HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-78-0000 - Supplemental - 0064 Hadley RoadIONING NOTICE
in occorconce wifn the South Bur.
Ilington Zoning Regulations and
Chanter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South
Burlington Zoning Board of Adlust-
meet will holi+•'o public hearing of
the South Burllnoton•Cltla Offices,
Conference Room, 1175 Williston
Road, South 'Burlington, Vermont on
Monday, September IL 1978, at S:OD
- p.m. to consider the following:
'F 1. Appeal of Mobil Oil Corpo-
ration, Terry Spillane seeking a vai i-
once, from Section 11.15, Multiple -
uses of the South Burlington Zoning.
Regulations. Request is fort peri.
mission to convert existing display --
office area 12'x1T Into a conve—
nience store, In addition to a full
service -gasoline station, at 811-
Williston Road. z. -
2. Appeal of Mobil Oil Corya --
ration, Terry Spillane seeking a vorW
once, from Section 11.15, Multiple
uses of the souet Burlington Zoning
Regulations. Request Is for per-
mission to convert existing disli.
office area 12'06' Into a conve—
nience store, In addition to a full
service gasoline station, at 1716 Shel-n
burne Rood.
3. Appeal of Gerald C. Jourdon Jr. -
seeking a variance, from Section
i 13.00, Non -conforming uses and
structures of the South Burlington
Zoning Regulations. Request is for
Pe. mission to construct a second
j story on a existing 24'x26' building
which is non -conforming to area and
dimensional requirements at B6
Hadley Rood.
i 4. Appeal of Robert C. Roy seeking
v o arionce, from Section 13.67,
Swimminp pool requirements of the
South Burlington Zoning Regv-
lalions. Request is for Permission to
construct an 18' x 36' swimming pool
to within ten (10) feet of the rear
,i Yard line and six (6) feet of the
.northerly side yard, at 23 Pine Tree
Terrace.
S. Appeal of Irene Casey seeking o
variance. from Section 11.00,
Dimensional requirements of the
South Burlington Zoning li
I lotions. Request Is for permission to
.construct o.detoched 24'x24' goroge--
to within twenty (20) feet of me _
j northerly rear yard line, at 22 Wright_
j Court.
6. Appeal of Larry 3 Rolande Eng-
lish seeking a variance from Section-;
t '13.67, Swimming pool requirements
of the South Burlington Zoning Repu-
S lotions. Request Is for permission to
construct a 16'x32' swimming pool to
within six (6) feet of the rear yard
line, at 29 O'Brien Drive.
7, Appeal of Raymond Bowen &
Sondra Thurston seeking a variance,-
} from Section 111-00, Dimensional re-
quirements of the South Burlington
Zoning Regulat;ons. Request Is for
permission to construct a 24'x41' de-
tocned ocroge to within six (6) feet
of the easterly side Yard and twenty-
five (25) feet of the rear yard, at
IS-20 Elizabeth Street.
S. Aopeol of Winooski Volley Pork
{ District seeking oporoval under Sec-
tion 2.10, Conditional uses. of the
South Burlington Zoning li
lotions. Request Is for permission to
construct a public recreation area on
a parcel of land containing eight (BI
acres located along the Winooski
River off Poor Fora. Rood, land
owned by Griswold Corporation.
9. Appeal of Winooski Volley Park
District seeking oovrovo' under Sec-
tion 3.20, Condilioral uses of the
South 'Burlington Zoning li
lotions. Request is for permission to
construct a public recreation area on
a parcel of land con'om,ng forty-nine
acres located along the south bank of
the Winooski River off Berard Drive
and Airport Parkway.
Robert M. Martineau
Cnarman
Zoning BJara of Adiustment
August 26, 1978
Nincent K. Paradis
Attorne/ at Law 30 Pearl Street Box I/
Essex JunctionMermont 05452
802/879-6304 879-6305
November 13, 1978
Zoning Board
City of South Burlington
South Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Jerry Jourdan
Gentlemen:
This is an application pursuant to the City of South Burlington
Zoning Ordinance for a variance in order to alter a non -conforming
structure.
The lot in question, located on Hadley Road is situated in an R-4
district under the City Zoning Ordinance which allows single family
dwellings. The lot has a frontage on the road and uniform width
of Fifty -Five Feet (55') and a depth of One Hundred Fifty Feet
(150') and a total square area of Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
(8,250) square feet. This application requires review pursuant
to the Zoning Ordinance since this lot does not meet the area
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance.
