HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-11-01 - Decision - 0054 Central Avenue{
#MS-11-01-----BELAIR AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT C --------------
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
CLAUDIA BERGER AND SHELDON KATZ - 54 CENTRAL AVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-11-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Claudia Berger and Sheldon Katz, hereafter referred to as the applicants, seek approval to
expand a non -complying single family dwelling by: 1) enclosing existing front porch, 2)
constructing 6' x 10' covered front porch, 3) converting rear deck to 2-story addition, 4) adding
8'x12.5' screened in rear deck, and 5) adding two (2) shed dormers, 54 Central Avenue.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on June 7 and 21, and July 5 and 19, and
a site visit on July 19, 2011. The applicants represented themselves.
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:
GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicants seek approval to expand a non -complying single family dwelling by: 1)
enclosing existing front porch, 2) constructing 6' x 10' covered front porch, 3) converting rear
deck to 2-story addition, 4) adding 8'x12.5' screened in rear deck, and 5) adding two (2)
shed dormers, 54 Central Avenue.
2. The application was received on April 25, 2011.
3. The owners of record of the subject property are Claudia Berger & Sheldon Katz, the
applicants.
4. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District.
5. The plan submitted is entitled "Plat of Survey Sheldon Katz & Claudia Berger Property
(Queen City Park Area) No. 54 Central Ave. So. Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Warren
Robenstien, dated 5/20/04, last revised on 7/5/2011.
6. A westerly elevation drawing was submitted on July 13, 2011 by the applicant (author
unknown), depicting the enclosed front porch (project item #1) and the proposed covered
front porch (project item #2).
7. The adjacent property to the north is owned by Bruce and Janet Alvarez (52 Central
Avenue).
8. Bruce and Janet Alvarez submitted written testimony including a four (4) page undated
narrative and a one (1) page narrative dated 7/14/11 to which is attached seven (7) pages of
photographs.
1
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
W S-11-01
9. The homes at 52 and 54 Central Avenue are just over eight (8) feet apart at the rear and 9.5
feet apart at the front.
10. The subject property has adequate on -site parking to meet the minimum requirements of
Section 13.01.
11. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:
QCP Zoning District
Re aired
Pro used
Min. Lot Size
7500 S.F.
4350 S.F
Max. Building Coverage****
40%
34%
gMax. Overall Coverage*****
60%
47%
Min. Front Setback
10 ft
19 ft
♦ Min. Side Setback
5 ft.
3 & 4 ft +/-
Min. Rear Setback
10 ft.
Approx 30 ft.
�l Max. Building Height
25 ft.
<25 ft
A Pre-existing non-compliance; will be reviewed under SBLDR section 4.08 (G)
♦ Subject to approval under Section 3.06 (J) of the SBLDR's
4 Zoning compliance
****Many of the homes in the Queen City Park neighborhood are eligible for relief from coverage
limitations under Section 3.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for pre-
existing non -compliant lots which existed prior to February 28, 1974. Lots smaller than 5000
square feet in size may exceed the maximum allowed for the district up to a maximum of forty
percent (40%) for buildings and sixty percent (60%) for overall coverage.
The Board has reviewed the application under Sections 3.06(J) [Exceptions to Setback and Lot
Coverage Requirements for Lots Existing Prior to February 28, 1974], 3.11(D) [Alterations to
Non -Complying Structures] and 4.08(E), and (F) [Queen City Park District] of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR).
Submission requirements have been met for Section 3.11(D), 4.08(E), and 4.08(F)
[Note: for this application, the Board has performed an analysis for each discrete element of the
proposed project]
PROJECT ITEM FINDINGS OF FACT
PROJECT ITEM 1: ENCLOSE EXISTING FRONT PORCH, ONE STORY
12. The existing open front porch has dimensions of 5.5' X 19.66' and is located 4+/- feet from
the side property line. The proposal is to enclose this area with walls, thereby increasing the
size of the building.
13. The applicant has submitted a survey plat as required by Section 3.06(J) (4) which is
incomplete and does not meet the submission requirements under this Section as the plat
2
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
#MS-11-01
does not show the exact location of the proposed front porch enclosure and does not
indicate the actual proposed distance from the proposed front porch enclosure to the
northerly property boundary line; instead it only provides a range (project item 1).
PROJECT ITEM 2. ADD COVERED FRONT PORCH
14. This proposed alteration consists of constructing a new 6' X 10' covered front porch that will
comply with the front and side yard setback requirements.
PROJECT ITEM 3. ENCLOSE EXISTING REAR DECK, TWO STORIES, EXTEND EXISTING GABLE ROOF
15. This proposed alteration consists of constructing an 11.5' X 19' 2-story addition over an
existing deck located 3 feet from the north property boundary line.
