The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0077 Black Lantern LaneZoning Administration City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Gentlemen: In regard to the legal notice dated August 27, 1983: Appeal of William and Erlois Gilbertson seeking a Variance from section 9.10. Request to operate a rooming house with a maximum of 6 (six) people from a residential dwelling unit at 77 Black Lantern bane. The undersigned oppose this appeal. v ADDRESS 44Nk. 'Ps '194 Ne K �h�iG'TE� "J 141 , ? 6 xg;ooz 41` N aJ/ 'Y -Y l �J SA ti-P --�\&,Q\ v r., as 9 Ht'1( IJ�e IA -LP 4vt-� ! C Gc 2 '-A9 S 147- A�,2 Zoning Administration City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Gentlemen: In regard to the legal notice dated August 27, 1983: Appeal of William and Erlois Gilbertson seeking a Vari�:.ace from section 9.10. Request to operate a rooming house with a maximum of 6 (six) people from a residential dwelling unit at 77 Black Lantern bane. The undersigned oppose this appeal. NAME ADDRESS -IN m (16� � OX4�u gD QL#ck c.9NI-r .✓ c.A�� klo ✓3 GILBERTSON 77 Black Lantern Lane Area zoned R-4 District Rooming and boarding house is conditional use, Section 11.20 sub section 11.209 Prohibited in R-4 District Section 9.10 Permitted uses - use variance required Section 21.108 defines "that a group of not more than five persons not related as a single housekeeping unit" Proposed three family members and three tenants Dwelling is a two level structure with 4 bedrooms, basement area one room Should Board consider approval a stipulation as to the number of tenants is requested by the staff I I i i I I I � lk- I '� I I I i I I I I � I I ' j I I i I I I ! I 4�S October 4, 1983 Mr. George Harrington 81 Black Lantern Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Zoning appeal of Gilbertson Dear Mr. Harrington: Be advised that the Zoning Board of Adjustment will continue the hearing of Mr. William Gilbertson on Yonday, October 17, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. at the City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. As the spokesiran for the neighborhood I request that you inform your neighbors of this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg October 18, 1983 Mr. William Gilbertson 77 Black Lantern Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Gilbertson: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment has ruled that: ,"the five unrelated people living at 77 Black Lantern Lane constitutes a single housekeeping unit." Therefore your request for additional people is not an issue an is hereby withdrawn. The record will reflect the action taken by the Board. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Rw/mcg October 4, 1983 Mr. William Gilbertson 77 Black Lantern Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Gilbertson: Be advised that the Zoning Board of Adjustment will continue your hearing at its next regular meeting. This meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 17, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. at the City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Very truly, Richard Ward, ?mining Administrative Officer RW/mcg October 4, 1983 Mr. Charles Snyder 72 Black Lantern Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Zoning appeal of Gilbertson Dear Mr. Snyder: Be advised that the Zoning Board of Adjustment will continue the hearing of ilr. William Gilbertson on Monday, October 17, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. I request that you inform your neighbors interested in this appeal. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Aduti.nistrative Officer 14a/mcg I SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. 0. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0986 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL September 30, 1983 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Boarding Houses Dear Dick: (802) 862-64S1 (802) 863-2857 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL You have recently asked for a clarification of the definitions of family and of rooming and boarding house as contained in the City's zoning ordinance. This request arises in the context of an individual who is using his home to take in three or four boarders, in addition to his wife and blood related members of his house- hold which now total four people. The property is located in the R-4 zone. This zone does not allow boarding houses as a permitted or conditional use. Boarding houses are a conditional use in the commercial districts. The apparent conflict arises between the definition of family which includes in part: "...or a group of not more than five persons who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit."; and the definition