Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-08-04 - Decision - 0911 Dorset StreetCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING KATHLEEN KELLEHER, DORENE QUESNEL & MELINDA TATE APPEAL #AO-08-04 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Appeal #AO-08-04 of Kathleen Kelleher, Dorene Quesnel & Melinda Tate, hereinafter referred to as Appellants, appeal the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Zoning Permit #ZP-08-069 to Indian Creek Homeowner's Association, 911 Dorset Street #35. The Development Review Board ("DRB") held a public hearing on May 6, 2008. Douglas LeBrun, Esq. represented Appellants. The DRB closed the public hearing for deliberations on May 6, 2008. 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 DRB finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On March 20, 2008, the Administrative Officer issued zoning permit #ZP-08-09 to Indian Creek Condominium Association for work to be done at 911 Dorset Street, Unit 35, described as "expanded living room (289 sq. ft.) and screened porch (280 sq. ft.) on footprint of existing deck/patio" (copy of permit enclosed). 2. On April 4, 2008, the City received a Notice of Appeal from Kathleen Kelleher, Dorene Quesnel and Melinda Tate, hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants", appealing the issuance of zoning permit #ZP-08-069 of the Administrative Officer (copy enclosed). 3. A public notice on the appeal was published in Seven Days on April 16, 2008. 4. The zoning permit applicant, Howard Goldberg, signed the application indicating that he "hereby affirms that the information presented in this application is true, accurate, and complete". 5. The property owner on the application is listed as "Indian Creek Condominium Assn" and is signed by William Masterson, President of Indian Creek Condominium Association. 6. The proposed work will take place at the rear of unit #35 and replace an existing deck with a living room expansion and a screened porch. Site plan review is not necessary since there will be no change in building footprint which could affect coverages or setbacks. CONCLUSIONS 1. The DRB finds the land development proposed in the application satisfies all applicable regulations. 2. Appellants have challenged the permit based on their claim that the applicant does not have the authority to apply for the permit and/or complete the land development therein described. Appellants' claim is based on a purported question of ownership interests in the rear deck area in question. We do not believe it is within the purview of the Administrative Officer or the DRB to adjudicate ownership interests, as an applicant's representation of authority in a zoning permit application is ordinarily adequate to apply for and complete the land development in question. 3. Furthermore, in this particular case, we note that the Indian Creek Declarations, as amended (April 22, 1997, V. 406, P. 361), indicate the individual unit owners "shall own ... the rear deck of the townhouse."' See 27 VSA § 1306(b) (ownership interest in common areas may be altered by declaration). We do not suggest such a provision is generally necessary within a condominium association's declarations in order for an association or individual unit owner to demonstrate authority to conduct land development subject to a zoning permit. Nor do we decide the validity of this provision in the amended Indian Creek Declarations. We only conclude that, in this particular case, the Indian Creek Declarations' indication of rear deck ownership interests buttresses our decision that the issue raised by Appellants does not warrant vacating the permit. DECISION Motion by QQ seconded by to uphold the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Zoning Permit #Z-08-069. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstai not -pre s�en Matthew Birmingham —yea/n8bfaiotof presenj John Dinklage — e nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — S nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen —0/nay/abstain/not present Peter Plumeau — yea/nay/abstain/no presen Gayle Quimby —ye ay/abstain/not present L1.1 Motion carried by a vote of = 0-� ' Although the Declarations state the unit owner shall own the rear deck and the application indicates the Association is the owner, we find this discrepancy does not impact our decision because authority on the part of either the Association or Mr. Goldberg to conduct the land development in question appears sufficient to overcome the objections of the Appellants. G Signed this day of 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).