Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1535 Spear StreetHOEHL, Robert 1535 Spear Street Area zoned R-1 District. Section 18.112 Height of structure, maximum 35 feet including chimney. Variance request June 12, 1989, denied 3 - 2. Issue deals with how the height is measured. City within the last year measures the lower finish grade of a structure to roof peak including rooftop apparatus. Structure involved constructed a% elevation 360.5 street level. Elevation 350.3 walk -out basement level and elevation 391.9 top of chimney. Present structure has no apparatus above peak of roof. HOEHL, Robert 1535 Spear Street Area zoned R-1 District. Section 18.112 Height of structures sub section (d) includes roof top apparatus and chimneys. Definitions - Section 21.013 "as applied to a structure, the maximum vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the peak of the roof, including all rooftop apparatus". Proposed - construction of a chimney and change in rear elevation to allow for walkout basement. Maximum height from rear finished grade 46 1/2 feet from front finished grade 32 feet. City of South --Burlington 575 DORSET.STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 13, 1989 David W. Boehm 11 Brownell Way South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Hoehl appeal Dear Dave: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I find it difficult in my attempt to formulate findings of fact reference to Hoehl appeal. I have enclosed your ballot and would request that you forward additional findings to me. Thanks for your cooperation. 1 Encl RW/mcp Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer te, To: :South Burlington Zarting Board of AdJust went From: C nthia and Robert Hoehl % 1555 spear Street Date: 5 Y 22 0 89 Regarding: Appeal of 2oninq Ad.ninistrators decision regarding Section. 13.112 (height restriction) on single family home in R1 district;. BASIS OF APPEAL: 1. From 1982 to 1988 section 18.112 was interpreted one way. A way that would allow us to build our chunneys. Then in 1988 during our hearings before the City Council to secure a building permit the City Attorney began interpreting it differently. Our case was the very first din May of 1988) that the new interpretation was applied to. See also page i of Planning Commission Minutes 9E5/89 comments by Mr Ward. The fact that the ordinance was interpreted one way for a long period of time and tn�en ,another based solely on interpretation, and not a change in the definition, indicates ambiguity (also see (Planning Cdanr:aemi.ssion comments 'below). Under Vermont 'Mate Law% any am.oigu.ity in a zoning ordinance should be construed against the adopting municipality and in favor of the landowner. Accordingly the least restrictive interpretation should apply. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated: "Zoning lames which curtail and limit the use o-F real property must be given strict construction. since they are in derogation of common law rights, and provisions thereof may ;.-Iot be extended by imolication..Any ambiguity or uncertainty Faust be decided in favor of the property; owner."' Murphy Motor Sales, Inc. v. First National Bank of 'St.. Johnsbury, 122 'art. 121 , 122-1.24 (Ig60) . The Zoning board, The Planning Commission, and the City Council all believe that something must be done about the ordinance. 2. Our request for building permit was =_un mitted an 4/12/88 sic days prior to the passage of zoning revisions that added ."roof top apparatus" to the measurement and two months prior to the _nstitution of the new interpretation of the height - asurement . �. The current interpretations of the height restriction was not the intent of the originators of the ordinance. See History below. _All surrounding towns address the issue of sloppino terrain. I believe South Buriin ton intended the same anj appi.ec it accdrdingly until '-lay _ v8. See history below and attached or:9inanc-e from surrounding to qns. 4. Zoning Board of Adjustment. It is my understanding that one of the puroose-s of t°�e 20niqg 33oard of Adjustment is to do just that, to remake ad.justraments, in circumstances where the law is not working in the manner intended. I believe it is clear from all the neetinns of the Com-Mi=_sicns and Boards of South Burlington that I have attended }`na+t the current interpretation is not apple;innq the law as intended, Bee below. 5. The current interpretation of ..Maximum vert cie height" is not a correct interpretation of the law as worded. The key word here is vertical. Because of the slopping land there is not a single Dar` - -�.' w_� r:'_ �u i' 'g -e a�u.3es �� �'lixt {Z�`i5 +hat exceeds 35 feet vertically from the finished grade. ?re`c•srrenz interpretation requires a statement of "Projected" height or a statement of lowest and highest elevations. Neighther of the above descriptions are contained in the ordenence. Vertical means straight jD =no down. If •;sou draw a line straight up from the lowest gr add o * air house to he highest point above that grade or from the highest point of the proposed chin. neys to the grade beneath it both measurements are within the 35 foot height restriction. See diagrams attached. HISTORY: 1,,15� 82: South Burlington Planning Commission submitted a draft of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance to the Cite Council. That draft contained the following provision relating to heich t: As applied to a structure, the vertical distance measured frs m the finished grade to tr,e peak of the roof. Where a structure is located on sloping terrain, the height may be .measured from the average ground level along the wall of the structure. .Coning Ordinance, .:pan 51 1582, Dace '77, 22.109 3,115182: City Council Minutes: "Mr Spitz said the new proposed tieight .would be measured from. the average contour of the l arnd . "" - 9e27:"82: cit:o: Council Minutes: Mr Flarerty moved that the i'tor ei 3 C ?e :ar" to _.-",,erted. so, `11.3t "ine rr i rs11 sentence shall read: As applied to a structure, t-he maximum ver-.- a[ -Ji`stan=e measured from the finished grade to the peak of the roof. The reference to 'first sentence" indicates the presence of a second which did not make it into the final ordinance. Sae below. 12iB2: City Council passed the foliowir:.g wording: Height as applied to a structure, the maximum vertical distance measured foram the finished grade to the ,peak of the roof. 1 have read every one of the Cit.,- Council <minu}es from .Ian 1?-98 thru Dec 1988 and wi-ere is not a single word about taking the seconnd sentence out_ Given that the ordinance was interpreted as though the second sentence Aas there fro-: P792 until May of 1988 1 believe it was inadvertently :dropped. 411.122 89 We applied for our building par-mi t. 4 18r89 Roof 'top apparatus added to Zoning ordinance. 