PROJECT ITEM 4. ADD SCREENED -IN REAR DECK
16. This proposed alteration consists of constructing a new 8' X 12.5' screened -in porch onto
the rear of the building which will meet the side and rear setback requirements.
PROJECT ITEM 5. ADD SHED DORMER ON FRONT (WEST) AND REAR (EAST)
17. This proposed alteration consists of adding a shed dormer on the front (west) and on the
rear (east).
PROJECT ITEM CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PROJECT ITEM 1: ENCLOSE EXISTING FRONT PORCH, ONE STORY
Section 3.06 (J) (1), (3) & (4) of the SBLDR states that:
(1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear
setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the
district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet.
(3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure
into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be
approved by the Development Review Board subject to the 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;
(b) access to sunlight of adjoining andlor nearby properties;
(c) adequate on -site parking; and
3
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
#MS-11-01
(d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.
(4) Processing of a Request. Any request under subsections (1) - (3) above to expand an
existing structure, or place a new structure, to within less than ten (10) feet of any
property line shall include the submission of survey data prepared by a licensed
surveyor showing the location of affected property lines, existing and/or proposed
structures, and any other information deemed necessary by the Administrative Officer.
1. For this element of the project, applicants propose a side setback of 4+/- feet which does
not comply with Section 3.06 (J) (1) of the SBLDR. Section 3.06(J) (3) permits additional
encroachment into the side setback if the proposed encroachment will not have an undue
adverse affect on the criteria listed above.
2. The survey plat submitted with a last revision date of July 5, 2011 is incomplete and does
not meet the submission requirements under Section 3.06(J) (4) for this project item as the
plat does not show the location of the proposed front porch enclosure and does not
indicate the actual proposed distance from the proposed front porch enclosure to the
northerly property boundary line; instead it only provides a range (+/- 4 feet) which
prevents the Board from verifying the distance is at least three (3) feet such that, among
other things, Applicants cannot establish compliance with items 3.06(J)(3)(a), (b), (d). The
Board therefore concludes that the submission requirements of this Section are not being
met and this project item cannot be reviewed under this Section.
Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the SBLDR states that "except as otherwise provided in sub -sections (2)
and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park District, and in Article 12, Section
12.01(D), any non -complying building or structure may be altered, including additions to the
building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five
percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for industrial and
commercial property of the current assessed value as determined by the City Assessor and in
compliance with Section 3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an expansion to a building or
structure is proposed, the addition or expansion itself must comply with the provisions of these
regulations (e.g., setback requirements)".
Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR states that "the thirty-five percent (35%) limitation for
residential properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence
prior to February 28, 1974".
3. This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11 (D)(2) of the SBLDR is not subject to
the 35% limitation described in Section 3.11 (D)(1), as the structure is on a lot that was in
existence prior to February 28, 1974.
4. Section 3.11(D) (1) requires that an addition or expansion to a non -complying structure
meet the minimum side yard setback and Section 4.08 does not provide otherwise for non-
complying structures in the Queen City Park District. Applicants' proposal to enclose the
existing front porch is an addition or expansion to a building that does not itself comply
with the required 5-foot side yard setback. Therefore, the proposed front porch enclosure
does not comply with Section 3.11 (D) (1). Therefore, the applicants must obtain approval
under Section 3.06 (J) of the SBLDR's in order to construct this project item as proposed.
Section 4.08 (F). Non -complying structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District are
not subject to all provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconforming uses and non -complying
4
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
WS-11-01
structures and lots. Non -complying structures shall be subject to the following requirements and
restrictions:
(1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not:
a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and
twenty five percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as
determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal
approved by the Administrative Officer; or
b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve
an increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
5. Applicants' proposal does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent of the fair
market value but Applicants' proposal to enclose the existing front porch does involve an
increase to the square footage of the building or structure. Therefore, the non -complying
building may not be altered except as allowed by Section 4.08(F) (2) and (3):
(2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-
five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the
structure's height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14,
Conditional Use Review.
6. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled
'Conditional Use Review' below.
(3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed
alteration or expansion will not adversely affect:
a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
c. Adequate on -site parking.
7. The proposed alteration is proposed to be located only 4+/- feet from the northern
property line, where the abutting property also appears to be very close to the property
line. The distance between these two structures appears to be very minimal. As such, the
subject proposed development, given the proximity to the adjoining home and its location,
will block the existing view of Lake Champlain thus having an adverse effect on views of
the adjoining property to the north. Also, the subject proposed development would
adversely affect access to sunlight for the adjoining property to the north.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Requlations, 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,
8. The proposed alteration is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan (see also 3 b below).
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
WS-11-01
2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the
proposed use is located.