of boarding house which provides: "Any building where sleeping accommodations and/or meals are provided for compensation for more than one and less than ten persons." In my view the question comes down to whether or not the individuals in the household which we are discussing can in any fashion be categorized as "living together as a single housekeeping unit." If they can be so categorized, it is my opinion that they meet the definition of family and are not a boarding house. Mr. Richard Ward - 2 - September 30, 1983 As a general background for my position, zoning laws are in derogation of common law rights and are to be strictly construed. Thus, I feel that if there are two possible readings which allow for different results, I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the property owner. However, the definition of rooming and boarding house is specific in categorizing them on the basis of sleeping accommodations and/or meals being provided for compensation for more than one and less than ten persons. Since the ordinance specifically defines rooming and boarding house, we are not in the general situations de- scribed in the attached sections from Anderson, American Law of Zoning. Therefore, I think the actual analysis comes down to a factual consideration. If the individuals are living together as a "family" (living together as a single housekeeping unit) they would not be precluded by the defi- nition of rooming and boarding house. However, if it appears that they are not living as a single housekeeping unit but are, in fact, maintaining a compensation relationship for accommodation and/or meals, then they would not constitute a family and would not be allowed in an area which does not allow boarding houses. In conclusion, it is my view that if the owner provides more than one person with sleeping accommodations or meals on a compensation basis, then that situation is a boarding house unless the individuals can demonstrate that they are living together as a single housekeeping unit and are not involved in any of the usual monetary characteristics of a boarding house. If you would like any additional information, please call the office. Ver ruly yours, Jo ph F. Obuchowski JFO/gmt Enclosure TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.34 make material alterations to accommodate his daughter and her family, and for entertaining friends, a New Hampshire court said: "We cannot, ... subscribe to the defendant's contention that the lessee's proposed use, being merely for the enter- tainment and accommodation of his relatives and friends, is a use customarily incident to the occupation of a single- family residence . . . . So far as we are aware, it is quite uncommon for owners or lessees of such residences to pro- vide separately heated and separately wired apartments for the use of their visiting relatives and guests."" § 9.34. —Rentals. Clearly, a landowner in a single-family residential district may not convert his house to accommodate two or more families." Where the owner rents a portion of his home to another, and continues to occupy a part, two-family occupancy may result. Even the rental of rooms may offend the limitation to use as a single-family dwelling. The notion of singleness of use implied by the term "single- family dwelling" was clearly articulated by a California court, which said: "The word `single' precludes the segregation of certain portions or rooms for rental. It forecloses multiple occu- pancy of certain portions of the unit for rental as a segre- gated part, or parts, of the unit. `Dwelling' means the whole of the premises used for living purposes. It must include the use of the common rooms, such as the kitchen, dining room, living room, if any, by all occupants. It refers to, and reinforces, the concept of singular use, as opposed to multi- ple. The 'dwelling' callilGt be fragmentized into broken bits of housing for rental return. `Family' signifies living as a family; it inhibits the breaking up of the premises into segregated units. It does not necessarily compel the use of the unit by more than one person."49 The cases do not suggest that every rental of rooms offends a 47. Sullivan v Anglo-American Inv. 49. Brady v Superior Court of San Trust, Inc. 89 NH 112, 193 A 225 Mateo County, 200 Cal App 2d 69, 19 (1937). Cal Rptr 242 (1962). 48. § 9.29, supra. 