5; 89: As a part of o•ur hear 4 --gs before the City Council to secure a building permit to ouild our house the City Attorney determined that we could not be granted a building permit because our house was too tail. This was hard for us to relieve because due to deed restrictions on height our house was designed with a 7d12 roof pitch rather that the nor-eal 12112 and that our architects who had designed several other homes, only a block from ours, shad been advised by the :mooning administrator and were operating on the interpretation that had been used since 1982. 10/24%2E3 coning Board granted a variance to Brian Lloyd under he exact same circumstances as ours. The reasons riven are all 100% applicable to our situation. 'See attacheo rope Ot Zoning Board decision. 6�10/99 The zoning Board turned down our request for a variance because it was felt that variances should not be granted to comoen•sate for an ill constructed ordinance, and that the planning commission should undertake to fix it. This was the net of a speech by David Bohem that resulted in a 3 to 2 vote in ,favor with 4 votes being required. 9/5/89 (Planning Commission meeting: "Members agreed on the need to change the wording of the regulation." There was unanimous agreement that the current interpretation was not what was intended and that the Nording of the ordinance was "ambiguous (the quote was by Bill Creia but all appeared to agree:). Additional Comments: I. The land is heavily slopped to the west to such a degree that the oracle at the front of the house is a full story higher than the rear of the house. A walk out basement is the natural way to avoid enormous amounts o-* fill as well as take advantace of the view of the lake and :mountains from the basement fam i l v room. 2. It is not possible under the current interpretation of the 357 height restrictions that a two story house with a walk out basement and a central chimnev can he constructed. With a sloping lot and the tact that the vast majority of homes in the area are two story we believe this kind of house is reasonable. 3. There are at least 5 homes an the next block, south of ours, :where tfte, have walk out basements and chimneys. These homes viere erected) prior to the new interpretation. Additionally a Mr. Brian Lloyd recently received a variance for his home in the abo-e mentioned neighborhood under almost identical circumstances. Our chimneys will not detract from the view from Spear :street or the City Overlock ?ark and the walk ,our basement, becaunse of how we have filled, is .not visible froze the read. CITY COUNCIL HARC 115, 1982 Mr. Farrar wondered if a lot 80' wide was large enough to allow for the things people add to their homes, such as gara,-es. '`.r. Spitz said a 10' side yard was being suggested, which would allow 60' for the house and any additions. Mr. Farrar asked about only allowing single family homes in certain zones as a way to encourage them, but Mr. :)pitz said that had been discussed and it had been felt that it would be better to let economics dictate what would be built. Mr. Farrar felt it might be better to plan for the type of community the city wanted rather than allow the community to develop the way it will if it is not planned. Number 8 in Mr. Spitz' memo deals with mixed uses. lie said there were some uses which could co -exist with others. Number 9 was setbacks from major roads. The proposal is to measure setbacks from the edge of the proposed ri ht of way. :sir. Farrar asked how that would be determined - what legal document would be used to fix the location from which to measure. Mir. Spitz said the tax maps could be used. Kr. Farrar felt the city had to be careful to define precisely where the measurement would be taken, although he did not object to the concept. Mr. Spitz noted that the existing commercial setback of 75' had been reduced to 50'. This will encourage parking behind the building and green space in front. Number 10 deals with height limits. The feeling of the Commission was that buildings taller than 2 112 stories could be allowed in the city under certain conditions. Planning Commission Chairman Poger noted that thone conditions included topography, not obstructing views, and allowing more green space. It was felt that topography could be used for more imaginative architecture. idr. Farrar felt this provision would totally change the character of the community, but 111r. Poger noted that it was not a blanket approval. Commission member Ewing stated that he did not like the idea of building taller buildings in the city until the city had building codes in place. I:r. Farrell felt, however, that with taller buildings came more hate regulations, and taller buildings would be built with better materials and would be safe. Mr. Krassner felt tall buildings would overshadow residential areas. Mr. Schuele also felt 2 112 story buildings were tall enough. Mr. Farrar pointed out that there were already some buildings in the city which had 3 stories, at least on one side. Mir. Spitz said the_ new proposed height_would be measured from the average contour of_ land. 7, _Spitz noted that there had been changes .made in general provisions. P,arking.spaces for multi -family units have been increased, and requirements for parking for office space have been decreased. Parking space size has also been changed from 10' x 16' to 9' x 18'. The public hearing on the zoning ordinance will be held April 5. Nr. Spitz noted ,that a proposal for development of a large parcel of land in the southeast quadrant would be coming before the Council. It was noted that the Council could not meet on March 29th because they would not have a quorum, so this would have to be delayed until April 12 or 19. Mr. Farrar asked that the city be sure to proceed legally on this. Continue discussion on proposed 1982-83 budget Mr. Farrar said there were three items left to decide. The first is the proposed skating facility. Mr. O'Neill passed out copies of a budget for operation of the proposed rink and a schedule of responsibilities. Ee said he had put these together by researching minutes of meetings where this issue was discussed. 