According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is
formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with
the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's
historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages
the conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences.
9. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. It concluded that it is in compliance with this
criterion.
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.
10. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is
located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
11. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. The QCP district is historically a very dense
neighborhood. The proposed alteration is to the front of the property and will blend in with
the remainder of the building. The Board concludes that this project is in compliance with
this criterion.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
12. The proposed alteration will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
13. The proposed alteration will not be in compliance with the side setback requirement for the
district.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
14. The Board considered testimony and evidence from all parties. No evidence was provided
that the proposed alteration would adversely affect abutting property owners' access to
renewable energy resources. The Board also completed a site visit. The Board concludes
that the proposed alteration will not adversely affect utilization of renewable energy
resources.
PROJECT ITEM 2. ADD COVERED FRONT PORCH
Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the Land Development Regulations states that "except as otherwise
provided in sub -sections (2) and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park
6
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
{
#MS-11-01
District, and in Article 12, Section 12.01(D), any non -complying building or structure may be
altered, including additions to the building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed
in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent
(25%) for industrial and commercial property of the current assessed value as determined by
the City Assessor and in compliance with Section 3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an
expansion to a building or structure is proposed, the addition or expansion itself must comply
with the provisions of these regulations (e.g., setback requirements)".
Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's states that "the thirty-five percent (35%) limitation for
residential properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence
prior to February 28, 1974".
15. This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's is not subject to
the 35% limitation described in Section 3.11 (D) (1).
This proposed alteration is in compliance with the requirement in Section 3.11 (D) (1) with
respect to compliance with setback requirements.
Section 4.08 (F). Non -complying structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District are
not subject to all provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconforming uses and non -complying
structures and lots. Non -complying structures shall be subject to the following requirements and
restrictions:
(1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not:
a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and twenty
five percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as determined
by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the
Administrative Officer; or
b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve an
increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
16. Applicants' proposal does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent of the fair
market value but Applicants' proposal to construct a new covered front porch does involve
an increase to the footprint of the building or structure. Therefore, the non -complying
building may not be altered except as allowed by Section 4.08(F)(2) and (3):
(2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-
five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the
structure's height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14,
Conditional Use Review.
17. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled
'Conditional Use Review' below.
(3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed
alteration or expansion will not adversely affect:
a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
c. Adequate on -site parking.
7
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
#MS-11-01
18. The Board considered evidence and testimony from all parties and completed a site visit.
The site visit included a visit to the property immediately north of the proposed project. No
elevation drawings or renderings of this proposed alteration from this northerly view were
provided by the applicant, despite requests from the Board to provide this information.
Based on the information provided, the Board concludes that sufficient evidence exists to
determine that it is reasonably foreseeable that the proposed alteration would adversely
affect view of adjoining and/or nearby properties. Absent detailed drawings from the
applicant that demonstrate otherwise, the Board must conclude that this item is not being
met.
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.
19. The proposed alteration 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.
According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is
formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with
the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's
historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages
the conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences.
20. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. It concluded that this project item will be in
conformance with this criterion.
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.
21. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is
located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
22. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. The QCP district is historically a very dense
neighborhood. The proposed alteration is to the front of the property and will blend in with
the remainder of the building. The Board considered testimony from the adjacent property
owners with respect to any impact on access to sunlight which could result from the
8
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
I
WS-11-01
proposed alteration. The Board concludes that this project item will be in conformance with
this criterion.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
23. The proposed alteration will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
24. The proposed alteration will be in compliance with the side and front setback requirements
for the district.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
25. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect abutting property owners' utilization of
renewable energy resources.
PROJECT ITEM 3. ENCLOSE EXISTING REAR DECK, TWO STORIES, EXTEND EXISTING GABLE ROOF
Section 3.06 (J) (1) and (3) of the SBLDR
(1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear
setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the
district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet.
(3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure
into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be
approved by the Development Review Board subject to the 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;
(b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
(c) adequate on -site parking; and
(d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.
26. For this element of the project, applicants propose a side setback of 3 feet which does not
comply with Section 3.06 (J) (1) of the SBLDR. Section 3.06(J) (3) permits additional
encroachment into the side setback if the proposed encroachment will not have an undue
adverse affect on the criteria above.
27. For the purposes of this item, the survey plat submitted with a last revision date of July 5,
2011 is complete and meets the submission requirements under Section 3.06(J)(4).
