Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_VR-24-001_58 Wright Ct_Habitat for Humanity#VR-24-001 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD VR-24-001_58 Wright Ct_Habitat for Humanity_SC_DRB_2024-1-17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 10, 2024 Plans received: December 22, 2023 58 Wright Court – Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity Variance Application #VR-24-01 Meeting date: January 17, 2024 Owner Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity 400 Cornerstone Drive, Suite 315, PO Box 1436, Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity 400 Cornerstone Drive, Suite 315, PO Box 1436, Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax ID 1870-00058 Residential 4 Zoning District, Habitat Block Overlay District, Transit Overlay District Location Map #VR-24-001 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Variance application #VR-24-01 of Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity for approval to modify the dimensional standards applicable to an existing residential building lot. The modification consists of the minimum that will afford relief from the unique conditions that preclude development in strict conformity with the Land Development Regulations, 58 Wright Court. CONTEXT The subject property, 58 Wright Court, is a 9,000 square foot lot (50’ x 180’) that was created via deed on October 13, 1967 and has existed as a separate lot ever since its creation. The former owner of this property also owned the property to the north, 46 Wright Court, which is an approximately 14,000 square foot lot that is developed with a 2,100 square foot house and an attached two-car garage. At some point between the deeding of these separate lots and the recent sale of the two lots, the Tax Assessor’s Office consolidated them for tax purposes, assigning the two properties a single tax ID number and sending out a single tax bill for the two properties. This consolidation created the perception that the two lots has been merged, but that is not the case – the two lots have existed independently of one another since their deeding. As a result, Article 3.05.D of the LDRs, which governs ‘Small Lots’, applies to 58 Wright Court. These standards specify that “any lot that is legally subdivided, is in individual and separate and nonaffiliated ownership from surrounding properties, and is in existence on the effective date of these Regulations may be developed for the purposes permitted in the district in which it is located, even though the small lot no longer conforms to the minimum lot size requirements of these Regulations.” 58 Wright Court is and has been legally subdivided, is not owned by the owner of any of the three surrounding properties, and was in existence on the effective date of the LDRs. As such, it may be developed for the purposes permitted in the district in which it is located. The district in which the property is located is the Residential-4 (R4) zoning district, which permits single-family homes, two-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, group homes, places of worship, registered family childcare homes, and ‘Limited Neighborhood Commercial’ uses as defined in the LDRs. The applicant and property owner, Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity, has not yet submitted an application for development on this lot but has expressed an interest in constructing a duplex, which is a use or purpose permitted in the R4 Zoning District. When submitted, the Zoning Permit application to develop that use on the subject lot will be administratively reviewed and will not go in front of the Board, as is the case for all proposed stand-alone single-family homes and duplexes in South Burlington. This Variance application to consider the west lot line (rather than the north lot line) as the “front lot line” was necessary prior to the submittal of a Zoning Permit application because there exist unique physical circumstances or conditions that prevent the property from being developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the LDRs. The circumstance that afflicts this property is its shape and relationship with the access road, Wright Court. The LDRs define ‘front lot line’ as “the lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way”. In this case, the lot line separating this property from the Wright Court ROW is the north lot line, a 180’ property line that abuts the Wright Court ROW and the side yard of 46 Wright Court. This lot line does technically separate the lot from the Wright Court ROW, but the pavement continues south, through this property and onto the lot to the south, creating what appears to be an extension of Wright Court and what appears to be a 130’-deep lot to the east of the ROW. If this were the case, the west lot line would be the front lot line and there would be no need for a variance, as the 130’ x 50’ lot would be developable in strict conformance with the LDRs. However, because the subject property does not stop at the edge of the pavement but actually includes all of the pavement that appears to be an extension of Wright Court, the lot line that separates the lot from the #VR-24-001 3 ROW (and must therefore be classified as the front lot line) is not the west lot line but rather the north lot line. If that north lot line is the front lot line, then the rear lot line (defined as “the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line”) must be the 180’ property line that bounds the southern edge of this lot, leaving the two 50’ property lines on the east and west ends of the property to be defined as side lot lines (“any lot line other than a front or rear lot line”). This classification of the existing property lines renders the property virtually undevelopable since the front and rear setbacks leave zero developable area between them – the R4 Zoning District requires principal structures to be set back 30 feet from the front setback and 30 feet from the rear setback. As per Article 3.06.J, the rear setback can be reduced by 50% for properties that existed prior to February 28, 1974, but that still would leave this lot with a 30- foot setback from the north lot lines and a 15-foot setback from the south lot line, leaving only a 5-foot- wide strip in which the property owner could construct their principal structure. The Land Development Regulations (Section 17.01) point directly to State Statute concerning variance criteria and process. As such, this application will require the Development Review Board to familiarize themselves with the language of VSA 4439 and use only the criteria outlined therein to render a decision on the requested variance. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Marty Gillies, hereafter referred to as ‘Staff’, have reviewed the plans submitted on 12/22/2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for Board review are in red. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 1 9,500 sf 9,000 sf No Change Max. Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft None No Change Max. Building Coverage 20% None No Change Max. Overall Coverage 40% None No Change Min. Front Setback 30 ft None No Change Min. Side Setback 2 5 ft None No Change Min. Rear Setback 2 15 ft None No Change 1: As noted in the Context section above, Article 3.05.D governs ‘Small Lots’, is applicable to the subject property and specifically permits development of the subject property. As such, the existing lot is compliant with the LDRs even though it is smaller than the required minimum lot size. Act 47 requires duplexes to be permitted in any zoning district that permits single-family homes and requires that duplexes are subject to the same dimensional standards as single- family homes in those zoning districts. The LDRs currently require a larger minimum lot size for duplexes than for single-family homes – that requirement of the LDRs has been superseded by Act 47 and is no longer valid. Staff is presently working with the Planning Commission to update the LDRs to ensure compliance with all requirements of Act 47. #VR-24-001 4 2: As noted in the Context section above, Article 3.06.J governs ‘Exceptions to Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements for Lots Existing Prior to February 28, 1974’, is applicable to the subject property, and specifically permits encroachment into the required side and rear setbacks up to a distance equal to 50% of the required setbacks. As such, the subject property is already permitted to have a rear setback of 15 feet (50% of the R4 minimum) and side setbacks of 5 feet (50% of the R4 minimum), even though those setbacks are less than the required minimum setback distances. The applicant is not requesting a variance from any of these dimensional standards, they are merely requesting that the existing dimensional standards be applied to their lot as if the west property line were the front lot line. As described in Notes 1 & 2 above, there are existing exceptions and exemptions within the LDRs that establish reduced setbacks for lots in existence as of February 28, 1974. This lot was created prior to that time and as such the reduced setbacks apply. 24 V.S.A. § 4469 § 4469. Appeal; variances (a) On an appeal under section 4465 or 4471 of this title or on a referral under subsection 4460(e) of this title in which a variance from the provisions of a bylaw or interim bylaw 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 Division 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: It is important to note that a variance shall only be granted if all of the following five facts are found. The applicant has submitted a written narrative outlining their argument as to why and how the subject lot is eligible for a variance, as pursuant to the five standards included below. Staff has assessed the applicant’s argument and the language of the five relevant standards, and provided an analysis below of how each standard applies to the subject property. 1) 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 these conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the bylaw in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. The applicant argues that there is a unique physical circumstance or condition (the relationship of the lot to the Wright Court right-of-way) that is peculiar to this particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship the applicant faces in trying to develop the subject property is due to this unique physical circumstance or condition, not the provisions of the LDRs as they apply to properties within the R4 Zoning District. Staff considers that, although the LDRs require that the subject property be oriented to the north, the property’s dimensions do not appear to allow for a north-facing development. Other lots on this street, namely 40 Wright Court and 42 Wright Court, appear to have been designed to be located at the end of a dead-end road and oriented to the dead end. Those lots are each between 115 and 135 feet deep, offering ample room to construct a house and comply with the required front and rear setbacks. The subject property is only 50 feet deep, which is irregularly shallow compared to the other lots on this street and throughout South Burlington. #VR-24-001 5 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant to assess whether there exists a unique physical circumstance or condition that both A) is peculiar to this particular property and B) creates an unnecessary hardship beyond those hardships created by the LDRs as they apply to this property. 2) Because of these physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the bylaw, and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. The applicant argues that, due to the unique physical circumstance or condition (the relationship of the lot to the Wright Court right-of-way), there is no possibility that this lot can be developed in strict conformity with the LDRs. Staff considers that strict conformity with the LDRs would allow for a building envelope of 5 feet in depth by 170 feet in length, which is not a reasonable building envelope and does not enable the reasonable use of this residential building lot. As such, Staff considers that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of this property. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant to assess whether there is a possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the LDRs. 3) Unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. This lot was subdivided and deeded on October 13, 1967. The applicant did not own the subject property or the parent parcel at the time and has not altered the dimensions of this lot since acquiring it. Staff considers that the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. 3. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant to assess whether the unnecessary hardship has been created by the applicant. 4) 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, or be detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant has proposed a variance from strict conformity with the definition of ‘front lot line’, which defines the front lot line as “the lot line separating a lot from a street right- of-way”. In this circumstance, defining the north lot line as the front lot line is in strict conformity with the LDRs but is not in conformity with the orientation of the other homes on the street and is not representative of how the lot will be accessed and used. The applicant has proposed that the west lot line be considered the front lot line. This would subsequently classify the east lot line as the rear lot line, in compliance with the definition of rear lot line (“the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line”), and the north and south lot lines as side lot lines (“any lot line other than a front or rear lot line”). The two nearest properties on the same side of the Wright Court as the subject property are addressed 42 and 46 Wright Court. Both lots have a front lot line on the west side, a rear lot line on the east side, and side lot lines on the north and south sides. Keeping this pattern would maintain the character of the neighborhood. The single-family home to the north, addressed 46 Wright Court, is the only single-family home that abuts the subject property. The lot to its north is addressed 42 Wright Court. Both of those lots pre-date #VR-24-001 6 February 28, 1974 and therefore are permitted to encroach into the required side and rear setbacks up to a distance equal to 50% of the required setbacks, as allowed by Article 3.06.J. As such, 46 Wright Court has an effective side setback of 5 feet and an effective rear setback of 15 feet, as does the neighboring property to the north, 42 Wright Court. The applicant’s proposed variance would result in those same setbacks on the subject property at 58 Wright Court. Staff considers that the applicant’s proposed variance appears to be in keeping with the location, orientation, and spacing of other comparable buildings on Wright Court. 4. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant to assess whether the variance, if authorized, will A) alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, B) substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, C) reduce access to renewable energy resources, or D) be detrimental to the public welfare. 5) The variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the bylaw and from the plan. The applicant’s proposed variance will afford relief from the circumstances or conditions of this site that presently restrict the development of a principal structure to a 5’ x 170’ building envelope – the consideration of the west lot line to be the front lot line would instead allow a more reasonable 40’ x 135’ building envelope in which the principal structure can be constructed. The applicant would not be permitted to develop the entire building envelope with a principal structure; the maximum building coverage for a lot in the R4 Zoning District is 20% and the subject property does not qualify for an exception or exemption to this coverage restriction. Staff considers the applicant’s proposed variance to be the minimum possible variance that remedies the peculiar circumstance at 58 Wright Court, as it only involves the waiver of a single standard (the definition of “front lot line”) and will result in a lot design that will vary only minimally, if at all, from the design of the existing neighborhood. 5. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant to assess whether the variance, if authorized, will A) represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and B) represent the least deviation possible from the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review the Variance application with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner Application for a variance on the existing building lot at 58 Wright Court. This building lot was created when it was subdivided from the contiguous property. The shape of the lot; 180’ by 50’ leaves only one orientation for a Building Envelope layout that meets the required setbacks: 30’ foot at the front, 15’ at the back and 5’ and each side. This is the Building Envelope we are proposing for the site that we are requesting a variance for. Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity did not create the situation that requires a variance. The unique physical shape of the property, created when the subdivision was approved, creates an unnecessary hardship which was not caused by Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity and the Building Envelope we are proposing is the best way to meet the South Burlington By Law provisions. Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity is somewhat unique in that it exclusively provides affordable owner occupied homes only. We are assisted in this endeavour by the generosity of many volunteers, companies, and communities. What we provide is truly a locally based service that builds community, for the owners of completed properties and the neighbourhood in general. At a time when affordable housing is increasingly difficult to obtain in Chittenden County, and Vermont in general, the supply of owner occupied affordable housing creates a lasting solution for families that is not subject to the vagaries of the rental housing market and gives families stability and control of their future. In light of the foregoing, I request that our variance application is approved. Thank you, Robin Pierce Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity.