Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-22-01 - Decision - 0410 Golf Course Road#AO-22-01 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON – 410 GOLF COURSE ROAD APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER #AO-22-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Appeal #AO-22-01 of Robert Cooper appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to issue a zoning permit for site improvements on a single family lot, 410 Golf Course Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 17, 2022. Robert Cooper was present at the hearing. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Robert Cooper is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to issue a zoning permit for site improvements on a single family lot, 410 Golf Course Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Fernando and Tracy Cresta. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 4. The subject property received zoning permit #ZP-21-056 for building renovations on March 8, 2021. 5. The Administrative Officer visited the site, observed that the work occurring at the subject property was more extensive than originally approved in #ZP-21-056, and sent the property owner a letter requesting more information on November 17, 2021. 6. On January 7, 2022, the property owner submitted a new zoning permit application for exterior hardscaping. 7. The subject property received a zoning permit for exterior hardscaping issued by Administrative Officer Dalila Hall on March 21, 2022 (#ZP-22-071). 8. The appellant submitted a notice of appeal which was deemed complete by Staff on March 31, 2022. The State statute governing appeals of the administrative officer’s decisions is as follows. 24 V.S.A. § 4465. Appeals of decisions of the administrative officer (c) In the exercise of its functions under this section, a board of adjustment or development review board shall have the following powers, in addition to those specifically provided for elsewhere in this chapter: (1) To hear and decide appeals taken under this section, including, without limitation, where it is alleged that an error has been committed in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer under this chapter in connection with the administration or enforcement of a bylaw. #AO-22-01 2 (2) To hear and grant or deny a request for a variance under section 4469 of this title. In other words, the Board must stand in the shoes of the Zoning Administrative Officer determine whether an error has been made in applying the Land Development Regulations. The appellant testified on May 17 that they believe the Zoning Administrative Officer did not have the authority to issue the permit because a portion of the work falls under 14.11F, Alteration of Existing Grade. A summary of the LDRs governing alteration of grade are as follows: 14.11 Site Plan and Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards F. Alteration of Existing Grade (1) Approval Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 14.11(G), Earth Products.) (2 ) Standards and Conditions for Approval. (a) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this Section 14.11(F) and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under this section shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (b) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (ii) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. ii) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.A.20 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. (iv) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. Zoning permit #ZP-22-071 authorized for the following work. Exterior alterations of existing hardscape including replacement of existing retaining walls (6’ tall at maximum height), replacement of existing stone patio with new stone patio, replacement of existing stone stairs with new stone stairs (887 sf including patio, walls & stairs), replacement of asphalt driveway with cobblestone and extension (45 sf), replace existing stone walkways with new stone (115 sf), replace planting bed stone border with new stone border (53 sf), final grading with 8” – 12” new topsoil to match neighboring lawn elevations. #AO-22-01 3 The zoning permit application was accompanied by the following plans. • An existing conditions plan annotated with the existing elements of the site, highlighting existing cobblestone pavers, terraced large boulder retaining walls, walkways, boulder retaining walls, and driveways. • Sheet L1.1 Site plan, dated 2/24/2021 prepared by Knauf Landscape Architecture, an un- annotated existing conditions plan • A proposed conditions plan annotated with the new patio, expanded driveway, new deck, retaining walls, and condenser pads. • Sheet L2.1 Hardscape Plan / Partial As-Built Plan, dated 11/11/2021 prepared by Knauf Landscape Architecture, a partial site plan of the new patio and deck area. The appellant argued that some of fill has been placed less than 5-ft from the property line. LDR 3.10A(3) prohibits the location of accessory structures less than five (5) ft from all side and rear lot lines. He further asserted that some of the fill is not in conjunction with structures. In particular, he estimates that more than 20 cubic yards of topsoil has been brought in. 14.11F(1) requires Development Review Board review of fill exceeding 20 cubic yard which is not incidental or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. Based on the proposed conditions plan, it is not possible to ascertain what amount of fill it would take to match neighboring lawn elevations. The Board estimates that the yard behind the approved structures and patio is approximately 5,000 sf. Placement of 8” – 12” new topsoil over this area would result in the placement of 185 cubic yards of fill. The Board finds that topsoil in this area is not incidental or in connection with construction of a structure on the same lot, and is therefore subject to Development Review Board review. The Board affirms in part and reverses in part the decision of the Administrative Officer to approve zoning permit application #ZP-22-071. The zoning permit was properly approved as to “replacement of existing retaining walls (6’ tall at maximum height), replacement of existing stone patio with new stone patio, replacement of existing stone stairs with new stone stairs (887 sf including patio, walls & stairs), replacement of asphalt driveway with cobblestone and extension (45 sf), replace existing stone walkways with new stone (115 sf), replace planting bed stone border with new stone border (53 sf).” The Board grants the appeal and revokes the zoning permit for “final grading of 8” – 12” new topsoil to match neighboring lawn elevations” for the reason that this component of the work is subject to Development Review Board review. The Board finds the appellant’s argument regarding fill being located within the side setback to be irrelevant because fill does not constitute a structure. The fill placed under and immediately adjacent to the retaining walls and other structures is not subject to 14.11F. The Board finds the applicant may apply to the Board for placement of topsoil in accordance with 14.11F. DECISION Motioned by Frank Kochman, seconded by Mark Behr, to partially uphold and partially revoke the decision of the Administrative Officer to approve zoning permit application #ZP-22-071. #AO-22-01 4 Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _ - _ - _. Signed this ____ day of June, 2022, by _____________________________________ Dan Albrecht, Vice Chair 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://vermontjudiciary.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 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.