Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0030 Brigham Road3) JOHN & LYNN RUSSELL - 30 BRIGHAM ROAD Residential I and Conservation - Open Space District Section 25.00 Alterations of non -complying structures. F.M.V. of garage/apartment $1200 City Assessor records Existing garage 20' x 22' and apartment 20' x 20' located to within nine (9) feet of northerly side yard and fourteen (14) feet of front yard. 4�5 e / S e 7-;e4, -- /< Proposed by applicant is replacement of structure (estimated cost $6500 to 8000) in same location. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMF,NT 24 MAY 1999 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of South Burlington held a regular meeting on Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City IWI, 575 Dorset Street: Members Present: 1). Johnston, Acting Chair; R. Kay, G. Chamberland, L. Llewellyn Also Present: R. BeWr, Zoning Administrator; G. Rabideau, J. Larkin, R. Ward, D. Rendall, J. & S. HoeW, R. Hoehl The Chair noted that there were only 4 members present. Mr. Llewellyn works for John Larkin, but has not worked on either of the projects on the agenda. If he were to step down, there would be no quorum. Members had no problem with Mr. Llewellyn continuing to sit on the two Larkin appeals. 1. Appeal of John Larkin, Inc., seeking approval from Section 26-65 Multiple uses. Request is for permission to occupy an existing 10,200 sq. fl. building with a maximum of four tenants, 3000 sq. ft. of medical offices and 7200 sq. fl. of general offices located at 410 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair said the applicable ordinance sections are Section 26.65 and Section 26.05, also sub- sections 12.101 and 12.102. The building is 60' x 85' on a 240' x 236' lot. 3000 sq. ft. would be for medical office use and 7200 sq. fl. for general office use. Mr. Rabideau said this is the existing Larkin Realty building which now has a multiple of uses. The radio station has left, and they want to add medical offices in that space. The site already has a parking waiver, and no new parking is being proposed. The appellant will connect two adjacent sites, which would be optimal for shared parking. In addressing the criteria, Mr. Rabideau said there would be no impact on city facilities. The building will not be increased in size. There is no excessive traffic impact on the neighborhood and no health related impacts. Mr. BeWr noted the proposed use will actually generate less traffic that the previous use. Audience comments were solicited but none were made. In the vote that followed, the appeal was granted 4-0. 2. Appeal of Donald and Sandra Rendall seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Dimensional Requirements and Section 26.00 Noncomplying Structures of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to demolish an existing carport and replace with a 28' x. 28' garage and 10' x 24' breeze way located to within forty fb�et of the required front yard, at 51 Old Farin Road: 1 ,A_- - 'N ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 24 MAY 1999 PAGE, 2 Mr. Belair noted this Calls in the R- I District. Mr. Rendall explained that the new carport will be one foot longer (to the north) and two feet deeper (to the west) than the existing structure. It will not get any closer to the road. At present, the appellant has to back out of his driveway onto Old Farm Road. Because of recent road upgrading, traffic moves through there much faster than it used to, and it has become dangerous to back out. With the location of the new carport, it will be possible to exit nose first. The driveway will be relocated 20 ft. to the north. Mr. Rendall said Sonny Audette has approved the location. There is a culvert under the driveway which will be replaced. The existing curb cut will be closed. Mr. Rendall showed pictures of the existing carport. The question was raised as to whether there were plans to widen the right-of-way. Mr. Ward said there were none. In addressing the criteria, the appellant said the unique physical circumstance is the location of the house which predates zoning regulations. There is also an existing ledge and drainage problems which can't be solved with the existing location of the driveway. The hardship was not created by him. The proposed changes won't affect the character of the neighborhood, and they are asking for the minimum variance possible. There will be no more non-compliance than now exists. Audience comment was solicited. None was made. In the vote that followed, the appeal was granted 4-0. 