2. `1 CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 2, 1982 Mr. Perry showed pictures of the site from the locations it can be seen. He said the building would be most visible from when a person drove in or parked, and from those areas, it would be a two story building. The 42' height can only be seen when the leaves are off the trees and from certain locations, until the plantings mature. If the building were to be expanded, another "cube" could be added to the northwest corner. Mr. Dore noted that Gr:P did not want to plan for any potential expansion in this building, but that he had left an area for them to do so, if they decided to in the future. If the expansion were put in, the same elevation would be maintained. Mr. Dore said there was a lot of flexibility built into the building for mechanical equipment because GMP wants the building to be an energy showpiece for a long time ahead. They will want to try new systems out here, and to do that they need a lot of duct space for electrical and mechanical equipment. They also have a lot of heavy steel beams and the ceilings will be 916" high, so the floor to floor dimension will be 13'6". There will be no heating or cooling equipment on the roof - just a skylight over the stairway 2' high, in the middle of the roof. It will not be visible because there will be a 2' high parapet on the building, and .that is counted in the overall height. Mr. Krassner asked about sinking the building into the ground more, and was told that cannot be done, because of the soils. There is 20' of silty sand and below that a watery clay. The entire building will be built on piles, and to go down more would mean the first floor would be in the clay, and there would be a water table problem. a �t The Council looked at a scale model of the building. Mr. Farrar asked how, under the present zoning regulations, the building height was determined. Mr. Spitz said the ordinance did not define the height. In the past the interpretation has been from finished grade to average height. The maximum height of this building is 42' and the average is about 38'. The definition in the new ordinance is from finished grade and it is average height. It was noted that the request was thus for a 3' variance. �- — Mr. Schuele commented that in the past, the citizens had opposed raising height limits in the city. He was concerned that coming in with a variance request before the Council decision on new height limits in the city had been made was a way of "beating the system". He asked the Council to=consider the concerns of the citizens in the past. Ms. Lansing shared the concerns expressed. Mr. Poger felt that the Planning Commission had laid out certain criteria, and he felt this was a very good example of what they were talking about. He felt that if the Council granted this variance, they would be committing themselves to supporting this section of the ordinance. Mr. Krassner did not like using an average height, feeling a maximum would be better. Mr. Schuele wondered if the building at the corner of Williston Road and Kennedy Drive had been built in violation of the height restrictions. He was told it had never been served with any violation papers. Mr. Perry noted that if they moved the building to the flat area, it would be much more visible than it would in the proposed area. He did not feel the building would show up as a large mass, because of the staggered walls. He added that the lot was very large and the building quite small in comparison. Mr. Dore said part of the reason for a 35' height limit was because of fire equipment limitations, but that this building was easily reached for that. Mr. Perry felt this was not a variance request, but was rather a conditional use approval. 3. tv CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 2. 1982 Mr. Burgess noted that if the building were moved to the flat area and made two stories only, the visual impact would be the same as it would be as the building is now proposed, from a height point of view. The mass would be larger with the two story building, though. 'With either plan, the roof would be on the same elevation level. Mr. Farrar suggested that the Council discuss Section 19.112 in the proposed new zoning ordinance, to see if they wanted to make modifications to it. He asked if Mr. Marvin wanted to take part in this discussion, but was told he would rather not. Mr. Farrar felt some thought should be given to how building height would be determined in the new ordinance. He felt that with some design flexibility, there were some improvements which could be made over what could be done withini rigid guidelines, and he thought there was some merit in some of the Planning Commission proposals. Mr. Spitz said the definition of height was on page 77 of the proposal. It is measured..from the average ground level. Mr. Farrar said the wording would allow a building with an average�heigh 0T--50' to have a 55-60' exposure, and he had a problem with that. He asked what determined a story in a building an was told it was an occupied area or a full basement. The proposal would allow a building 50' tall or 4 stories, regardless of whether the stories are underground or above ground level. Neither restriction can be exceeded. Mr. Burgess felt the legality of that should be checked. Mr. Farrar asked the purpose of the restrictions. He was told that they were for ease in fire protection, esthetics, and restriction of the intensity of use of a lot, although it was pointed out that that can be done better through restrictions on the square footage. Mr. Farrar did not like the 50' and 4 stories provisions in the ordinance, unless the 50' was a maximum, not an average. Mr. Poger felt the ordinance was written for sloping areas and that the average was a way of dealing with the slopes. Mr. Flaherty felt the Commission should be given flexibility to deal with specific situations. He felt the 35' height had been an arbitrary figure, although he was uncomfortable with a 50.' height. Mr. Burgess did not like the fact that the 50' height could become 60' on some sides of a building. He felt the 50' should be a maximum, not an average. Mr. Poger suggested changing the definition, not the ordinance, to make that a maximum. Ms. Lansing agreed that 50' was too high, and that a maximum instead of an average should be used. Mr. Farrar asked if the members agreed the Commission s-hould-be a71-owe-d some flexibility in this area and was told they did. Mr. Farrar felt the proposed building would not be a major departure from the present zoning ordinance requirements. He said the building could be left as is and a berm built up around it, and it would conform, but not look as good. Mr. Burgess asked if 42' included everything - air conditioning units, solar panels, etc. and was told it did. j Mr. Burgess moved that the Council grant the height variance and approve the plan of QZeen.Mquntainw oe.r� or a new office ui ing on reen ioun a n r ve as presented bythe attorney and the architect and as epicted 1982, sheet 2C for building shall be a maximum of 42' at its highest point. Mr. seconded the motion. ect 82307 Flaherty Mr. Farrar said copies of all the drawings used should be put on file. The motion carried with Ms. Lansing voting no and Mr. Marvin abstaining. I CITY COUNCIL September 27, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, September 27, 1982, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, City Planner; George Mona, John Belter, Planning Commission; James Lamphere, Stewart McConaughy, William Schuele, Charles Balserus, Ruth Stokes; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper Continue Public Hearing on Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan There was discussion 19.112f. Mr. Burgess art of Section 19.11 apply to farm silos a cretion of the Planni unanimous approval. concerning the proper placement of Section then moved that Section 19.112f become 2b and read. -Height limitations shall not nd church steeples, except at the is- ng Commission. Mr. Flaherty secon