HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-10-01 - Decision - 0042 Airport RoadVR-10-01
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
CHASE, THOMAS — 42 AIRPORT ROAD
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #VR-10-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Thomas Chase, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, is seeking a variance to allow a building to be
used as a single family dwelling, 42 Airport Road.
The building is currently being used as a residential dwelling; thus the property is in violation of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
The Board held a hearing on this application on December 7, 2010. The applicant represented himself.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands 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 appellant is seeking miscellaneous approval is seeking a variance to allow a building to be used
as a single family dwelling, 42 Airport Road.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Chase Properties and Investments.
3. The subject property is located in the C1-R12 Zoning District.
4. The plan submitted is entitled, "Chase Properties & Development, LTD Airport Drive So.
Burlington, VT 05403," prepared by Neagley & Chase Construction Co, dated 7/08/03.
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.
#MS-10-12
The subject property does not meet this requirement. The building has already been constructed and its
use is not dependent on the shape, size, or exceptional topographical features of the property. The
property in question has dimensions of 120' x 200' and is a fair-sized lot. It is regular in shape with no
exceptional topographical features as the lot is relatively flat.
(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.
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 was previously approved as a
commercial building, which is a reasonable use of the property.
(3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Any hardship that exists is being created by the appellant, as the appellant wishes to change the use to
one that is not permitted in compliance with the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The
Board notes that there are 31 permissible uses of the property without the need of a variance.
(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.
The Board finds it possible that the variance, if authorized, would alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. This area is dedicated to commercial uses. Mixing in a single family home will create
compatibility of uses issues.
(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.
The Board finds that the variance, if authorized, would not represent the minimum variance that will
afford relief or represent the least deviation possible from the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations. As already noted, there are 31 other permissible uses for this land.
DECISION q
Motion by )� �' , seconded by &A LQ ��mtl , to approve
Variance Appeal #VR-10-01 of Thomas Chase.
Mark Behr — ye na abstain/not present
Matthew Binning am — yea/nay/abstai not rese
John Dinklage — ye nay abstain/not present
Roger Farley — ye a abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — ye na bstain/not present
Michael Sirotkin — e na abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — ye na /abstain/not present
2
I
#MS-10-12
Motion failed by a vote of D - tv - d , e variance request is denied.
Signed this e da 2010, by
Mark Behr, Chairman
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontiudiciM.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.