HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-01-01 - Decision - 0012 Sherry RoadLIVUMe]]
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Re: APPLICATION OF ARNOLD & RITA COTA
This matter came before the South Burlington Development Review Board pursuant to the
provisions of 24 VSA §4468 on application of Arnold & Rita Cota, hereinafter "Applicants", for a
variance to allow a front porch addition to project 2.5 feet into the required 30 foot front yard
setback requirement, 12 Sherry Road. The Applicants were present at the public hearing held
relative to this application. Based on evidence submitted at the hearing and as part of the
application, the Development Review Board hereby renders the following decision on this
application:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The owner of record of this property is David Sweet.
2. This property is located in the Residential Four District. It is bounded on the west by Sherry
Road, on the north by a single-family residence, on the east by multi -family housing, and on the
south by a single family residence.
3. The property has 73 feet of frontage on Sherry Road and is 120 feet deep. The lot is relatively
level with no exceptional topographical features.
4. The property is developed with one (1) single family dwelling.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topography or other
physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship
is not due to such conditions, and is due to the circumstances or conditions generally
created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in
which the property is located. The lot is 73 feet by 120 feet with no exceptional
topographical features. This lot was subdivided into the current dimensions in October
1997.
2. Because there are no physical circumstances or conditions, there is a 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 unnecessary to enable
1
reasonable use of the property. The property is currently developed with a single-family
dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the property.
3. The unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellant.
4. The variance, if authorized, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
district in which the property is located, and will substantially or permanently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will be detrimental to the
public welfare. Allowing front yard encroachment greater than permitted by the zoning
regulations would alter the character of the area.
5. The variance, if authorized, would not represent the minimum variance that would afford
relief and would not represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations
and of the plan.
DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington Development
Review Board hereby denies the Applicants' request for a variance to allow a front porch addition
to project 2.5 feet into the required 30 foot front yard setback requirement, 12 Sherry Road in a
district which requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet, 12 Sherry Road, for the
following reasons:
The five (5) criteria necessary for the granting of a variance pursuant to 24 VSA §4468 have not been
met.
L�
Dated this Z' day of July, 2001 at South Burlington, VT
Chair or Clerk
South Burlington Development Review Board
Please Note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court,
pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471 and V.R.C.P. 76, in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision
is issued. The fee is $150.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this
decision at some future time maybe lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the
decision, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality).
2