177 § 9.34 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING restriction to single-family use. If the rental of rooms is clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling for a single-family dwelling, there is no violation of the ordinance." No violation was detected where an unmarried woman allowed a man, his wife, and three children to rent her basement and live with her,s' but where a man who was living separate from his wife rented the dwelling in which he was living, to a family which occupied the greater part of it, the rental was found to be the main use and the ordinance was held to be violated.62 Where the owner of a single-family dwelling rents a number of rooms, or provides room and board for a number of persons, the courts may inquire whether the main use of the structure is for a single-family dwelling, or for a use which amounts to a business. The Supreme Court of Maine stated the distinction in clear language. "A family living together in a house as a home is none the less a family, because incidentally there are boarders in the same house, and perchance eating at the same table. But a boarding house is none the less a boarding house, when used as such, because the boarding house keeper and his wife and children live in it while the business of keeping a boarding house is being carried on. ... The test is whether the petitioner's tenant occupied the house as a home for himself and his wife and children, and incidentally kept boarders also, or whether he occupied it as a place for carrying on the business of keeping boarders, .... Under this test, neither the size of the house, nor the number of the boarders are of importance, except as evidence that may have weight in determining which is the principal use for which the build- ing is occupied."" On this principle, the courts have held that an ordinance 5o. Southampton Civic Club v For the same reason, the people resid- Couch, 159 Tex 464, 322 SW2d 516 ing on the owner's premises were not (1958). "lodgers" as they had exclusive pos- 51. Carroll v Arlington County, 186 session of their dwelling areas. Mer- Va 575, 44 SE2d 6, 172 ALR 1169 cer Island v Steinmann, 9 Wash App (1947). 479, 513 P2d 80 (1973). Uncertainty as to permitted uses is 52. Berlin v Christiansen, 89 NJ a question of law. A facility contain- Super 543, 215 A2d 593 (1965). ing three distinct living areas does not constitute a single housekeeping 53. Robbins v Bangor Ry. & Electric unit of five or less unrelated people. Co. 100 Me 496, 62 A 136 (1905). 178 TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.35 which restricts a district to single-family use, but says nothing about roomers or boarders, prohibits the operation of a rooming - house or boardinghouse in the district as the principal use of a dwelling. Such an ordinance does not prohibit the incidental use of a dwelling for the renting of a room or the provision of room and board." Violation of the single-family restriction has been found where a single-family dwelling was used to house seven roomers, four apartments, and a real-estate office,° where space was rented to a commercial artist and a manufacturer's repre- sentative,"" and where a dwelling was equipped to care for 20 bed patients, served by 4 or 5 nurses."' Difficulties arise when an owner rents living space in an accessory building to a person other than one in his employ. Such use of an accessory building would appear to offend the zoning restrictions where no nonconforming use of the building has been established." § 9.35. —Exclusion of apartments. The validity of ordinances tricts from which apartment lished at an early date" and which established residential dis- houses were excluded was estab- has frequently been reaffirmed.°° 54. Baddour v Long Beach, 279 NY 167, 18 NE2d 18, 124 ALR 1003 (1938), reh den 279 NY 794, 19 NE2d 90, 124 ALR 1010, app dismd 308 US 503, 84 L Ed 431, 60 S Ct 77. 55. Keseling v Baltimore, 220 Md 263, 151 A2d 726 (1959). 56. Davis v Hinton, 374 SW2d 723 (1964, Tex Civ App), error ref n r e. 57. Appeal of Hasley, 151 Pa Super 192, 30 A2d 187 (1943). 58. Collins v Board of Adjustment, 3 NJ 200, 69 A2d 708 (1949). See Clune v Walker, 10 Misc 2d 858, 170 NYS2d 604 (1958), affd 7 App Div 2d 651, 181 NYS2d 186, app den 7 App Div 2d 852,182 NYS2d 347; Mea- dor v Nashville, 188 Tenn 441, 220 SW2d 876 (1949). 59. Euclid v Ambler Realty Co. 272 US 365, 71 L Ed 303, 47 S Ct 114, 54 ALR 1016 (1926). "It is not doubtful that the zoning authorities had power thereunder [Gen City L § 20] to establish residen- tial districts, and from this it follows that ... the common council has the right in a residential district, to pro- mote [welfare, health, and safety] and to protect people desiring to enjoy these conditions by excluding apart- ments or multi -family houses from the given district." MacEwen v New Rochelle, 149 Misc 251, 267 NYS 36 (1933). 