Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-87-0000 - Decision - 1116 Shelburne RoadSTATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DECISION & FINDING OF FACT On the 27th day of April , 1987 , the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment heard evidence regarding the appeal of Lowell T. Spillane, 1116 Shelburne Road based on the following facts and findings: 1) 2) A Significant Character of improvement over previous plan. area set by other variance from canopys. 14, .: 3) New plan addresses concerns from previous plan (1-12-87) minimizes any adverse impact. 4) Relocation of not feasible. existing building has been determined to be 5) 6) Based upon the above stated facts and findings the appellant's request for a variance&XX":RKi4 WF use is hereby RTPrnyedAM*&. Stipulations: that a bond in the amount of $5000 be posted prior to issuing a sct eWitdilz1l@f1 vi, t' a i rmAn Y ' " of the MAY 11 I%t South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment I1ME L'CLERKS OFFICE SOUTH BUHLINGTON ZONING I30AitD OF ADJUSTM%114T Findings in accordance with Section 1446P of the Planning & Development Act (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 the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations ihe neighborhood or district in which the property is located; (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 regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; [? ' (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and F,�" � (5) -!! That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. Date M Appellant 14 Vote: Yes No List findings below:+ 1. 2. 3 Appeal # Sign ..._ . I SOUTH HUH LINGTON ZONING BOA1. " U U. ik!)J UST;^- `T "indings in accordance with Section 1+46P of the 01.rtnning & OoVelopment Act (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 the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; jg�-' (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 regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; (—'j (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; n- (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and Er (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. Date Appellant LC)u't1l 7- S O2. `l/JAvF Vote: Yes F�- No Q List findings below: Appeal # Sifn L , "Y✓12.d!/� � / �-Ci � � ��iV S � w v L� fi�� .e r% GEQ SOUTH I3UHLINGTON MINING BOA"D 0!-' All.JUS'IX-NT Findings in accordance with Section 1446E of the Plannini, & Development Act (1 ) That there are unique physical circumstances or cone! 1 tions , including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located- (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 regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 1�'11 (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant_; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; an<-1:31 (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. a Appeal # Date C%i ��%v✓/ J % Appellant a Vote: Yes No List findings below: 1. !- 2. 6- a 0 1 SOUTH I3URLINGTON ZONING BOA1,A) OF AllJUSTX'--. T indings in accordance with Section 414-6A of the Planning & Development. Act (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 the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; 0 (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 regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and R- (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. P- Date Appellant Vote: Yes No Q List findings below: is W 3. a Appeal # 4Z.1 S i g n 4,k..- o