9
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
WS-11-01
28. The Board conducted a site visit to evaluate the effect of the proposed alteration on the
above criteria. The distance between these two structures appears to be very minimal. As
such, the subject proposed development, given the proximity to the adjoining home and its
location, will block southern solar exposure. This project item will therefore have an
adverse effect on access to sunlight for the property to the north. Further, the Board
concludes that the adverse effect is undue based on the extent of the impact reasonably
expected. The Board therefore concludes that the requirements of Section 3.06 (J) (3) of
the SBLDRs are not met.
Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the Land Development Regulations states that "except as otherwise
provided in sub -sections (2) and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park
District, and in Article 12, Section 12.01(D), any non -complying building or structure may be
altered, including additions to the building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed
in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent
(25%) for industrial and commercial property of the current assessed value as determined by
the City Assessor and in compliance with Section 3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an
expansion to a building or structure is proposed, the addition or expansion itself must comply
with the provisions of these regulations (e.g., setback requirements)".
Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's states that "the thirty-five percent (35%) limitation for
residential properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence
prior to February 28, 1974".
29. This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's is not subject to
the 35% limitation described in Section 3.11 (D) (1).
30. Section 3.11 (D) (1) requires that an addition or expansion to a non -complying structure
meet the minimum side yard setback and Section 4.08 does not provide otherwise for non-
complying structures in the Queen City Park District. Applicants' proposal to construct a 2-
story addition over an existing deck is an addition or expansion to a building that does not
itself comply with the required 5-foot side yard setback. Therefore, the Board concludes
that the proposal to construct a 2-story addition over an existing deck does not comply
with Section 3.11 (D) (1) and as stated above, does not also meet the requirements of
Section 3.06 (J).
Section 4.08 (F). Non -complying structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District are
not subject to all provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconforming uses and non -complying
structures and lots. Non -complying structures shall be subject to the following requirements and
restrictions:
(1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not:
a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and twenty
five percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as determined
by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the
Administrative Officer; or
b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve an
increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
10
C \Documents and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
J
l
WS-11-01
31. Applicants' proposal does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent of the fair
market value but Applicants' proposal to construct a 2-story addition over an existing deck
does involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. Therefore, the
non -complying building may not be altered except as allowed by Section 4.08(F)(2) and
(3):
(2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-
five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the
structure's height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14,
Conditional Use Review.
32. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled
'Conditional Use Review' below.
(3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed
alteration or expansion will not adversely affect:
a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
c. Adequate on -site parking.
33. The proposed alteration is to be located only 3 feet from the northern property line, where
the abutting property also appears to be very close to the property line. The distance
between these two structures appears to be very minimal. As such, the subject proposed
development, given the proximity to the adjoining home and its location, will block
southern solar exposure. The Board therefore concludes that project item #3 will adversely
affect access to sunlight and is therefore non -compliant with Section 4.08 (F) (3) (b) of the
SBLDR's.
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.
34. The proposed alteration is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan (see 3 b below).
2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the
proposed use is located.
According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is
formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with
the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's
historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages
the conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences.
11
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
(
W S-11-01
35. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. The Board concluded that this project item is in
compliance with this criterion.
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.
36. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is
located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
37. The Board evaluated this criterion following completion of a site visit examining the
existing character of the neighborhood. The QCP district is historically a very dense
neighborhood. The proposed alteration is to the rear of the property and will not be visible
from the street. The Board considered testimony from the adjacent property owners with
respect to any impact on access to sunlight which could result from the proposed
alteration. The Board concludes that this project item is in compliance with this criterion.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
38. The proposed alteration will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
39. The proposed alteration will not be in compliance with the side setback requirement for the
district and has not met the requirement for approval under 3.06 (J) of the SBLDR's.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
40. The Board considered testimony and evidence from all parties. No evidence was provided
that the proposed alteration would adversely affect abutting property owners' access to
renewable energy resources. The Board also completed a site visit. The Board concludes
that the proposed alteration will not adversely affect utilization of renewable energy
resources.
PROJECT ITEM 4. ADD SCREENED -IN REAR DECK
Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the Land Development Regulations states that "except as otherwise
provided in sub -sections (2) and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park
District, and in Article 12, Section 12.O1(D), any non -complying building or structure may be
altered, including additions to the building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed
in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (3594o) for residential properties and twenty-five percent
(25%) for industrial and commercial property of the current assessed value as determined by
the City Assessor and in compliance with Section 3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an
expansion to a building or structure is proposed, the addition or expansion itself must comply
with the provisions of these regulations (e.g., setback requirements)".
