HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-07-01 - Decision - 0026 Cortland AvenueC1
J
#VR-07-01
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MICHAEL J. BARRETT - 26 CORTLAND AVENUE
VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-07-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Michael Barrett, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking a variance from
Section 13.04(A)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The
request is to allow a 24' diameter above ground pool to project six (6) feet into the
required 10 foot side yard setback requirement, 26 Cortland Avenue. The Development
Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 7, 2007. The applicant was
present at the hearing.
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 applicant is seeking a variance from Section 13.04(A)(2) of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is to allow a 24'
diameter above ground pool to project six (6) feet into the required 10 foot side
yard setback requirement, 26 Cortland Avenue.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Michael J. Barrett.
3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District.
4. No plan was submitted.
VARIANCE REVIEW STANDARDS
Title 24, Section 4468 of the Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development
Act establishes the following review standards for all variance requests:
On an appeal under section 4464 or section 4471 of this title wherein a variance from
the provisions of a zoning regulation is requested for a structure that is not primarily a
renewable energy resource structure, the board of adjustment or the development
review board, or the environmental court created under 4 V.S.A. chapter 27 shall grant
variances, and render a decision in favor of the appellant, if all the following facts are
found and the finding is specified in its decision.
(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including
irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional
topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and
that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances
- 1 -
l
#VR-07-01
or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
The subject property does not meet this requirement. The construction of a pool at the
current location is not dependent on the shape, size, or exceptional topographical
features of the property. The property in question has dimensions of 70'x108' (as shown
on the City Tax Map) which is the same size as most of the lots in the neighborhood. It is
regular in shape with no exceptional topographical features as the lot is relatively flat.
(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no
possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the
provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is
therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.
This property does not contain any unique physical circumstances or features, so the
subject property does not meet this requirement. In addition, the subject property is
currently developed with a single-family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the
property.
(3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Any hardship that exists is being created by the appellant, as the applicant constructed
the pool in a location which violates the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or
permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property,
reduce access to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public
welfare.
The variance, if authorized, would alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Several abutting property owners have contacted staff with their concerns relating to the
proximity of the structure to the property line. The Board does not find that the proposed
structure would permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent
property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, or be detrimental to public
welfare.
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will
afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning
regulation and from the plan.
The variance, if authorized, would not represent the minimum variance that will afford
relief or represent the least deviation possible from the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. The subject property is over 7,000 SF. There is land
available on the lot with which to place the pool that would be in compliance with the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
-2-
#VR-07-01
DECISION /,,,, // t j�
Motion by OA L� 44tM seconded by v�/"I �/�
to approve Variance Application VR-07-01 of Michael J. Barrett.
Mark Behr — yeaE�/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — ea/nay/abstain/ of present
John Dinklage — yea na /abstain/not presen
Roger Farley — yea na abstain/not present
Eric Knudsen — yea na /abstain/not present
Peter Plumeau — yea�na
ay/abstain of presen
Gayle Quimby — yea /abstain/not present
Motion FAILED by a vote of 0- 5�- 0
Signed this '7 day of 2007, by
John Dinklage, Chfir
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).
-3-