3. Appeal of John and Martha I lochl seeking a variance from Section 26.00 Noncomplying Structures and Section 25.00 Dimensional Requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 8' x 70' wrap -around porch to within forty-five feet of the required front yard located at 900 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair said the properly is in the Southeast Quadrant District. The appellant is proposing to remove the current porch. The 45 ft. setback will be maintained. Mr. Hoehl showed the location of the porch. Because of the way the house was constructed, he cannot insulate in the original part of the building. The proposed porch would provide added protection from the wind as it would wrap around and enclose the original part of the house. The porch will also allow use of the front door which can't be used now because steps can't be put in. 2 ZONING BOARD OFADJUSTMENT 24 MAY 1999 PAGE 3 Members noted that there will actually be 22 feet more covered space in the encroachment but it will be no deeper than at present. Members noted that the encroachment is due to the taking of land by the city for the road and bike path, and that the hardship was not created by the appellant. Audience commen(s were solicited. None were offered. In the vote that followed, the appeal was granted 4-0. 4. Tabled appeal of H.F.B. and Lang Realty (appeal # 1, May 10, 1999), 550 Hinesburg Road: This item remained tabled. 5. Tabled appeal of J2��nn (appeal #1, April 26, 1999) 90 Allen Road and 16 Harbor View Road, construct a 14'x 40'canopy covered walkway within zero feet of the rear property lines: Mr. Bela.ir said the property is in the C-2 District. The required rear yard setback is 30 ft. The appellant proposed zero feet. The canopy rum between two elderly housing projects. Mr. Rabideau showed the 2 properties. He noted that the connection was included in the plans, but the enclosing of it was not. They enclosed it when they realized that elderly people could not use it safely in had weather. Residents of one project actually take their communal meals in the other facility. Mr. Johnston asked why this isn't made one property. Mr. BeWr said the Zoning Regs won't allow. Mr. Johnston asked if putting a structure between the two buildings doesn't actually merge them. Mr. Belair said no. Mr. Bclair said it is his feeling that this does not meet the criteria for a variance. Members asked if the structure can be taken down in good weather. Mr. Rabideau said the sides come off. The structure doesn't meet the standard for a permanent structure. He felt the circumstances were unique because of the physical needs of the population, and to achieve the goal another way would require more variances. Mr. Belair noted that the structure completely blocks the city's bike path when the sides are down. Mr. Larkin said they have worked this out with the Bike Path Committee, and they are OK with the sides being down in winter. Members questioned whether the hardship was created by the appellant who built the structure for use 3 0 by senior citizens. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 24 MAY 1999 PAGE 4 They found it difficult to believe the problem wasn't anticipated. Mr. Larkin said he thought there would be no problem covering the sidewalk. Mr. Johnston noted that a canopy is a structure under the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Kay asked why focal can't be brought to the other building. The appellant said that they try to create a communal setting for residents by having them cat together. Members felt that a variance, if allowed, should be for this use only, noting that in the future the buildings could become hotels or other uses. Audience comment was solicited. None was offered. In the vote that followed, the appeal passed 4-0. The Chair then made a presentation to retiring Zoning Administrator Dick Ward on behalf of the Board.. 6. Minutes and Findings of Fact, May 10, 1999. Mr. Chamberlain moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 1999 as submitted, the motion was seconded by Mr. Llewellyn. The vote in favor was unanimous. Mr. Kay moved to approve the Findings of Fact, seconded by Mr. Llewellyn. The vote in favor was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, P� Y Randal Kay, Clerk 4 - City of South Burlington Official Use Application to Board of Adjustment APPLICATION # IN HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT i Name of applicant(s) J O v1 A Address �t �t�n �d Telephone # 3 - 3 �3 O Represented by Landowner Jn�nSSel� Address 3a �r�alln& `Jur.c'�► 1,ocation(�and description of property Q j L - a S\ A=�t 1 C4L'0& n�a rw�R i t 51r0.%1.1 Adjacent property owner(s) & Address � �-i-c-ee�c �o c�a ,a,-, - ryx ac'� Tr a of application check one: ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer ( ) request for a conditional use request For a variance 1 understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month, (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifleen (15) days prior to the hearing. 1 agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Provision of zoning ordinance in question du;' oZ to O o a. Reason for appeal Other documentation 141aolaS Date 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 Dorsct Street. South Burlington. Vermont on Monday, at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following Appeal of DN—�r�.^� % .•-'`= _ seeking a from Section r 7 1 i of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to ' L - _ � _ ..�-• _` -.,fir r , ' � _f �% , ' /LPL L s t. k _ _ � / 4e- C.- I1q'Ib" scraL� � Ronk - — L,�,,��,!sS 2 21 1 Is IC of 1 jfvfAL v 4d U�Rf!