Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-05-09 - Decision - 0050 Brewer ParkwayCITY OF SOUTH BURLINOTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING JOHN & DEANA O'CONNOR - 50 BREWER PARKWAY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATOIN #MS-05-09 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION John and Deana O'Connor, hereafter referred to as the applicant, are seeking miscellaneous approval under Section 3.06(J)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations to allow a 55"x147" breezeway enclosure to encroach one (1) foot into the required front setback, 50 Brewer Parkway. The Development Review Board held a public meeting on November 15, 2005. John O'Connor 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 1. The applicants are seeking miscellaneous approval under Section 3.06(J)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations to allow a 55"x147" breezeway enclosure to encroach one (1) foot into the required front setback, 50 Brewer Parkway. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are John and Deana O'Connor. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 4. The plans submitted consists of two (2) hand drawn plans. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. 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 addition is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. -1- According to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Residential 4 Zoning District encourages residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The proposed addition is in compliance with the stated purpose of the district. 3. 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. The proposed addition will not adversely affect municipal services. (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 proposed addition will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The addition is not proposed to be located any closer to the road than the existing house and garage. By enclosing the breezeway, the house will now be flush across its frontage on the public right of way. One concern with allowing encroachments into setbacks is that it might allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. However, because the proposed addition is not located any closer to the road than the existing structure, this will not change the setback standards for neighboring homes. (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 addition is not in keeping with applicable regulations, specifically the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed addition will not affect renewable energy resources. (0 General public health and welfare. The proposed addition will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare. Pursuant to Section 3.06(J)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (a) and (b) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the -2- ( provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the views of adjoining properties. (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the access of sunlight of adjoining properties. (c) adequate on -site parking; and The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on adequate on -site parking. (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining properties. DECISION Motion byVllane� seconded by Cyq ek %to approve MisApplication #MS-05-09 of John & Deana O'Connor, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, as amended herein, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Sim Mark Behr-( nay/abstain/not res t Matthew Birmin ham -yea/na abstain of present Chuck Bolton -Mgnay/abstainLiffiotpresent /abstain/not present John Dinklagey/abstain/not present Roger Farley -/abstain/not present Larry Kupferm Gayle Quimby - yea/nay/abstai not prese Motion carried by a vote of S - -� Signed this day of 2005, by John Dinklage, thair 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).