60. Wilkins v San Bernardino, 29 Cal 2d 332, 175 P2d 542 (1946); Jacob- son v Wilmette, 403 Ill 250, 85 NE2d 753 (1949); Speroni v Board of Ap- peals, 368 Ill 568, 15 NE2d 302 (1938); Staller v Cranston Zoning Board of Review, 215 A2d 418 (1965, RI); Provi- dence v Stephens, 47 RI 387, 133 A 614 (1926); Moss v Winchester, 1974 Adv Sheets 755, 311 NE2d 555 (1974, Mass). See R. M. Washburn, Apartments 179 I § 13.18 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING Funeral homes have long been regarded as incompatible with a residential neighborhood.' They generate traffic, cause parking problems, and create an atmosphere which is depressing and injurious to residential environment. Accordingly, the occupants s of residential property may be protected from the harm that results from the use of adjacent land as a funeral home. They ' may, for example, be required to locate a certain distance from property used as a residence." Funeral homes may be excluded from residential districts'" or may be permitted only as exceptional or specially permitted uses., It has even been held that a landowner may challenge the establishment- of a funeral home as a nuisance, although it is not excluded from the proposed site by the zoning regulations of the community.19 Variances for funeral homes will be considered in a later section," but it should be noted here that an owner of land in a residential district is entitled to a variance to conduct a funeral t home only upon proof of unnecessary hardship, special circum- stances, or other local equivalent.'" Proof of hardship which will f warrant the granting of such a variance is insufficient where it discloses only that the applicant is conducting a funeral home i around the corner from the proposed site, and that the area is yi zoned to permit gasoline stations, churches, and professional € offices lces.49 § 13.19. Boardinghouses and roominghouses. The paying guest was a familiar feature of residential occu- pancy long before communities were divided into zoning dis- tricts. Senior citizens whose children had married and left the family home rented a spare room to help finance the cost of 43. Jones v Chapel Hill, Inc. 273 App Div 510, 77 NYS2d 867 (1948), motion den 274 App Div 823, 81 NYS2d 279. 44. Heimerle v Bronxville, 168 Misc 783, 5 NYS2d 1002 (1938), affd 256 App Div 993, 11 NYS2d 367. 45. Annotation: Restrictions on lo- cation of undertaking establishment. 165 ALR 1112. 48. Sweet v Campbell, 282 NY 146, 532 25 NE2d 963 (1940). 47. § 15.23, infra. 48. Annotation: Undertaking es- tablishments as subjects of variations and exceptions. 168 ALR 85. 49. Clark v Board of Zoning Ap- peals, 301 NY 86, 92 NE2d 903 (1950), reh den 301 NY 681, 95 NE2d 44, cert den 340 US 933, 95 L Ed 673, 71 S Ct 498. HOME OCCUPATIONS § 13.19 retirement. Widows supplemented their insurance reserves and diluted their loneliness by "taking in" a lodger who paid for his room or his room and board. Providing room and board for pay to a person not a member of the family is clearly a customary use of residential property. It seems equally clear that such use, when it is carried on by a person or family who resides in the dwelling, falls within most definitions of home occupation, pro- vided it remains subordinate to the main use of the dwelling as a family residence. However, the practice of renting a portion of a dwelling, or of providing a person outside the family with both room and board, involves a use sufficiently different from the usual family occupancy that many communities have under- taken to restrict it, and the restrictions have resulted in litiga- tion. Zoning ordinances typically create districts and describe the permitted uses in each. Some ordinances create single-family and other residential zones and do not mention roominghouse or boardinghouse use in any of them. If a property owner in a single-family district, for example, rents space to one or more roomers the question is posed whether this use violates the ordinance. This problem has been discussed at some length in an earlier section,5' so it is sufficient to state briefly that the ordinance is not offended by the rental to a roomer or a boarder unless the rental becomes the dominant use." 50. § 9.34, supra. 51. Berlin v Christiansen, 89 NJ Super 543, 215 A2d 593 (1965). The taking of an occasional boarder has been held not to violate a restric- tive covenant allowing only a first- class dwelling house on the property. Smith v Scoville, 206 App Div 112, 199 NYS 320 (1923). Taking boarders does not violate a covenant against more than two fami- lies. Gallon v Hussar, 172 App Div 393, 158 NYS 895 (1916). However, taking boarders has been held to offend a covenant to limit occupancy to a single family. Mayer v Livingston, 11 Misc 2d 287, 172 NYS2d 45 (1958). A group of persons living together in a dwelling, who share all of the expenses of maintaining and operat- ing the house, are boarders. They do not constitute a family which may occupy a dwelling in a single-family district as of right. Henrietta v Fair- child, 53 Misc 2d 862, 279 NYS2d 992 (1967). Annotation: What is a lodging - house or boardinghouse within provi- sion of zoning ordinance or regula- tion. 64 ALR2d 1167. Lodging or boardinghouse con- ducted as a business, or taking room- ers or boarders as incidental to princi- pal use of premises as a home, as within prohibition of zoning statute or ordinance. 