HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-05-03 - Decision - 0105 Central AvenueCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
JOHN STEPHEN & ELIZABETH CAFLISCH -105 CENTRAL AVENUE
VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-05-03
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking
a variance from Section 3.06, Setbacks and Buffers, of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. Request is for permission to allow a retaining wall
(accessory structure) to extend to either side property line thereby projecting five (5) feet
into each setback requirement, 105 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board
held a public hearing on January 3, 2006. Steve Caflisch was present at the meeting.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicants are seeking a variance from Section 3.06, Setbacks and Buffers,
of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for
permission to allow a retaining wall (accessory structure) to extend to either side
property line thereby projecting five (5) feet into each setback requirement, 105
Central Avenue.
2. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park (QCP) Zoning District.
3. The owners of record of the subject property are John Stephen & Elizabeth
Caflisch.
4. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled,
"Site Plan Slope Repair Caflisch Property 105 Central Ave., S. Burl. VT.",
prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 12/05/05 and an 1 V x 17'
landscaping plan with a stamped received date of Dec 9, 2005.
VARIANCE REVIEW STANDARDS
Title 24, Section 4468 of the Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development
Act establishes the following review standards for all variance requests:
On an appeal under section 4464 or section 4471 of this title wherein a variance from
the provisions of a zoning regulation is requested for a structure that is not primarily a
renewable energy resource structure, the board of adjustment or the development
review board, or the environmental court created under 4 V.S.A. chapter 27 shall grant
variances, and render a decision in favor of the appellant, if all the following facts are
found and the finding is specified in its decision.
- 1 -
(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including
irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional
topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and
that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances
or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
The unique physical condition present is the unique topography along the Lake
Champlain shoreline which is being eroded.
(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no
possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the
provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is
therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.
Because of the unique physical circumstance described above, which is also present on
the adjacent property to the north, it is not possible to interrupt the retaining wall along
the shoreline to meet the five (5) foot side setback requirement.
(3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
The Lake Champlain shoreline, creating the unnecessary hardship, was not created by
the applicant.
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or
permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property,
reduce access to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public
welfare.
The variance, if authorized, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,
nor would it permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent
property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, or be detrimental to public
welfare, since there are other similar retaining walls along the Lake Champlain shoreline
in the vicinity.
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will
afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning
regulation and from the plan.
The authorization of the variance will represent the minimum variance that will allow the
retaining wall to continue uninterrupted from the north boundary to the south boundary.
-2-
//__ DECISION
Motion by V La Q 1v, seconded by Cl�a e/// �b476G
to approve Variance Application VR-05-03 of John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch,
subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this
approval, shall remain in effect.
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the
applicant, as amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington
Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to
Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and
void.
4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
Mark Behr — ea nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmi gham — yea/nay/abstain of presen
Chuck Bolton — ea ay/abstain/not pres
John Dinklage — nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — e na /abstain/not present
Larry Kupferman — ay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby —&nay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of -&-- 6 - b
Sign
6, by
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
-3-