The property in question was purchased by the appellant, Jerry
Jourdan for $27,500.00 and the total estimated cost of this project
is approximately $6,000.00,
The first question to be decided by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
is whether or not the appellant needs to obtain a variance for this
request. The City of South Burlington Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII,
Section 13 (2) requires that non -conforming buildings may be altered
only if the costs does not exceed 25% of the fair market value unless
the building or structure is changed to a conforming use. While
appellant will present evidence that the costs of this remodeling does
not exceed 25% of the purchase price of the property, Appellant desires
to seek review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on a variance applica-
tion so as to insure the continuance of his project.
Appellant is not seeking a use variance but rather an area variance.
The use, being a residential single family dwelling, is a permitted use
in an R-4 district and the only reason for review by the Zoning Board
of Adjustment is the area and lot requirements do not comply with the
zoning ordinance as this lot was created prior to the adoption of the
ordinance.
M
Zoning Board of South Burlington
November 13, 1978
Page 2
Variance requests, must meet the standards of 24 V.S.A §4468. Accord-
ingly the following is submitted in support of this request.
A. There must be unique physical circumstances or conditions
peculiar to the particular property and that unnecessary hardship
is due to such conditions. Anderson Law of Zoning, §14.34 - This
requirement may be filled by showing that the difficulties complained
of relates to existing improvements on the land which are obsolete and
deteriorated. See photocopy 1 attached hereto. In this case, the
appellant is required to place a new roof over the existing structure
on the property, as the roof which presently exists is structurally
unsafe. The design of this roof, which presently exists, is not a
sufficiently acceptable design and creates a structure with a total
living space of only six hundred feet in an area which consists
mainly of two story dwellings. The anticipated replacing of this roof
would add three hundred square feet of usable living space and create
a more desirable residential home for this zoning district.
There is no question that this lot if it was vacant could be developed
in conformance with the City of South Burlington Zoning Ordinance pur-
suant to Section 11.40 so as to include a residential home which would
include two stories. Accordingly, it is submitted that appellant's
property is unique in that it contains outmoded physical structures
which require renovation and improvement in order to make a better
living environment.
B. Because of physical circumstances or conditions there is no
possibility the property can be developed in strict conformity with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
A quick glance at the zoning requirements of the City of South
Burlington show that an R-4 District requires 10,000 square feet, a
minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and yard and side requirements
which cannot be met due to the existence of a structure. Accordingly,
unless building development is totally prohibited on this lot, a
variance would be required.
C. That the hardship has not been created by the Appellant. The
recent zoning case of Lewis v. Pickering, a copy of which is attached
as photocopy 2 states as the law of Vermont that the hardship is not
created by an appellant if a successor in title would be entitled to
a variance under the zoning ordinance. The mere purchase of property
with knowledge of the zoning ordinance is not enough for appellant
to create his own hardship. In this case since area variance rather
than a use variance is requested, the Appellant and all successors
in title would be required to seek a variance because of the under-
sized lot in question.
Zoning Board of South Burlington
November 13, 1978
Page 3
D. That the variance if authorized will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
The photographs which are presented with this appeal adequately
demonstrate residential two story homes are being constructed on
lots of similar size. Accordingly, it is not believed that this
proposed application alters the essential character of the neighbor-
hood.
E. That the variance will represent the minimum variance that will
afford relief. Since this is an area variance rather than a use
variance, there is no harm to the general public since the applica-
tion by its nature still involves a residential use. As to the
minimum variance for area, this application does not involved encroach-
ment on any sidelines or front and rear lines. Rather it is an
application to place a roof with a one-half story over the existing
structure and hence does not create anything other than a larger single
family residence. This is the minimum variance that can be requested.
For these reasons, and the reasons submitted orally in this presentation,
it is respectfully requested that this use variance be granted.
Very truly yours,
Vincent A. Paradis
VAP/bj c
enclosure
Variances § 14.34
with other property in the neighborhood, the Supreme Court
of Maryland said:
"But here, too, he met the burden: the irregularity of
the shape 6f his lot, the fact that it Was located on the
corner of an arterial Highway and another street, that
it is bounded on two sides entirely by parking lots and
public and semi-public institutions, that immediately to
its south are the row houses (a row house was not a per-
mitted use 1, . . manifest that the particular prem-
ises w-4i-- j euliarly affected by difficulties and hardships
that did not prevail generally with respect to the use of
other property in therea."10
§ 14.34. Hardship due to improvements on the land.