124 ALR 1011. Boarding and rooming houses as subjects of variations and exceptions. 168 ALR 70. 533 § 13.19 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING Many zoning ordinances make specific provision for rooming - houses and boardinghouses. The zoning regulations of Atlanta, Georgia, for example, permit such uses in multiple -dwelling districts,52 but do not mention roominghouses or boardinghouses in listing the uses permitted in higher residential zones. Dayton, Ohio, permits a maximum of two roomers in its most restricted districts.°' Another city ordinance excludes roominghouses from single-family districts where a minimum lot requirement of 75 feet is imposed.°' Still another city regulation excludes rooming - houses from R1 Districts, limits roomers to two in R2 Districts, and permits roominghouses generally in R3 Districts." Some zoning ordinances specifically except roominghouses and board- inghouses from the category of home occupations and make special provision for their location in the less restricted residen- tial districts, or in districts where commercial uses are permit- ted.'" In short, zoning ordinances restrict roominghouses and boardinghouses in a number of different ways. If any theme is observable, it is the mute assumption that roominghouses and boardinghouses are potentially injurious to restricted residential districts and should be severely limited, or confined to less restricted zones. The specific regulation of this use apparently assumes that it should not be allowed in all districts where home occupations may be established as of right. The practice of taking an occasional roomer or boarder is so well established as an accessory residential use that the courts are not quick to classify as a roominghouse or boardinghouse every home which admits a paying guest. The New York Court of Appeals, in Baddour v Long Beach,57 indicated that a zoning regulation which required obedience to restrictive covenants against boardinghouses was not violated by a resident who accepted an occasional roomer or boarder. The court stated the test as follows: s 52. Atlanta, Georgia, Zoning Man- ual, Art XII § 2 (1965). 53. Dayton, Ohio, Zoning Ordinance §§ 2152(5), 2315(5) (1969). 54. Building Zone Ordinance, City of Yonkers, N. Y. § 6A (1961). 55. Zoning Ordinance, City of Ithaca, N. Y. § 7 (1961). 534 56. Zoning Rules and Regulations, City of Syracuse, N. Y., Art 5.3.2-B (1961). 57. 279 NY 167, 18 NE2d 18, 124 ALR 1003 (1938), reh den 279 NY 794, 19 NE2d 90, 124 ALR 1010, app dismd 308 US 503, 84 L Ed 431, 60 S Ct 77, noted 37 Mich L Rev p 992 (1939). HOME OCCUPATIONS § 13.19 "The fact that the property may not be used for the business of keeping roomers and boarders does not bar the occupant from occasionally taking roomers or boarders, upon special considerations, where the practice is merely incidental and accessory to the principal use of the house as a home by the family of the occupant."" While the case does not hold that these uses may not be excluded from certain areas, or limited in terms of the number of roomers or boarders who may be accomodated, it reduces ordinances which purport to exclude boarders entirely by con- struing them as excluding only boardinghouses as primary uses. The question of what constitutes a roominghouse or boarding- house has engaged the attention of the courts on a number of occasions. As discussed at greater length in an earlier section," a fraternity or sorority house is not a use permitted in a single- family residential district because a group of this kind is not a family.° It has also been held that an ordinance which permits boardinghouses and lodginghouses, defined as "any dwelling other than a hotel, where meals, or lodging and meals, for compensation are provided for 5 or more persons," allows a dormitory which houses 29 women students.B1 The court said that while the term "boardinghouse" or "lodginghouse" usually suggests the notion of a dwelling where a family rents part of its space, the dormitory was consistent with the definition included in the ordinance.B2 A boardinghouse or roominghouse is distinguishable from a hotel or a motel, even where the terms are not defined in the 58. Baddour v Long Beach, 279 NY 167, 18 NE2d 18, 124 ALR 1003 (1938), reh den 279 NY 794, 19 NE2d 90, 124 ALR 1010, app dismd 308 US 503, 84 L Ed 431, 60 S Ct 77. Annotation: Lodging or boarding- house conducted as a business, or tak- ing roomers or boarders as incidental to principal use of premises as a home, as within prohibition of zoning statute or ordinance. 