HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-06-01 - Decision - 0004 Prouty Parkway#VR-06-01
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
GEORGE & RUTH WELLS — 4 PROUTY PARKWAY
VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-06-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
George & Ruth Wells, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking a variance
from Section 13.04(A)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The
request is to allow an 8'x8' addition to an existing detached accessory structure to
project three (3) feet into the required five (5) foot setback, 4 Prouty Parkway. The
Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 5, 2006. The applicants
were 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
1) The applicants are seeking a variance from Section 13.04(A)(4) of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is to allow an 8'x8'
addition to an existing detached accessory structure to project three (3) feet into
the required five (5) foot setback, 4 Prouty Parkway.
2) The proposed shed has already been built; thus the property is in violation of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
3) The owners of record of the subject property are George & Ruth Wells.
4) The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District.
5) The plan submitted consists of a hand drawn plan showing the applicant's
property.
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
- 1 -
#VR-06-01
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 subject property does not meet this requirement. The construction of a shed at the
required 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.
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 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 applicant constructed
the shed in a location which violates the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
(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 variance, if authorized, would not 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.
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. The subject property is 10,000 SF in area. There is a great
deal of land available on the lot with which to place the shed that would be in compliance
with the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
-2-
#VR-06-01
1�7x�1�yC�7J1
Motion by , seconded by
to approve Variance Application # -06-01 of George & Ruth ells.
Mark Behr — yea na /abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — ea/abstain/not present
John Dinklage — yea/ a abstain/not present
Roger Farley — yea/ /abstain/not present
Eric Knudsen — yea/ abstain/not present
Peter Plumeau — yea/ a abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — yea na abstain/not present
Motion failed by a vote of 0- l -0
Signed this > day of -�—L 2006, b
� Yam- Y
John Dinklage, Chair
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).
-3-