12
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger ffd.doc
WS-11-01
Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's states that "the thirty-five percent (3556) limitation for
residential properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence
prior to February 28, 1974".
41. This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's is not subject to
the 35% limitation described in Section 3.11 (D) (1).
This proposed alteration is in compliance with the requirement in Section 3.11 (D) (1) with
respect to setback requirements.
Section 4.08 (F). Non -complying structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District are
not subject to all provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconforming uses and non -complying
structures and lots. Non -complying structures shall be subject to the following requirements and
restrictions:
(1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not:
a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and twenty
five percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as determined
by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the
Administrative Officer, or
b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve an
increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
42. Applicants' proposal does not exceed, in aggregate cost, thirty-five percent of the fair
market value but Applicants' proposal to construct a new screened -in porch onto the rear
of the building does involve an increase to the footprint of the building or structure.
Therefore, the non -complying building may not be altered except as allowed by Section
4.08(F)(2) and (3):
(2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-
five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the
structure's height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14,
Conditional Use Review.
43. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled
'Conditional Use Review' below.
(3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed
alteration or expansion will not adversely affect:
a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
c. Adequate on -site parking.
44. The proposed alteration is proposed to be located in the rear of the building and will meet
the minimum setback requirements. The Board therefore concludes that this project item
will be in compliance with 'a' and 'b' above if the alteration has a nine (9) foot plate height
and a roof pitch to match the existing house. This condition is to allow access to sunlight to
the adjoining property to the north.
13
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
f
#MS-11-01
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.
45. The proposed alteration 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.
According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is
formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with
the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's
historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages
the conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences.
46. The proposed alteration is in compliance with the proposed purpose of the district which
related to smaller lots and lesser setbacks than other residential districts.
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.
47. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is
located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
48. The proposed alteration is to the rear of the property and will blend in with the remainder
of the building. The Board therefore concludes that this project item is in compliance with
this criterion.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
49. The proposed alteration will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
50. The proposed alteration will be in compliance with the side and front setback requirements
for the district.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
51. The Board considered testimony and evidence from all parties. No evidence was provided
that the proposed alteration would adversely affect abutting property owners' access to
renewable energy resources. The Board also completed a site visit. The Board concludes
14
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
#MS-11-01
that the proposed alteration will not adversely affect utilization of renewable energy
resources.
PROJECT ITEM 5. ADD SHED DORMER ON FRONT (WEST) AND REAR (EAST)
52. The shed dormer alteration will not involve development described in Section 4.08 (F) (1)
(b) of the SBLDR.
DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the So. Burlington Development
Review Board makes the following decision relative to each of the project items as follows:
PROJECT ITEM 1: ENCLOSE EXISTING FRONT PORCH, ONE STORY
This project item is denied due to noncompliance with Sections 3.06(J) (1), (3), and (4), 3.11 (D)
(1), 4.08 (F) and 14.10 (E) of the SBLDR's.
PROJECT ITEM 2. ADD COVERED FRONT PORCH
This project item is denied due to noncompliance with Section 4.08 (F) of the SBLDR's.
PROJECT ITEM 3. ENCLOSE EXISTING REAR DECK, TWO STORIES, EXTEND EXISTING GABLE ROOF
This project item is denied due to noncompliance with Sections 3.06(J)(1) and (3), 3.11 (D) (1),
4.08 (F) and 14.10 (E) of the SBLDR's.
PROJECT ITEM 4. ADD SCREENED -IN REAR DECK
This project item is approved subject to the condition that the alterations have a maximum nine
(9) foot plate height and roof pitch to match the existing house.
PROJECT ITEM 5. ADD SHED DORMER ON FRONT (WEST) AND REAR (EAST)
This project item does not need Board approval.
Tim Barritt — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Mark Behr — y2a/nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — vea/nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — vea/nay/abstain/not present
Joe Randazzo — vea/nay/abstain/not present
Michael Sirotkin — y2a/nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — yea/nay/abstain/not present
The Board approved this decision by a vote of 6-0-0
15
CADocuments and SettmgsWark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc
#MS-11-01
Signed this 30th day of August 2011, by
Digitally signed by Mark C Behr
Mark C. Behr DN: cn=Mark Behr, 11 Richard Henry Behr
Architect P C, ou, email=mark@rh c corn, c=US
Date 2011 08.30103020-04'00'
Mark Behr, Chairman
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of
this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court,
Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be
mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street,
South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P.
5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontwudicia[y.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
16
CADocuments and Settings\Mark C. Behr\My Documents\South Burlington DRB\MS_11_01_54Central_KatzBerger_ffd.doc