Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-71-0000 - Decision - 0026 Tanglewood Drivel L ) ) 4. ZONING BOARD OF ADJU��rMENT MEETING JULY 213 1971 APPEAL OF NORTHERN TERMINALS,INC.a CONTINUED . Myette asked if he knew where the storage tanks were located. Mr. arone said that he did and showed the Board.a Mr. Barony was asked why they did not add on in back of the store. He explained',.that he did not think it was feasible as the new building was st6.el with brick and glass front and it could not easily be seen from the road. Mr. Barone said that there was good fill of sand and clay. Mr. Barone was asked about the drainage. He said he was not sure where the lines went. Mr. Cleary asked about the depth of the foundation. Mr. Barone said that it was a concrete slab and that 4' would be the maximum depth. The sanitary sewer runs to the rear of Giroux's. Mr. Szymanski stated that the City had an easement on the sewer. There was no further support or opposition to the appeal. On mots n made by Mr. Martineau and seconded by Mr. Cleary it was deci ed to recess the appeal of Northern Terminals and go on to the n,,xt appeal. f APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN JR. Appeal of Donald and RoseMary O'Brien, Jr. seeking a variance from Section 3.10, Sub -section 15 Home Occupation of the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. Request is for permission to construct an addition 30' x 35' to a dwelling, to operate a dance studio, at 26 Tanglewood Drive. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING JULY 21$ 1971 APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIENy JR.� CONTINUED Mr. Szymanski presented a plan to the Board and stated that he had nothing to add. The area is zoned Residence District B and the lot is 79.31' x 170'. Mr. Senesac explained the plans to the Board. The basement wall would be extended and the stairs taken out. The studio would be underground with an open deck that would be 4 feet above ground with the remaining 4 feet of the basement underground. There would be small windows under the overhang of the deck 3'.x 1P". Mr. Myette asked what the existing dwelling footage, outside dimensions, of the house were. He was told 45' x 35' and the addition would be 30' x 35' . Mr. Martineau questioned the use of the word basement in this instance, the Zoning Ordinance Book did not classify this structure as a basement. He noted the definition of a basement as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance adopted February 28, 1964; "A story partly or wholly under- ground; where the basement floor is 6 feet or less below the average level. of the adjoining ground, a basement shall be counted as a story for the purpose _of height measurement". Mr. Cleary asked after you came out of the living area onto the 30' x 35' deck how much property is left at the rear yard line. He was told there was 56' left to the property line. The construction above ground would be I foot of block and then shingles to match the house up to the floor of the deck. Mr. Barry had a question of fact concerning the parking lot. He wanted to know if the 56' would be made into a paved parking lot. He was told it would not. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING l 6. JULY 21 1971 APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN, JR., CONTINUED ! Mr. O'Brien said with the addition they propose a more efficient operation. Presently they are cramped in an 18' x 30' studio area. This is a very limited area for acrobatics and tumbling. With the new addition there would be better service and it would be more efficient. They would have ballet in the present area and acrobatics in the new area. The size of the classes would not increase. Mrs. O'Brien said if they had 2 rooms they could have fewer children in a class. She stated that there would not be anymore students. They have approximately 150 students per year. They only have an 8' x 10' dressing room at this time which is very small. There are 10 - 12 students per class. Mr. O'Brien was asked about the growth over the past years. Mr. O'Brien said that there had been very little growth, no more than 5% per year over the last 10 years. Mr. Cleary asked with the increase in cost for a new building, wouldn't they want more students to enroll to pay for the adddition. Mr. O'Brien answered, "they did not anticipate an increase". Mr. Myette asked if it was possible to build for $5.00 per square foot. Mr. Senesac said $10 per;sq,Ift. reconsidered and said it.would be more like $7 to $8 per foot. The two studios will be the same inside. Mr. O'Brien explained that Mrs. O'Brien's Doctor had recommended that she not do any lifting. With this addition the ballet and acrobatics would be in separate rooms. There is only 600 square feet at the present time. Mr. Peter Yankowski spoke in support of the appeal stating that his children go to the school and that he feels it is a good school and is very desirable. He felt what they were doing was good and he did not believe there was much congestion. He said he had seen the plans and 7. _TONING BOARD OF ADJU )ENT MEETING ) JULY 21, 1971 APPEAL OF_DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN, JR.. CONTINUED and felt that since this was one of the first homes built that it had set a precedent and was a desirable service. Mrs. Sanford spoke in support of the appeal and explained that they needed more room and that they did a wonderful job with the children. She said there was no conjestion because most of the mothers dropped their children off and picked them up. She'also told the board that she did not live in the immediate area. Norma Corron said that the area was too crowded, as there is not enough room for the children to remove their clothing, especially, in the winter months. She felt that it was a good service and helped the children. Mr. Senesac presented the Board with a petition signed by three of the C O'Brien's neighbors. This is filed with and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Myette read this petition stating that they had no complaints about the school or traffic congestion. Mr. Fayette asked about the premission for the school by Town Manager Clark. Mr. O'Brien presented the Board with a letter from Manager Clark. The letter giving approval with stipulations was read and then returned to Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Cleary asked about the overcrowding in the dressing area and asked where the area presently was. He was showed where the area was and told that it was a 12' x 14' area. Mr. Senesac showed where the new dressing room would be. Mr. Myette said there were presently 9 or 10 parking spaces to the rear of the building and wondered if they would remain. He was told that