The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCU-05-11 - Decision - 0068 Bartlett Bay RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING PETER D. GALBRAITH - 68 BARTLETT BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-05-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Peter D. Galbraith, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations to construct a retaining wall approximately 16' x 97' at 68 Bartlett Bay, along Lake Champlain. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 5, 2005. The applicant was present at the meeting. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The applicant is seeking conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations to construct a retaining wall approximately 16' x 97' at 68 Bartlett Bay, along Lake Champlain. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Peter D. Galbraith. 3. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. 4. The plan submitted is entitled, "Panoramic Landscaping Panton, Vermont So. Burlington Residence", dated 6/6/05. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use 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 not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Lakeshore district is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and minimal setbacks. The district encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to .year round residences. The proposed retaining wall will not affect the stated purpose of the Lakeshore District. 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. In a memo dated 6/9/05, the City Engineer noted that the applicant's plan was acceptable. (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 proposal does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposed retaining wall shall adhere to Section 12(D)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, governing all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The reconstruction of pre-existing structures 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 April 24, 2000. The proposed retaining wall meets this criterion. (b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer to the applicable high water elevation than the closest point of the existing structure. The proposed retaining wall meets this criterion. (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 proposed retaining wall meets this criterion. -2- (d) An erosion control plan for construction must be submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The plan submitted by the applicant was designed by a professional landscaping firm and does not detail the erosion control plans. The regulations require that a licensed engineer detail the erosion controls. (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. This criterion is being met. The proposed retaining wall shall also adhere to Section 12(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, governing water -oriented development. (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The applicant has proposed a retaining wall composed of concrete blocks with the look of stone. The actual materials are not in compliance with the criterion. Their appearance is in keeping with the goal of the criterion. The Development Review Board should discuss the proposed materials, with the knowledge that such approval may set a precedent. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. When construction is complete, the proposed retaining wall will actually deter erosion better than the existing retaining wall. (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the Lakeshore. The proposed retaining wall is more aesthetically pleasing than the existing retaining wall. (d) 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. This criterion is being met. 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: a) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. -3- b) Warning systems, fire controls,. and other safeguards. c) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting, d) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions on the proposed project. DECISION Motion by Larry Kupferman, seconded by Chuck Bolton, to approve Conditional Use Application #CU-05-11 of Peter D. Galbraith, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown using the proposed textured block wail system on the plans submitted by the applicant, as amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. 3. Prior to issuance of the zoning permit, an erosion control plan for construction must be submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction to protect the associated surface water, and approved by the Stormwater Superintendent. 4. Pursuant to Section 17.04(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of this decision. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain/not present Chuck Bolton — yea/nay/abstain/not present John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea/nay/abstain/not present Larry Kupferman — yea/nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0 Signed this day of July 2005, by ' John Dinklage, Chair J Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). -5-