124 ALR 1011. 59. § 9.32, supra. 60. Lincoln v Logan -Jones, 120 Neb 827, 235 NW 583 (1931); Pettis v Al- pha Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Pi, 115 Neb 525, 213 NW 835 (1927). 61. St. Louis v Art Publication Soc. 203 SW2d 902 (1947, Mo App). 62. Foundation which applied for a special permit to operate a dwelling for persons of high school age who were alienated from living with their parents, and its proposed beneficiar- ies, were held to be an "association of persons living together in a common dwelling" as those terms were used in subject zoning ordinance authorizing issuance of a special permit for that use. Shuman v Board of Aldermen of Newton, 361 Mass 758, 282 NE2d 653 (1972). 535 § 13.19 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING ordinance.63 These uses are similar, but they may be distin- guished on a rational basis, and hotels may be excluded from a district in which roominghouses are permitted", A large board- inghouse is not necessarily a hotel confined to districts where hotels are permitted. Thus, a boardinghouse equipped to accom- 1 modate 100 guests is not necessarily a hotel. The uses may be distinguished on the basis of the transient character of hotel guests as compared with the more permanent occupancy of boarders." An ordinance which excludes hotels but allows lodg- inghouses may not be used to prevent the construction of build- ings which are capable of use for either purpose." Regulations which exclude two-family homes from a district where roominghouses of any size are permitted have been disap- proved on the ground that they have no relation to the public health, safety, or welfare."' An ordinance which permits boardinghouses is not violated by a nurse who devotes a portion of her home to the housing and care of patients recuperating from illness or surgery." Where boardinghouses are permitted, a home for elderly persons may be maintained," and room and board may be provided for children.'" However, a boardinghouse use does not include the housing, nourishing, and care of 20 to 25 children." An ordi- nance which provides that, as an accessory use, "rooms may be 63. Absent a specific definition of "hotel" or "roominghouse" the court will determine the nature of the use to be one or the other on the basis of the characteristics of the use, includ- ing the customary services furnished to residents. Kraus v Birns, 39 Misc 2d 562, 241 NYS2d 189 (1963). 64. Pierro v Baxendale, 20 NJ 17, 118 A2d 401 (1955). 68. Crain v Louisville, 298 Ky 421, 182 SW2d 787 (1944). A rehabilitation or recovery center for alcoholics, where detoxified alco- holics obtain room and board on a paying and voluntary basis, is a boardinghouse entitled to a certificate of occupancy in a district where boardinghouses are permitted. Beck- man v Grand Island, 182 Neb 840, 157 NW2d 769 (1968). 65. Simmons v Pinsky, 185 Misc 69. Von Housen v Zoning Board of 549, 58 NYS2d 573 (1945). Review, 84 RI 414, 124 A2d 550 (1956). 66. Luedke v Carlson, 73 SD 240, 41 NW2d 552 (1950). 67. Harmon v Peoria, 373 Ill 594, 27 NEW 525 (1940); Merrill v Wheaton, 356 111457, 190 NE 918 (1934). 536 70. Gulfport v Daniels, 231 Miss 599, 97 So 2d 218, 64 ALR2d 1161 (1957). 71. Yonkers v Horowitz, 222 App Div 297, 226 NYS 252 (1928). HOME OCCUPATIONS § 13.20 rented, and table board furnished for not more than four per- sons," does not allow a property owner to rent rooms to seven persons even though no board is provided.72 A zoning ordinance may permit boardinghouses but exclude such use where the guests are mental patients, or it may provide that a boardinghouse which accepts such guests may locate in a certain district only on approval of an administrative board.79 Where a boardinghouse is a permitted use, a health resort may be excluded. The uses are distinguishable in that the latter serves a transient group and presents a greater hazard to a residential neighborhood." § 13.20. Miscellaneous business uses: While purely business uses are excluded from residential districts by simply omitting them from the list of permitted uses, some ordinances specifically exclude business offices in homes located in residential districts.76 Where no mention is made of home business uses, a business office is not authorized by a provision for professional offices. Thus, a business office engaged in enrolling members for a summer camp is a business rather than a professional use.76 Where an ordinance defined business as "the purchase, sale or other transaction involving the handling or disposition of any article, substance or commodity for profit or livelihood, or the ownership or management of office buildings or offices," a physi- cian who wrote a syndicated column and mailed 150,000 pam- phlets per year from his home office was said not to be conduct- 72. Cleveland Heights v Glowe, 45 75. Building Zone Ordinance, City Ohio Ops 337, 59 Ohio L Abs 39, 97 of Yonkers, N. Y. § 4-B-260 (1961). NE2d 226 (1950, App). 