The requirement that unnecessary hardship be due to
unique circumstances may be met by showing that the diffi-
culty complained of .relates to existing improvements on the
land which are obsolete or deteriorated.11 Such improve-
ments may exist only on the applicant's land, and they may
be not only useless in their present condition but may render
prohibitive the cost of developing the land for a permitted
use. For example, the owner of a lot improved by a large
and ancient house in a residential district may be unable
to use or sell it for residential purposes because of its size,
age, and condition. The cost of razing the structure may
render the redevelopment of the lot for residential use eco-
nomically impractical. Under these circumstances, he may
seek a variance to establish a commercial use such as a
funeral home. Whether such a variance can or should be
granted involves several problems, but the existence of the
ancient structure on the applicant's land may be regarded
as a unique circumstance.h
An applicant satisfies the requirement that the hardship
be peculiar to his Droperty when he shows that an existing
10. Frankel v Baltimore, 223 12. Messinger v Zoning Board
Md 97, 162 A2d 447 (1960). of Review, 81 RI 159, 99 A2d 865
11. § 14.28, supra. (1953).
[2 Anderson Zoning]-43 673
EP IONT JJTOWI':;
(1970), and L. 161. Pile and Son, Iiie. v. Town of 11'atcrford,
130 Vt. 432, 296 A.2d 262 (1972) in support of their asser-
tions'
In the Brattleboro case the applicant was not only seeking
a use variance, but the expansion of a nonconforming use,
actually the expansion of a gas filling station. In Pine, the
owner failed to request a zoning permit and proceeded to de-
velop the property without securing it. Neither situation is
comparable to the case now before us.
[1] In the present controversy, the defendants sought
.� and obtained a permit for a use of their property which was
in _conformance with the uses of area lots. The variance
sought was not for a use, but for a dimensional variance, or
an area variance: "In most states the courts will approve an
area variance upon a lesser shaving by the applicant than is
required to sustain a use variance." 3 R. Anderson, American
Law of Zoning § 14.45, at 3 (1968). There can be no dispute
that the defendants would: have been entitled to construct a
summer. camp upon their lot under the zoning regulations of
Hinesburg had their lot been of the physical size called for in
the ordinances.
[2] ' This `brings us to the key and final issue. Did the
defendants create the very hardship from which they sought
relief by variance? As we have previously noted in this opin-
ion, the defendants' predecessor in title owned the same lot at
a time prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinances. There
can be little dispute that the predecessor could have erected a
building on the property in question.. The defendants are now
the owners of the identical lot, but took title after the passage
of the zoning ordinances.
The Pickerings did not create the physical characteristics
of the lot that they purchased. Had it still been owned by
Myers, the predecessor in title, and he had made application
for a variance such as was sought by the defendants, cer-
tainly no claim could have been raised that he had created his
own hardship.
Despite the fact that some courts have used language
which, taken upon its face, would indicate that even
where a unique hardship existed with respeet to land
LE
l "iic a., 1::1
which would have n•arranted the person owning; that
property prior to tiie enactment of the ordinance to apply
for and receive a variance, the mere act of purchase with
knowledge of the ordinance bars the purchaser from the
same relief, it is apparent that few higher court decisions
have actually so decided. In each case in which the re-
fusal of a variance was upheld and in which such lan-
gun!•e was used, the facts showed either that there was
an affirmative act which created the hardship peculiar to
the property involved or that there was not sufficient evi-
dence that the property was not reasonably adapted for a
co.iforming use.
2 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning § 4, at 48-20
(3rd ed. 1972). Here we have no affirmative act by the &,fend -
ants which created the hardship peculiar to their lot.
In Wilson v. Borough of Mozi0ainside, 42 N.J. 426, 453,
201 A.2d _0, 554 (1964), the -New Jersey Supreme Court
stated:
We wish to make it clear that if a prior owner would
be entitled to such relief, that right is not lost to a pur-
chaser simply because he bought with knowledce of the
zoning regulation involved. This situation is not within
the realm --of the self-created hardship which will gener-
ally bar. relief.
We also cite, with approval, the following language from
Griffin Construction Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Teanecl,,
35 ` .J. Super. 472, 205 A.2d 313, 316• (1964) :
[Wl here an original owner would be entitled to a vari-
ance under a specific set of facts, any successor in title is
ordinarily also entitled to such a variance, providing that
no owner in the chain of title since the adoption of the
zoning restriction has done anything to create the condi-
tion for which relief by variance is sought.
