Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-24-001 - Decision - 0058 Wright Court#VR-24-001 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING GREEN MOUNTAIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY – 58 WRIGHT COURT VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-24-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Variance application #VR-24-01 of Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, 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. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 17, 2024. Robin Pierce represented the applicant. Board member Dawn Philibert was recused from this application and did not participate in the decision. Based on testimony provided at the above-mentioned public hearings 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 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. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District and the Transit Overlay District. A large portion of this property is located in the Habitat Block Overlay District. 4. The application was received on 12/22/2023. 5. The plans submitted consist of a plan titled ‘Sheet 1’, dated 11/27/2023, that identifies the applicant’s proposed building setbacks on the subject property; an undated plan titled ‘Existing Conditions’ that identifies the lot line designations applicable to the subject property at the time of application submission; and an undated plan titled ‘Proposed Variance’ that identifies the applicant’s proposed lot line designations applicable to the subject property. 6. The subject property, 58 Wright Court, is an approximately 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. 7. 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. #VR-24-001 2 8. 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. 9. This Variance to consider the west lot line (rather than the north lot line) as the “front lot line” is 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 ROW (and must therefore be classified as the front lot line) is not the west lot line but rather the north lot line. 10. 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. 11. The Land Development Regulations (Section 17.01) point directly to State Statute concerning variance criteria and process. As such, the Board has familiarized themselves with the language of VSA 4439 and has used only the criteria outlined therein to render a decision on the requested variance. 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 #VR-24-001 3 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. 2: The setbacks noted above are reduced as permitted under Section 3.06.J of the LDRs. The applicant is not requesting a variance from any of these dimensional standards; they are instead requesting that the existing dimensional standards be applied to their lot as if the west property line were the front lot line. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS 10.04 Transit Overlay District (TO) D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Any uses listed within Table C-1, Table of Uses, with a Transit Overlay District requirement shall only be allowable within the Transit Overlay District. The proposed use – a two-family dwelling – is not listed in Table C-1 with a Transit Overlay District requirement. As such, the proposed use is not required to be located within the Transit Overlay District. 12.04 Habitat Block Overlay District B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to all areas indicated as “Habitat Blocks” on the Habitat Block and Habitat Connector Overlay Districts Map, except as follows: (1) On lots less than one (1) acre in size existing as of November 10, 2021 The subject property is a lot of less than 1 acre and was in existence prior to November 10, 2021 – as such, the subject property is exempt from the standards of the Habitat Block Overlay District. 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: 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. The Board has assessed the applicant’s argument and the language of the five relevant standards, and identified below 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 #VR-24-001 4 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. The Board finds 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. The Board finds that the relationship of this lot to the Wright Court right-of-way constitutes a unique physical circumstance or condition that is both peculiar to this particular property and 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. The Board finds 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, the Board finds that a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of this property. The Board finds that there is no 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. The Board finds that the unnecessary hardship has not 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 #VR-24-001 5 ‘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 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. However, the Board finds that while a 30-foot setback from the front lot line is typical for this neighborhood, the front lot line for all other lots in the neighborhood is located before the edge of pavement for Wright Court. As such, most of the homes on the street are simultaneously set back approximately 30 feet from the front lot line and approximately 30 feet from the edge of pavement for Wright Court. In the case of the proposed variance for the subject property, a 30-foot setback from the front lot line would allow the property owner to construct almost right on the edge of the pavement that runs through the lot. Although this would technically be a 30-foot front setback, it could have the appearance of being almost a 0-foot front setback, which may be found to not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In order to preserve the character of the neighborhood, building construction on the subject property shall be set back at least 60 feet easterly from the westerly property line. Furthermore, the Board finds that access between the parcel to the south (addressed 300 Hinesburg Road) and the Wright Court Extension right-of-way is referenced in the deed for 300 Hinesburg Road and today is an important amenity for the neighborhood. As such, the Board finds that elimination of this access would be minorly detrimental to public welfare. The Board finds that the property owner shall not interfere with the existing right-of-way in use by the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance as 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. 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 #VR-24-001 6 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. The Board finds 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. The Board’s requirement that the property owner not interfere with the existing right- of-way in use by the neighborhood also does not impact the scope of this variance. That right-of-way is entirely located within the required front setback. As a result, the property owner is not able to build principal or accessory structures on that land. The requirement that the property owner not interfere with the existing right-of-way in use by the neighborhood does not increase the scope of the variance – it is still the minimum possible to afford relief for the property owner – and does not increase the level of deviation from the existing regulations. The Board finds that the variance as authorized will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and represent the least deviation possible from the LDRs. DECISION Motion by Frank Kochman, seconded by John Moscatelli, to approve Variance application #VR-24- 01 of Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit for construction on this lot, the plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. Identify the 60-foot-front-setback on the lot. b. Indicate the existence and location of the existing right-of-way on the western edge of the property. c. Identify the abutting properties and their lot lines, including the location and dimensions of the Wright Court right-of-way. 3. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans as amended must be delivered to the Administrative Officer prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit. 4. A copy of the full set of approved final plans as amended must be recorded in the Land Records prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit. John Moscatelli 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 Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #VR-24-001 7 Charles Johnston Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0 - 0. Signed this _12th_ day of February, 2024, by _____________________________________ Quin Mann, 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 180 Market 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.