� 0 �oacH� Rilr%r I r Dick Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington, VT April 20, 1999 Dear Dick, This is to explain the circumstances surrounding the repair and reconstruction of the 2 car garage and attached apartment located at the residence of John & Lynn Russell at 30 Brigham Road, South Burlington. I was asked to evaluate the cost to 1) repair damage done to the 2 garage and apartment resulting from ice and water damage due to frozen and broken pipes 2) do repairs to the rest of the building, repair the foundation under the apartment, replace the wood going down into the dirt around the garage, install new vinyl siding, and install a new shingle roof. I estimated the cost to do the above work to be $6,500.00 Once I began the job and cut through the floor of the apartment section, I found that due to the water, the foundation under the apartment was completely shot, so the best way to fix the apartment was to pour a slab to replace the wooden floor and deteriorated foundation and to take down the apartment walls and brace the garage walls that we intended to keep. As we proceeded with the job I found that the dry rot moisture damage and damage resulting from carpenter ants had extended through the whole building and as we took away the walls of the apartment the braced garage walls were cracking and splintering. In short, it made no sense to try to salvage the garage walls, so we removed the garage windows, doors, etc. and decided to knock down the garage walls as well and replace them with new. It made no sense to try to spend more money to save the old rotted wood then to build it new. We then built the new apartment on a new slab, we poured a new cement slab over the area of the garage slab and petitioned the garage and apartment. There had been 3 different elevations in the loft of the apartment and garage and Jack and I decided that it would make better sense to create one roofline and if possible make it so that there was walking room in the loft and one level roof. When we started putting up the rafters, on the job, Jack called me and told me that he had stopped in to see you to inquire about the height that we could go with the roof and to ask other questions about what had happened, and that you had told him that because we took the building down instead of saving the garage we needed to get a variance and to stop working immediately, and we did. it didn't occur to Jack or to me that we would need to get a variance to do what seemed to be the sensible thing. Thank you. Paul Bean Paul's Construction 1. We are requesting a variance to allow us to repair/replace a preexisting garage and apartment that was damaged by age, ice, water and carpenter ants. The variance is required because the amount of repair needed will cost more than the amount allowed without a variance. This winter, pipes froze and broke in the apartment section of our garage/apartment building. The apartment was not being used so we were unaware that the pipes had burst until we saw our son's baseball cards floating out under the apartment front door. When we opened the front door, there was 6" of water covering the entire apartment. We had noticed low water pressure in our house for 2 days but had not known the cause. As soon as we shut off water to the apartment, our pressure returned so we know that water had been going full blast into the apartment for 2 days. Beside the damage caused by the burst pipes, the building needed repair due to age and normal deterioration. This spring we hired Paul's Construction to repair the existing structure. We obtained a building permit to do the work at an estimated cost of $6500. We anticipated that we would repair or replace the foundation under the apartment, redo the shingle roof on the entire building, repair or replace all of the areas that had water damage in the apartment and re -side the building with vinyl siding. When Paul's Construction started the work and began taking down the damaged apartment walls and hauling away the debris, they braced up the attached garage portion of the building. As they started to take away more and more of the building, they saw that there was more water damage and dry rot then they anticipated and also that the building was infested with carpenter ants to such an extent that the walls of the garage were not worth saving, in fact they were already cracking. Paul's made the on the job decision that it would be cheaper to replace the walls with new, then to try to salvage the old so they proceeded to take down the rest of the garage walls and removed the garage door, etc for reuse. In order to prevent future dry rot and carpenter ant infestation they then poured a new slab foundation for the apartment section instead of the replacing the original pier foundation with more piers. We also poured a slab for the garage over the existing floor rather then add some cement to the outside walls. After we got the walls and petitions up for the apartment and garage I talked to Paul's to see what it would cost to go to a metal roof and change the roof line of the loft above the garage and apartment as we were now into a larger scale project. After we