J7tdgment affirmed.
<
NOTICE OF APPEAL
SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following:.
conditional use, variance, decision of administrative officer.
Property Owner GyRRI r' - 3 QQRdi9Al
r/Property location & description
G4 R L ►1T
Variance of Section I
number title of section
Basis of appeal
I understand the regular meetings are held twice a month on Monday
at 5:00 p.m. at the City -Hall, Conference Room. The legal advertise-
ment must appear in the Burlington Free Press a minimum of fifteen
(15) days before the hearing, I agree to pay a fee of $30.00 which
fee is to off -set the costs of advertising and the hearing.
Hearing Date Signaturs oil Appellan
z
SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE
In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter
117,Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment
will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices,
Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on
at to consider the
day of week month and date) time
following:
Appeal of
a - ("- , from Section ,
seeking
r, -e.,:t
*� of the South Burlington Zoning Regula-
tions. Request is for permission. to
,—. � � Q,.t�G./�L,. � �y�-fiic..te._-c.,r.--• .c..tr.., ..2A �y --t-a-lit/'--ri-4t...r -G.O' G...� c3" fc
,n r
December 12, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jourdan
12 Howard Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment
has granted your request for a zoning variance allowing for the
alteration and addition to your single family dwelling located
at 86 Hadley Road, The Board stipulated that the structure re-
main a ra'hch style design, that a complete set of plans be filed
with this office prior to the issuing of a permit, that a Letter
be obtained from the neighbor to the west., relating to the 9' x
26' addition. That a statement be filed stating the intended
siding and roofing.
Please forward this material to me or aulmAt it at the time ;you
request your permit.
Very truly,
Richard ward,
.Zoning Administrative Officer
RW/mcg
October 18, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jourdan
12 Howard Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr, Jourdan:
Upon inspection of your property at 86 Hadley Road I find
that the construction i.ivolved exceeds that which we issued
a permit. Permit #6471 issued October 13, 1978 allows for
the addition of a pitch roof over approximately belf of the
structure which would match and tie into the roof of your
addition.
In addition, I noticed that the entire interior is being re-
novated, no permit was issued for this work. A rear deck has
been added with no permit, and it appears that you plan new
siding. The work under construction is in direct violation of
the City's zoning regulations.
You are requested to cease further construction :.�_ this
matter is resolved, failure to do so will only result ia this
matter being turned over to the City Attorney for whatever
legal action he deems necessary.
Very truly,
Richard ward
Zoning Administrative Officer
RW/mcg
September 12, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jourdan
12 Howard Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
Be advised that this office has reviewed the facts relating to
permit #6443 issued by Mr. Page of September 8, 1978. I find
that your addition is conforming to the dimensional requirements
under the city's zoning regulations.
As far as the cost of the addition exceeding twenty-five per cent
of the fair -market -value, this matter has been discussed with Mr.
Page, he felt that the building had a value greater than $5,900 and
therefore issued you a permit.
Your second story addition will require a variance, the Zoning
Board will require additional information which would satisfy the
criteria set -forth in Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning
Development Act. (see enclosed copy).
The Board's next regular meeting is October 9, 1978 with the
deadline for filing being September 20, 1978.
If you have any questions pertaining to this matter feel free to
contact me.
Very truly,
Richard Ward
Zoning Administrative Officer
RW/mcg
1 Encl
i
33
a _ `e,�,�'�
,Cal.ot GiQ walQ - - -" �2so•o� - -aSo. 0 0
o
fy- i�' ax�oo 09.eo — — — - �a.b- °6
� 5 — j q( l — /.bob — — — r ao. o e
00
(an 3 6 0. 0 o
---o250. oa
31-
30J4A, 6.y9_oo0
f° — -�3o.co_ loo.Do
40�1- _ _ - - , s.00
10 note 6�r��
ro.S 51
36 - ;CA qx 9 40,1p+. -- - - S? 6,
A101 - - - !
