The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAO-22-03 - Supplemental - 0029 0031 0039 0041 Elm Street (7)Appeal of Permits ZP-22-304 an ZP-22-318 Dear South Burlington Developmental Review Board, Thank you for considering my appeal of permits ZP-22-304 (39 & 41 Elm Street) and ZP-22-318 (29 & 31 Elm Street) each approved on 8/4/2022. I will be in Africa on September 20th performing life-saving heart surgery on adolescent Rwandans and cannot be present at the meeting. I do not know if the Internet connection in Rwanda will be robust enough for me to participate online. Therefore I am designating my neighbor, Rosanne Greco, to speak on my behalf. I am a 34 year resident of South Burlington and have lived at 312 Four Sisters Rd in South Burlington since 1999. I qualify as an interested party as my property is adjacent to the Spear Meadow project being developed by The Snyder Group. A few months ago I noticed a building being constructed on Spear Street that seemed excessively high. I’m familiar with roof height limitations since the roof line on my house had to be adjusted to comply with the height restrictions at the time. As a concerned South Burlington citizen, I feel that buildings in a development next to mine should conform to the city’s height standard, just as I and others have complied with city regulations. I went to the South Burlington zoning office to express my concern that this building violated the height standard. I was told to file a formal complaint which I did via email. A week or so later I noticed that the roof was being removed. I assumed this was a response to my official complaint. Shortly after this, the developer submitted a second design on August 2nd, which was approved by Marla Keene on August 4th. The design is noted below. However, based on the information that the developer submitted, compared with the LDR language, this roof height also exceeds LDR standards. Moreover, aesthetically, it looks grossly out of place. Since I can see this development from my house, I am concerned that the other 40+ houses in the development will be excessively high. I think that the city zoning staff mis-read or mis-interpreted the LDRs by approving these two permits. Table C-2 of the LDRs in effect for this development states that the maximum allowable height for two-family buildings with pitched roofs in the SEQ-NR is 28 feet. The LDRs define “Height” as “[t]he vertical distance of a building measured from the average preconstruction grade level at the base of the building to the highest point of the roof if the roof is flat or mansard, or to the average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof if the roof is of any other type.” The buildings in question have pitched roofs so the “Height” is simply “[t]he vertical distance of a building measured from the average preconstruction grade level at the base of the building to the … average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof.” Figure 3-1 illustrates this definition: The permits at issue here apply an odd definition of “Height” (by reference to the roof eaves and the first-floor eaves at the back of each building). In particular, the calculation of “Height” contained in permit #ZP-22-318 reads as follows: The calculation of “Height” contained in permit # ZP-22-304 reads as follows: Both permits calculate “Height” as the distance from the preconstruction grade to a point midway between the highest point of the roof and another point that is the midway point between the lower eave and the upper eave. In effect, the applicant has re-written the definition of Height as the vertical distance of a building measured from the average preconstruction grade level at the base of the building to the … average level between the average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof. This is not what the LDR regulation states. Moreover, the purpose of providing for a limit on “Height” is to ensure that homes are visually appealing and consistent with the neighborhood. Given this, it is obvious that calculating the “Height” of a building must use the visible face of the building that is being measured. That is, a building which has a roof with eaves at different levels on different faces would have a different height for each face. Measuring the “Height” of a building by using an eave which a viewer cannot see would negate the purpose of providing for a maximum height. The permit which was approved uses a unique calculation devised by the developer which defies common sense and is in conflict with the meaning and intention behind the LDR language. Simply put the LDRs say that to calculate the overall height of a pitched roof house, one averages two numbers: the height at the top of the roof and the height of the eaves. (Note: according to the dictionary, the word “eave” referring to a single area of a house is normally used in the plural “eaves.” Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the word “eaves” in the LDRs was not intended to apply to multiple eaves in the calculation of the building height.) Because the objective is to assess the height of the building, if there are multiple eaves, the uppermost eave on the face that is being measured is the one to be used. But, the developer did not do this. Rather, he selected two eaves, one over the second floor and one behind the house over the first floor. He averaged the heights of these two eaves, added this average to height of the peak, and then averaged these two numbers. He used the average of the average. This creative math does not match the words in the LDRs. When the height is correctly calculated it is clear that the “Height” of each of the buildings is more than the 28-foot maximum allowable height. The correct calculation of “Height” for the structure at 39 & 41 Elm Street is 29 feet and 2 inches as shown below: [A] Roof Eave (from T.O.F.) 21.625 [B] Highest Peak (from T.O.F.) 32.6875 [C] Midway Point between Roof Eave and Highest Peak (from T.O.F.) ((A + B) /2) 27.15625 [D] T.O.F. Above Preconstruction Grade 2 [E] Height (C + D) 29.15625 The correct calculation of “Height” for the structure at 29 & 31 Elm Street is (at least) 29 feet 3 inches as shown below: [A] Roof Eave (from T.O.F.) 21.625 [B] Highest Peak (from T.O.F.) 32.6875 [C] Midway Point between Roof Eave and Highest Peak (from T.O.F.) ((A + B) /2) 27.15625 [D] T.O.F. Above Preconstruction Grade 2.15 [E] Height (C + D) 29.30625 The illustration below shows how the applicant determined the height (in (B)) and how the height should have been calculated (in (A)). I think I understand why the height of these buildings exceed the LDR regulations. After my appeal was filed, Mr. Chris Snyder emailed asking to speak with me . We spoke over the phone the next day. He told me that they had increased the height of the first floor living area from 9 to 10 feet, and increased the height of the second floor from 8 foot to 9 feet. I believe this is why the roof is over the height limit. Although I am not an architect, I think the LDRs are clear in how to measure the overall height of a residential building: add the height of the uppermost eave to the height of the peak of the house and divide by 2. It makes no sense to add the heights of multiple eaves at other locations on the house, average them, and then add in the height of the peak and then average that with the average of the other peaks. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Bruce J Leavitt 312 Four Sisters Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403