Y - - - -- - `p5 /j A I I 1 .75 - -- -- f o v LO 0 tis } { j m o !\ V N co N •C j f L m m ✓� n r 'SLOcn I Ili 1/0,3 Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Rd. So. Burlington, VT 05403 ..10S'--3'i713- L. 0"r # a EXHIBIT B Lakeshore Neighborhood District Conservation & Open Space District .1"'. Ar u •��'� •�w-'4,!:' 'ks�j•:'�,�.�'' ,' .' 'tom' •', ..Mary Mazur • 52 -Bartlett Bay Rd. -, So' BurlrngtoPI VT 05403 � �. �. • .• sue: •� »- mri d' C4 Q a .ti -- �r Eta �t!e�t X°ad75 •:° 6� ' '� ��`.�f.E.L: �1�E��[l !� �i,.,ZrL'_.st' r•• --� L 'itsL,_ '1.1 'i.f• ` f • ti •.. Y.r_.d sti._ic1� C _ : 7 � •--:�--•t. 3J�'• :..c. _� w....__l.•:r �' .�1I' lair 4 0 -- •,`�.� • �. .cam ��* ••v;' : � / 1-f 4. ev 0 4e *J49, w V cq LO s _ 1 ••l� • ��,! ��o �.� . � h BJ ) � ..Li1.K.[-.4�._.iKf btL.CC O 1 p d �.•�+ • 1. m ° 1P.:. 4 • a m !.hc.:Ac�t hy: /f l.t. ---- ____ _ �m e'a � _•____,_r.. Y Saala: /"� SD' l��ncn��n.� i�1 f� �inu) ... • 7 /ETA t►f•♦./�t��1��t� T1• 1 A •1 /� I /8" x�2 Ta \� 3/4 Curb Stop law .. 1 3/4 K Copper --/� Ow— r\ : i2 2" BlOWOf 0 sf' LO O a� �i m ° r C o-- O N (V) � E 7 _ �m m ca n 31 NOTE 1. From the point of tapping an( up to and including the 2" valve shall be maintained by the South Burlington Water Department. '-Ductile Iron Watei 2" Class 160 PVC ,•/•r•�• : 2" Valve_ — --- I I, N, A t' Planning I! t%rr 103 Bartlett Bay Lot #2 dimensions Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett BayBd -- _ _ -- - So. Burlington, VT 05403 F(-o SS---397` 145 7 r 21! 67.0 64.27 167.0 Tuesday, March 19, 2002 FRANK AND MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 November 5, 2003 Charles E. Hafter S. Burlington City Manager 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Hafter, Thank you for agreeing to meet with us to review the issues noted in your letter of October 29, 2003 so we can remedy the problems and get approval for existing conditions. We would like to explain the rational behind each item you noted. 1. Placement of Fill: The soil excavated from the 8' X 42' X 3' crawl space of the new addition was placed on the south side of the building's exterior. We concurr that it is in excess of 20 cubic yards but we needed it to build a grade sloping away from the building. 2. Second —Floor Deck: We did not apply for a second floor deck because we have decided that we do not need or want a deck under the circumstances required by the DRB. Instead we have decided to keep the cantilevered overhang to serve as a roof over the sliding glass door on the first floor and as an emergency escape from the second floor in case of fire. The sliding glass door on the second floor that accesses the structure is in our bedroom and we have installed a barrier rail to remind us not to use that door. It is similar to the barrier rails installed in The Landings' units across their second floor sliding glass doors above their main entrances. 3. Retaining Wall on West Side of House: We are unclear what you are referring to as a "retaining wall on the west side of the house" because the wall we built IS NOT closer to the lake than the closest point of the house. We purposely set that cement block wall back 6" from the front of the house so there would be no problem with it. We are wondering if you were referring to the 1" X 8" boards around the front bank as a retaining wall because that is clearly closer to the lake than the house. If that is the case the boards can be easily removed. They were placed there to prevent erosion until we could get some grass and plants established to hold the bank in place. We've always had flowers planted on the bank and did not think that was a violation of any rules. 4. Four —Foot Wall on South Side of House: We did not know we needed a permit to build this wall. When we consulted the City about the hedge the Sandes planted in 2000 we were told that hedges and walls were part of the landscaping and were not regulated as fences are. Since the Sandes placed their hedge only one foot south of the boundry line, we built our wall one foot north of it. We had three reasons for building the retaining wall. l . While our construction was under way we noted that a large volume of water came off our roof and ran south onto the Sande's land. It carried the excavated soil into their hedge and over time would have changed the soil level and killed their cedar trees. We constructed the retaining wall to allow the roof run-off to stay on our land and not impact their vegetation. 2. We have a sliding glass door on the south side of our house that we need access to. It is about three feet from the original ground level so we needed to either build a deck or porch in front of it or raise the ground level. Raising the ground level seemed to us to be the best way to solve the problem of the roof run-off and the access problem. 3. Mary's mother is 83 and has osteoporosis. She has fallen several times and broken bones. We know that the time is coming when she can no longer live alone and we will be able to take her into our home if she does not have to climb any stairs. By sloping the south side of the yard up to the sliding glass door level we will not have to build a wooden ramp to provide access for her and other handicapped friends who come to our house. As far as building the retaining wall five feet from the boundry line it would severly limit the ability of firetrucks or rescue vehicles to gain access to the south side of our house if that area were narrower. The Sandes original hedge did not go all the way to the lake so there was a way a vehicle could go around it to get to the lake side of the house in case of fire or a need to rescue someone from the second floor. When our construction was nearing completion they extended their hedge all the way to the lake so there is no longer any access to our property from the south. It appears that they intend to let the cedar trees grow to their full height so in the future even a ladder truck will not be able to access our house. We hope this will explain the reasons for our actions. If more information is needed please do not hesitate to contact us. We want to do whatever is necessary to obtain approval of the south side roof and fire exit, the retaining wall in its present location, and the fill required to bring the south side yard level up to that of the first floor sliding door on that side of the house. As you requested we will apply for DRB approval of these items in January, 2004 and hope they will take our unusual circumstances into consideration when they are discussing changes to the Land Development Regulations. Since ly, �^ F c an Mary Mazur ; FRANK M. MAZUR 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Faxphone: 1-802-658-3975 E-mail: frankinazur(a- � adelplua. net August 3, 2003 Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Ray, Re: Construction at 52 Bartlett Bay Road Earlier this year the Design Review Board amended our zoning permit to allow the construction of a deck on the south side of our residence. We've decided not to construct a deck but a roof instead to cover our first floor entry. The sliding door on the 2nd floor will not have access to the roof but will have a barrier installed to prevent access. The roof is in compliance with our boundary requirements as was noted and confirmed earlier in your discussions with my wife. Sincer ly, Frank Mazur Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Rd. So. Burlington, VT 05403 1,0 SXiy 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 17, 2003 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Planter Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: I have reviewed your letter of November 12, 2003, which included a plan of your property before the recent additions. This plan shows that an existing front deck was 49 feet from the lake. If your planter is no closer to the lake than 49 feet, then it is not in violation. If you would submit a plan showing that the planter location is 49 feet or more from the lake, I will place it in your file to show that the planter is not in violation. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerq R m . B�iair Administra ive Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLING` ON DEPARTMENT OF PLAIN i 1ING & ZON tNG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 24, 2004 Peter & Diane Sande 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-41o6 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. I CITY OF SDI TH BURLINGTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIIING dui ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 24, 2004 Robert Perry, Esq. 3000 Williston Road P.O. Box 2323 South Burlington, VT 05407 Dear Mr Perry: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. Please call our office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. I 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONE1 G 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH EURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 24, 2004 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. Please call our office if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 �Wcyo Betsy McDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. C PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Variance application 4VR-04-01 of Frank & Mary Mazur seeking a variance under Section 3.10(A)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to allow a retaining wall with a maximum height of four (4) feet to project four (4) feet into the five (5) foot side setback requirement, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. Application #CU-04-02 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is to construct a 5'x 14' porch roof structure, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board March 24, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH BU tiLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONtdN G 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 24, 2004 Carol Meserole 54 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on property located near your property. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-41o6 or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, "I '" BetsyDonough Administrative Assistant Encl. Ch7 ,DIF South Bu-Thngton 575 DORSET STREET TEL. (302) 646-41107 FA;; (302) 346-4181 c.Tr viANACER CHARIEs E_ HAFTER October 29, 2003 Mr. & Mrs. Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vt 05403 Dear Frank and Mary, I recently held a review session with the Planning and Zoning staff regarding the City's enforcement schedule for properties in the City that are not currently in compliance with the Land Development Regulations. As you are aware, your property has several issues that need to be addressed before the City can certify compliance with those Regulations. Prior to commencing any legal action, I would like to take this opportunity to review the issues with you and seek voluntary action to bring the property into compliance by remedying the violations or seeking appropriation Board action to get approval for existing conditions. There are four issues that need to be corrected. They are summarized below. Placement of Fill Violation: It appears from our inspection of your property that till in excess of 20 cubic yards has been placed on the south side of your house. This requires approval by the DRB pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Land Development regulations, and issuance of a zoning permit thereafter. Remedy: Application for approval of the placement of fill must be made under §3.12 to the DRB. A zoning permit must be obtained subsequent to that approval. 2. Second -Floor Deck Violation: The second -floor deck on the south facade of your house differs substantially from what was approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) in March, 2003. Because that DRB approval has expired, and because we understand you intend to keep the deck as built rather than constructing what was approved, you must seek re -approval for this condition. i'vlr. & �,/Irs. Frank &- I\/IJ _Mazur October 29, 2003 Page 2 of) Remedy: Application for re -approval of the second -floor deck must be made under § 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations, and must meet the five-foot side yard setback required for this district. A zoning permit must be obtained subsequent to an approval. Retaining Wall on West Side of House Violation: It appears from our inspection that a retaining wall has been constructed on the west side of your house, which is within one hundred fifty feet of Lake Champlain. This is a violation of §12.01(D)(2)(b) of the Land Development Regulations, which prohibits any expansion or structure closer to the Lake than the closest point of the existing house. Remedy: There is no remedy under the City's Land Development Regulations for this retaining wall. You may apply for a dimensional variance, but the DRB can only grant one upon a finding that this structure meets all five criteria for hardship under State law. Therefore, we must ask that this he removed within two weeks of receipt of this letter, or that you apply to the DRB for a variance within this two week period, or a Notice of Violation will he issued. 4. Four -Foot Wall on South Side of Douse Violation: We have observed from the road that a four -foot high wall has been constructed on the south side of your house. You did not, to our knowledge, apply for any permit to construct this wall. This wall is within five feet of the side property line between your house and the Sande residence. The wall constitutes an accessory structure to your residential use, rather than being a "fence." Under §3.10(A)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, no accessory structures may be placed within five feet of any side yard line. Remedy: If you wish to retain this wall, it must be relocated so that it will be a minimum of five feet from all property lines. You will need to apply for DRB approval for the wall if you choose to relocate it, pursuant to ;12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations. A zoning permit must be obtained subsequent to an approval. Alternatively, you may apply for a dimensional variance from the DRB. if you feel that this property and the wall qualify for one under all of the hardship criteria, as for the retaining wall in (3) above. The P1amling Commission is in the process of approving changes to the Land Development Regulations that will facilitate review of your applications to the DRB. I expect that these regulations will be in effect by January 7, 2004. Therefore, we ask that you apply for DRB approval of the second -story deck, the placement of fill, and the relocation of the wall in your side yard (items 1, 2 and 4 above) during the month of January, 2004. If the DRB has not Mr. & Mrs. Frank & Mary Mazur October 29, 2003 Page 3 of') received an application by February ?, 2004. we will have to assume that it is not your intention to apply for City approval for your property. No action will be taken on these three items until February 2, 2004. However, attention needs to be given to item 3 according to the time frame in that paragraph. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Charles E. Hafter, City Manager 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 September 25, 2003 Office of Planning and Zoning Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belaire, Last December we went before the Development Review Board regarding the building of 2nd story decks being added to Frank and Mary Mazur's house at 52 Bartlett Bay Road. These 2nd story decks on the West and South sides of the house were not in the original plans presented to the Zoning Office. In March the DRB ruled that the Mazurs could apply for a permit to build these decks but they must have a privacy shield to the South and plant a tree to replace the one that they cut down on our property in 2000. To date the Mazurs have neither constructed a privacy shield nor planted a tree. The decks remain on the house. In addition in the past few weeks the Mazurs have raised the lawn on their property from 1 to 4 feet (depending on area) by the construction of a large stone encasement to be used as a deck on the South side. This structure is inches from our property line. Since the topography of the land has been significantly altered, we have serious concerns regarding what this structure may do to water run off. We are one of the lowest properties in the Bartlett Bay area, an area with a history of flooding problems. These changes may also have ramifications for the city road leading to our property and for adjacent neighbors. It appears the Mazurs have also extended their land and house toward the lake by adding fill and constructing a tiered stone structure off the first floor deck. (see photos) Do the Mazur's have a permit to construct such structures? Is it legal to put such structures that close to someone else's property? We request that the City do a visit to the property as soon as possible to assess this recent construction. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, 1 P r Sande Diane Sande Cc: Mr. John Dinkledge Mr. Robert Perry LL LL OR tj �� . rn� ! -�-J 0 Z 3LOef D LftO(\) WlqpD ROA 0 F 5)-o P f:--- �, C� C -_;� � �� ,- � �� .�� 2 �a .— �� r�� /j �. C1 FRANK AND MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail rnemazur6d adelphiamet November 24, 2003 Raymond J. Belair Dept. of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair On your recommendation we are enclosing a plot plan of our property at 52 Bartlett Bay Road "showing that the planter location is 49 feet or more from the lake." This is because the lot is NOT rectangular but 2.73' wider on the west side and 21.75' longer on the north side. On the plan we have also drawn in the location of the existing retaining wall to show that it is also 49' from the lake which is the distance from the lake that the pre-existing deck was before we rcmodeled our home. Since this structure is not "closer to the lake than the closest point of the [pre -]existing house," we do not feel that it is in violation of 12.01(D)(2)(b).We expect you will need this information when we apply in January for approval of the south side porch roof, placement of fill, and the location of the wall in the south side yard. If you need anything else from us before January please let us know. We wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerley, Frank and Mary Mazur t CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 17, 2003 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Planter Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: I have reviewed your letter of November 12, 2003, which included a plan of your property before the recent additions. This plan shows that an existing front deck was 49 feet from the lake. If your planter is no closer to the lake than 49 feet, then it is not in violation. -- — --- ---- -- 6 nd W t<r+ cn-4 q Y}41hriC; LvI I ou would submi a plan showing that the planteAlocation is 49 feet or morel rom lake I will place it in your file to show that the plant —is noon violation. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincer R m . B�air l.• Administra ive Officer zur Rd. E52BartleLttBay rank M. Mazur VT 05403 Rd 5 , VT 05403 Q,compuserve.com I '3 ,c' FRK1n,lc M/azu;, � ,�D�-L�Fk1A.A:cT 7 7 !67 0 I 4 � � a — — — — — — Yz h� ` LA w/ TEC? .� C J ?!o HOuSE I GarzaGc- 10 ' - - L� 57/II R-S ERLS7 r: I VC 20 - - - i , :c-H r'b r�R _ - - 1 RC TAiovf- / WAIL r — --I3. ->t - - - - — i. I �lor� �N[APi� FREE �`fs25r I ' ----- 6z' __-- 3,r' � N TtiIE l�c� is N0-T I�cCT ►v 1T IS 2.73 \.jiD'� ©;� l�1r= WEST Slp /A NJ 1.7S " 1�0�,JC�ER, 0x) 'TH� 6 Z] I, 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 December 10, 2002 Development Review Board South Burlington Town Offices South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, In March of 2002 Frank and Mary Mazur were granted permission to add an addition onto their home. The Zoning and Planning office inadvertently approved this project without having these plans sent before the Development Review Board. Although we realize that this was an unintentional error, we do feel that as adjacent property owners we were denied due process since we were not notified by the Mazurs or the City that this construction project was about to begin. Had we been informed of the original plans we would have been able to review the plans and point out several discrepancies in the Mazurs calculations. 1. The size of the lot is 10,234 sq. feet and not 12,000 sq. feet as the Mazurs stated. They no longer own the driveway therefore this area should not have been figured into the formula for ground coverage of 20%. The actually ground coverage of this house is now 23.3%. (see attachment) 2. With this new addition the house is now overpowering for the lot and we believe that it is out of character for the neighborhood. (see ARTICLE XIX 19.00 of Neighborhood District Zoning regulations and photographs) 3. In the initial plans there were no decks off the second floor however when constructions began a deck appeared off the south side of the house 10 feet from the property line making the house seem even more obtrusive. We feel that this is an infringement on our property and our privacy. 4. We would like to point out that the present plans before the board are vague and contain discrepancies when compared to the initial plans. In the present plans the Mazurs show a new 2nd floor balcony across the entire west side of the house over the screened in porch and deck previously approved. However, they are not making the request to add this balcony in this present petition. It also appears that the deck on the west side previously approved may now be enclosed. We would like to make it clear to the Review Board that we are not opposed to the construction. However, we do oppose the fact that the plans are ever changing as the Mazurs continue to add on several decks which make the house appear even larger and more obtrusive considering the size of the lot. Given the fact that we were denied due process in March, we sincerely hope that the Board will consider our request to halt the addition of the decks and hold the Mazurs accountable to the zoning regulations for the Conservation and Neighborhood districts. Sincerely, Diane Sande J. e ande � RUC- LvT C-O( ,=q Area of Camp Bartlett Lot # 2 Avg. Width = 6�4 + 67 = 131.27 /2 = 65.6 Avg. Length = 167 145.2 = 312.25/2 = 156 Approx. Area = 65.6 X 156 = 10,2 SF . kk,O,- Sz SQUARE FOOTAGE (and lot boverage) 10 X 17 Screen Porch = 170 SF 10 X 17 Deck = 170 SF 35 X 42 First Floor = 1470 SF 26 X 20 Garage = 520 SF 6 X 9 Porch = 54 SF TOTAL = 2384 SF \.-dC �316 a3'3 /o PROPOSED ADDITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN Deck I Screen Porch J Dining Room Family Room Itch n Living Room _ Foyer Office Entry Porch 2 Car Garage CAMP BARTLETT LOT # 2 Frank and Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT �k NN, 77 at^" I• YyY � •I^l. ir IT" ih ` t ' w�wuw.w1we�.ri iwt f tM } 4iY w .: w FA' -I 0-m- -orb PIP" j. IS fi l r '. , h° ,�, � ,..,. ��-� ,. j. :� � , �.- �' _ .� w� �� r- . � �,,,.. ,'.� � p. ., �,� l �r :. ., I �. i' �.� � .k}��.� 1 J', SI �.^...M Y xr� .�taisii F ��'' (� c � .;,,,j is arc tnA � �_�� e �• i i + � - /� I r" � 1. � . �, f�� r r• ' �- .�:� i.:�k ,. 1 � �� I� �� r w� ► .. atrF � ky II �'R DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2003 PAGE 5 Mr. Bolton asked what has been approved there. Mr. Belair raid a 2-story addition war approved in March 2002 and a ocreened porch. Mro. Sande raid the plan that war brought to the last meeting war not what war approved in March 2002. Mr. Belair raid he will wit the property to see what io going on. Mr. Dinklage noted that a porch war built on the youth ride without a permit. Mr. Bolton war concerned that intelligent people ouch ao thio should know and obey the ruler. Mr. Kupferman raid the problem io that the 2 parties are not getting together on Chia, If they can't, he felt it io up to the Mazuro to remove what is there without a permit or to abide by any conditions the Board impooeo. Mr. Dinklage raid there are no zoning issues involved, and the Board io being asked to approve an as -built. Mr. Kupferman moved to continue Application #CU-02-26 of Frank & Mary Mazur to allow for time for the Adminiotrative Officer to view the property. Mr. Quimby seconded, Motion parsed unanimously. 8. 5ketch plan application #5D-03-03 of the 5nyder Group, Inc., for a planned residential development on 27.2 acres connoting of 32 5ingle family dwellings, 1700 5pear 5treet: Mr. Lordo raid they propooe to build carriage homer (dingle family home with a condo feeling). There would have common ownerohip of land around the building envelopes which would be maintained by the homeownero' a000ciation. The typical buyer io an empty nester who ch000er not to go into a condo. There are generally few children. The accedo would be off 5pear 5treet next to the Long reoidence. 31 carriage homer, are proposed plus an additional lot for the existing houoe. Letters have been rent to abutters. Homes would be clustered and they would otay out of the wildlife habitat. 15.6 acres will be left open. The applicant raid there would be a minimal impact on wildlife. A report will be provided, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 FESKUAKY 2005 PAGE 6 plan is conceptually as good aS it's going to Oct. If the traffic Study finds it's not a workable plan, it will have to be Scaled back. He asked the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and hear their ideas and concerns. Mr. Kupferman Said that if the zoning does not change, he would like Some master plan of what might happen with the commercial piece. 4. Continued Public Hearing: Application #CU-02-26 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request iS for permission to construct a 5'x14' Second Story deck, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. DcUir Said he made a Site visit and measured the edge of the deck to the south property line which was marked by the 53nde5 (neighbors). It iS 10.5 ft. The house iS 15.2 ft. from the String. There were no other additions other than what was permitted. Mr. Dinklage asked about Screening. Mro. Mazur Said they would Screen the deck with an opaque railing. She Said they would not plant a tree on their land. Ms. Quimby moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kupferman Seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage Said the Board would notify the applicants of its decision after a deliberative Seooion. 5. 5ketch plan application #5D-03-09 of Farwater, Ltd., to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 85 residential units in four buildings, and 88 units of congregate housing in two buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing an additional 44 unit congregate housing facility, and 2) reducing the number of congregate housing units from 44 to 40 in an approved building which is not yet constructed, 325 and 327 Lime Kiln Road: MS. Hurley distributed comments from the Fire Chief regarding access to the 2 rear buildings. He recommended the changes that are now being proposed. Mr. Kabideau Showed what has been previously approved and building and what iS under construction and currently permitted. DEVELOFMENT REVIEW 50ARD 4 FEBRUARY 2003 PAGE 4 6. Continued Public Hearing: Final Flat Application #5D-02-61 of Ironwood (Zeal Estate, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 296 residential units and an 18 hole golf course. The amendment conoioto of revising the building locations of the 18 two-family dwellings located on Fairway Drive: Mr. Marshall said the plan includes decks on all the units. Decks that were not previously Shown have been added. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to affirm that no setback io smaller than war, previously approved. Mr. Marshall confirmed this. Mr. Dinklage asked the representative from the Homeowner's Association to remind homeownero that they may not go outside the boundaries. Ms. Quimby moved to approve final plat application #50-02-61 of Ironwood Real Estate, LLC, subject to the otipulationo in the draft motion of 4 February 2005. Mr. Farley oeconded. Motion paooed unanimously. 7. Continued Fublic hearing: Application #CU-02-26 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, of the 5outh Burlington Zoning Regulations. Requeot is for permission to conotruct a 5'x14' oecond story deck, 52 Bartlett Day Road: Mr. Dinklage noted the Board has juot received a letter dated 18 January from the 53ndeo. Mr. Dinklage coked the 53ndeo to confirm that a tree on their property wao cut down by the Mazuro and that they were requeoting that the Mazuro plant an equivalent tree on the Mazur property. Mrs. Mazur paid the tree in queotion was planted by them on what they thought wao their own property. The tree was struck by lightning which io why they cut it down. Mro Mazur paid they could plant another one. Mr. Dinklage paid another ouggestion io a privacy railing around the second floor of the oouth-facing deck. Mro. Mazur oaid ohe would want to consult with their lawyer on that. Mr. Belair said the 5andeo have said the Mazuro may have conotructed a oecond floor deck facing the lake. Mrs. Mazur oaid there io nothing there. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 11, 2003 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Deck Dear Mr. &Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision approved by the Development Review Board on 3/4/03 (effective 3/10/03). Flease note that you must obtain a zoning permit for the construction of the deck. If you have any questions, please let me know. 5incerel�, Raymon J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. LUpwFI FRANK & MANY-IAZUR 2/15/03 I move the South Burlington Development Review Board approve application #CU-02-26 of Frank and Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, and 5ection 3.506 of the 5outh Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 5' x 14' Second Story deck, 52 Bartlett Bay Road, a5 depicted on a three (3) page Set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road 5outh Burlington, Vermont 05405", with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval Shall remain in effect. 2. Pursuant to 5ection 3.506 (a) — (c) of the zoning regulations, it io the Board's opinion that the applicant complies with all criteria for expansion within a CO District along Lake Champlain. 3. The applicant Shall mitigate the visual impact of the second story deck by: 1) planting a Maple Tree with a minimum 2.5" caliper in the same general location as the tree that was recently cut down, and 2) constructing a privacy railing along the South side of the second story deck at least four (4) feet in height. 4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to 5ection 27.302 of the zoning regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. Any change to the Site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. In Page 1 of 1 To: chafter@sburl.com Subject: Re: H. 14, exempting certain signs from sign law I'll send you a copy of the report. In another matter, when the design review board issues its ruling regarding the deck permit to my property at 52 Bartlett Bay Road, I'd like them to cite the state law giving them authority to make their conditions on our perm it. In my review with two attorney's and another community planner, state law is specific that one and two family units are exempt from screening conditions for site reviews. Thanks FrankM Original Message: From: Chuck Hafter chafter@sburl.com Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:34:49 -0500 To: frankmazur@adelphia.net Subject: Re: H. 14, exempting certain signs from sign law Frank: I will be unable to attend the House Transportation Committee meeting on the Champlain Flyer on Friday morning. Can you send me a copy of the Legislative Report, or is it posted on the state website anywhere? It looks like everything we feared about the Flyer came to pass. ( How did 82,000 riders at $1 per ride generate only 52,000$ in revenue?) Chuck Hafter mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/. l 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vt. 05482 January 18, 2003 Development Review Board South Burlington Town Offices South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, Thank you for your careful consideration of our recent appeal regarding the Mazur's addition to their existing house. Since our meeting with the Development Review Board (DRB) on December 17, 2002, Frank and Mary Mazur have made no attempt to discuss our concerns or try to find a compromise. On many other occasions in the past we have tried to discuss issues of conflict with the Mazur's and they have refused. We feel that since they had no permission to build this deck, the responsibility should be on the Mazur's to initiate dialog. After much reflection on our part, we would like the board to entertain several options. Please refer to the Shade Tree Association report included in our letter to Mr. Belaire on November 6, 2002 and included in your packet for the December 17,2002 meeting. Frank and Mary Mazur violated our property rights and took away our privacy when they did the following acts: 1. Cut a Crimson King Norway Maple on our property on August 2, 2000 which would have been in front of this new deck. (see attachment from Shade Tree Association) 2. Cut 2 feet off the top of our hedge in November of 2001. (police report #2001 SB05247) 3. Erected a South facing deck without the permission of the DRB. We would like to request that the board ask the Mazur's to: Plant a tree of like size and height on THEIR property in the same location. Had this tree not been cut which was a violation of civil law as well as rules regarding cutting in the Conservation District, it would have provided us with the necessary privacy we are seeking. r . �, 2. Built a privacy railing around the 2nd floor south facing deck. (See attachments showing examples.) OR 3. Remove the deck from the house. Thanks again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ter Sande Diane Sande iN-va --+°, ..lFcvs� art s� > �,y s a - err'-_ ~ .•i„i'1M4��''1V :a`PY' - �tr'�^°�i1�� ma l•444 "..' EXAMPL�6 OF PRIVACY DECK'I,AILINGS Al'We ow, { t DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 17, 2002 MEETING 171 and 172 are too close, 2) the preliminary plat submittal should show water, sewer and footing drains for each unit, 3) the plan should include a sidewalk, and 4) the road shall be privately maintained by the homeowners. 6) SKETCH PLAN OF JAM GOLF, LLC, DORSET STREET This project consists of amending a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 296 residential units and an 18-hole golf course. The amendment consists of approval for berms from Old Cross Road intersection and extending north through the Holbrook Road intersection, Dorset Street. This property located on the east side of Dorset Street between Holbrook Road and Old Cross Road . It is within the Southeast Quadrant District. The only issue affecting this application is reference in a memo from Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning and Zoning. 7) JACQUELINE MARCEAU, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, 1485 HINESBURG ROAD This project consists of a request to construct a single-family residence within the restricted area, 1485 Hinesburg Road. This property located at 1485 Hinesburg Road is within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District on an undeveloped parcel partially in the restricted area. The parcel is bounded by single-family dwellings on the north east and south, and by undeveloped land on the west. Criteria of Section 6.501 (h) The applicant submitted a letter addressing the criteria found in Section 6.501 (h) of the zoning regulations (this should be available for the meeting). The parcel is situated behind an existing residence which fronts on Hinesburg Road. The applicant is not able to construct the house in the developable portion because this is the only place suitable for the on -site septic system. This results in the placement of the dwelling in the restricted area. Staff has no problem with this request. Access/Circulation: Access is provided via a single 20 foot wide curb cut on Dorset Street. Circulation is not an issue. Setbacks: The building envelope meets all setback requirements. .,&!!!