The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMS-09-10 - Decision - 0058 Bartlett Bay Road#MS-09-10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ALEKA WYNKOOP - 58 BARTLETT BAY ROAD MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-09-10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Aleka Wynkoop, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval to expand the footprint of a single family dwelling by 126 square feet, 58 Bartlett Bay Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 19, 2010. Donna Miller represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking miscellaneous approval to expand the footprint of a single family dwelling by 126 square feet, 58 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. The application was received on December 24, 2009. 3. The owners of record of the subject property are Larry Gene & Nancy Jane Hendricks 4. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "58 Bartlett Bay Road", prepared by Studioblue Architecture, dated 12/23/09, last revised on 1/12/10. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements LN Zoning District Re uired Pro osed 4 Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF 9,120SF 4 Max. Building Coverage 20% 20% 4 Max. Overall Coverage 40% 30% Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 20 ft + Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 1<10 ft. � Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 1 >30 ft. 4 zoning compliance 4 pre-existing non-compliance not made worse by this application The maximum height for all structures shall be no more than twenty-five feet above the average pre -construction grade adjoining such structure. I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Wyncoop_MS0910_ffd.doc #MS-09-10 The applicant has stated that the existing building is 267' and that the proposed addition will be 21'2". The applicant has submitted an elevation of the proposed structure. Therefore, the proposal is within the limitations of the district. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards: The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. - The proposed project is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District is 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. It is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, which is "to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Homes Road. " The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. The proposed project will not adversely affect municipal services. This addition will have no impact on educational facilities. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. The proposed project will not have an adverse affect on the character of the neighborhood or zoning district that this property falls within. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. It is extremely unlikely that this proposed addition will generate any additional traffic. Any traffic that is generated by this addition will be negligible in its effect on the neighborhood. 2 I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Wyncoop_MS0910_ffd.doc i #MS-09-10 (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposed addition meets all of the dimensional standards of the zoning district. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed project will not likely affect renewable energy resources. 09 General public health and welfare. The proposed project will not likely have an adverse affect on general public welfare. Pre -Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park This proposed expansion shall be reviewed under Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR which includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met: a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April24, 2000. The existing structure meets this criterion. 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 expansion is no closer to the lake than the existing structure. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. The home was 1367 square feet prior to April 24, 2000. The applicant constructed a 353 square foot addition in 2002 and is proposing an addition of 126 square feet as part of this application. The previous and proposed expansion meet this criterion: the total of the expansion is approximately 35% of the footprint 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 applicant has submitted a sufficient and well -planned erosion control plan. 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. I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Wyncoop_MS0910_ffd.doc #MS-09-10 The plan indicates limited existing landscaping on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove three existing trees from the property which are listed as dead or hazardous. The applicant is not proposing to add any additional trees or shrubs. DECISION Motion by Gayle Quimby, seconded by Roger Farley, to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-10 of Aleka Wynkoop subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. 5. Any trees removed shall be replaced with suitable landscaping with the concurrence of Staff and the City Arborist. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain/not present Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain/not present John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea/nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/not present Bill Stuono — yea/nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0 Signs ), by Please note: You have Ke right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). 4 I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Wyncoop_MS0910_ffd.doc #MS-09-10 challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). 11Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Wyncoop MS0910_ffd.doc