HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-05-01 - Decision - 0063 Ethan Allen DriveCITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE HOPWOOD - 63 ETHAN ALLEN DRIVE
VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-05-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Michael Hopwood, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking a variance from
Section 3.06, Setbacks and Buffers, of the Land Development Regulations. The request
is for permission to allow an addition to an auto repair and service facility to project 17
feet into the required 30 foot front setback requirement, 63 Ethan Allen Drive. The
Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 3, 2005. Jim Howley
represented the applicant.
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
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 3.06, Setbacks and Buffers, of
the Land Development Regulations. The request is for permission to allow an
addition to an auto repair and service facility to project 17 feet into the required
30 foot front setback requirement, 63 Ethan Allen Drive.
2. The subject property is located in the Mixed Industrial & Commercial (IC) Zoning
District.
3. The owner of record of the subject property is Mike Hopwood.
4. The plan submitted is entitled. "Hopwood Property So. Burlington Vermont Site
Plan", prepared by Llewellyn -Howley, inc., dated 10/25/04, last revised on
3/18/05.
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 -
(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
or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
The Board cannot identify any "unique circumstances or conditions" associated with the
subject property, and therefore it is the Board's opinion that this property does not meet
this requirement. Although it may not yield the ideal situation for the applicant, the
addition could be constructed in compliance with the Land Development Regulations, if
planned accordingly.
(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 6,060 square foot building, which the Board feels is a
reasonable use of the property.
(3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
The applicant has created the "unnecessary hardship" through the layout of the
proposed project.
(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 not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,
nor would it 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 proposed addition could be planned in a manner that
complies with the Land Development Regulations.
-2-
A DECISION // t
Motion by � AKK IV�%�(CF—IQ seconded by O6R
to approve Variance Application #VR-05-01 of Mike Hopwood.
Mark Behr — yea na /,
Chuck Bolton — yea n
Mark Boucher — yea r
John Dinklage — yea r
Roger Farley — yea
Larry Kupferman — ye
Gayle Quimby — yea�4
stain/not present
►abstain/not present
/abstain/not present
/abstain/not present
stain/not present
lay abstain/not present
/ bstain/not present
Motion failed by a vote of 5-q- v
Signed this -3 day of May 2005, by
r
jo:h] Dinklage, Chair
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-