@Mftlington Water Department: 8) FRANK AND MARY MAZUR, CONDITIONAL USE, 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 17, 2002 MEETING This application consists of a request for approval of a 5' x 14' foot second story deck addition. This property located as 52 Bartlett Bay Road lies within the C. O. District. It is bounded on the west by Lake Champlain, on the east by Bartlett Bay Road and on the north and south by single-family residences. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA The proposed project complies with the stated purpose of the Conservation Open Space District, "to maintain and improve the quality of natural resources such as soil, air, and water," and does not adversely affect: a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities- no effect expected. b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor the ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses- no effect expected. c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity -no effect expected. d) Bylaws in effect- no effect expected. e) Utilization of renewable energy resources -no effect expected. f) General public health and welfare -no effect expected. Expansion of a pre-existing structure within a C. O. District along Lake Champlain is a conditional use under Section 3.506 of the zoning regulations, if the following additional criteria are met: (a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was in existence on April 24, 2000, The structure was in existence on April 24, 2000. (b)The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer to high water elevation than the existing structure. The proposal does not include expansion any closer to the high water elevation. (c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty (50) percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully in existence on April 24, 2000. The expansion does not include any additional footprint. (d) Erosion control measures: N/A (e)Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved The applicant does not propose any cutting of existing plant materials. Setbacks: There are no setback requirements for the C. O. District. However, in the adjacent residential Lakeshore Neighborhood District the side yard setback requirement 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEMO December 17, 2002 MEETING is 10 feet. The proposed deck is 15 feet from the property line. Enclosed is a letter from a neighbor expressing concern about the proposed deck and the proposed setback distance. 9) 120 KIMBALL LLC, LANDSCAPE FEATURE,110 KIMBALL AVENUE This project consists of approval of a landscape feature to which a proposed sign is to be attached. The property located at 110 Kimball Avenue is within the Mixed Industrial Commercial District. Section 14 of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance (b) states: (b) "A landscape feature to which a sign is proposed to be attached must be approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) as part of its issuance of a permit for the lot on which the sign is proposed." The landscape feature is a brick and concrete. This sign exists on the property. Due to the need for additional room on the sign the applicant is coming before the Board to add another course of brick and concrete block. Height of the landscape feature: The sign as measured from the finished grade is five (5) feet, maximum allowed is six (6) feet, (please see enclosed sketch). There are no issues. Staff recommends approval. 10) VAN SICKLEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT, FIELDSTONE DRIVE This project consists of amending a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 48 single family units on a 61.77 acre parcel. The amendment consists of relocating seven (7) driveways to carriage homes, Fieldstone Drive. The DRB last reviewed this project at their 5/2/00 meeting. This property located off Van Sicklen Road lies within the SEQ District, C. O. District, Floodplain Overlay District, and Hinesburg Road -South View Protection Zone. It is bounded on the north by Van Sicklen Road, on the east by a single family dwelling, on the west by the Old Stone House, and on the south by farm land. The only issue affecting this application is access. Access: The applicant proposes to relocate seven (7) driveways off a private road to seven (7) duplex units. Staff does not see a problem with this request. 11) APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,1475 SHELBURNE ROAD. on MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail memazur(a?adelphia.net January 7, 2003 Mr. Ray Belair S. Burlington Zoning and Planning Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair, The recording I made from the tape of the December 17, 2001 Design Review Board hearing was inaudible and I was not able to use it to take notes about the meeting. Fortunately I took some notes while I was listening to the tape so I have some idea of what was said. Here are the points that are important to our case that we would like included in the minutes of that meeting. Unfortunately I did not recognize all the voices so I cannot say who the speaker was in some cases. You may recall who said what yourself, and, of course you have the tapes for reference. John Dinklage : I misread the plan (referring to the 5' X 14' size of the deck.) Ray Belair: The deck does NOT contribute to coverage. ? : Did you apply for a deck permit? Mary Mazur: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Belair about amending our plans and he said he was not sure we could get a second permit. It was his understanding that we could only apply once for a permit but he said he would speak with the City Attorney to see if we could ask for an amendment to the permit. ?: Is the site plan accurate? MM: Yes, as far as I can tell considering the difficulty of calculating the lot size. ? : Did they comply? Ray Belair: At the end of the day, they complied. ?: They complied. '? : Mam, would you consider screening the deck? I MM: There's already a Maple tree (a sugar Maple) there between our house and the camp. We can't see them and they can't see us. ?: Would you consider screening the deck on the south side? Remember, this is a conditional use approval and you should provide privacy for your neighbor. MM: O.K. ?: Any comments on conditional approval? We would like the record to show that Mr. Belair distributed to the board A MOTION OF APPROVAL. (attachment # 1) Spoken to the Sandes: ? : What privacy do you think you should have? Is there something you would like to suggest? From a practical point of view? ?: A window on the second floor would give your neighbors the same view into your yard as the deck. ?: Deck or no deck, there is a view to the south which they have a right to see. ?: Both parties should find a resolution that is acceptable and come back for another hearing. Mr. Bolton: Moved to continue application #CU-02-26 until 4 February. Spoken to Sandes: ?: It's unlikely you'll be speaking with the Mazurs to solve your differences. I suggest you get back to Mr. Belair by mid January with your suggestions. Mr. Belair, I know this is more than you want to put in the minutes but we would appreciate it being included as an attachment so the DRB will have a reminder of all the facts presented at the hearing. I would also like to know what we are expected to do to get ready for the Feb. 4, 2003 hearing. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Mary Mazur 12/17/02 I move the 5outh Burlington Development Review Board approve application #CU-02-26 of Frank and Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under 5ection 26.05, Conditional Uoeo, of the 5outh Burlington Zoning Regulationo. Requeot io for permiooion to construct a 5' x 14' oecond Story deck, 52 5artlett Bay Load, ao depicted on a three (3) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "Mary Mazur 52 5artlett Bay Road South 5urlington, Vermont 05403", with the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. Pursuant to 5ection 3.506 (a) — (c) of the zoning regulations, it is the Board's opinion that the applicant complies with all criteria for expansion within a CO District along Lake Champlain. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to 5ection 27.502 of the zoning regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. CZ i�c 4 i w l Rav Belair From: Mary Mazur [memazur@adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:36 PM To: rbelair@sburi.com Subject: Dec 17 DRB transcript F3 AT M000O. htm MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail memazur@adelphia.net January 7, 2003 Mr. Ray Belair S. Burlington Zoning and Planning Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair, The recording I made from the tape of the December 17, 2001 Design Review Board hearing was inaudible and I was not able to use it to take notes about the meeting. Fortunately I took some notes while I was listening to the tape so I have some idea of what was said. Here are the points that are important to our case that we would like included in the minutes of that meeting. Unfortunately 1 did not recognize all the voices so I cannot say who the speaker was in some cases. You may recall who said what yourself, and, of course you have the tapes for reference. John Dinklage : I misread the plan (referring to the 5' X 14' size of the deck.) Ray Belair: The deck does NOT contribute to coverage. ? : Did you apply for a deck permit? Mary Mazur: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Belair about amending our plans and he said he was not sure we could get a second permit. It was his understanding that we could only apply once for a permit but he said he would speak with the City Attorney to see if we could ask for an amendment to the permit. ?: Is the site plan accurate? MM: Yes, as far as I can tell considering the difficulty of calculating the lot size. ? : Did they comply? Ray Belair: At the end of the day, they complied. ?: They complied. ? : Mam, would you consider screening the deck? MM: There's already a Maple tree (a sugar Maple) there between our house and the camp. We can't see them and they can't see us. ?: Would you consider screening the deck on the south side? Remember, this is a conditional use approval and you should provide privacy for your neighbor. 1, MM: O.K. ?: Any comments on conditional approval? We would like the record to show that Mr. Belair distributed to the board A MOTION OF APPROVAL. Spoken to the Sandes: ? : What privacy do you think you should have? Is there something you would like to suggest? From a practical point of view? ?: A window on the second floor would give your neighbors the same view into your yard as the deck. ?: Deck or no deck, there is a view to the south which they have a right to see. ?: Both parties should find a resolution that is acceptable and come back for another hearing. Mr. Bolton: Moved to continue application #CU-02-26 until 4 February. Spoken to Sandes: ?: It's unlikely you'll be speaking with the Mazurs to solve your differences. I suggest you get back to Mr. Belair by mid January with your suggestions. Mr. Belair, I know this is more than you want to put in the minutes but we would appreciate it being included as an attachment so the DRB will have a reminder of all the facts presented at the hearing. I would also like to know what we are expected to do to get ready for the Feb. 4, 2003 hearing. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Mary Mazur 2 Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone/FAX 802 658-3975 memazur(,4�adelphia.net January 4, 2003 Development Review Board South Burlington Town Offices South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, Today I received a draft of Item 8 of the minutes of the December 17, 2001 Public Hearing regarding our conditional use request #CU-02-26 and was surprised to see how incomplete the minutes were. Frank and I would appreciate the opportunity to listen to the tape made at that meeting so we can be sure that the points we made at the hearing get entered into the record. Until that can be done we believe that the minutes as written in the draft do not represent the total facts of the case and we request they NOT be published until we have reviewed the tape. Please let us know when the tape will be available for us to copy. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary Mazur . < C MAZURS ORIGINAL APPLICATION 70.0 l Area a Camp Bartlett Lot • 2 $7.9 71• 4P Avg Moth . 54.27 . 97 ■ 131.2712 a 00.6 Avg Length • 107 •143.2 ■ 312214 ■ 144 App.Ana ■ 65.0 X 156 ■ The *Vv w M r44W a 21 X 64.27 diM key ~ee"to7»*for $1in11M0br 1N use as a sawn and water right of way. ^7 tr+at area Is add W hack to OM lK The TOTAL AREA OF LOT 0 2 Is 4646 23-10 Sv+co 7» minmum ate lot for S. Btaitfq -Lakeahwe NoWwoOmd' is 12.000 tee I CAMP BARTLM LOT 02 Is J Frank and Mary Masw +I 52 Baroett Bay Road 1 South Burlington, VT 1 I ra11 SQUAR! FOOTAGE 10 X 17 fbroh • 170 W 10 X 17 Deak • 179 V K X 43 FYet floor a " 1470 M 40 X M 941w, IIt10 N 107 0,X i M11 ! 64 r 1N TOTAL e �I�ga E h 9d 19d01i aft.« 6 2 f0' 40' NMMN NMpNt Ytareaw • Ilin PROPOSED ADDITION FMT FLOOR PLAN r"ih ! Car Owego CAMP BARTLETT LOT 0 2 s NBW' ( FMk aM Mary tdaav Q tlarka say Road • UUM MywW,on, vT TRUE LOT COVERAGE Ana of Camp Bartlett Lot 0 2 PROPOSED ADDITION s `7.. I . Avg. Width ■ 64 + 07 ■ 131.27 /2 ■ 56.0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN Avg. Length it 107 145.2 ■ 312.25/2 ■ 150 Approx. Ana ■ 05.0 X 150 Dock Boson Porch 30UARE FOOTAGE (and lot Yoveraee) Dining Room Family Room 10 X 17 Screen Porch ■ 170 OF 10 X 17 Deck ■ 170 OF n 35 X 42 Flat Floor • 1470 OF Living Room • 20 X 20 Garage ■ 520 OF Offlc 0 X 9 Porch ■ 54 OF TOTAL ■ Fo er Office Entry Porch 2 Car Geroge I Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone/FAX 802 658-3975 memazur(wiadelphia.net Development Review Board South Burlington Town Offices South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Board Members, December 17, 2002 Mr. Belair informed me in a letter that the Sandes had written a letter in opposition to the construction of an addition to our home at 52 Bartlett Bay. I obtained a copy of the letter from Mr. Belair and would like to reply to their concerns. 1. The lot is an irregular shape making it difficult to determine its exact size. I did not know how to calculate the size of the lot so in March I went to S. Burlington's Planning and Zoning Dept. to consult with Mr. Belair about it. He was not available so I spoke with Stephanie Smith. She answered all my questions and helped me calculate the lot size. (See attachment 1) These are the numbers we used to calculate the lot size: Average width = 64.27 + 67=131.27 / 2 = 65.6 feet approximate average width Average length =167 + 145.2 = 312.25 / 2 =156 feet approximate average length Multiplying average width X length = 65.6 X 156=10,234 SF approximate lot size* *Since the sides of the lot are slanted and the lakefront curved NO EXACT LOT SIZE could be calculated. We also included a 21 foot wide by *116 foot long "driveway" in the calculations because it was part of our original property. For the sum of $1, we granted the city of South Burlington a "right of way" to install and maintain sewer and water pipes under it. The "driveway" has no street sign but the City maintains it and plows it in the winter. The Sandes have benefited from this arrangement because it allowed them to hook up to city water and sewer. *The length of 64.27 used on the original driveway area calculations was wrong because the driveway goes all the way to Bartlett Bay Road and does not stop at the north boundry of Lot # 2. The new length of the driveway area is arrived at by subtracting the width of Lot #3 ( 59 feet) on the east from the length of Lot #31*W feet) on the west. 175 — 59 =116 (See attachment 2) Adding the 21 X 116 foot driveway area of 2436 SF to the 10,234 SF lot brings the TOTAL LOT SIZE to 12,580 SF. (We called it + 12,000 in the permit application.) The FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE (including the addition) is 2,384 SF. Adding a 5 foot X 14 foot deck increases this amount to 2454 SF Dividing 2,454 by 12,580 gives a lot coverage of 19.5 % which is within the 20% allowed in the Lakeshore Neighborhood we live in. 2. The house is NOT OVERPOWERING although it may seem so to the Sandes because their camp is only one story. They photographed only the smallest homes in the area which are not true representatives of our neighborhood. I have pictures of other homes recently built or remodeled which show the TRUE CHARACTER of Bartlett Bay. (See attachment 3) 3. The second floor deck is in character with the neighborhood as you can see by the photographs included. It is 10'4" from the property line which meets the 10' setback requirements. (See attachment 4) 4. The complaint about the second floor balconv across the west side of the house is unwarranted. We do not need to request its addition because it was in the floor plan from the beginning. It adds nothing to the footprint of the structure because it is the flat roof of the open (but covered) deck and the screened porch. The framing of our addition is complete and the windows went in today. We believe the Sandes are attempting to stop our project because they do not like us. They have been unfriendly from the day they purchased the camp next door, to the point where they complained that plants in my garden had grown onto their land. To accommodate them I removed the plants. They also did not like the fact that our deck overlooked their yard so with no warning or consultation they had a 6' tall cedar hedge installed which now blocks our southerly view of the lake and devalues our property. If anyone's property rights have been violated it is ours and not the Sandes. We regret that they chose to take up your valuable time with their complaints. Sincerely, �aa Mary Mazur Planning Z. (' BB Road house and lot dimer )ns Friday, March 22, 2002 Area of Camp Bartlett Lot A 4vg. Width = 64.27 + 67 = 131.27 j 4vg. Length = 167 +145.2 = 312.2 Approx. Area = 65.6 X 156 = 1( * The original lot included a 21 X E which we sold to the city for $1 in use as a sewer and water right o **If that