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).