73. Kanasy v Nugent, 206 Misc 826, 135 NYS2d 128 (1954), affd 286 App Div 1038, 145 NYS2d 638, app den 1 App Div 2d 681, 148 NYS2d 455. 74. "The primary purpose of a resi- dential district is safe, healthful and comfortable family life rather than the development of commercial in- stincts and the pursuit of pecuniary profits." People v Gold, 6 NYS2d 264 (1938, Sp Sess). 76. New Rochelle v Friedman, 190 Misc 654, 78 NYS2d 681 (1947). Zoning ordinance permitting "home occupation" which did not change the character and use of the building from a residence to a business or industrial establishment, was not a blanket permission to conduct busi- ness on property in a suburban resi- dential district where the home is situated. Kittery v Hoyt, 291 A2d 512 (1972, Me). 537 - - - -- --- - -- --------- - - - - r_ a-q 1 ! - -61 � ! 9 7 7 o%s d p �- - -- --- - -- � ff �/ )�a b,e � S �jcvor'i"�1 - � % 31 �7�a�t l�rn Lon e �o V ur - 13'erng'it' Fa (le� ro Brx-)3,v Scan-T�n - rtc,3yl- S 4ccad -- - - -(f le--rj �q yr -- - - -- -- - -- ---- ------ - -- - -- -- ---- -- ,toA Q _ - _ _ � e r ✓� �orr als No Text . _ ,-----..-- Indicate north DATE ��z�3 JOB -AL- - - I � IL , i I ' , ' ---I {-------+---- , - Z94 - — August 29, 1983 Mr. William Gilbertson 77 Black Lantern Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Gilbertson: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference R=a, 575 Dorset Street., South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 12, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RS/d/mcg SOUTH ZONING OFFICE In accordance with the South Bur- lington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 2e V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold o public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 57S Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 12, 1983, at 5:00 P.M. to consider the following: I. Appeal of Albert J. Reyes seek- Ing approval, from Section 19,35, Removal and filling with earth J Products of the South Burlington Regulations. Request Is for Per- mission to fill a ravine of aPprox- ImotelY 3 acres with 237 feet Iron - tope along Route No. 7, with earth material, located northerly of 1693 Shelburne Rood. 2. Appeal of Paul Cholnlere seek- ing a variance, from Section 19.652, Multiple uses and Section 13.30 Conditional uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to to construct an addition containing 2e90 square feet to an existing ISW square foot structure and occupy said building as a marine sales and service busl- ness In conjunction with o automo- bile sales and service, d.b.a. P.J.'s Auto, 2073 Williston Road. 3. Appeal of Anthony Soclnskl seeking a variance, from Section 19.00, Non -conforming uses and structures of the South Burlington Regulations. Request 1s for per- mission to construct a 32'x60' addl- tlon to the rear of an existing structure, maintaining the easterly side yard at eleven (11) feet on a lot containing approximately 26,000 square feet, at Carl Densmore Company, Inc., 1725 Williston Road. 6. Appeal of William i Erlols Gil- bertson seeking a variance, from Section 9.10, Permitted uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to operate a rooming house, with o maximum of six (6) people from a residential dwelling unit, at 77 Black Lantern Lane. S. Appeal of Linwood and Eliz- abeth Abbott seeking a variance, from Section 19.00, Nonconform- Ing uses and structures of the South Burlington Regulations. Re. quest Is for permission to repair and renovate two structures, which are non -conforming to the dimensional requirements, at 6 and 6 Birch Lane, Queen City Park. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer U27/93 August 27, IM NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I/iame, address and telephone # of applicant L26V'2.; 7- 4iQame, address of property owner Property location and description '`7�. I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearing fee of $30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. 1� Hearing Date,, Signature of Appellant flu Do_not _write _below -this line ----------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on at (day of week) (month and date) time to consider the following: Ile s Appeal of 'l!�'r; '� o�"f r"a t_it .�f. L/ seeking a or ra„ F from Section Y se ! �; of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to S .f