area is added back to the The TOTAL AREA OF LOT # 10,234 + 1,350 = 11,583 S *** Since the minimum size lot for "Lakeshore Neighborhood" is 12,C CAMP BARTLETT LOT #2 is t Frank and Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT Attachment 1 No Text NZ -men FOOMMee ........... i ti err s ''f y K r � o d IIS�\ w 1 F f 1* Y �+ i"► � "�"�'-.. r iN �. n. r � ' E � 4: � yam-,• A�wvr- M1 u��y�jQ\;Q hMY.i�F k�Y P.V AMIAIM I�! m ME m V 'T-FA FRANK AND MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail memazur(a)adelnhia.net r�fbo*y 18, P63 South Burlington Design Review Board Our attorney has provided us with a copy of page 302 and 303 (Chapter 117, T.24 4407) in the Municipal and County Government Handbook for the State of Vermont. We have made copies of it on the back of this page for your review. The key items he pointed out to us are highlighted for your convenience. If you have any questions you may contact Representative Duncan Kilmartin, Esquire. He can be reached at the Vermont State House, Tuesday through Friday, at 800-322-5616 or at home in Newport Vennont on the weekends and Monday at 802-334-7386. Sincerely, Frank and Mary Mazur T.24 § 4407 MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT Ch. 117 (B) If authorized in the bylaw the permitted number of dwelling units may include a density increase of as much as 25 percent, or 50 percent in the case of an affordable housing development, beyond the number which could be permitted in the planning commission's or the development review board's judgment, if the land were subdivided into lots in conformance with the zoning regulations for the districts in which such land is situated, giving due consideration to site conditions limiting development, such as shallow depth of soil, wetness and steep slopes. When a bylaw authorizes a density increase, no person shall be required to apply for or accept a density increase. In granting a density increase, the planning commission or the development review board shall consider the capacities of community facilities and services and the character of the area affected; (C) The dwelling units permitted may, at the discretion of the planning commission or the development review board, be of varied types including one -family, two-family or multi -family construction; (D) If the application of this procedure results in lands available for park, recreation, open space or other municipal purposes, the planning commission or the development review board as a condition of its approval may establish such conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of such lands as it deems necessary to assure the preser- vation of such lands for their intended purposes; (E) Any modification of the zoning regulations approved under this section shall be specifically set forth in terms of standards and criteria for the design, bulk and spacing of buildings and the sizes of lots and open spaces which shall be required, and these shall be noted or appended to the plat. (4) Parking and loading facilities. Provisions setting forth standards for permitted and required facilities for off-street parking and loading which may vary by district and by uses within each district. Such regulations may also include provisions covering the location, size, design, access, landscaping and screening of such facilities. In determining the number and size of parking spaces required under such regulations, the municipal planning commission may take into account the existence of "transit passes," and other evidence that employers will save parking spaces because employees commute to and from work in carpools, in van pools, by bicycle, or by foot. The actual number of parking spaces saved may be substituted for parking facilities on a one -for -one basis, provided the number of parking spaces saved becomes a condition of the permit that the employer receives from the municipal planning commission. (5) Site plan approval. As prerequisite to the approval of any use other than one- and two-family dwellings, the approval of site plans by the 302 Ch. 117 MUN. & REGIONAL PLANNING & DEVEL. T.24 § 4407 planning commission or the development review board may be required. In reviewing site plans, the planning commission or the development review board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards with respect to: the adequacy of traffic access, circulation and parking; landscaping and screening; the protection of the utilization of renewable energy resources; and other matters specified in the bylaws. The plswning eommkWon or the development review board shall_aft to approve or disapprove any such site Ai#e upon which it receives the proposed plan, and i'l &&e to so act34" such period shall be deemed approval. The zoning regulations shall specify the maps, data and other information to be presented with applications for site plan approval. (6) Design control districts. Zoning regulations may contain provi- sions for the establishment of design control districts. Prior to the establishment of such a district, the planning commission shall prepare a report describing the particular planning and design problems of the proposed district and setting forth a design plan for the areas which shall include recommended planning and design criteria to guide future devel- opment. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing, after public notice, on such report. After such hearing, the planning commission may recommend to the legislative body such design control district. A design control district can be created for any area containing structures of historical, architectural or cultural merit, and other areas in which there is a concentration of community interest and participation such as a central business district, civic center or a similar grouping or focus of activities. Such areas may include townscape areas which resemble in important aspects the earliest permanent settlements, including a concentrated urban settlement with striking vistas, views extending across open fields and up to the forest edge, a central focal point and town green, and buildings of high architectural quality including styles of the early nineteenth century. Within such a designated design control district no structure may be erected, reconstructed, substantially altered, restored, moved, demolished or changed in use or type of occupancy without approval of the plans therefor by the planning commission or the development review board. A design review board may be appointed by the legislative body of the municipality to advise any development review board and the planning commission, which design review board shall have such term of office, and such procedural rules, as the legislative body determines. (7) Performance standards. As an alternative or supplement to the listing of specific uses permitted in districts specifically in, but not limited to, manufacturing or industrial districts, zoning regulations may specify acceptable standards or levels of performance which will be required in 303 MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Phone/Fax (802) 658-3975 E-mail memazur(a?adelnhia.net January 7, 2003 Mr. Ray Belair S. Burlington Zoning and Planning Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair, The recording I made from the tape of the December 17, 2001 Design Review Board hearing was inaudible and I was not able to use it to take notes about the meeting. Fortunately I took some notes while I was listening to the tape so I have some idea of what was said. Here are the points that are important to our case that we would like included in the minutes of that meeting. Unfortunately I did not recognize all the voices so I cannot say who the speaker was in some cases. You may recall who said what yourself, and, of course you have the tapes for reference. John Dinklage : I misread the plan (referring to the 5' X 14' size of the deck.) Ray Belair: The deck does NOT contribute to coverage. ? : Did you apply for a deck permit? Mary Mazur: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Belair about amending our plans and he said he was not sure we could get a second permit. It was his understanding that we could only apply once for a permit but he said he would speak with the City Attorney to see if we could ask for an amendment to the permit. ?: Is the site plan accurate? MM: Yes, as far as I can tell considering the difficulty of calculating the lot size. ? : Did they comply? Ray Belair: At the end of the day, they complied. ?: They complied. ? : Mam, would you consider screening the deck? MM: There's already a Maple tree (a sugar Maple) there between our house and the camp. We can't see them and they can't see us. ?: Would you consider screening the deck on the south side? Remember, this is a conditional use approval and you should provide privacy for your neighbor. MM: O.K. ?: Any comments on conditional approval? We would like the record to show that Mr. Belair distributed to the board A MOTION QFAPPM'VAL. (uc-t►f+acc:...�t�i Spoken to the Sandes: ? : What privacy do you think you should have? Is there something you would like to suggest? From a practical point of view? ?: A window on the second floor would give your neighbors the same view into your yard as the deck. ?: Deck or no deck, there is a view to the south which they have a right to see. ?: Both parties should find a resolution that is acceptable and come back for another hearing. Mr. Bolton: Moved to continue application #CU-02-26 until 4 February. Spoken to Sandes: ?: It's unlikely you'll be speaking with the Mazurs to solve your differences. I suggest you get back to Mr. Belair by mid January with your suggestions. Mr. Belair, I know this is more than you want to put in the minutes but we would appreciate it being included as an attachment so the DRB will have a reminder of all the facts presented at the hearing. I would also like to know what we are expected to do to get ready for the Feb. 4, 2003 hearing. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Mary Mazur srrn RT, roil :o.k Tfla.1-iii ; o I move the South Burlington Development Review Board approve application #CU-02-26 of Frank and Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 5' x 14' second story deck, 52 Bartlett Bay Road, ao depicted on a three (3) page set of piano, page one (1) entitled, "Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403", with the following Stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and otipulatione which are not Superseded * this approval Shall remain in effect. 2. Pursuant to 5ection 3.506 (a) — (c) of the zoning regulations, it io the Board's opinion that the applicant complier, with all criteria for expansion within a CO District along Lake Champlain. 3. The applicant Shall obtain a zoning permit within Six (6) month5 purouant to 5ection 27.302 of the zoning regulations or this approval ir, null and void. 4. Any change to the rite plan Shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Page 1 of 1 Mary Mazur From: Ray Belair <rbelair@sburl.com> To: 'Mary Mazur' <memazur@adelphia.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:58 PM Subject: RE: Dec 17 DRB transcript Dear Mrs. Mazur, I will pass along your request to have the additional information included in the DRB's 12/17 minutes. I don't think there is anything you need to do for the next meeting. The Board asked the Sandes to come to the next meeting with what they would like to see for screening. The Board will evaluate their request and make a decision. If you have additional questions, please let me know. Ray Belair Page 1 of 1 Mary Mazur From: Ray Belair <rbelair@sburl.com> To: 'Mary Mazur' <memazur@adelphia.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: RE: Dec 17 DRB transcript Dear Mrs. Mazur, The DRB at their meeting last night considered your request to add to the 12/17 minutes the material you requested. After, some discussion, the Board decided not to include any additional information: I look forward to seeing you at the meeting on 2/4/03. Ray Belair � ��yfo3 LTG Page #7 19&20 18.1 33.7 21&22* 29.1 28.7 25&26 18.8 37.4 31&32 29.5 36.7 23.16 30.55 37.4 27.3 *Buildings constructed closer to the rear property line than approved. 6etback: The previously approved plan allowed encroachment into the rear yard Setback with very specific distances approved. At least four (4) buildings were constructed closer to the rear property line then approved (See chart above). The rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet and the greatest setback waiver was granted for units #1 and #2 at 12 feet. The boundary line adjustment will correct the setback encroachment. AdditionaLl2ecks/Porches: The Site plan for the development has been revised to add decks/porches to units #27,32 and 35. The deckiporch for unit #52 is the only new addition which will encroach into the rear Setback. It is proposed to be constructed 27.3 feet from the rear boundary line. C^7) E-.AN-KANI2 MAY MAZUR -DECK - CONDITIONAL USE This application was continued from the December 17, 2002 meeting (minutes enclosed) to provide the abutting landowners, Diane and Peter Sande, an opportunity to decide the details to the type of screening they would prefer. This application consists of a request to construct a 5' x 14' second story deck to the single family dwelling. Staff o comments for the 12/17/02 meeting are enclosed for your review. The abutters will present to the Board at the meeting their proposal for mitigation. 8) THE _8NYI2EK_GROUp,_1NC._- 32UNIT.PRO—SKETCH PLAN Please see staff comments from Janet Hurley 9)A&M_ CON6TKUCTION-APP_RQV_AL _ XTEN5M A&M Construction, Inc. has requested a two (2) year extension to the expiration date of a PUD approved on 2/15/00, which became effective on 3/7/00 (see enclosed minutes). The PUP consisted of: 1) converting a single family dwelling to general office use at 1035 Hinesburg Load, 2) demolition of existing dwelling, and 3) construction of 10,500 sq. ft. general office building at 1045 Hinesburg Road. Page #8 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 DECEMSER 2002 PAGE 5 8. Public Hearing: Application #CU-02-26 of Frank & Mary Mazur for conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional USeS of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 5'x14' Second Story deck, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Mro. Mazur Said the house io being remodeled to add an addition. She Said they would also like a deck on the South Side. Mr. Dinklage noted this has been built already without approval. Mr. Sande, who owns the property directly to the South, Said they object to the Size of the addition. They were also denied due proccoo, a5 they were never notified of this application. He and his wife feel the addition io overpowering and out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. They also feel it impinges on their privacy. Mr. 5elair noted there io no coverage limit in this district. The adjacent district has a 20% limit. Mr. Dinklage asked if the plans on file Show a deck. Mrs. Mazur Said yes. Mr. Dinklage Said the Board's information Says they didn't Show anything above the addition. Mr. Dinklage Said the neighbors have a legitimate concern regarding notification. There was an inexperienced Staff person when the zoning permit was iooued. Mr. Bolton Said there io a lot of information not easily understood and Suggested all information be accurately documented. He war, also uncomfortable with the deck appearing without a permit. Mr. Dinklage noted the plan ohowo an existing deck on the north Side to be removed. Mro. Mazur raid it will be removed. Mr. Bolton Suggested Some kind of Screening to protect the neighbors' privacy but Still provide lake views. Memberr, agreed to continue the hearing to allow neighboro to consider Screening. Mr. Bolton moved to continue application #CU-02-26 until 4 February. Mr. Kupferman Seconded. Motion paooed unanimously. J { Planning and Zoning Commission South Burlington Town Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belaire, 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 November 6, 2002 Now that we have had a chance to thoroughly review the Mazur's project, it seems that they may be in violation of zoning regulations involving lot coverage. Buildings should cover no more that 20% of a lot. According to our calculations they are exceeding that amount. Since the driveway was sold to the town and no longer belongs to the Mazur's, why would they be allowed to add that space into their calculations? Even given that area of the driveway we still calculate over 20% coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed. Enclosed please find a copy of a variance request the Mazurs made in October of 1999. In this hearing their existing deck was 10 by 20 feet and in their present documentation that same deck is now 9 by 20 feet. This is a significant difference and we question which measurement is true. We would like to request that the Planning and Zoning Department calculate the coverage and visit the Mazur property to assess the accuracy of their submitted plans. It also appears that the footprint of buildings in the Conservation District cannot move closer to the lake. How can they have been approved for a screened in porch in an area on the lake side of the home that was previously not built upon? Our concerns outlined to you in the letter dated November 1, 2002 regarding setbacks, southern facing decks on floor one and two coming very close to the property line (not approved by the Planning and Zoning Commissions, and drainage continue to trouble us. We also question why we were not I notified when the Mazurs first went before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the approval of this project. At this point we think that it is important for the Planning and Zoning Commission to be aware of the history that we have experienced at our camp since our purchase in 1999. Enclosed please find a police report that was filed against Frank and Mary Mazur in November of 2001. Over the course of the past 3 years our property rights have been repeatedly violated by the Mazurs, including digging up a flower bed on our property (June 12,2000 and again on June 15, 2000), cutting