HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-08-10 - Decision - 0038 Country Club Drive#MS-08-10
t
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
STEPHEN & CHERYL SAVAGE - 38 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-08-10
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Stephen & Cheryl Savage, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking
miscellaneous approval for after -the -fact approval for a 9'xl2' deck constructed within
the front setback requirement, 38 Country Club Drive.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
The applicants were present at the hearing.
Based on the 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 approval for after -the -fact approval for
a 9'x12' deck constructed within the front setback requirement, 38 Country Club
Drive.
2. The owners of record of the subject property are Stephen & Cheryl Currier
Savage.
3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District.
4. The plan submitted is a hand drawn plan prepared by the applicants.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
1. 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
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed addition is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as
defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which
the proposed use is located.
- 1 -
#MS-08-10
According to Section 4.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Residential 4
Zoning District is formed to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are
compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those
neighborhoods.
The proposed addition will not affect density in the neighborhood, so it is not in conflict
with the stated purpose of the R4 Zoning District. However, the Land Development
Regulations require that structures in the R4 Zoning District maintain a 30' setback,
which this project would be in conflict with.
3. 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 proposed addition will not adversely affect municipal services.
(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 proposed addition does create the potential to adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood. Currently, the existing dwellings on this street share a common setback
that creates a neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other
dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach into the established setback, under
Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. The "domino effect" that could
result from the proposed project would adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
The proposed addition is not in keeping with applicable regulations, specifically the front
yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations.
The deck encroaches approximately eleven (11) feet into the front yard setback.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed addition will not affect renewable energy resources.
(0 General public health and welfare.
The proposed addition will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare.
-2-
#MS-08-10
Pursuant to Section 3.060)(2) of the Land Development Regulations, Front Setbacks:
A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the
building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage.
The subject property does not qualify for this stipulation as the principal structure and
deck both extend further towards the front building line than both adjacent properties.
/> DECISION p
Motion by G �� �?UI� seconded by
to approve Miscellaneous Applic tion #MS-08-10 of Stephen & Cheryl Savage.
Mark Behr — yea a abstain/not present
Matthew Birminghagna
ea a4 abstain/not present
John Dinklage — yeabstain/not present
Roger Farley — yeabstain/not present
Eric Knudsen — yeabstain/not present
Peter Plumeau — yea/ /abstain not presen
Gayle Quimby — ye /na bstain/no present
Motion FAILED by a vote of 0- (P- v
Signed this-7—day of C 2008, 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 VRECP 5 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-