Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_159 Long Drive_Zigmund PresentationAppeal of Permit ZP-20-232 By Beth Zigmund I maintain I am a “person of interest” under Section 4465(b)(3) of VT Statute Title 24, Chapter 117, Subchapter 011 (appeals): (3) A person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property that is the subject of any decision or act taken under this chapter, who can demonstrate a physical or environmental impact on the person’s interest under the criteria reviewed, and who alleges that the decision or act, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms of the plan or bylaw of that municipality. Development of Long Drive Property may result in physical or environmental impacts such as: -Noise -Light pollution -Adverse aesthetic impacts LOT 6 My Property Appeal of Permit ZP-20-232 1.The plan drawing for the house does not match the site plan: The plan drawing for the house clearly shows a patio that encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area. 2.The provided Front Elevation drawing cannot represent the proposed home when compared with the Site Plan. 3.The developer was not adhering to the terms of the Tree Preservation Plan for the Long Drive Development; therefore the Permit should never have been issued. 1. The plan drawing for the house does not match the site plan. The proposed patio encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area. Detail from Site Plan Drawing Red arrow shows proposed boundary of patio shown on Site Plan Drawing. The boundary of the proposed patio/hardscaping does not encroach on the Tree Preservation Area. 2. The proposed patio encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area. Detail from House PlanDetail from Site Plan Proposed Pool 2. The proposed patio encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area. Detail from House PlanDetail from Site Plan Proposed Pool The drawings do not represent the same plan. The patio on the House Plan (right detail) clearly extends beyond what is depicted on the Site Plan (left detail) and encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area when shown at a similar scale. 2. The proposed patio encroaches on the Tree Preservation Area. 2. The front elevation drawing cannot represent the proposed home. Front Elevation Drawing shows a three-bay garage on the right side of the house as it faces the proposed driveway (red rectangle). 3. The front elevation drawing cannot represent the proposed home. 3. The front elevation drawing cannot represent the proposed home. Site Plan shows porch on right side of house (red rectangle). 3. The front elevation drawing cannot represent the proposed home. The Site and House plans clearly do not represent the same home. 3. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. With all due respect to staff comments that, “the Board is not require to arbitrate complaints pertaining to the applicant’s construction activities, including those pertaining to compliance with the approved permits,” I believe my first point is relevant given that Permit ZP-20-232 should never have been issued unless and until compliance with the Tree Preservation Plan was verified, as demonstrated on the following slides. From Page 3 of Exhibit 51 of submitted materials, entitled, “Tree Preservation Plan.” 1. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. From Page 3 of Exhibit 51 of submitted materials, entitled, “Tree Preservation Plan.” 1. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. From Page 4 of Exhibit 51 of submitted materials, entitled, “Tree Preservation Plan.” 1. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. Photo shows extensive excavation of Lot 6 and large backhoe. Only red tape is in place to demarcate Tree Preservation Area, as opposed to required fencing. The backhoe is immediately adjacent to the tree preservation area, clearly within 100 feet of trees. More photos and video available upon request. 1. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. From Page 6 of Tree Preservation Handbook (not a numbered exhibit – immediately precedes Exhibit 51 of submitted materials entitled, “Tree Preservation Plan.” 1. The developer did not adhere to the Tree Preservation Plan when excavation commenced, therefore the Permit should never have been issued. Retained tree #20 was not protected, since excavation started long prior to placement of required fencing and signs demarcating the Tree Preservation Area. Additional Comments Points 1. and 2. raise the possibility that the plans were not thoroughly reviewed prior to issuance of the permit, calling into question: •Whether impervious coverage percentages provided by the applicant are accurate. The patio shown on the House Plan is clearly larger than what is shown on the Site Plan. •Whether other City-mandated construction requirements have been met. For example, have elevation requirements been met, since the House Plan clearly does not represent the house intended for construction.