down a tree on our property (August 2, 2000), removing several limbs of our trees that were not overhanging the property line (August 2, 2000), trimming the sides of our row of cedar hedges back far over their property line (throughout the entire Spring, Summer and Fall of 2001), and finally cutting 2 feet off the top of our hedge. (November 2001) At this point we were forced to file the enclosed police report dated November 23, 2001. Prior to the filing of this report and the subsequent filing of the "Notice of No Trespass Warning" on recommendation by the South Burlington Police, all attempts to discuss the above issues and property violations with either Mr. or Mrs. Mazur proved to be fruitless. Also enclosed please find a copy of a report done by Warren Spinner, the Municipal Arborist/Project Manager for the City of Burlington who we consulted after the Mazurs topped our hedge. His estimate of damages was $3,399.65. Although we could have sued the Mazurs for treble damages ($10,198) under Vermont law, we did not. However, it appears that no matter what we do or don't do, they will continue to violate our property rights in any way they can. Because of the pattern of trespass on our property and violation of our property rights by the Mazurs, we are concerned that there may be a disregard of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations which again interferes with our property rights. This appears to be a pattern and not an isolated incident. We only ask that the City of South Burlington enforce its regulations and assure that the work being done by the Mazurs does not exceed the parameters of the permit issued on their property and that the work is done in conformity with City regulations. If they are in violation of city regulations, we ask that the City enforce the regulations which we all abide by and assure that any violations - if they exist - are dealt with immediately by halting of construction. Thanks in advance for your attention to these issues. We greatly appreciate your willingness to meet with us and let us express our concerns. Sincerely, Diane Sande J. Peter Sande Enclosures: 1999 Variance request South Burlington Police Report 2001 Warren Spinner's Report Cc: Stephanie Smith Ho I 001S_305-ay7 v Narrative: On November 23, 2001 I met with the complainants, Peter and Diane Sande, concerning their property at 50 Bartlett Bay Road in South Burlington. They advised me that they had pldnted a cedar hedge between their property and the neighboring property. They advised me that someone had cut the tops off of this hedge. They further advised that they suspected the neighbors because of past conflicts. In a sworn written statement the Sandes advised the following: "On Thursday November 22, 2001, we 'went to our camp at 50 Bartlett Bay Road. We noticed that our hedge that borders our property to the north side had been trimmed. We estimate that 1- 2 feet had been cut from the tops of the cedar trees. The hedge is planted 1-1 1/2 feet on our side of the boundary line. Over the past 2 years the branches on the north side of the -hedge have been continually pruned back by —the Mazur even though they were not overhanging onto their property." On November 23, 2001 I went to the Sande property located at 50 Bartlett Bay Road. I observed the cedar hedge on the north side of the property. It appeared to run east/west from the road towards the lake, between properties 50 and 52. :There was a line marker on the north side of the hedge. I also observed that the tops of the hedges appeared to have been freshly cut. I photographed the hedge and apparent cutting. I then went to the Mazur residence at 52 Bartlett Bay Road. This residence is directly to the North and across the cedar hedge from the Sande property. I met with Mary Mazur who asked me in. I e;-.plained to her that I was investigating a report that the Hedge on the Sande property had been cut and asked her if she knew anything about it. Mazur advised me that she had trimmed her side. I advised her she could trim any overhang or, her property but not the tops of the hedge. She advised me "I did it. Put me in jail." She explained how there were drug dealers that don't go to jail and that she would not go to jail. I explained to her that she might end up there if she kept up and that she may face civil liability and treble damages. Mazur advised that the law says it has to be one foot from the property edge. She stated ,,they are fighting for every inch of their property, so are we." She also advised that they (Sandes) complained that her husbar_d had put stakes out for the snowplow six inches on their property. She advised she had to tell him to move them when he got home that night. Mazur also advised that they (Sandes) had agreed to keep it neat and trimmed and it wasn't so she "trimmed it up a little". I advised her it was not hers to decide. She advised that she lived there and had to look at it year round. She said it wasn't fair. They (Sandes) were only there four months. I asked her if she had asked the Sandes if she could trim the hedge. She advised that they were never around to ask. She further advised me that she was a master gardner and knew how �:o trim the hedges as,needed. On December 26, 2001 at 162.4'hours,.I'issued a notice of trespass on behalf of the Sandes for ,their' 'property at 50 Bartlett Bay .4: Road. The notice was hand delivered to Mary Mazur in the presense of her husband Frank Mazur.• Mary Mazur.signed tPe notice. She advised her husband that his ,name was on it also and asked him if he wanted to sign. He advised that he would not sign anything. I advised them both that it did ndt need - -•to'be signed but had the full effect of the law. Mary Mazur advised that' there was a common element or right of way in rsgards to'trie properties. I advised her that the notice cover,ed-.the Sande property, at 50 Bartlett Bay. ' The Sandes also provided me with a written estimate -of damage to their property. The estimate was.prepared'by- Warren Spinner of Shade Tree Associates in Essex Junction. He is a Consulting Arborist. Spinner estimated that the approximate 100-foot long section of Eastern White,Cedar hedge on the Sande property had a replacement cost of $1,667.25; a compounded cost of annual maintenance of $1,142.40; and the value of one 5.5" caliper "Crimson King" Norway Maple as $590.00 for a total of $1,399.65. This written report by Spinner is on file. ' *** PAPERWORK IN FILE **4 Pb LiCC REGoR� � door sdosa�7 r-Ic.Fo vN QFf� c�2 p�N Fi7zc,�,q�.o . rt, r4 846-4111 I South Burlington Police Deportment 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 1 ' NOTICE OF TRESPASS WARNING �N TO KEEP K7DS OFF DR t1GS I, cn Q ( Al - I f Z P ","an officer for the South Burlington Police Department (offi er) on this date- g� . have given notice to /'a �t e 2 L, r 2 ..�� a ! S� (1 (recipient) of S�� hr ��e'1�`' ��r l�that I -am acting as an agent for 7 (DOB) (Ad ress) /J ,I N'� 'S -S �� a� �u�.'rl, �jKi%�r��v. U . This is to notify you that you are not to enter onto or remain on the property/premises of � 0 r rtle# (owner) at Sum .,,il��S �,,r . Such act will constitute (location) a trespassing violation as described in 'Title 13, Section 3705, VSA and will result in the criminal charge of Unlawful Trespass as noted in said statute. CER Case # 0 I 1 `l ci �q`j v RECIPIE WITNESS ��.) �_o I s TITLE 13 SECTION 3705 UNLAWFUL TRESPASS 16 -k (a) A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.00, or both, if, without legal authority or consent of the person in lawful possession, he enters or remains on any land or in any place as to which notice againk trespass is given by: (1) Actual communication by the person in lawful possession or his agent or by. IaW enforcement officer acting on behalf of such person or his agent: or (2) Signs or placards so designed -and situated as to give reasonable notice. r. , No Text No Text l SHADE TREE ASSOCIATES ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Warren Spinner l l Killoran Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 879-0000 January 15, 2002 J. Peter & Diane Sande 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sande, As requested, this appraisal is in reference to damaged and destroyed vegetation on your property located at 50 Bartlett Bayroad in South Burlington, Vermont. My site visit was conducted on December 14'', 2001 at 2:40 PM. I met with both of you to discuss the sequence of events and to gather information for the appraisal. You explained to me that approximately two feet was cut off the top of a 100-foot long Eastern White Cedar hedge located on the north side of your property. You also showed me a stump of a tree that had been cut down. You informed me that the tree was a Red Leafed Norway Maple. I took photographs of the site and measured the stump. I also reviewed photographs that you had taken of the cedar hedge and tree before they were damaged and destroyed. I have selected two methods of appraisal to determine the value of your vegetation. The Replacement Cost method was used for the damaged Eastern White Cedar hedge — Thuja occidentalis and the Trunk Formula method was used for the destroyed `Crimson King' Norway Maple — Acer platanoides `Crimson King'. Replacement Cost Information Prior to being cut, the Cedar hedge was 8 feet in height. After the cutting took place the hedge was reduced to 6 feet in height. Approximately 2 feet of the hedge was removed from the top of the Cedar hedge. To calculate the loss, I appraised the hedge at a 6-foot height and at an 8-foot height and found the difference in value to be $1,667.25. (See the enclosed Plant Replacement Cost form). ._ Shade Tree Associates — Sande appraisal Page 1 I have also calculated the compounded cost of annual maintenance. This applies when replacement plant(s) or landscape will require time to regain its pre -casualty size and condition (parity). (See enclosed Compounded Cost of Annual Maintenance form). The maintenance cost includes deep root fertilization and pruning for the first year and pruning for the following two years. These three years of maintenance will cost $1,142.40. Trunk Formula method This method is used to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. I used this method to determine the value of the 5.5-inch Caliper `Crimson King' Norway Maple that was cut down on your property. I found the appraised value of this tree to be $590.00. (See enclosed Trunk Formula Method form) Summary I have determined that the appraised value for the damaged White Cedar Hedge and destroyed `Crimson King' Norway Maple are: • Appraised replacement cost value $1,667.25 • Compounded cost of annual maintenance $1,142.40 • Appraised value of one 5.5" caliper `Crimson King' Norway maple $590.00 It is my professional opinion that the total value as a result of this cutting is: $3,399.65 I certify that all the statements of facts in this appraisal are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and I believe that they are made in good faith. Information for this appraisal was gathered from " The Guide for Plant Appraisal", 9`h edition, authored by The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture. Shade Tree Associates — Sande appraisal Page 2 If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Warren Spinner Certified Consulting Arborist Enclosures: - Plant replacement cost form - Compounded cost of Annual Maintenance Form - Tree Formula method form - Site photographs - Resume Shade Tree Associates — Sande appraisal Page 3 B. PLANT REPL EMENT COST DAMAGED VEGETATION REPLACEMENT VEGETATION APPRAISED COST 1 # 2 Species 3 Size 4 Plant Cond. % 5 Replacement Species 6 Size 7 Plants 8 Plant Cost 9 Total Plant Cost (7 x 8) 10 Adjusted Plant Cost (4 x 9) Il Actual Cost to Install* 12 Actual Replacement Cost (9 + 11) COMPOUNDED COST AT _% XX 18 Appraised (10+ 11) or Compounded Appraised 15 + 16 + 17 13 Years to Parity 14 c rz w u S 15 Future Plant Cost (10 x 14) 16 Future Installed Cost (11 x 14) 17 Future Maintenance Cost 5 OffirE crvceg 5 Anne 1 /6 ' 1.620 / o 3, 040 5 r72t5 Cirotk Anne* 8 5 5— z 6 z .5 so- /. 25 COLUMN TOTALS Damaged Area (ft') — Plot Areas (ft') x Actual Plant Replacement Cost of Plots = $ Damaged Area (ft') — Plot Areas (ft') x Appraised Plant Replacement Cost of Plots = $ Damaged Area (ft) + Plot Areas x Total Number of Replacement Plants = f 1 * Cost of installation usually varies between 2 and 3 times the plant cost depending on region and type of plant. Cost includes but is not limited to all costs for transportation, equipment, labor, soil, mulch, guying, guarantee, profit, etc. ** See directions for calculating Compounded Costs or Values on pages 8 and 9. --N, ©Copyright 1997 by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture. All Rights Reserved. COMP' LADED COST OF ANNUAL( AINTENANCE Compounded Cost of Annual Maintenance at 5 % interest. Compounded Cost of Annual Maintenance at % interest. Annual Annual Years Compound Years Compound to Interest Annual to Interest Annual Year Parity Factor* Cost Total Year Parity Factor* Cost Total 1 3 1.16 x 5Yo = .4 o I x = 2 2 /./0 x .2,lb = 2 x = 3 /-06 - 21/0 3 — 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 Parity— to —** Yeats x = Compounded Operations Cost = y0 Compounded Cost of Annual Maintenance at % interest. Annual Years Compound to Interest Annual 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Parity_ to ** Years x Compounded Operations Cost = Compounded Cost of Annual Maintenance at % interest. Annual Years Compound to Interest Annual Year Panty Factor* Cost Total Year Parity Factor* Cost Total 1 x = 1 x — 2 x = 2 x — 3 — — 3 — 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 Parity— to _** x = Parity_ to _** x = Years Years Compounded Operations Cost = Compounded Operations Cost = * See Table 1 in Field Form Report for Cost of Cure or Table 8-1 in the Guide for Plant Appraisal 8th Edition. ** To save time and reduce errors, the years in which the annual costs are the same, the Annual Compound Interest Factors can be added together and multiplied by the annual cost. ©Copyright 1997 by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture. All Rights Reserved. Trunk Formula Method Case # Property 5-0 961r/-,g%�,Qi9d R(A Date /" ?— 0 2-- Appraiser 1)AXien/ Field Observations l/ 1. Species CKIN50,V elt4- /yUIIGIJ4, 2. Condition �75 % 3. Trunk Circumference in./cm Diameter S- :6 in./cnl 4. Location % _ [Site Y% + Contribution ,�0 % + Placement Y,!5"0) =3=-2Q% Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/orAppra so -Developed or -Modified Information 5. Species rating '?0 % 6. Replacement Tree Size (diameter) Munk Area) s in2/cm2 TAR 7. Replacement Tree Cost $ /S0 (see Regional hlformation to use Cost selected) 8. Installation Cost $ 3 75 9. Installed Tree Cost (#7 + #8) $ '526 10. Unit Tree Cost $ 30 _ per in2/cm2 (see Regional Information to use Cost selected) Calculations by Appraiser using Field and Regional Information. 11. Appraised Trunk Area: (TAA or ATAA; use Tables 4.4 4.7) or c2 (#3) x 0.08 = 2il (O/cm2 or d2 (#3) x 0.785 12. Appraised free trunk Increase (TAINCR) _ TAA or ATAA .2 y in2/cm2 (#11) - TAR :_in2/cm2 (#6) =_I Lin2/cm2 13. Basic Tree Cost = TAINCR 012) /7in2/cm2 x Unit wee Cost (#10) $ per in2/cm2 + Installed Tree Cost (#9) $ 6AS_ $ �� 0 9� 14. Appraised Value = Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ ij 0 15 x Species rating (#5) &% x Condition (#2) a% x Location (#4) L% _ $ 0 • d 15. If the Appraised Value is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to the nearest $10. 16. Appraised Value = (#14) $ 670 — Items 5 through 10 are deternuned by the Regional Plant Appraisal Committee. The Wholesale Replacement Tree Cost, the Retail Replacement Tree Cost, or the Installed Tree Cost (#9) divided by the Replacement Tree Size (#6) can be used for the Unit Tree Cost (#10), or it can be set by the Regional Plant Appraisal Committee. 7 jpjMpl7 I ":� WZ4 Lip 0 14 7rv. r y_ y_ ~e'er � • .,* +'.1'8`r} 'Y "{y�-x� f `4 :. •, ,... ,.A Y';r . � ... a .� � ti .r ° ! 4. _'III[, -" \ A-16 ✓ a,:, :- a .r • �yy , .rw . a MA � J _ �. �• ` H tsy �. �" Top view of Cedar Hedge showing topping cuts WARREN LYMAN �5?INNER MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSULTING ARBORIST 11 Killoran Drive Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 (802)879-0000 EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, Stockbridge School of Agriculture Associate of Science in Arboriculture and Park Management, 1976 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES International Society of Arboriculture #NE-0128 Massachusetts Certified Arborist #1076 Vermont Certified Pesticide Applicator #3-63 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1980 — Present Municipal Arborist/Project Manager — City of Burlington, VT Director of planning, planting, and preventative maintenance for all public trees, park trees, shrubs, municipal forests, flower beds, and cultural turf grass falling under the jurisdiction of the city. Supervisor, assisting in various capital construction projects in the city parks. 1980 — Present Business Owner — Shade Tree Associates, Essex Junction, VT Sole proprietor of a firm providing tree and shrub health care management and protection plans, problem diagnosis, inventories, appraisals, workshops and consulting. 1976 — 1980 Crew Supervisor and Salesperson- Vaillancourt Tree and Landscape Service, Rutland, VT Responsibilities: The selling of commercial tree and shrub care throughout Vermont. Performing commercial and residential landscaping involving tree, shrub and flower planting, and new lawn establishment. Renovating existing turf areas using over seeder aerators and fertilizing equipment. Providing employee training in safety procedures for all phases of arboriculture. APPRAISALS and CONSULTING (2000 to present) • Fire damage, Allen Ricker Property — Charlotte, VT • Property Damage — Robert Bunclark, L. Breton Transport, Marbleton, Quebec, Canada • Trespass Vegetation Cutting — Burlington Parks and Recreation, Burlington, VT • Evaluation of Potential Roadside Construction Impacts to Existing Trees — Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, Portland, ME • Trespass Logging Property Damage Appraisal — Kevin and Rhonda Russin, Westford, VT • Evaluation of Construction Impacts to Existing Trees on Champlain College Camps — Dunn Associates, Burlington, VT • Tree Evaluation Appraisal and Impact Assessment Report — VT Agency of Transportation • Tree Inventory, Evaluation and Prioritized Maintenance Plan — Singer Property, Ticonderoga, NY • Trespass Vegetation Cutting — Marvin Libson, Essex Junction, VT • Replacement Cost Appraisal — Joseph and Mary Chase, Essex, VT • Vegetation Damage Appraisal Report — Barone Construction, Inc., Williston, VT • Tree Evaluation Appraisal and Impact Assessment Report — Ronald McKinnon, Middlebury, VT • Tree Evaluation & Assessment — McCann Real Equities Dev., LLC, West Dover, VT C � GUEST SPEAKERITRES&YTER EXPERIENCE 1984, 1991 & 1998 New England Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, Annual Conference 1986 — Present University of Vermont School of Natural Resources and Forestry 1986 — Present University of Vermont School of Plant and Soil Science 1986 — Present University of Massachusetts Arboriculture an Urban Forestry 1989 — Present Paul Smiths College Urban Tree Management Program 1990 Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Foresters Association, Annual Meeting 1990 — 1992 & 1994 Vermont Forests, Parks and Recreation, Urban Forestry Workshop 1990 Vermont Forests, Parks and Recreation, "Training the Trainers — Evaluation of Hazard Trees" 1994 National Recreation and Park Association, New England Training Institute and Exposition 1994 Vermont Flower Show, "Selecting the Right Tree for the Right Place" 1996 — 1998 Vermont Flower Show, Tree and Shrub Pruning Seminar 1998 National Arbor Day Foundation, Storms over the Urban Forest Conference, "Community Ice Storm Response and Recovery" 1999 University of Massachusetts Extension System "Storms over the Urban Forest, Regional Impact" 2000 Vermont Flower Show, "Unusual Trees for Home Landscape" 2001 Stewardship of the Urban Landscape Leadership Training, "Tree Planting, Preventative Maintenance and Urban Forest Management" 2001 Vermont Forests, Parks and Recreation, (5 VT Communities) "Young Tree Planting and Pruning" PROFESSIONAL TRAINING VIDEOS Chittenden Community Television (C.C.T.V.) Productions 1. How to plant a Tree 2. Benefits of Trees and Site Selection 3. After Planting Tree Care 4. Proper Pruning MEMBERSHIPS and PUBLIC SERVICE 1974 — Present International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A) 1976 — Present Massachusetts Arborists Association 1980 — Present Municipal Arborist and Urban Foresters Society 1980 — 1990 Society of Commercial Arboriculture 1986 - Present Society of Municipal Arborists 1986-1992 Board Member of the New England Chapter I.S.A. 1988 — Present Advisory Board Member on, and past Chair of, The Natural Resources Program, Essex Technical Center, Essex Junction, VT 1989 — 1990 President of the New England Chapter I.S.A. 1990 — Present National Arbor Day Foundation 1990 — 1993 Chair of the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Council 1992 — Present Advisory Board Member of the Urban Tree Management Program, Paul Smiths College, Paul Smiths, NY 2000 — Present Tree Warden, Essex Junction, VT AWARDS 1991 International Society of Arboriculture — Gold Leaf Award 1996 Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Council — Practitioner Award 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 November 1, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission South Burlington Town Offices 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belaire, Thank for responding to our concerns regarding Frank and Mary Mazur's renovation to their property, which adjoins our summer camp at 50 Bartlett Bay Road to the North. As an adjacent property owner we are concerned about several observations we have made regarding this project. 1. As we discussed with you in 2 telephone conversations on 10/22/02 and 10/24/02, the Mazurs are adding a deck to the second floor of the addition that was not in the initial plans. This brings their home extremely close to our boundary line and will infringe on our property and our privacy. Such a deck may also be in violation of the existing setback regulations for this community. 2. Another concern is the mere size of this addition, which the Planning Commission approved last March. We were never made aware of the project until construction began a few weeks ago. 3. The first floor of the addition appears to have a sliding glass door on the South side. This would indicate future plans for a deck off the door, which will bring their home even closer to our property line thus again possibly violating the required setbacks. 4. The grade of the Mazur's lawn to the South of their property may have also been changed. They have added a small stone wall on the property line and raised their lawn about a foot. We have concerns as to how this will affect drainage onto our property. Are such changes allowed and appropriate? Again thanks for your attention to these issues and please notify us at the above address if our presence should be required at any future hearings. We may also be reached by telephone at our permanent residence at 985-8807. Sincerely, rr Diane Sande S(3 J. Peter Sande HeVJ SAL40 7 Ma=j'3ay. Rd. 05403 So. BurJiagton, irlf or mk6 PA14W i I I - ^-N 1151X3___ 1 - - - _ __- �"—tea �NrVI �%.ir — _ - _ - , nL � i ✓'1 'il I`V ��•�, � _ � '^ � 'YI — _ __ - — - - - , �-:... _ram'_ `-•%� iy,1 I � — _ I -�nzbw,,aoW_ y>nca_� rg O,oL � '� °'J -- flvo�nvc� -�-al aq I �, PRESENTATION TO SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD October 19, 1999 Request for variance by Frank and Mary Mazur to enclose a 10' X 20' portion of an existing deck Five Criteria for granting a variance: 1. There are unique physical circumstances peculiar to the property. The unigue physical circumstance of this property is that it is a long and '— �► ' hW,*easuring approximately 167' on the north, 145' on the south, IF -" 'on the east and 67' on the west. The house and deck were designed to conform to all zoning requirements when we built it in 1972. The exceptional topWaphy is created by the fact that the�,to is Wde+red on t .►,.,v b' Lake Cham#AI& Although it was zoned R-1 when we purchased it in 1969, now "all land within a strip 150 feet in depth along Lake Champlain as measured from the high water level elevation 102.5 feet mean sea level datum " is zoned a Conservation Zone and Open Space District. Thehardship is no possibility of conforming to the requirements of'the C.O. District which states that "No building of any kind.... may be permitted within this conservation district. dwk are akea*, there. 2. Because of such physical circumstances there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. There is no possibility that our property or all the other homes on the lake can be developed in total compliance with the zoning regulaations because the howes already a x1st 3. The unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. The hardship is not self-created. The house was built 28 years ago and the deck has been inexistence for 22 years. ?'his is our MOMS Like you, we like to keep it up and make improvements. Now, although we continue to pay some of the highest taxes in South Burlington, we cannot modify or improve it because it is in the Conservation Zone. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. TheBartlett Bay area has a very diverse style of houses ranging from original summer camps built over 50 years ago to modern winterized homes built as recently as five years ago. Thep 0p oW change is consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood We have shared our plan with our neighbors and they support our request for a variance to enclose our deck. (Copies of signed petitions enclosed) 5. The variance, if authorized, will represent the minimun variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the the zoning regulation and of the plan. According to article 26.002 a.) of the City of South Burlington's Zoning Regulations, "An application for alteration involves an increase in the amount of buildingquare fooLgge located within a designated ettlope, " We are not asking to add or increase the size of a room or add a second story. We o* want to enclose an existing deckwhich is already part of the building footprint. According to the Dictionaryof Real Estate Appraisal, third edition, of the Appraisal Institute, "The gross living area (GLA) of a home is "the total area of finished, above grade residential space excluding unheated areas such as porches and balconies. " Frank Mazur 52 Larti�tt ,L.; Rd So �urlia_;-n, VT 05403 1-802 -�:,. L- 75 e-mail. fmazurCcompuserve.com or I B." and �✓ "` G� Fv°„k � f loMazes HOUSE BUILI IN s I ! I 197_Z ECK P�U ILT IN I 78 ' - �(. + }{oUSE I GFlR RGfc A D E D �-ccr,D - '° — — - — — — — — 4. -_ Loc IN 198021 I N 19 y - I rsuc - I I I I PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Name Address 1/0 RO PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM Phone # SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Name Address Phone # PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Ad r ss PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM Phone # �8a - 9 57 7 'T6a 8F6, If36-f SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Name Address Phone # P-'T .Aifrw { PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Ad ress phone # PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FRANK AND MARY MAZUR TO ADD A 3-SEASON ROOM ONTO THEIR EXISTING DECK We, the undersigned neighbors of Frank and Mary Mazur of 52 Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington, Vermont, have examined their plan to enclose a 10' X 20' section of their existing deck to make it a 3 season room. We support their petition to obtain a variance in order to build this addition. Name Address phone # C'c2,� 2oa-46,23 f,(, q - 7,� unweu u we, on front paws (big) Very hearing at 530 PM, De- unarye m person or oy vermom, mail from 9 00 a.m. to " , r.,..,��,,.r - gro- with our company. / , -- ence Road,v Hinesburg, VVT friendly. Indoor cat to home cember 18, 2002 at / Council Chamber :00 pm. (Monday - Fri- Dated at Westford, Ver- ay)at moot this 27th day of train the right 9 uaranteed base ( 05461 For more info check out our DEVELOPMENT good only 802 872-9860 1 ) West Allen Stree November, 2002 y Full benefits. DIRECTOR wwwrccwirelesscon nooski, Vermont f � .,�e purpose Of receiving Department of Banking, �..alth,401K,stockop- tions.CallAdam802-863- Please forward 0N1• Insurance, comments on the City of and Health Securities Westford Selectboard Care Admi- William Leach, Chair 8007or24hrs/day1888- The Vermont Youth Con- Corp, seeks with cover letter to ARD =ANDMCUSE(802) Winooski, Vermont, Mu- nicipal Development nistration Robert Bancroft 372-7699.EOE/M/F(888 servation motivated professional toHumanResou Plan. The Commission 89Main Street KennethTardie *AUTO TECHNICIAN* grow annual fund and will review the Plan's Drawer20 New Car Dealership conduct capital camp- 6Telecom Di Bangor ME04 000 Male, Pitbull, He is consistency with the Montpelier, 3101 VT 05602- November 30, 2002 seeks an experienced technician to join our aign. Letter, resume & references FaX 207.9734 Brio le, He is Very F of INth Ch'Id Y plannin goals of 24 802 828-4842 V S A section 4302 an. ( ) expanding g Five star Hark, VYCC, 92 Main St Darlenefm@rcc, rien y i ran and Other Animals, 4 Yr. sure it contains and ad- Lost & Found body de t Full Y p Old (802)868.3890 dresses all the n 24 V.S.A. elements Proposals must be re- calved at the address FOUND DOG benefits pkg, Apply at. Goss Dodge DOGS, Beagles. 4382(a)(1)-(10), section confirm above no later than Black Chow in 1485 Shelburne Rd Abandoned dogs need compatibility with neigh- Tuesday, December 31, gton on 11/28. Burlinlic South Burlington VT for HOLIDAYS! boring pa at Orfub uthe 2openmg Call S D Beagles thome from. chooseallan Ver plans and with bid will at FOUNDOG Lab/ Rot- BARTEND loving. one or Y 9 all. Call (802)933.9135 2001 Chittenden County 3:OSPM. tweilerMix.Female, ■ BARTENDING SCHOOL DOGS Two year old, Regional Plan October 9, 2001; adopted as well Wearing a Red Collar, Found on West Milton OF NEW ENGLAND Black Lab mix neutered, as examine the Winooski November 30, 2002 & Rd. in Milton on 11/23/02 Certification/Training friendly and loveable but planning process with 24 December 7, 2002 Call (802) 893-4297 Job Assistance 1 fB8 4DRINKS EOE It 4: C: RURAL cuxuuu m 9 MANAGEMI POSITION ESTIMAT01 big.1 year old PitBull Rothe Mix, small friendly V.S.A. section 4350(a). STATE OF VERMONT FOUND DOG, Male Cho- www.bartendingschool.com GAS ATTENDANT/ Chittenden County PROJECT MANI and very loveable. PROBATE COURT DISTRICT OF colate Lab, in So:, Bur- 108 Church St. Burlington TOW TRUCK DRIVER lington on 11/26. Call 2nd shift, good pay, va- Seeking individua g (802) 527-1525 Regional Planning CHITTENDEN, SS. Commission 802 985-2248 BOOKKEEPER/CONTROL ( ) cations. Apply in person at least 10+/- y field DOG 8 r old male Y Keeshond Purebred. Ian MacDougall 9 DOCKET LER, Small non-profit as- FOUND UMBRELLA at Handy's Texaco, 75 r sociation seeks hands- experience it construction, Housebroken. Friendly Land Use Planner Found blowing in the So.Wmooski;Burlington. 9 on, full time Bookkeeper/ ground utility ai with other dogs & cats. 846-4490 ext. 240 IN RE THE ESTATE OF wind. White polka dots Controller. Ideal candi- Make your ad work. Estimatin Very quiet, mellow, & PUBLIC HEARING SUSANM.[low with red trim and flow- date is proficient with PICTURE PERFECT ers. Found at No. Cham- complete MS Office with a photo source schedulir materials ordering loving! Needs good home. Call (617) 731- SOUTH BURLINGTON LATE OF DEVELOPMENT BURLINGTON,VT plain St. and Belt line Suite (Strong emphasis sential., Positions 0391 OR (617) 817-7767 REVIEW BOARD area. Call (802) 862- in Excel and is familiar Free Press ) 3496. challenging,lone FREE DOG NOTICE TO The South Burlington CREDITORS with Peachtree Classic Classifieds LOST BOY SCOUT POP -Accounting software, e5S-3321 career opportunity well established firm. German Shepherd, Sharp, Development Review Board will hold a To the creditors of the CORN SIGN UP SHEET Position is responsible IMMEDIATE - Pack 22. Southern end for entire accounting EMPLOYMENT Sena resume h pyed,Enerto ern,os. Spayed, Eager to Learn, Good With Cats. Please public hearing at the South Bur- estate of Susan M. Dow, lington Hell, Sr., Burlington, of Hopkins St., So. Bur- process, budgeting, ana- lington. Please (802) lysis, and special pro- Survey Interviewing for Call(802)8932118 City Confer- late of ence Room, 575 Dorset Vermont call a 865-6946, days, (802) jects; requires a well- variety of government - FREE PIANO Winter and Street, South Burlington, 864-6099,eves. organized team player contracted research stu- Go. 1934.Good Shape Call Evenings Only, After Vermont on Tuesday, Ihave been appointed e December 17, 2002, at personalrepresentativen. LOST CAT Black and possessing excellent dies. Not telemarketing. skills, Evening and weekend communel 6 PM (802) 879-1864 7:30 P.M. to consider of the above named es- of 1/23inHinesburgared high level of accuracy, shifts are available. Paid 11/23 in Hinesburg area. and ability to multi -task. FURNACE/STOVE Wood the following: tate. All creditors having claimsa against 9 training. Medical, acci- Answers to name Eto. A degree in accounting dent; dental, vision and MUNSON Earth Movin disassembled, FAN fur- nace and metal case, 1 Appeal #AO-02-07 of must present their Please call Lam/ or related field and rele- ( ) 802 482-6666 prescription benefits 85ShunpikeRc VCR and ROAD BIKE Both the decision of the Ad- claims in writinggwithin 4 ministrative Officer to is- months ofthedateof vent experience are re- available. ORC Macro, LOST CAT, Gray/white quired. Comprehensive 126 College St., 3rd Williston, VT054 EDE Schwinn. need work. Please call David sue Notice of Violation the first publication of #NV-02-39 alleging that this notice. The claim long hair female. 9 years benefits and competitive floor, Burlington, VT EOE old. Weighing 10 lbs. salary based on experi- M/F/D/V, NIGHT SUPERVI 802 644-67871vMs ( ) g' the property owned by must be presented to me Two O'Brien"s Proper- at the address listed be- Lost in Ethan Allen ence. LNACAREOIYER PT, En- Pkwy/Farrington Pkwy 0 u a I i f i e d c a n d i - . / Busy Beverage has opening for a HAMSTER With brand new cage, food and bed- ding. Call between 6:30 9 ties, LLC located at 1475 low with -a copy filed with Shelburne Road is being area. On Nov. 14. Has dates forward a resume joyworking 7orAngwith roximatehe 13 red collar. Call 802 658- b e-mail to jgb vc- Y pp Y ( ) Supervisor. Will I to 4 am and 8 pm. therCourt. of The aProim' occupied without a Certi- P bate Court. The 2248. u .org or b mai to hrs/wk. Call Deanna or q uired work weekend shifts. (802) 863-7843 claim ficate of Occupancy. will be forever barred if it VCUL, Attn: Bergeron, Carol at 658-1573. LOfT KEYS In Cam- 10 0 0 Shelburne R d salary between PIANO upright. WM. 2• Final plat application is not presented as des- #SD-02-76 the Van . br�'dge/Underhill,onSat MACHINIST Suite 1, So. Burlington, $30/yr. plus bene Send i Knabe & Co. From mid of cribedabovewRhinthe 10/23,HadCam Camper CNC, manual, expe- VT05403.6960. incentives. 1950's. Call (802) 425- Sicklen Limited Partner- }our month deadline. Keys, Green Tag. Please rienced or entry level. EOE to: PO Box 1502 2552. ship to amend a previ- Call (802) 864-9399 Good pay, benefit pack- ton, Vermont. RABBIT ously ap-proved planned Dated: November22, residential development P002, BRICKLAYERS, MASON age. Send resume to: Personals TENDERS, LABORERS, i Advanced Machine & OFFICE MANAGI Mini Lop bunny. Free to good home. consisting of 48 single FORKLIFT OPERATORS Tool, P.O. Box 802, Mil- Seeking personable, 9p reliant individual to (802) 655.3206 family units on a 61. 7 FrankJ. Dow Sr acre parcel. c e I. The P 19 Chambers Lane SKI PASS To Smugglers Needed for large. long ton, VT 05468 or call �g r 9 Notch. No Restrictions, term masonry pro act in (802) 693-6322. 1 form in a multi task c REFRIGERATOR: Large chest display unit Largedisplay amendment consists of White River Jct,VT relocating relocating seven (7) 05001 n, 1) $350PIeaseCall the Burlington V area. MUNICIPAL MANAGER Pattie five position. Fxcf p computer,organizati. sayuni doors lslidi ba dwellings s to carriage(802)295-6210 (802)253-3722 Contact Malloi, Town and Village of Lud- Pa roll Admin. at (617) low, Vermont seeks Mu- & bookkeeping sklls k.NOTa front &965-3025 eDrive. CELL'DLE11EYf"fITNA ext. 210 for nicipal Manager. Manag- Web mgmt,marketi 4 da /wk Resume freezer! (802) 644-6513 3. Application #CU-02- Name of Publication: CIASSIFIFDAD,CALliSl3Jt1, SNOW TIRES (4) 26 of Frank & Mary Ma- Burlington Free Press TICKETS Two Guns N' Hakkapeffift 10 175/70/R13. zur for conditional use First Publication Date: approval under Section November 23,2002 Roses tickets, Fleet Center, Boston. Dec. Call (802) 363-8707 26.05, Conditional Uses, 2nd. $90 for both, face of the South Burlington Second Publication Date: value. Please call (802) TOILET Zoning Regulations. Re- November30,2002 684-1085 ewer. Beige. American quest is for permission andard. Call (802) 878- to construct a 5'xl4' Address of Probate WALLFLOWER TICKETS 155before 8PM. second story deck, 52 Court: 14) Sold out show at f, Color. Good condi- Bartlett Bay Road. County Courthouse Higher Ground on 11/30- available. (802) 425-3145 er serves as Chief Admi- Erdman Studios nistrative Officer. Pay 3188 So. Brownell range $45,000-$60,000. Williston, VT05495 Full description a t re@richarderdman.( www,vIct.org and www.ludlow.vt.us. Send PHYSICAL THEM resume and cover letter FT & PT position in 'confidence to: Ludlow diate opening in Manager Search-bfp, 11-7.30 shift. P VLCT, 89 Main St., Suite send resume to: 4, Montpelier, VT 05602, PT, Box 776, Mifto in. HUMIDIFIER, Fairly Copies of the application I (@ 2 ft. high). Good Co P.O. Box 511, Main St. WANTED DIRECT TV CAREER OPPORTUNITY by Friday, Dec,13. EDE 05468. ndition ELECTRIC TY• available for public Satellite equipment. Hard-working, honest, :WRITER, Needs re- inspection at the South Burlington, VT05402 Dishes, cards, receivers must have own transpor- DIRECTOR OF MARi�TINI !r. You take away' Call Burlington City Hall. , and remotes. Wilf pay Cation, oppportunity to 2)453-4107 WATER DRAGON John Dinklage, Chairman wESTFORD SELECTBOARD Cash 802-285-6378 Chad earn $600-$1,000 week)yy. Call George at FOR SKI VERMONT South Burlington - 802-658-2082 Includes 2 fish tanks Fair condition Development Review Board NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Monday, Dec 2 ONLY Dynamic, experienced marketing yn � P g Call (802) 660-4382 between 10am-2pm. between Professional needed for the Vermont Sl )ODSTOVE Franklin So Hero. November30, 2002 The Westford Select-4 board hereby provides CASHIER- FT Mon -Fri 6 am - 2pm Apply in per- Areas Association, representing Vermon i pick up I between 5-9 pm @ STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF notice of a public hearing son at Simon's store at alp1ne and Nordic ski Indus Ski indu 899-2760. BANKING, INSURANCE, being held pursuant to Title 24, Section 4404 of 974 Shelburne Rd, South Burlington 9 t marketing experiencerequired. g loption SECURITIES AND NEALTH CARE the Vermont State Sta- Employment CHIEF OPERATOR Ver- r ABORTION? WHY? ADMINISTRATION lutes for the purpose of hearing public comments e n n e s- P a n t o n Water Send resume to Ski Vermont, )NSIDERADOPTION* REQUESTS FOR concerning. Proposed Employment T istrot seeks a Chief Operator to manage the PO Box 368, Montpelier, W 05601-036 Warm, secure, loving 9 iome available for new- PROPOSAL FY2003-FY2005 amendments to the Westford Zoning Regula• ACCOUNTANT operations and mainte- No phone calls born baby. Please call tions and the Westford Needs experience in nance of a water treat- ment facility and distribu- please. attorney at The State of Vermont is Subdivision Regulations. accounting, auditing, tax, tion system. A Grade IV- 60060644t1 A-741 seeking proposals ,from Tre ram. shongorganizational& C Operatino Certificate — CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 8, 2002 1. Peter & Diane Sande 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, Vermont 05482 Re: 52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sande: Thank you for your letter of November 1, 2002. The Mazurs have applied to the Development Review Board and the public hearing on their request is scheduled for December 17, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. If you do not wish to attend the hearing, I will pass along your concerns to the Board at the hearing. Sincerely, /' Raymond 1. Belair Administrative Officer ri Abutter Notification List October 29, 2002 Subject Property: Mazur Frank M & Mary E 52 Bartlett Bay Rd S Burlington 05403 Abutting Properties: Sande J Peter & Diane R Meserole Jere & Carole Trustees 149 Vista Dr 54 Bartlett Bay Rd Shelburne 05482 S Burlington 05403 0130-00050 R 0130-00054 R CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &a ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number �� - Cad APPLIaCATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Type of application check one: ( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation) (� Request for a conditional use ( ) Request for a variance ( } Other PROVISION OF ZONING ORDINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) NON b WHAT ACTION OF THE ADIVM4TSTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? M 0 1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address,(Rhone and fax 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) r c Zi • -1-/ / 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) li / i i ( f/ i-i / 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: .fit 6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 0 0 u 1 �" 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) 5, n (. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) '71 1-f I � 1 c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine) _% (-.. e) Number of residential Units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) f / E f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees) g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing % Proposed % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing % Proposed % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % (does not apply to residential uses) 'rj J 9) COST ESTIMATES a) Building (including interior renovations) b) Landscaping: $ c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): r�-f) 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet of paper). C I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNA OF APA ICANT SIGNATURVOF PROPERTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: l C) �n `,0 REVIEW AUTHORITY:�Development Review Board El Director, Planning & Zoning I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: "4 Complete ❑ Incomplete Director of Planning Zoning or Designee Date _ A I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 30, 1999 Frank & Mary Mazur 51 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance/52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is a copy of the October 19, 1999 Development Review Board minutes on the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Lisa Mahoney, Planning & Zoning ssistant LM/mcp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 1999 b) The final plat plan shall be revised to change note #6 to reflect the fact that a bike path easement does exist and indicate the recording information. 3. Any change to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 4. The final plat plan shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Development Review Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the Director of Planning & Zoning. Mr. Farley seconded. The motion was then passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Application of Frank & Mary Mazur seeking a variance from Section 26.003, Extension of Nonconforming Uses, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to extend a nonconforming single family dwelling by enclosing a 10' x 20' section of an existing deck for use as a 3-season porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Mazur explained that they would add three sides and a roof to the deck. The area would not be heated. He said they felt they didn't need a variance because it's not an increase in square footage or a change in footprint. They are also within setbacks. He also felt that what they are doing is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. This is a peculiar property with unique physical characteristics. It is a very narrow lot. The original structure was built to the existing footprint and the deck was included with the plans when submitted to the city. Because this property is in the CO zone, nothing can be done to the property. Mr. Mazur felt this was not a self-created hardship. Mr. Mazur noted that the city has allowed buildings that were built as camps to be upgraded to what are now beautiful homes. He felt the city should allow this upgrading as well. Mr. Dinklage said it would be hard to determine when a space could be heated and thus become an expansion of living space. Mr. Mazur said they use the area close to 3 seasons now with a canopy. They are not putting up a winterized structure. Mr. Belair noted this is considered an "expansion" under the zoning regs. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Mazur's situation is not unique. With the recent restructuring of the planning functions, the situation is more favorable to making changes 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 1999 to the regulations. Similar requests have gone to the Planning Commission, particularly involving properties in older neighborhoods. Several years ago, changes were made to the Queen City Park neighborhood. Mr. Dinklage suggested using this request as an opportunity to ask the Planning Commission to consider fixing the zoning regulations to allow people to improve uses without requiring a variance. Mr. & Mrs. Sande, neighbors of the Mazurs, said they have some drainage concerns and also want to be sure anything that is allowed remains 15 ft. from the property line. Ms. Barone read the findings of fact and then moved that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the 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 season porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road, for the following reason: The five criteria necessary for the granting of a variance pursuant to 24 VSA 4468 have not been met. Mr. Chamberland seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Farley opposing. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Final Plat application of Dorset Land Company to amend a planned unit development consisting of a 184 unit congregate housing facility and a 103 unit extended stay hotel in two buildings, 415 Dorset Street. The amendment consists of the relocation of a cooling unit pad: Mr. DesLauriers said they had received approval to build an expansion of an existing hotel. The mechanical engineer has suggested relocating the cooling pad for the HVAC cooling tower. Mr. DesLauriers showed the original and proposed locations. The pad will be screened in the same way as originally proposed. Mr. Belair noted the Design Review Committee had recommended landscaping around the north, east and south sides of the pad. No other issues were raised. Mr. Farley moved the Development Review Board approve the final plat and design review applications of Dorset Land Company to amend a planned unit development consisting of a 184 unit congregate housing facility and a 103 unit extended stay hotel in two buildings, 415 Dorset Street. The amendment consists of the relocation of a cooling unit pad, as depicted on a five page set of plans, page one entitled "Dorset Land Company Dorset Street South Burlington, VT," prepared by Trudell 4 I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 4, 1999 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance, 52 Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project approved by the Development Review Board on October 5, 1999. Please note the conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RIB/mcp 1 Encl Certified letter #Z 462 927 135 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 26, 1999 Mary Mazur 51 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Fences Dear Mrs. Mazur: You have asked whether the planting of a five (5) foot cedar hedge on your neighbor's property constitutes a fence as that term is defined under Section 28.10 of the zoning regulations. It is my opinion that the planting of trees is not a fence as defined in the zoning regulations. You have 15 days from the date of this letter to appeal my decision in this matter to the Development Review Board by filing the enclosed application and an $85 filing fee. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, and J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp 1 Encl 3) HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC - RESUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT This project consists of amending a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 298 residential units and an 18 hole golf course. The amendment consists of resubdividing lot #126, 127 and 128 to create two (2) new reconfigured lots and eliminate one (1) lot, Golf Course Road. Lot size/frontage: The two (2) resulting lots will each increase in size to 0.62 and 0.64 acres. The frontage of each lot will increase to 200 feet. Other: --- the final plat plan should be stamped by land surveyor. 4) FRANK & MARY MAZUR - ENCLOSE DECK - VARIANCE This project consists of enclosing a 10' x 20' portion of an existing deck for use as a three (3) season porch. This property located at 52 Bartlett Bay Road lies within the Conservation & Open Space District. It is bounded on the north and south by residences, on the east by a r.o.w. and on the west by Lake Champlain. This existing dwelling is a nonconforming use under Section 26.003 of the zoning regulations since single family dwellings are not permitted in the C.O. District. The applicant's proposal would result in the expansion of a nonconforming use which is prohibited by Section 26.003 of the zoning regulations. Criteria Review: 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 particular 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 K is a reasonable use of the property. 3) The unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellants 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. Since the five (5) criteria necessary for granting a variance do not appear to be met, staff recommends the variance be denied. 5) DORSET LAND COMPANY - SITE MODIFICATIONS - FINAL PLAT & DESIGN REVIEW This project consists of amending a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of a 184 unit congregate housing facility and a 103 unit extended stay hotel in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of the relocation of a concrete cooling unit pad. The Planning Commission on 8/10/99 approved the 24 unit hotel building (minutes enclosed). The only issues affected by this application are coverage and setbacks. This property located at 415 Dorset Street lies within the CD3 and R7 Districts. It is bounded on the east by Dorset Street, on the north by Aspen Drive, on the south by a GMP substation, and on the west by the congregate housing portion of the PUD. Coverage/setbacks: CD3 District (adjusted): Building coverage is 25.2% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage is 47.1% (maximum allowed is 90%). Coverage in the R7 zoned portion of the PUD (congregate housing) will not change. Setback requirements for the relocated pad are met. 3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 15, 1999 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Waiver Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and my comments to the Board. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 6-'V� Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp Encls t f' r;. n r a -J3 • �.� sue.. � • � .� bi .y R% i � • N I Nart att Rand °• o Ja !JZ•GO • r 6& .r4& .E 2 IC-''_i: /''fft• -LYDIA 8, L Imo 5urycLl.*.ai rid•: /► e:e.0 I.; (fir•:'• u_n b? . L5,C-h ti/a. / :i0' h,.*nens.Jn.v ill fe Copies, OV ow. mppka. bona aver a+eilabios, toe puWiC inspeclto ,, ate, Satittr Bkollnoon,., City HaU, :lghn'Cllhklnq�d� ,.�„ Chrtirmmr. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Application of Burlington International Airport seeking approval from Section 25.117(b), Alteration of Existing Grade, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. The request is for permission to remove 700,000 cubic yards of rock, 3064 Williston Road. 2) Final plat application of Highlands Development Company, LLC to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 298 residential units and an 18 hole golf course, Dorset Street. The amendment consists of resubdividing lots 126, 127 and 129 to create (2) new reconfigured lots and eliminate one (1) lot. 3) Final plat application of Malcolm Willard for a planned unit development consisting of the construction of a 18,456 square foot 2-story general office building, 1100 Hinesburg Road. 4) Final plat application of Dorset Square Associates to amend an existing planned unit development consisting of 54,480 square feet of shopping center use, 150 Dorset Street. The amendment consists of constructing a 7,000 square foot retail building along Market Street and construction of streetscape improvements along Market Street. 5) Application of Frank & Mary Mazur seeking a variance form Section 26.003, Extension of Nonconforming Uses, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to extend a nonconforming single family dwelling by enclosing a 10' x 20' section of an existing deck for use as a three (3) season porch, 52 Bartlett Bay Road. 6) Final plat application of Dorset Land Company to amend a planned unit development consisting of a 184 unit congregate housing facility and a 103 unit extended stay hotel in two (2) buildings, 415 Dorset Street. The amendment consists of the relocation of a cooling unit pad. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission October 2, 1999 10/07/99 21:18 FAX 8026583973 F AND M MAZUR Qj001 MARY MAZUR 52 BARTLETT BAY ROAD SOUTH BURLiNGTON, VEP N, 4oNT 054o3 Phone/FAX (802)658-3975 October 7, 1999 Ms. Lisa J. Mahoney Zoning and Punning Assistant S_ Burlington Dept of Planning and Zoning 573 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Ms. Mahoney, I am very confused by your "prelinvnary comments" on our variance request to enclose part of our deck to create a three season porch. Your comments seem to imply that our request is invalid and will not be granted. How can this be so when we have not had a hearing yet? You asked for a response to your comments with additional information by Friday, October Wh. I suggest you review the findings of other requests for variances in my neighborhood, specifically Will and Lynn Nalchajian's proposal for 7 Austin Drive that was granted on June 8, 1998, Harvey Butterfield and Deborah Galbraith's proposal for 68 Bartlett Bay Road that was granted on July 28, 1997, and Jerre and Carole Meserole's two proposals for 54 Bartlett Bay Road (our immediate neighbors on the north) which were granted on August 22, 1994 and 114ay 8, 1995. Our property and all of the properties mentioned above are in an area zoned R-1 which is also a conservation district. All of the structures including ours were built before the area was zoned as a conservation area. Now they are designated "non -conforming structures." Many of our neighbors have beenn granted variances to add to their residences even though section 26.003 of the zoning regulations to do not perrnit expansions of non -conforming structures. The setback from the lake will not be affected by the proposed addition and it is in keeping with the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact several "camps" to the south of us have enclosed porches. We believe the addition is a reasonable use and reasonable modification that does not increase the non -conformity. Please let us know if we will be allowed to present out case at a hearing or if YOU have already made the decision to deny our request for a variance_ Sincerely, Mary Mazur I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 12, 1999 Ms. Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Request Dear Ms. Mazur, In response to your letter of October 7, 1999, I would like to inform you that the preliminary comments I sent to you are the opinion of the City's Zoning and Planning staff' You still have the opportunity to present your case to the Development Review Board on October 19, 1999. The Board will then make a decision on your variance request. Sincerely, Lis 1�ahoney Z Ong and Planning Assistant 1 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 30, 1999 Frank & Mary Mazur 52 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Request Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mazur: Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than Friday, October 8, 1999. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, A Lis ahoney, Zoning & Planning Assistant LJM/mcp Encls f)Sound levels will be taken at 50 foot corners of the blasting and crushing site and recorded with the Zoning Administrator to provide a baseline. g)In the event of significant violations or problems with the permit as granted and stipulated, the Board will have the right of re-entry and review. MALCOLM WILLARD/1100 HINESBURG ROAD - OFFICE BUILDING - PRELEWNARY AND FINAL PLAT -The note on the plan should be revised to show the correct zoning district (I-O). -The applicant is proposing $15,943 in landscaping which is $807 or 4.8% short of the required amount of $16,750. However, when combined with existing landscaping, the landscaping proposal is adequate. -The applicant should include exterior lighting details (cut sheets). -Staff is still investigating the issue of whether a sidewalk should be constructed on this side of Hinesburg Road. -The applicant should submit coverage information. The front yard coverage should be measured from the planned right-of-way. HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - ELMNATE LOT 127/GOLF COURSE ROAD - FINAL PLAT -Staff does not recommend any changes to the plat. DORSET SQUARE ASSOCIATES - RETAEL BUILDING - MARKET STREET - FINAL PLAT AND DESIGN REVIEW -The applicant should revise the plan so that the spacing between street lights is approximately 80' as required by the May 25°i, 1999 Findings of Fact and Decision. -The existing dumpster storage fencing should be shown as constructed. -The proposed road should be shown as 40' in width. MAZUR - ENCLOSE DECK - VARIANCE -This expansion is not justified as an alteration of a non -complying structure under Section 26.002 of the zoning regulations because it does not meet the zoning requirements. -Expansion of this structure does not meet the criteria for a variance: 1) There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to this particular property. 2) Expansion of this structure is not necessary to enable reasonable use of this property. 3) The applicant is creating the hardship by proposing to expand a non -complying structure in violation of the zoning regulations. 4) The authorization of a variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would it 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 of the zoning regulations and of the plan. DORSET LAND COMPANY - SITE MODIFICATIONS TO HOTEL - REVISED FINAL PLAT -The applicant should submit details of the exterior lighting (cut -sheets). !y L,4r,� I"_ �11 , 40 IL • c -..,tw,a"+�i . _..Dht.�i' � � � _ .. ._ -- _ - �. _ a•.. -_,ICJ Rup Frun� ."zur 52��: S:, `3 e-mail: ail: Il il..a��.l��i ,+ill,•/, ."._(�t�r r. 'rin K bv-7k �'�@cdKd �'rle�►- ca...dd.+-rah bviii' to 19ko r4LA-1^In`7 �gst-c ( Sz- e Yl �JX�- p a 0 e C0ve,ea/c IOsed pe.r� l� 4-o bt added I'P1 I oV, lG X -Za CzVeC, cxI's e << 11 t! hLct10ae� FROM : City of So. B FAX NO. : 1 802 G58 47413- Aug. 30 1999 02:35PM P1 -keN. Fr�nh ,�su�ur 52 G - A ' C(iyt/t"illonitin��lit gdli rv(°.rr-rn ApOica6e to DeWapnient Rcwiew Board 5 Cli s Omhcita Use APPLICATION HEARWG DATE U FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT �S Nsmoc of applloaas(s) YU 4 Z V 1^ Addreaa S� a r t l e tf i3 �t y � Tesi�i�no (�' o :z) Co_5 — 3 9 7 5 ted by Lmdowner Va Y1 K - -- M a Y� "* j location and docriptianofproperty LO-t-Z O C-Q G r�-ICtI'(+ZeCG rd ems! n 3O�S�' P J AdjacMpfopattyowner(s)&Addre" Norlb 1.d1 ��Y �I.QvO� l leSerel uQr� �e��"iJ0.y l�C�, ~ 1 J �ast•• L0-t-31•- F►-c,.Kk+- Ma►-izv"-I'-LlO G ct '- f- 1 P- It 11Q4 Rd . 1 T� y J �2 1 �./ V S O L' �1i1 I-. ol- a '— r c' +- c Y- + D i Q vi C. S Lt vi c�. e , Jrd !� Q r T / E � /' �j �t'1 Ra Typo of WplWatim ebeck one. ( ) appeal from deciNon of A�dmtn�ntar Officer t ) nqueet for a conditional use (/V mueat for a variance I undarstand ft p rotation prooe bon required by Statc lAw (Section 4462 of the Phoning & Development .Act). That a lcpJ edvettiseeoent must appear a minunum of fif ow (t -) days prior to fhc hming and I asm to pay a hearing fee which is to off-60 am cost of heft"$. Danibe nequmL. W C- L J Oy 1 11 1i k e-+-o c—�✓i C I G s e. CL- GvrS''"lifl� Ge�wi �v�ci-ram w�v�c��iv/�creehs Y\_4 a oof "t'"•o V11CLkc- Q�- thr-s- 1-- 5ecLsG�1 Povc�. Other documm:vtstion: JD§ft signature U In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117. Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Development Review Bowd will hold a public bcaiing at the South Burlington Municipal Of5oss. Confeream Room. 575 Darsat Street. South Burlington, Va ummt on Tuerday. , at 7:30 P.M. to oonsider the following: Application of seeking a frorn SaLtion of the South BurluWm Zm=M Regulations. Request is for permission to 08/30/99 14 : 38 TX/RX N0.8218 cp —. O'^-, 01 �' l( 7 0 Rep Frunk52 SG 1"( u54,03 �a = ( SgUARE FOOT bq,27 5� Q ►-�"� �` �ja i`O�c 'FYa v� -I- 0 ru Q Z U K HOUSE B10IUF IN U I L—T I N ADD C- D S Ecol-)D, FLOOR IN I 730 � IN q 0 x ,] 0 ti 19 v 0 vto `. ry tb C� 0 �► - c ' if.Y VAUGHN O C. s BU ON ' F' N 415 r 'rG 0 SUR�� /. /�sfo/- •�otio.y shown hereon i"s 64sed o •-+ a sr-odio sv&vey of "c>bysica/ 7ntOf'UrBS /CLAN SA(01/V//VG found Z'O/VE L//VE a/v .0.470/0ERTY 0/ 2 The /02.s C`va7`ou, was esfa6/fished by `DWQ)fD / L . /j/ /57 /N iri7`er,�o%f�jh ba'7`ween SevPtO/ Fyro�/rrd L-• [-/ Hu �f e/evofior�3 dc-/errriir,�o 4y u�iacJ �x,�r',.r✓ MAP y R CONZEL/1iAN wOri'/' t/�vo 1`icn 4S O bancl� rr�or/C . .'3. fto�orrJty /fines c: reD basted oF, �iiysicgi Z3/��ZZ-7-7'_ rj 3AK C�vid�rrca oii d dew d drPrri�nsio.�s . C n ,4']�//-� y. Th/o oJon doas nor c cafarm 7`o r�gvir�IMOWt-s (,f Tr/e 27, C%7cy�y`pt �� I/.S./9, SCALE AWN GREEN MOUNTAIN DRAWN /".ZO+ •_i ins 11 U. s. - NOR-F AST SUPPLY CORP. October 11, 1979 Mr. Edward Austin 301 Swift Street South Burlington, Vermont 054U1 Re: Zoning variance, lot 1, Bartlett Bay Road Dear Mr. Austin: �. Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, October 22, 1979 at 5:00 Y.M. to con- sider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to be in attendance. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Ufficer RW/mcg lot, "0000 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Our. llnoton Zoning Regulations ands, Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A.-the South Burlington Zoning Board 61 Adlust- ment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices, Conference Room,-1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, October 22, 1171, at 5:0D P.M. to consider the following: 1. Appeal of The Williston Corpo- ration d.b.a. Ray's Home seeking ap. proval, under Section 13.50, Filling with earth products of the Sou"ur- lington Zoning Regulations.- Request Is for permission to excavate an area 20'x175' no more than three feet In depth and transfer the fill elsewhere on the some -lot, iocated at 3064 Williston Road. 2. Appeal of Swiss Fondue Pot, Inc. seeking a variance, from Sec- 4Pion 13.00, Nonconforming struc- res S, Section ILOD Dimensional re-; quirements of the South Burlington' Zoning Regulations. Request Is for Permission toconstruct two 4'x1' en-, tronce fovers to a building non-con-1 forming to the setback requirement and a 4'x3D' addition to the north side of the building to within six and one half (6.5) feet of the side property line, at 1242 Shelburne Road. 3. Appeal of South Burlington Re- alty Corporation seeking approval, under Section 5.10, Conditional use and ;SecttOn' ij.0D Dimeosionolr re- quirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request Is for 'Permission to construct O 50'x)00' building to within thirty seven .{37) 1 Meet of the required front yard and �fifteen (15) feet ofnortherlyside: yard,AO be occupied as a wholesale - business, also requiring a variance from Section 13.40 off-street parking, request to set-off twelve (12) parking spaces, .4oCated at 60 Son Remo Drive. e. Appeal of Maurice E. Paquette seeking a variance, from Section 11.00, Dimensional requirements (subsections ILOD1) Of the South Bur. i lington Zoning Regulations. Request Is for permission to construct a e'Fi'x U' addition to within forty two and one half 142.6) feet of the re- oulred front Yard, at 165 Dorset, Street. S. Appeal of Edward Austin & f Mary Conzelmon seeking a variance, from Section 13.00, Nonconforming uses and structures of the South Bur- lington Zoning Regulations. Request :Is for permission to remodel an ex- Isfing summer cottage and add a dormer to second floor,'structure Is located to within thirty eight 138)f tee/ of high water mark along Loke Chomploln, lot No. 1, Bartlett Gov Rood. SOUTH BURLINGTON 70HING NOTICE Correction for Zoning Notice Published October S, 1171 1 Following omM*d: •. Appeal of Helen Fernandez seek- Ing a variance from Section 11.00, Dimensional requirements and Sec- tion 11.e0 Existing lots of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Re- f quest is for permission to construct a 20, x 24' single family dwelling to within fifteen (15) feet of the re - of the quirod front rthe Iv slde Yard, eight (t t ofeet of southerly side yard on a lot contain- Ing 2AS square feet with thirty three feet frontage. at 70 Central Avenue. Robert M. Martineau, Chairman South Burlington Zoning board of Adiustment October 10. 11M s NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance, decision of administrative officer. Property Owner 4 /7')Cc Wroperty location & description �CcZ k,11Qo C.c•��c Utz Variance of Section , (number) (title of section) ea Cgv'\ VC'r+ S r IC001.. i >uL.o t_e'5 &"(_ a1 I under the regular meetings are held twice a month on Mo day at 5:00 p.m. at the City Hall, Conference Room. The legal advertise- ment must appear in the Burlington Free Press a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing, I agree to pay a fee of $30.00 which fee is to off -set the costs of advertising and the hearing. Hearing Date ffigiiaturb of Appe ant --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on , , at to consider the day of week) (Month and date (time) following: Appeal of ." r •✓ �i �,,,s _ . �,�,��, �,ry �� seeking Mm Section �'. " .., • ,, , �.,�, , F z�. �/. , , , , , ,, , , �, '• of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to J r �< 0_ t t C.-L^,f_.L (!� / �r ,_ / �. c" � r K. �f w;J• �.,C. - G. / •. _ /� ry ..L f. e "�/, ;� t y t; .� �� / `�•'"�' ? t`..••,�- .��.• /^"""""ram..`»'' /*. �'`' � �,..�.r..,` ' PRESENTATION PROCEEDURES FOR APPELLANTS TO THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT _Thee Zoning Board Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body haveempowered force hear appeals to the Zoning regulations. These regulations the petitioner to ana—effect of law. It is the responsibility of you, present•your documented arguments as to why the Board should grant a variance in your case. The Board has little discretionary power and each of the following five criteria must be met before the Board can grant a variance. Not.one - three or four but all five of the following facts must be found by the Board before a variance can be granted. Please come prepared to present all the facts necessary for the Board to make an_ - objective and intelligent decision.. (Refer to Sec. 4468 of -the Planning and Development Act of 1969 for further clarification). 1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is gocated; 2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no 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 necessary to -enable the reasonable use of the',' property; 3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; 4. That the variance, if authorized, will 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; and .5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent. the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. November 13, 1979 Mr. Edward Austin 301 Swift Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Austin: Be advised that the South Burlington Board of Adjustment has granted approval of your request for a zoning variance. The Board will issue formal findings at a later date. This variance will expire six (6) months from the date of approval. a- ", This office will issue a zoning permit upon your request. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg SOUTH B �INGTON ZONING BOARD OF IUSTY—EENT Findings in accordance with Section 1+-468 of the Planning & Development Act a (1) That there are unique physical circumstainces or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or; exceptional topographical -or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zon'_ng regulations in e neighborhood or district i-n which the property =- is located; (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no 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 thIF re necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; (3) That such un-ne essary hardship has not been created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will 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 d-trimental to tr,e public welfare; and 0 r (5) That the variance, if authorized, will reeDresent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the D1a-n. , -Appeal Date nppe11ant �O.VLc�/Jl.�i►� Vote: Yes No Sign List findings below: 2. 3 FRAN( MAZUR BARTLETT SAY I SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 015401 10/1 4/79 Mr. Dick Ward Zoning Administrator South Burlington, Vt. 10501 Dear Dick: Thank you for your letter of October 9,1979 which included a Free Press notice showing that the use of the structure on lot#1 In Bartlett Bay will change from a summer dwelling unit to a year round structure. Ely wife and I have no objections to the proposed changes in the structure. We do, however, have artobjeetion concerning the owners intent to use our driveway on a year round basis. Currently the owners of lot 11 do not have a legal easement to use the driveway in its present location. Their property borders the Bartlett Bay load on the Northeast corner providing them with direct access and egress to Bartlett Bay lid. without using the driveway in question. In fact,that was their entrance years ago. The city wants to re-claim the driveway origi- nally deeded to us to allow lotJ1 to use it year round. My wife and I request that the city reconstruct the driveway in the original area between lot,Y1 and 10031 . We also re- quest that lot31 be regraded and trees removed from the west side of the drive be trans- planted to 10 031 on the east of the new drive. Since the newly constructed drive will be, a city owned road we expect it to be maintained (graded and plowed) by the city. This issue has been outstanding since May when it was presented to the city manager and then the city council by the owners of lot41 and myself. In granting your disposition on FRANK MAZUR BARTLETT SAY $OUTH BURLINGTON,V4RMONT 05401 a zoning variance, please take action to rec- tify our concern first. This proposal should in no way be construed as an objection to the private rights of the owners of lot,#1's to maintain or improve their property but it is to be understood that we feel that all parties should be fair, impartial and non-beligerent in negotiating a mutually agreeable arrangement in regard to the placement and use of the driveway. We would like these comments entered into the record at your hearing on October 22, 1979• crank F;c Mary Mazur a