�` �e�y3o•as
LEGAL NOTICES 1
SOUTH BURLINGTON
ZONING NOTICE
In occordonce with the South Bur-
Iln9ton Zoning Regulations and
Chapter 117. Title 26 V.S.A. the South
Burlington Zoning Board of Adjust-
ment will hold a public hearing of
the South Burlington City Offices,
Conference Room, 1175 Williston
Rood, South Burlington, Vermont on
Monday, November 13, 1979, at 5:00
o.m. to consider the following:
(1) Appeal of Rheol and Helen
Gagnon seeking a variance, from
Section 13.00, Non -conforming struc-
tures of the South Burlington Zoning I
Regulations. Request is for per-j
misslon to construct on addition con-!
toining 1950 square feet with at-
toched 26' X 36' garage to on existing t
single family dwelling which is to -I
toted to within twenty-five 125) feet;
of the northerly side yard, of 1520
Spear Street.
(2) Appeal of Kenneth A. Dolev seek-
ing o variance, from Section 11.00 ,'
Dimensional, area, density require--
ments 6 Section 11.15 multiple use of
the South Burlington Zoning Regu- ,
lotions. Request is for permission to i
locate a 10' X 50' mobile home on a
lot presently occupied by a single
family dwelling, lot contains 14,7501
square feet, at 1227 Airport Drive.
(3) Appeal of Wilfred and Bonnie
Kirby seeking a variance, from Sec-
tion 11.00. Dimensional requirements j
of the South Burlington Zoning Regu-
lations. Request is for permission to 1
construct a single family dwelling
(24' X 401 with attached (20' X 201 I
garage to within twenty-three (23) )
feel of the required front yard, at 1S f
Sherry Road.
(4) Appeal of Alan D. Palmer seek- i
ing o variance, from Section 11.15,
Multiple Uses of the South Burling- I
ton Zoning Regulations. Request is
for permission to establish three!
businesses (plastic bottle manufac-
turer, wholesale gases distributor i
and a ski service center) from a I
building containing 11.580 square
feet, located at lot no. 2. Muddy
Brook Industrial Pork.
(5) Appeal o1 Merilin Corporation,
d.b.a. Howard Johnson's seeking a
variance, from Seaton 13.00, non-
conforming structures R Section
11.00 Dimensional requirements of
the South Burlington Zoning Regu-
lations. Request is tar permission to
construct an addition containing 5%
square feet (to the restaurant area)
to within fifty (50) feet of the re-
quired front yard, at 1 Dorset Street.
(6) Appeal of Modlyn M. Walsh seek-
ing a variance, from Section 11.00.
Dimensional requirements of the
South Burlington Zoning Regu-
lations. Request is for permission to
construct a 12' X 16' utility storage
building to within two (2) feet of the
westerly rear yard line. of 21 Maple
Maplewood Drive.
(7) Appeal of Gerold C. Jourdon Jr.
seeking a variance, from Section
13.00. Non -conforming uses and
structures of the South Burlington
Zoning Regulations. Request Is for
permission to construct one-half of o
second story and remodel the in-
terior of an exisli ng Dulld'no which
Is non -conforming to area &
dimensional requirements, of 86
Hadley Rood.
Robert M. Martineau {
Chairman I
Zoning Board of Adiustment
October 31. 1978
It is the intention of this ad to tar-
red the ad which appeared Satur-
day. October 28, 197C
. n.rea �,scu c.r• tree •rnc I
J OURDAN
86 Hadley Road
Area zoned R-4 District
Section 13.00 Non -conforming uses- structures.
Structure is non -conforming to area and dimensional requirements.
Structure involved 24'X26' converted cottage with 12'X15' addition.
Proposed- the construction of one half of a second story and
remodeling of interior.
F.M.V of building $5,900- estimated cost of addition and renovation
approximately $7,000.
z/o
October 31, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jourdan, Jr.
12 Howard Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board o ff. AP ju�,tinent
will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Conference
Room, 1175 Williston Road on Monday, November 13, 1978 at 5:00 p.m.
to consider your request for a zoning variance.
Please plant to attend this hearing.
Very truly,
Richard Ward
Zoning Administrative Officer
RW/mcg
August 28, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jourdan Jr.
12 Howard Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment
will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall,
Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road on ;Monday, September 11,
1978 at 5:00 p.m. to consider your request for a zoning variance.
Please plan to attend.
Very truly,
Richard ward
Zoning Administrative offiaer
RW/mcg
94 y A� AJ
F-1,9V•gT;oIV, SERRJ
7oNadPp
rCkR
NT FPRc►R4 /"_y'
UT�1'z'ge4r Sp'qc
8':40idA 'X
I gill
I
i
Y
.f t
F
No Text