e with Regarding Section 20.651, it was noted that the Zoning Board now has to grant a variance where there are two uses for one lot. Mr. Spitz indicated he would recommend changes in this procedure. Regarding Section 21.00, Mr. Farrar asked if it would not be wise to include the State Charter in the wording. Mr. Spitz said he would check on this. Concerning the length of site plan approvals, Sect. 21.302, it was noted that with long delays in beginning of construction, six months might be too short a time. Mr. Spitz indicated that in bases where a site plan should have a longer duration, this would seem to be covered by the last sentence. In other in- stances, all one would have to do is to reapply. Mr. McConaughy commented that it might be a difference between granting an extension and granting a new approval should an appeal be filed. Mr. Spitz indicated he would check on this with the City Attorney. RegardinSection 22.109, Mr. Flaherty moved that the word "maximum' be inserted so that the first sentence shall read: s apEied to a structure, the maximum vertical istance measured . from the finTs-E-e-d grade to the peak of the roof. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 November 3, 1987 658-7958 Attorney Greg Wilson 3 Main Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Jamieson, 13 Deerfield Road Dear Greg: Having recently discussed height requirements with Tim Jamieson and Harold Junger regarding the dwelling at 3 Deerfield Road. Be advised that we agree that the finish grade will be at the top of the foundation for the fireplace and that the maximum from that point will be thirty-five (351) feet, which will include the chimney. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Ver truly yours, G�e-L.,Ie- Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer cc: Chairman, Planning Commission _r STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN CITY OF SOUT14 BURLINGTON DECISION & FINDING OF FACT On the 24th dap of October , 198$_, the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment heard evidence regarding the appeal of Brian Lloyd, 5 Adams Court based on the following facts and findings: 1) The topography and interpretation of the zoning rPgulation� would not -enable reasonable use without filling the land, _thus champing the character. Z) Other buildings have finished grade which allows fnr .walkou-t basements, therefore -the characer of the area is not affected. 3) Appellant purchased the land with the intent o construct three story dwelling prior to recent interpretation of height limitations. 4) might limitations weren't intended to restrict constructinn of residential dwellings. 5) 6) Based upon the above stated facts and findings the appellant's request for a variance7&i3d3%F44"XX"& is hereby approvedA(1=RoA. Stipulations: - - - - , - 1TY-C► ha rman ` of the PLANNING COMMISSION 5 SEPTEMBER 1989 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 5 September 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Peter Jacob, Chairman; John Belter, Mary -Barbara Maher, William Craig, Catherine Peacock, William Burgess Also Present Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Lance Llewellyn, Dennis Blodgett, Robert & Cynthia Hoehl, Victor & Ann Ratkus, David Simendinger, Harry Walcoff, Lisa Falcone 1. Other Business a. Mr. Weith advised that Kenn Sassarossi, Director of Lake Champlain Housing Development Corp. wants to hold a site visit to the recently completed Salmon Run housing project. They are interested in doing an affordable rental housing project in S. Burlington. The visit will be the morning of 18 September. b. Mr. Weith advised that Mr. Dinklage had spoken to him about affordable housing and felt the Commission should really start looking in detail at the issue. He suggested the Commission come up with a definition of affordable housing for South Burlington and also suggested forming a task force. c. Members agreed that subdivision review was not needed for the road widening in front of Holiday Inn. d. Mr. Burgess questioned the 4-story building on Williston Rd. now under construction. Mr. Weith said Mr_. Ward told him M used tointerprett�eie ,gh-t restriction frQM—street ' grade. the way it is now interpreted, th�buildin would ex- ceed the iim ti Mr. Jacob said to tell Mr. Ward that he should —continue to use the present interpretation until further notice. __Mr,_ Burgess felt that eleya-tpns._should be considered as part of the approval process_ Mr. Jacob asked Mr. Werth to -provide —±formation as to when the project was approved and the square footage approved at the time. e. Ms. Peacock noted the boat and sign are still located on the Gracey's property. 2. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of Dennis Blodgett for construction of an 18 unit planned residential development on a 4.4 acre parcel of land, Holmes Road east of Shelburne Road PLANNING COMMISSION 5 SEPTEMBER 1989 PAGE 2 Mr. Llewellyn said they received preliminary approval on 11 July. This is the same plan with the 21 stipulation from the previously approval now addressed. Mr. Weith said his only suggested is that trees to be saved should be so noted as they will be used for the $7500 landscaping credit. Mr. Craig raised the question of no parking on only one side of the road. He understood there was to be no parking on the street at all, per the new public/private road policy. Mr. Blodgett said he did not mind putting no parking signs on both side of the street. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Final Plat application of Dennis Blodgett for construction of an 18 unit planned residential development as depicted on a 7 page set of plans titled "Blodgett Property Development, Overall Site Plan," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc, and dated May, 1989, last revised 8/16/89, with the followL stipulations: 1. The applicant shall ipost a $20,500, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. The Commission grants a $7500 credit for the existing trees within the private loop and the 25 foot undisturbed buffer strip. The plan shall be revised to indicate as "to be saved" those trees within the private loop which have been identified and plotted on the plan. The trees to be saved shall be surrounded by a snowfence to protect them during construction. 2. Street lights shall be installed prior to the sale of units. 3. A bond in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer for the new street, sewer, water and sidewalk shall be posted prior to permit. 4. A $200 per unit recreation fee shall be paid prior to permit. 5. A $462 Shelburne Road intersection fee shall be paid prior to permit based on the 13 peak hour trip ends generated by the development. 6. A 25 foot buffer along the north and eastern 212pert,y lines shall be left undisturbed. This buffer strip shall be adequately protected during construction. 7. An 8100 gpd sewer allocation is granted. The $2 50 per gallon fee shall be paid prior to permit. 