presently they were parking on the side and in the rear and with the new addition the rear parking would be eliminated. ZONING BOARD OF ADJU"_AENT MEETING JULY 21$ 1971 C APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN3 JR., CONTINUED Mr. Cleary asked if he was correct in stating that the parking area was not paved and the spaces were not marked off. He was told this was correct and that there was room now for 12 cars to go in and out if they were parked 8orrectly. Mr. Cleary wondered how they parked. He was told that they never had more than 4 or 5 cars from pupils and that they usually parked at the side. Mr. Senesac drew a sketch of where and how the cars presently parked. The cars in the rear park in a north - south position and on the side they park up and down. Opposition: Claire Barry spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that there has been a parking problem. She said that they had been using her driveway. Lois Ralph to the rear of O'Brien's said that she had spoken to Mr. O'Brien and that he had never mentioned the construction. 1. Covenant of enjoyment. She had tried to call the O'Brien's, but could not reach them. She had been told by other neighbors that she would have to put up a fence to keep the kids out of her yard. 2. Traffic - she could not get throught at the change of classes. She said that the people park on Laurel Hill Drive, in her driveway and in front of her driveway. 3. In the stpring, on Sunday's, some of the classes are held outside. They play the same record over and over. 4. If it is going to become commercial she would rather have an office building than a school. Mr. Richard Moser on the adjacent north line said he was against the establishment of a commercial establishment in a residential environment. 1. It would reduce the value of surrounding property. 2. Safety factor. The enterprize already exists, but he is against further encroachment, and increase in enrollment or instructors. ZONING BOARD OF ADJU_6NT MEETING JULY 213 19719 APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN JR., CONTINUED The enrollment can't be controlled,but the physical aspect can. The area was sparsley populated when the school was started. He suggested locating the school in another area. 4 Gerry Moser opposed to the ap peal because of the children. She said that there were no -sidewalks for the children to walk on. Some of the mothers stay during the class, but she has traffic fears for other children on the street. Mr. Barry said he had some of the -same complaints as Mrs. Ralph and has complained to the O'Brien's, but ended up erecting a fence. He said that there was wear on his driveway because of the traffic turning around in it. He explained he had complained without results. He presented the Board with 5 letters from immediately adjacent residents of Tanglewood Drive who were also opposed to the addition. He informed the Board that he had brought his Attorney, Mr. Bing, with him to sum up their complaints. Mr. Myette stated after looking at the letters that the neighbors all had the same feeling against the construction. Mr. Barry felt the expansion would result in a sharp reduction of the value of surrounding homes. Mr. Eugene Ralph was opposed to the addition and stated that they would have to erect a fence to control the flow of children. He also believes the enrollment will increase. Attorney Robert Bing of Essex said that this was a serious matter as it had a serious impact on the neighborhood. He said the variance was granted many years ago. There are equities to the question. At the time of approval the school was small and new and there was no � 10. ZONING BOARD OF ADJU;._AENT MEETING ) JULY 213 1971 APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN, JR., CONTINUED hardship to the neighbors. The equities are now reversed as it is a going business. He did not feel the school was,.bad, but that it was not in the proper place. The studio could be moved to another area where the zoning fit the use. There are a number of paragraphs in 24 V.S.A., Section 4468 that discuss this type of a variance. There is no precedent for granting a variance at this time. It would add to the depreciation of homes in the area. Mrs. O'Brien in answer to Mrs. Ralph said that the school was just as large now as it was when it started. She stated that they were the first house and that the Sunday class, when the music was playing, was a free exercise class. Mrs. O'Brien said she could not understand why they would park in her driveway because of it being so far away and being behind them. Mr. Yankowski wondered why there had been no complaints to the police or the City if the traffic problem was so bad. Mrs. Ralph said that when she first moved in she was trying to grow grass which was being trampled, but she did not want to complain. She also stated that she did not like fences, but that one was going up shortly.. Mr. Cleary asked Mrs. Ralph if she had received a notice of the appeal. She said that she did not receive any notice, but was informed by one of her neighbors and informed of the situtation. Mrs. O'Brien informed the Board that there was a school in Laurel Hill. South like their's and they did not need a variance just a building permit. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING JULY 21 S 1971 APPEAL OF DONALD AND ROSEMARY O'BRIEN JR., CONTINUED The Board deliberated on the appeal. Mr. Myette stated that there was a section which stated that no improvements should exceed 25% of a non- conforming property in the Zoning Ordinance. The Board voted to deny the request of Donald and RoseMary O'Brien 4 opposed and Mr. Flaherty voting in favor. 1st finding - Extension of the non -conforming use would not be incidential nor secondary to the use of the dwelling. 2nd finding - Would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. 3rd finding - Strict compliance with ordinance would not deprive owner of reasonable use of the land. APPEAL OF NORTHERN TERMINALS, CONTINUED After considerable deliberation over sewer lines the Board decided to table the appeal. They explained to Mr. Barone the Zrd. ngs they were requesting from him when he came back before the B9 On motion made by Mr. Martineau and seconded by Mr. Cleary it was unanimously approved to table the appeal of Northern Terminals for 4 weeks. READING OF MINUTES OF JUNE 2 AND 16, 1971 On motion made by Mr. Martineau and seconded by Mr. Flaherty the minutes of June 2 and 16, 19'?1 were unanimously approved as read. Mr. Myette passed a letter around to be signed by the members of the Board thanking Mr. Reynolds for his many fine years of service. Mr. Fayette stated that when the cases are heard they should be handled more through the Chairman to promote more order and the i`