Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0195 Hinesburg Road
State of Vermont WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PERMIT LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED Environmental Protection Rules Effective August 16, 2002 Case Number: WW-4-1840 PIN: EJ03-0109 Landowner: Ernest Levesque Address: 4C Bond Street Clairemont, NH 03743 This project, to permit an existing six bedroom duplex on a pre-existing 0.34 acre lot, served by municipal water and wastewater services, located at 195 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions. GENERAL 1. This permit does not relieve the permittee from obtaining all other state and local approvals and permits as may be required prior to proceeding with this project. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the following plans prepared by Scott Mapes which have been stamped "approved" by the Wastewater Management Division: Project: "Levesque Property", dated 4/4/03. 3. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans in a manner, which would change, or affect the exterior water supply or wastewater disposal, building location or the approved use of the building without prior review and written approval from the Wastewater Management Division. 4. The conditions of this permit shall run with the land and will be binding upon and enforceable against the permittee and all assigns and successors in interest. The permittee shall be responsible for the recording of this permit and the "Notice of Permit Recording" in the South Burlington Land Records within thirty (30) days of issuance of this permit and prior to the conveyance of any lot subject to the jurisdiction of this permit. 5. The Wastewater Management Division now reviews the water and wastewater disposal systems under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 64 — Potable Water Supply and Wastewater System Permit. 6. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations. Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit WW-4-1840 Ernest Levesque Page 2 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 7. The project is approved for water supply by the existing connection to the municipal water system as depicted on the approved plans. The project is approved for a maximum of 900 gallons of water per day. No other means of obtaining potable water shall be allowed without prior review and approval by the Wastewater Management Division. 8. The project is approved for wastewater disposal by the existing connection to the municipal wastewater treatment facility as depicted on the approved plans. The project is approved for a maximum of 840 gallons of wastewater per day. The Wastewater Management Division shall allow no other method, or location of wastewater disposal without prior review and approval. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont on May 26, 2003. Jeffrey Wennberg, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By Dolores M. LaRiviere Assistant Regional Engineer C For the Record South Burlington Planning Commission & Select Board Scott Mapes Department of Labor & Industry AGENCY OF NAT' TOTAL # DEC PERMITS RESPONSE DATE DISTRICT XL RESOURCES (ANR) AND ENVIROW ITAL BOARD (ACT 250) PROJECT REVIEW SHEET THIS IS NOT A PERMIT 4 PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CEN ING APPLICATION # 9C TOWN )c^� �YI�\�Cl�21., - PIN # — — OWNER OF PROJECT SITE: NAME:�,� ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Project Name: %o r w Cc: -c-o Qrr ,9 APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHON Based on a written or oral request and/or information provided by �� f a project was reviewed on a tract/tracts of land of acres, located on is generally described as: Prior Permits From This Office: PERMITS NEEDED FROM THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ived The project [� I hereby request a jurisdictional opinion from the District Coordinator or Assistant District Coordinator regarding the jurisdiction of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 (Act 250) over the project described above. Jeff McMahon Permit Specialist I. ACT 250: THIS IS A JURISDICTIONAL OPINION BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION, AND A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE ANR PERMIT SPECIALIST, THE LANDOWNER/AGENT, OR OTHER PERSON. ANY NOTIFIED PARTY OR INTERESTED PERSON AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME MAY APPEAL TO V NVIRONMENTAL BOARD (ACT 250) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS OPINION (10 V.S.A. SEC. 6007(C)) Commercial, residential or municipal project? `IA Has the landowner subdivided before? When/where/# of lots AN ACT 250 PERMIT IS