8. The developer shall furnish and install the street signs PLANNING COMMISSION 5 SEPTEMBER 1989 PAGE 3 and stop signs. 9. Legal documents for the new street and Deed) shall be submitted approval prior to permit. to the Cit Offer of Dedication Attorney for 10. Condominium association rules and covenants which ad- dress the 25 foot buffer strip and prohibit the conversion of garage space to living space (in order to preserve the number of parking spaces) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to permit. No changes shall be made to such rules and covenants without Planning Commission approval. The City reserves the right to enforce this provision. 11. Driveways shall have a depressed concrete curb Side- walks shall be concrete and shall be 8 inches thick at driveways and 5 inches thick otherwise. 12. The private road shall be built to City specifications with the exception of curbs, width and sidewalks. 13. "No Parking" signs shall be installed on both sides of the private drive. The plan shall be revised to show this 14. The Final Plat must be recorded within 90 days or this apparoval is null and void. The plat shall be submitted to the Planner for approval prior to recording. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Discussion with Dave Simendinger regarding the upgrade of gasoline pumps at the Gulf Station located on Williston Rd Mr. Simendinger said the new pumps will decrease the number of active hoses from 5 to 4. Members agreed this was not an expansion of the use. 4. Discussion of Section 18.112, "Height of Structures," of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations Mr. Weith said the question is what the Commissiion wants to accomplish with the height regulations. Mr. Belter mentioned fire protection. Ms. Peacock mentioned aesthetics. Mr. Burgess noted- this__has_been a_major problem. Mr. Craig said he would like to see how BOCA calculates height. Mr. Hoehl said under BOCA, the height is never more than 35 ft. from any grade. Mr. Jacob questioned whether there should be special rules for residential and commercial. Mr. Burgess said he would like them measured the same way even if they _,X_ PLANNING COMMISSION 5 SEPTEMBER 1989 PAGE 4 are different height. Members agreed on the need to change the wording of then *--- - _ _ regulations,. Mr. Jeith will check o-S6C7� ar! -Act"`-2�58✓ wordings and will warn a public hearing for the change. Discussion of prop oject_in Burlington sed Red Rocks condominium develo- nt Mr. Weith said he believed the plan has gotten preliminary approval. Mr. Walcoff who lives in Phase II of the project said there was a question of whether the plan should have to go back to Act 250 because the approved plan has been changed. Mr. Weith said the project was approved in 1976 in 3 phases, 2 of which are built. THere are 82 units proposed in phase 3. The developer willneed a permit extension from Act. 250. The S. Burlington Red Rocks Park Commission wants a fence around the boundary if it can be done without removing trees. Mr. Walcoff noted there is also a runoff problem. The Commission felt that at the least there should be a fence and endorsed the 4 points in the letter from the Red Rocks Park Advisory Committee. 6. Discussion of recent UVM Master Plan Update Ms. Falcone said that the proposed parking behind the Sheraton is the only project that affects S. Burlington. She said there is a committee looking into parking for the whole hill section as well as a parking deck behind Waterman and satellite parking near Gutterson Field House. Mr. Jacob asked if cars can be limited to juniors and seniors. Ms. Falcone said no. Mr. Belter asked if the Sheraton parking is in the same lot used by the Sheraton for density. Mr. Weith said it is not. Mr. Burgess noted that UVM had said absolutely not to an access on East Avenue, and now that is exactly what they are doing. Ms. Falcone noted the Sheraton can also use that access and will be able to use the UVM parking lot at night. Mr. Jacob asked when the bridge on Main St. is planned. Ms. Falcone said it is slated for 1997 but the hope is to get it through in the next few years. As there was no further business to come before the Com- mission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. Section 1310 Continued Area: Area of a lot or site shall be calculated from dimensions deriv by horizontal projection of the site. Automobile Service Station: Any lot or area of land, including the bu ing or buildings thereon, which is used for the sale of any motor vehi fuel or lubricant, or which has facilities for lubricating, washing, or vicing motor vehicles by any means, but not including major body rep Automotive Repair Shop: Any lot or area of land, including the buildi or buildings thereon, which is used for the purpose of making major c minor repairs to me painting, body work, and sale of automotive p all motor vehicles locates on the premises are �s$ e- g and not for salvage. Board: The Board i I ;d by this Regulation. Building: A structu ccupied as a shelter or ro enclosure for perso :y, and including tents, lui wagons, dining cars, -camp cars, trailers or any other roofed structu wheels, or other supports used for residential business, mercantile, age, commercial, industrial, institutional, assembly, educational, o reational purposes. For the purpose of this definition "roof" shall nc clude an awning or other similar covering, whether or not permanent nature. Building Height: The vertical dimension measured from the average tion of the finished lot grade at the front of the building, to the highes point of the roof in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansa: roof; and to the average height between the plate and ridge of a gable, or gambrel roof. Building Line: The line beyond which a building or other structure o portion thereof may be erected. The building line is considered a ve plane intersecting the ground on such line. Business, Convenience: A retail store selling groceries and sundry necessary items; designed primarily to serve the immediate neighbo hood. Such store may include the selling of gasoline, oil, etc. , as a secondary portion of the business. Business. Non-Conformine_ A commercial business, established pri to February 7, 1972 or allowed since that date under Section 606 of tl- Regulations as amended, which is not located in an established busin( district. Business Service: Any business activity which renders service to ott' commercial or industrial enterprises but limited to financial instituti clerical services, consultation and similar services, but not includin manufacturing, repairing, processing or fabrication of an), article, s stance or commodity. Camp: Land on which are located one or more non-commercial cabi' trailers, shelters, or other accomcdation suitable for seasons or temporary living purposes, excluding mobile homes. -19- - activity even though rental may be involved. effectiv71 be 3 5.6.4 A locate4 i Height Restrctions: Exceptions such lc The 'i cht limitations of this Regulation shall not apply to restrict the depth heightof chimneys, water towers, cupolas, spires, belfries, antennae, which and necessary mechanical accessories when attached to or made a part water of a permitted structure, provided the height of such accessory does not .is Reg- extend more than twenty (20) feet above the highest point of the structure. 