HomeMy WebLinkAboutDR-00-01 - Decision - 0195 Hinesburg Road#DR-00-01
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Re: APPLICATION OF ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR. - VARIANCES
This matter came before the South Burlington Development Review Board pursuant to the
provisions of 24 VSA 4468 on application of Ernest Levesque, Jr., hereinafter "Applicant"
for approval of variances to: 1) add a third residential unit on a 15,000 square foot lot
currently developed with a two (2) family dwelling unit (minimum lot size required is
32,670 square feet) and 2) add an accessory residential unit to the existing two (2) family
dwelling, 195 Hinesburg Road. The Applicant was present at the public hearing held
relative to this application. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing and as part
of the application, the Development Review Board hereby renders the following decision
on this application:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The owners of record of this particular property are Ernest L. & Donna L. Levesque.
2) This property located at 195 Hinesburg Road lies within the R4 District. The
maximum residential density allowed is four (4) units per acre. The minimum lot
size required for three (3) units is 32,670 square feet. The Applicant's property is
15,000 square foot in size.
3) This property has 75 feet of frontage on Hinesburg Road and is 200 feet deep. The
lot is relatively level with no exceptional topographical features.
4) This property is currently developed with a two (2) family dwelling and 28' x 28' 2-
story garage.
5) On May 10, 1999 the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment upheld the
decision of the Administrative Officer that "an accessory residential unit was not
allowed on the Applicant's property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Third Residential Unit
There no unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topography or other
physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary
hardship is not due to such conditions, and is due to the circumstances or conditions
generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood
or district in which the property is located. The lot is 75 feet by 200 feet with no
exceptional topographical features.
2. Because there are no physical circumstances or conditions, there is a possibility that
the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning
regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore unnecessary to
enable reasonable use of the property. The property is currently developed with a
two (2) family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the property.
3. The unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellant.
4. The variance, if authorized, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood
or district in which the property is located, and will substantially or permanently
impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will be
detrimental to the public welfare. Allowing density greater than permitted by the
zoning regulations would alter the character of the area.
5. The variance, if authorized, will not represent the minimum variance that will afford
relief and will not represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations
and of the plan.
Accessory Residential Unit
6. There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topography or other
physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary
hardship is not due to such conditions, and is due to the circumstances or conditions
generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or
district in which the property is located. The lot is 75 feet by 200 feet with not
exceptional topographical features.
7. Because there are no physical circumstances or conditions, there is a possibility that
the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning
regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore unnecessary to enable
reasonable use of the property. The property is currently developed with two (2) family
dwellings, which is a reasonable use of the property.
8. The unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellant. The zoning regulations
only allow accessory residential units to be added to single family dwellings and the
appellant wants to add one to a two (2) family dwelling.
2
9. The variance, if authorized, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
district in which the property is located, and will substantially or per^,-^ently impair the
appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will be detrimental to the
public welfare.
10. The variance, if authorized, will not represent the minimum variance that will afford
relief and will not represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and
of the plan.
DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington
Development Review Board hereby denies the Applicant's request for: 1)a variance to allow
a third residential unit on a 15,000 square foot lot currently developed with a two (2)
family dwelling, and 2) a variance to add an accessory residential unit to the existing two
(2) family dwelling, 195 Hinesburg Road, for the following reason:
The five (5) criteria necessary for the granting of a variance pursuprv, }^ C-Action 24 VSA
4468 have not been met.
Dated this day March, 2000 at South Burlington, VT.
Chairman or Clerk
South Burlington Development Review Board