HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-06-12 - Decision - 0107 Central Avenue1
#MS-06-12
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
JOHN STEPHEN & ELIZABETH CAFLISCH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-06-12
107 CENTRAL AVENUE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking
miscellaneous for re -approval to construct an erosion control measure (retaining wall
along shoreline), 107 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public
hearing on February 6, 2007. Wesley Eldred represented the applicant.
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 miscellaneous for re -approval to construct an erosion
control measure (retaining wall along shoreline), 107 Central Avenue.
2. The owners of record are Michael J. Turner & Maryjo Reale.
3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park (QCP) Zoning District.
4. This application is being reviewed under Conditional Use criteria and Section
12.01(1)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
5. The proposal received approval on January 3, 2006 but has since expired as no
zoning permit was issued because the conditions required to install the retaining
wall have not been favorable- the lake must freeze to access the location. This is
of no fault of the applicant. No issues were raised at the previous hearing.
6. 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 11" x 17"
landscaping plan with a stamped received date of Dec 9, 2005.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
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
- 1 -
J
l
#MS-06-12
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed project is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the
proposed use is located.
According to Section 4.O8(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Queen City
Park district is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller
lots and minimal setbacks. The district encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to
year round residences.
The proposed retaining wall will not affect the stated purpose of the Queen City Park
Zoning District.
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.
The proposal does not adversely affect municipal or educational facilities.
(b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the
property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate
uses.
The proposal does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed retaining wall will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in Effect
If the variance request is approved, the proposed retaining wall will be in compliance
with this criterion.
The proposed retaining wall shall also adhere to Section 12(D)(3) of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations, governing water -oriented development.
(a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural
materials such as wood and stone.
The applicant has proposed a retaining wall composed of natural stone rip -rap.
(b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion.
When construction is complete, the proposed retaining wall will actually deter erosion
better than the existing retaining wall.
-2-
t
#MS-06-12
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are available in a
memorandum dated December 29, 2005 . Those comments have since been taken care
of and no action is necessary on the part of the applicant.
(c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic
integrity of the lakeshore.
The proposed retaining wall is more aesthetically pleasing than the existing retaining
wall.
(d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain, and supplement
existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that
the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake.
A landscaping plan was submitted and reviewed by the City Arborist, who had no
comments.
Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
The Development Review Board in granting conditional use approval may impose
conditions of the following:
a) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage
locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations.
b) Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards.
c) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting.
d) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety.
It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions on the proposed project.
DECISION
Motion by �A��C �41�,�Y , seconded by
to approve Mis ellaneous Appli tion #MS-06-12 of John Stephen & Elizabet 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
and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
-3-
#MS-06-12
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 plan shall require approval of the Development Review Board.
Mark Behr — yea/nay/a
Matthew Birming m -
John Dinklage — e m
Roger Farley — na,
Eric Knudsen — e /na
Peter Plumeau r
Gayle Quimby —&elrm
e nay/abstain/not present
iy abstain/not present
r/abstain/not present
y/abstain/not present
ay/abstain/not present
iy/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of & - d - 0
Signed this � day of 2007, by
John Dinklage, Chair
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).
-4-