5.6.5 In measuring building height, the standard shall be the vertical distance from the average finished grade surrounding the building to a point midway between the highest and lowest points on the roof. e either i ,ommis-: 5.6.6 Corner Parcel way On corner parcels, r41 bv� h street frontage shall be at least sixty (60) fee i the center of the street. On corner parcels i I Route 116 from the CVU Road to Buck Hill Road, i street frontage shall be at ded as A least forty (40) fee the center of the street. The other yard requirem _ 's the other lots in the same 4 zoned district. On any corner lot on which a front yard is required by this Regulation, no or wall, fence, or other structure shall be erected, and no hedge, tree, shrub, rises ant or other growth shall be maintained in such location within such required mployeel_. front yard span as to cause danger to traffic by obstructing the view. action .5.7 NONCONFORMING USES AND NON -COMPLYING STRUCTURES .- - _ _ ?rovidin :aange tb 5.7.1 Non -conforming Uses: The following provisions shall apply to all inr��oa. structures and uses existing on the effective date of this Regulation not op which do not conform to the requirements set forth in this Regulation and of one h to all structures and uses that in the future do not conform by reason of ` -" of three - any subsequent amendment to this Regulation. - Any non -conforming use of structures or land, except those specified not less - .. below, may be continued indefinitely, but: - ...«.- , :• - - > - (a) Shall not be moved, enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed, `- `- - or restored (except as provided below), nor shall any external :e, suc evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever without ?roperti-_...:...- . , -. - : _ - prior approval of the Board of Adjustment. -'=3L'y: Shall not be changed to another non -conforming use without approval of the Board of Adjustment and then onlyto a use which in the - -- - --_ ,--opinion of the Board, is of the same or of a more restricted nature. - "" (c) -Shall not be re-established if such use has been discontinued for atonal :.e., °d -_ any reason, except damage, for a period of six months, or has been mercial changed to, or replaced by, a conforming use. -13 - 1510.8 forl1ing, `S�� �b v - hed structure designed and oly. 1510.9 Dwelling, structure containing two dwell ocupancy by not more than two 1510.10 Dwelling, multi -family - a residential building designed for and occupied by three or more families, with the number of families in residence 4 not exceeding the number of dwelling units provided.. �T 1510.11 Family - an individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or those placed in a home for adoption, and foster children, or a group of not more than. five persons who need not be related by blood or J marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit. 1510.12 Height - vertical distance measured from the average elevation'i of the proposed finished grade to the higher point of the structure. Antenna structures shall be subject to.the height limitations contained in these regulations but in the RC, M, a V and AGR II Districts antenna structures may exceed the height if approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a conditional use. 1510.13 Lot - a parcel of land of at least sufficient size to meet the minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as required by these regulations. Land subject to easements (except public utilities) shall not be included. 1510.14 Lot frontage - a boundary of a lot along a public street. 1510.15 Lot width - the distance between the side boundaries of a lot as measured at any point parallel to and equal from the the lot frontage line. I Me 1510.16 1510.17 1510.18 1510.19 1510.20 1510.21 1510.22 1510.23 .ffIVE REPAIR: or rebuilding or recondiIs - :_Y. oning of motor veh )ody, frame, or fender A�Crajghtening and re- Co % L I e S Sting of automobiles. En1r: A story ing level of which is Y ourl4 feet or mor zed grade where such grade is that exterior on any street, and the oor level of which int on the periphery of building. (See "*s7r1: A slip, mooring or space to accommodate a boat or vessel. 4 lRDIrIG HOUSE: A building or premises, other than a hotel, inn, motel, tourist WAK urt or loaging house, where not more than five (5) rooms are let and where mealsSAW y be regulary served by prearrange —meat for compensations; not open to transient averts, in contradistinction to hotels, restaurants and tourist homes, which are peen to transients. �JILDABLE AREA: The portion of a lot remaining after required yards have been viacd . ING: Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used -for built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattelA or property ' 7 f any kind. This shall include tents, awnings or vehicles situated on private property and used for purposes of a building. :=BUILDING HED77: The term "Building Height" shall mean the vertical distance _ ;`Geasured from the established grade to the highest point of the roof surface for fiat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs and to the average height twEen eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. where a building located on sloping terrain, the height may be measured from the avera e Y ground level. of the grade at the building wall. (See diagram, Figure II� BUILDING LINE: A line formed by the face of a building. (See diagram, Figure III) 'f�l 4R: Any space in a building, the structural ceiling level of which is ' =des is han four (4) feet above the average finished grade where such grade '8buts that exterior wall of such building which fronts on any street. A cellar should not be considered in determining the pe=missible number of stories. (See diagram, Figure I) I K DAY CARE FACILITY: Any place operated as a business or service on a regular or continuous basis, whether for compensation or not, whose primary function is :protection, care, and su-pervision of children under sixteen years of age outside ..their homes for periods of less than twenty-four hours a day by a person other �'-than the child's own parent, guardian, or relative. A person providing care for ildren of not more than two families other than that of the person providing -� the care is exempted. i ^^. -4- (reVised 7/29/E6) (3) Building Height - The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the roof. (4) Camp - A str " ' -- --------I occupancy only. (5)' Conditional convenience and necessity and its only upon the approva tice and public heari VNco2r$lL be permitted after due no- e detrimental to the general compre ounding property. (6) Dwelling - A building or entirely