agreed how we would go about it, I went to see Dick Ward to amend my permit and to make sure I had no problems with doing that. In the discussion, I told Dick what had happened to the building and all the problems we had encountered and he informed me that changing the roof line and the height was not a problem but because most of the garage and apartment had been removed I would need a variance before I could continue working. We talked for several minutes about this and I guess I never really thought that a variance would be necessary to repair or replace a preexisting building that was substantially damaged as we were not changing the use or location of the building. When Dick told me that I needed a variance, I embarassedly called the contractor, Paul's Construction, and stopped work. At this point, the garage and apartment are completely framed up and they had just begun to cut rafters. Dick Ward gave me the application for the variance and I reviewed the process and got the necessary information to apply. I hope that you can understand the predicament that I found myself in was not one of my making and not one that I wanted to occur. In summary, when we purchased this property in 1993, the home and 2 outbuildings were all existing. We did not control the locations of the any of the structures. The preexisting garage is close to the house for convenience. Due to the extent of the destruction from ice and water damage, the proper way to salvage the building was to replace rather then repair it. We were not aware of the extent of damage or cost to repair until we were well into the repair process. 2. The building can not be reconstructed in strict conformity with zoning regulations because we are replacing a preexisting structure in its original location. The building contains a garage which needs to be located in proximity with the house and at the end of the existing driveway which is paved and heavily treed on each side. Moving the building would necessitate moving the driveway and destroying trees. The anticipated use for the apartment is a place for a family member to work or stay or for our elderly parents should they need it. If an elderly parent were to stay in the apartment they would need to be close to our living quarters for safety and convenience. 3. The hardship that created the amount of damage that forced us to need a variance was created by ice, water from frozen and burst pipes and undetected carpenter ants. I have recently been told by my neighbor that he has also had problems with carpenter ants and that carpenter ants are more of a problem in this area then most people are aware of. 4. This variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood, impair the use of adjacent property nor be detrimental to the public welfare in any way. The building is replacing a preexisting structure of the same nature and size. The building is 265 feet from the town road, at the end of a treed driveway, and can hardly be seen from the road. I have spoken to my neighbors whose property is adjacent to the garage side of our property and they have no objection to our plans. In fact, they are happy to know that we are upgrading the property and taking care of the carpenter ant problem in this structure. 5. This variance was necessary due to the cost involved in the amount of work we had to do to do the job right. The problems were caused by nature not the applicant and the variance represents the least modification necessary to do the job right. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 27, 1999 Mr. John Russell 30 Brigham Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Variance Request, 30 Brigham Road Dear Jack: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, May 10, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a variance to construct a detached garage at 30 Brigham Road. Please plan to attend this hearing and be prepared to address the enclosed review criteria. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp 1 Encl SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with i the South. Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burling- ton Zoning Board of Ad- justment will hold a pub- lic hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Of- fices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, May 10, 1999. at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: #1 Appipal of H.F.B. and Lang Realty seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Dimensional re- quirements [allowable lot coverage] of the South Burlington Zoning Regu- lations. Request is for permission to construct an awning covered entryway on northerly side of existing buildingg [approximately 226' square feet] and install additional sidewalk ap- proximately 620 square feet for an overall lot coverage of sixty-two (62] percent located at 550 Hinesburg Road. #2 Appeal of City of South Burlington Recre- . ation Department seek- ing a variance from Sec- ' tion 25.101 Dimensional requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to con- struct a recreational structure [baseball dug- out 24' x 26'] to within thirty-five [36] feet of the Dorset Street right-of- way located at Dorset, Park, Dorset & Swift Streets. #3 Appeel of John & Ij Lynn Russell seeking a variance from Section + 26.002 Alteration of non- , I complying structure of ti the South Burlington Zoning -Regulations. Re- ; quest is for permission to demolish existing 20' i x 42' detached garages and guest apartment and replace with new struc- ture. Existing structure is located within nine [9] feet of northerly side yard and fourteen [14] feet of the front yard lo- sated at 30 Brigham Road. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer { April 24, 1999 } SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re John & Lynn Russell Request for variance 30 Brigham Road Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Order This matter came before the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 10, 1999 by application of John & Lynn Russell for a variance to replace an existing 20' x 22' garage with an attached 20' x 20' cottage/apartment which is located within nine (9) feet of the northerly property line at 30 Brigham Road according to plans submitted. The Board of Adjustment finds as follows: 1) 30 Brigham Road is zoned Residential 1 District and Conservation/Opcn Space District. 2) Section 25.00 Dimensional requirements requires a minimum side yard of twenty-five (25) feet. The existing setback of the garage/apartment being nine (9) feet frontage northerly side yard. 3) The garage/apartment is a non -complying structure. 4) Due to water damage and the age of the structure, the appellant and his contractor are of the opinion that replacement is the only option. 5) Section 26.002 allows for alterations to non -complying structures, alterations not to exceed a percent of fair market value. The garage/apartment has an appraised value of $1200. 6) Relocation of the garage creates a hardship because it necessitates moving of the driveway and destroying trees. 7) The hardship H as created by ice damage and undetected carpenter ants. Renovations and repairs is not an option. R) The structure is well screened from adjoining properties. 9) The nearest neighbor supports the request to replace the garage in the same location. ORDER The variance to construct a garage/apartment to within (9) feet of the northerly property line at 30 Brigham Road is hereby GRANTED Dated at City Hall, South Burlington, Vem17 nt this L q day of , 1999 L/Dcnnis Johnson, VkA Chairman South Burlington Zoning rd of Adjustment MAY 2 4 10 No Text No Text 26 00 4� oi At_ Jl� VS it 3 r ` 1114 or, t fr. � A Y"- No Text No Text Dick Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington, VT April 20, 1999 Dear Dick, This is to explain the circumstances surrounding the repair and reconstruction of the 2 car garage and attached apartment located at the residence of John & Lynn Russell at 30 Brigham Road, South Burlington. I was asked to evaluate the cost to 1) repair damage done to the 2 garage and apartment resulting from ice and water damage due to frozen and broken pipes 2) do repairs to the rest of the building, repair the foundation under the apartment, replace the wood going down into the dirt around the garage, install new vinyl siding, and install a new shingle roof. I estimated the cost to do the above work to be $6,500.00 Once I began the job and cut through the floor of the apartment section, I found that due to the water, the foundation under the apartment was completely shot, so the best way to fix the apartment was to pour a slab to replace the wooden floor and deteriorated foundation and to take down - the apartment walls and brace the garage walls that we intended to keep. As we proceeded with the job I found that the dry rot moisture damage and damage resulting from carpenter ants had extended through the whole building and as we took away the walls of the apartment the braced garage walls were cracking and splintering. In short, it made no sense to try to salvage the garage walls, so we removed the garage windows, doors, etc. and decided to knock down the garage walls as well and replace them with new. It made no sense to try to spend more money to save the old rotted wood then to build it new. We then built the new apartment on a new slab, we poured a new cement slab over the area of the garage slab and petitioned the garage and apartment. There had been 3 different elevations in the loft of the apartment and garage and Jack and I decided that it would make better sense to create one roofline and if possible make it so that there was walking room in the loft and one level roof. When we started putting up the rafters, on the job, Jack called me and told me that he had stopped in to see you to inquire about the height that we could go with the roof and to ask other questions about what had happened, and that you had told him that because we took the building down instead of saving the garage we needed to get a variance and to stop working immediately, and we did. It didn't occur to Jack or to me that we would need to get a variance to do what seemed to be the sensible thing. Thank you. Paul Bean Paul's Construction