sear -contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for one family. A camper trailer, boarding or rooming house, convalescent home, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing or other similar structure shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling. (7) Family - One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single non-profit housekeeping unit. More than five persons, exclusive of domestic servants, not related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not be considered to constitute a family. (8) Lot - Any parcel of land, not necessarily coincident with a lot or lots shown on a map of record, which is occupied or which is to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, if any, or by a group of buildings accessory thereto, if any, together with the required open spaces appurtenant to such building or group of buildings. When the boundary of a lot abutts a public right of way, the edge of said right of way abutting the lot will be used as the lot boundary when determining the lot's size. (9) Manufacturing - Any process whereby the nature, size, or shape of articles or raw materials are changed, or where articles are assembled r f. and packaged. s (10) Mobile Home - A prefabricated dwelling unit constructed so as a to permit it being moved on wheels and designed to permit residential tniti dasse .A = (35, s . quaff x com; hei whey and i now i or or ter is cor of o tt of r sa - 2 - 1 1301.8 Building Height: The vertical dimension measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building, to the highest point of the roof in the case of a flat 'roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to the average height between the plate and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. 1301.9 Building Line: Tl uilding, or other structure or porti, J d, The building line is considered a v l�l�- the ground on such line. 1301.10 Business Service; vhich renders service to other commerci es but limited to financial institutions, CLericat services, consultation and similar services, but not including manufacturing, repairing, processing or fabrication of any article, substance or commodity. 1301.11 Camp: Land on which are located one or more non-commercial cabins, shelters or other accommodation suitable for seasonal or temporary living purposes. 1301.12 Clinic: Any establishment where human patients are examined and treated by doctors or dentists but not hospitalized overnight. 1301.13 Club: Any establishment operated for social, recreational, or educational purposes but open only to members and not the general public. 1301.14 Dump: A lot or parcel of land or portion thereof used for the disposal by abandonment, dumping, burning, or any other means and for whatever purpose, of trash, refuse, junk, discarded machinery, vehicles or parts thereof, or waste material of any kind. 1301.15 Dwelling: Any structure designed or used as the living quarters for one or more families. 1301.16 Essential Services: The erection, construction, alteration or maintenance by public utilities or municipal or other governmental agencies of public buildings, including public office buildings, and generating or processing plants, underground or overhead gas,. electrical, steam or water transmission or distribution systems, including poles, wires, mains , drains, sewers, pipes, conduit cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, street signs, and other similar equipment and accessories in connection therewith, reasonably necessary for the furnishing of adequate services by such public utilities 6r municipal or other governmental agencies or for the public health or safety or general welfare. -23- r - - - -- - f ENV -�--- I ' - -�_I� -_;rt- _ __-_- - - IuCJi-�- 1,4AY6 . V •E/Li ,' G L/,_ 9c r�•� Ti�G� r /� l��i t G 1-� i - ? r� --� .. rorre5t/Le5chmacher • 9rchitect5 May 31, 1988 Robert and Cynthia Hoehl c/o IDX Box C1070 1500 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05402-1070 Dear Bob and Cynthia: FILE COPY Regarding your house design with respect to the South Burlington zoning height regulations: The regulations state that the maximum height shall be 35 feet, or 2 1/2 stories, and as applied to a structure, this is the "maximum vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the peak of the roof." Since the wording does not take into account a varying grade, such as on a sloping site, we have always kept our designs a maximum of 35' from the highest point vertically to the corresponding finished grade on the slope. In our experience, while zoning regulations may vary considerably from town to town, there is no case that we know of where the height of the structure on a sloping site is determined by measuring the projected distance from the lowest elevation of the grade at the structure to the highest point of the structure. Indeed, South Burlington cannot have been using this method to determine allowable height because there are several houses built recently near your site which would violate the regulations if measured this way. In general, any full 2 story house with a walk -out basement on the downhill side and a roof pitch of more than 6" in 12" would have to violate the height restrictions if measured from basement floor to top of roof. I am sure there are many such houses recently built in South Burlington. If we measure the vertical distance from the proposed finish grade up to the top of the chimney of your house, as shown on the North Elevation on Sheet A7, we see it is exactly 35', which, in fact, is how we established the height of the chimney! Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 ■ 802 229 5774 Robert and Cynthia Hoehl Page 2 May 31, 1988 In any case, I am told that at least two homeowners have been instructed by the town to measure their heights in a manner similar to the method we have used for your house. Incidentally, the inclusion of chimneys in the height restriction requires rewording for clarification of the zoning regulations. I was under the impression that a public vote is required for any such change or addition. From an aesthetic standpoint, if the requirement becomes to measure the projected distance from lowest grade to highest point of structure, anyone like yourself who wants a full 2 story house with walk -out basement will have to build a (latish roof, which on a traditional house design probably seems rather out of place. Most important, either interpretation of the regulation will not require you to lower your roof ridge; the only consequence is that you may not be able to have a walk -out basement. Thus, the "projected distance" method of measuring height will not affect the visual impact of your house one iota! Here also is the wording of several other towns' height regulations --as I say, we have never run into a situation like yours where the most extreme elevation differences are used to determine the height: an average or vertical measurement is always used, in our experience. Montpelier: 45 feet or 3 stories. Zoning Administrator interprets this to mean height from average grade to highest point of building including chimneys. Shelburne: 35 feet. Vertical distance measured from average elevation of the proposed finish grade to the higher point of the structure. Waitsfield: 35 feet except operating farm silos to a height of 75 feet measured from the finished grade at the foundation to the highest point of the building --Zoning Administrator interprets this to mean average grade on a sloping site. Colchester: 30 feet or 2 1/2 stories. On sloping terrain, the vertical distance measured from the average ground level of the grade at the building to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable roofs. Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 - 802 229 5774 e. Robert and Cynthia Hoehl Page 3 May 31, 1988 In summation, I think the most important thing here is that the most extreme interpretation of the South Burlington regulations will not require you to lower your roof, only to eliminate the walk -out at the basement, which greatly affects your use of the house but does not at all affect the visual impact of the house on the neighborhood. Since other owners have not been required to meet the regulations in this way, I think this is very unfair to you. GT/scc Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont C5602 ■ 802 229 5774 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reggulations 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 Monday, September 25, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. to con- sider the following: # 1 Appeal of O'Toole's Realty Corporation, John Anderson, agent seeking approval from Section 19.65 Multiple uses and Section 11.201 Night clubs of the South Burlington Reg- ulations. Request is for per- mission to occupy an existing structure as a res- taurant/night club containing 5600 square feet in conjunc- tion with a professional of- fice containing 2800 square feet, on a lot containin 1.37 acres, located at 171g Williston Road. #2 Appeal of Rober H. Hoel seeking a appeal from a decision of the Administra- tive Officer, resulting in a ruling of Section 18.112 Height of structure. Request is for permission to construct a chimney which exceeds a height of thirty five (35) feet, at 1535 Spear Street. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 September 11, 1989 Mr. Robert Hoehl 1535 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Hoehl: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 25, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your zoning application. Very truly, c' Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp Official Use City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date q Applicant Owner, leasee, agent APPLICATION # HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address /r.3r '�_ Telephone # i60 76 7 1 Landowner _�4-�w,i Address Location and description of property b4uf- - Type of application check one ( X ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question�=G,i,L i �%NAx-iAa v� V rF�T i C t__ b i S _nA_/V C+'6— %3,L71-i IV .4 0 /L it !Gi% v i' St�.�Q G�4 �/J•�- ", Reason for appeal ST,9T.E Ga,,v /AO ✓•` 0 ,rS' 7-.1447- AMgi' 6✓ _C e ^' L 4 %,J 1' , _,` _ 1Z0 If N Q Zi-/ 1�1.i I- GAL �0i , �r+►� ON3r/ dhA�/+ i N9 C4/�7M • 0 i W S U4 /i wCA- (as Efv The owner or applicant should submit along with this application ( copies plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signature of Appellant, - 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 Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date f/ Time Appeal of seeking a 4,4 f from Section rZ the South Burlingt Request is for permission to 4*s c LA wZ/�''i rY,� AVE TAD /9JRz- L" r,` L M9y l4 99 WAY 4,Lb 1"i cep g 0 ro 4AW . City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date 5/17/89 Applicant Robert H. Hoehl Owner, leasee, agent Official Use APPLICATION # HEARING DATE FILING DATE c� FEE AMOUNT�� ' Address 1535 Spear Street Telephone # 860-7071 Landowner Cynthia & Robert Hoehl Address 1535 Spear Street Location and description of property Single-family home at 1535 Spear Street. Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( X ) request for a variance. I 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 appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question 18.112 "The maximum height for all strtirtLLr�S—shall he 5 feet.& 21 a1..a "M er al dis anc measured from finished Reason for appeal Permission to build chimney on house with walkout basement; maximum projected eig 421 The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. r" oo 6/12/89 Hearing Date Signature of Appellant 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 Day of Wee at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of _� ` 'W seeking a Jle" From Section of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to CAM City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 31, 1989 Mr. Robert Hoehl 1535 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning application Dear Mr. Hoehl: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 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, June 12, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your zoning application. Please plan to attend this hearing. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp LEGAL NOTICES 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with tl South Burlington Zonis Regulations and Chopt 117, Title 24, V.S.A. tf South Burlington Zonir Board of Adjustment w hold a public hearing at tf South Burlington Municip Offices, Conference Roar 575 Dorset Street, Sou' Burlington, Vermont c Monday June 12, 1989 i 7:00 p.m. to consider th following: #1 Appeal of Eugen Brooks seeking a varianc From Section 18.00 Dimer sional Requirements of th South Burlington Regulc Lions. Request is for permi! sion to construct a 24' X 3i detached garage to withi ten (10) feet of the rea yard line, on a lot con taining approximatel, 11,100 square feet, locate(' at 26 Henry Court #2 Appeal of -Robert H Hoehl seeking a variant( From Section )8.112 Heigh of structures sub section (d of the South Burlington Reg ulations. Request is for per mission to construct c chimney and change real elevation to a maximum height of forty one and one half (41.6) feet on an exist. ing single-family dwelling lo- cated at 1535 Spear Street. #3 Appeal of E.B. Crane, John Frantz, agent seeking upproval from Section 19.65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington Regulo- ,ions. Request is for permis- ion to occupy Ipproximately 520 square eet as a recording studio in :onjunction with two exist- nyy uses, i.e. retail clothing i.b a. Green Mountain Big ind Tall and automotive re - )air d.b.o. Rick's Top Shop, ocated at 1333 Shelburne toad. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Aay 27, 1989. 5i I f I 371 I co (D CO 7-0 J I N Awev- -- -a Ir-0,11 MEIN a-- - NO � F- C; .' Elo ,/� ,F- L- � VA-l-, -P, 3 all Y- -j No Text