REQUIRED: YES , ! NO; Copies sent to Statutory Parties: YES BASIS FOR DECISION- \ �j& iq D SIGNATURE:_ -,,;1, � DATE: .S U ADDRESS. Environmental Commissions Districts #4, 6 & 9 District Coordinator Telepho e: 80 879-5614 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 2 ASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION REGIONAL OFFICE: PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRED NO Wastewater YES System & Potable Water Supply Permit Notice of Permit Requirements EPR 1-403 _Floor Drains to a UIC well REGIONAL ENGINEER ASSIGNED: Ernest Christianson (879-5675), Jessanne Wyman (879-5673). William Zabiloski (879-5672) Dolore�.ere (879-2341) IGNATURE: J �DATE: "a ADDRESS: A e�nmen Iis ance Division, Permit Specialist, 802 879-5676 g pt. of Natural Resources Wastewater Mgement Division, Telephone: 802 879-5656 Dept. of Environmental Conservation 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 OVER»»»»» i ► THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, NON -BINDING DETERMINATION REGARDING OTHER PERMITS WHICH YOU MAY NEED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENTS INDICATED BELOW. 3. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DPASION, ANR (802-241-3822) Contact: _ Discharge Permit; pretreatment permits; industrial, municipal Indirect Discharge Permits Residuals Management 4. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, ANR (888 5204879) Contact: Construction/modification of source _ Open Burning - Wood Chip Burners (>90 HP) _ Furnace Boiler Conversion/Installation Industrial Process Air Emissions _ Diesel Engines (>450 bHP) 5. WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, ANR (802-241-3400) (800 823-6500 in VT) Contact: New Hydrants >500' of waterline construction Community Water System (CWS) Bottled Water Transient Non -Community water system (rNC) Capacity Review for Non -transient non -community water systems (NTNC) 6. WATER QUALITY DIVISION, ANR Contact: River Management (241-3770) Stormwater Permits (state and federal ) Hotline (241-4320) Shoreland encroachment (241-3777) Aquatic nuisance control (241-3777) Wetlands (241-3770) Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (241-3770) Stream Alteration (751-0129/879-56311786-5906) Water Withdrawal (241-3770) 7. WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ANR Contact: Hazardous Waste Handier site ID (241-3888) Underground Storage Tanks (241-3888) Lined landfills; transfer stations, recycling facilities, drop off (241-3444) Asbestos Disposal (241-3444) Disposal of inert waste, untreated wood & stumps (241-3444) Composting Facilities (241-3444) Waste oil burning (241-3888) Used septic system components/stone 8. FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION, ANR Contact: Dam operations (greater than 500,000 cu. ft.)(241-3451) State funded municipal water/sewer extensionslupgrades and Pollution Control Systems (241-3750) 9. POLLUTION PREVENTION & MERCURY DISPOSAL HOTLINE (1-800-974-9559) Contact: SMALL BUSINESS AND MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE Contact: Judy Mirro or John Daly 802 241-3745 RECYCLING HOTLINE (1-800-932-7100) Contact: 10. DEPARTMENT OFFISH & WILDLIFE, ANR (802-241-3700) Contact: Nongame & Natural Heritage program (Threatened & Endangered Species) Stream Obstruction Approval 11. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY (802-828-2106) or District Office 879-2300 Contact: Construction Permit fire prevention, electrical, plumbing, accessibility (Americans with Disabilities Act) Storage of flammable liquids, explosives LP Gas Storage Plumbing in residences served by public water/sewer with 10 or more customers Boilers and pressure vessels 12. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (800-439-8550 in VT) (802-863-7221) (Lab 800-660-9997) Contact: Food, lodging, bakeries, food processors Program for asbestos control & lead certification (Phil Cornock) Children's camps Hot Tub Installation & Inspection - Commercial 13. AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES Contact: Child care facilities (1-800 649-2642) Residential care homes (241-2345) (Dept. of Aging & Disabilities Nursing Homes (241-2345) Therapeutic Community Residence (241-2345) 14. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION Contact: Access to state highways (residential, commercial) (828-2653) Junkyards (828-2053) Signs (Travel Information Council) (828-2651) Railroad crossings (828-2710) Development within 500' of a limited access highway (828-2653) Airports and landing strips (828-2833) Construction within state highway right -of way (Utilities, Grading, etc.) (828-2653) 15. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (800 675-9873) Contact: Use/sale of pesticides (828-2431) Slaughter houses, poultry processing (828-2426) Milk processing facilities (828-2433) Animal shelters/pet merchant/livestock dealers (828-2421) Golf courses (828-2431) Weights and measures, Gas Pumps, Scales (828-2436) Green Houses/Nurseries (828-2431) Retail Sales/Milk/Meat/Poultry/Frozen Dessert/Class "C" Pesticides (828-2436) VERMONT ENERGY CODE ASSISTANCE CENTER TOLL FREE 888-373-2255 VT Building Energy Standards 17. DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION (802-828-3211) Historic buildings- Archeological sites 18. DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL (1-800-832-2339) Liquor licenses General Info (1-800-642-3134) 19. SECRETARY OF STATE (1-802-828-2386) Business registration Professional Boards (1-800-439-3683) 20. DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (802-828-2551) Business taxes (sales, meals & rooms, amusement machines) 21. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (802-828-2074) Fuel taxes: commercial vehicle Franchise tax/solid waste LOCAL PERMITS (SEE YOUR TOWN CLERK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING COMMISSION, OR PUBLIC WORKS) 23. FEDERAL PERMITS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 8 Carmichael St.,Suite 205, Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 872-2893 24. OTHER: Sections #3424 above have been completed by Permit Specialist Jeff McMahon Date: I may be reached at 879-5676 Copies have been mailed to: REVISED 3113103 State of Vermont AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department ot EnvironmentalConservation ""ii►,5,+ Wastewater Management Division Department of Fish and Wildlife Essex Regional Office Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation 111 West Street Department of Environmental Conservation Essex Junction, VT 05452 Telephone: (802) 879-5656 May 7, 2003 Ernest Levesque 4C Bond Street Clairemont NH 03743 Subject WW-4-1840 Levesque Property Permit existing six bedroom duplex with municipal water and sewer 840 gpd 0.34 acres. located on 195 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Ladies & Gentlemen: We have received your application and fee paid by check #24808 $352.80 on April 18, 2003, which begins the 45 day in-house performance standards for our review. If we require further information from you to make a decision, the time until we receive it is not included in the m- house performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the 45 in-house days, please contact'this office. We have forwarded your application to the Information Specialist, who will send you a Project Review Sheet indicating other state departments you should contact about additional permits you may need. If you have not already done so, you should also check with town officials about any necessary town permits. SCOTT PLEASE FAX A COPY OF THE WATER AND SEWER ALLOCATION APPROVAL LETTERS. I HAVE MISLAID THE COPIES SUBMITTED. THANK YOU. For the Division of Wastewater Management Irene L. RA/ DEC Regional Office Coord cc: South Burlington Planning Commission - Scott Mapes STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) February 3, 2003 Jacalyn Stevens, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, Suite 2 Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: City of South Burlington v. Levesque 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Jackie: AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed for filing please find, in connection with the above -referenced matter, the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office Certificates of Service for serving Ernest and Donna Levesque the Decision and Order from Judge Wright, dated December 20, 2002. Please call with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 b'b (v 4 �C o Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/jp Enclosures CC: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Ernest and Donna Levesque sonS060.cor County of Sullivan State of New Hampshire of South Burlington Levesque Sullivan County Sheriffs Office CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Number: 175-8-00 Vtec Sheriff File Number: MIS03000113 I, Deputy Sheriff Walter D. Coons, of the Sullivan County Sheriffs Department, Newport, New Hampshire, certify and affirm that on 22 January 2003 at 02:10PM , at 4 C Bond Street, Claremont, NH 03743 1 served the within Decision and Order upon Ernest Levesque, the defendant named herein, in the following manner. PERSONAL SERVICE By giving in hand to Ernest L. Levesque a true and attested copy thereof. Basic Service Fee ($15.00), Postage and Handling ($1.00), Travel ($9.00) Total Charges $25.00 Dated: January 29, 2003 Walter D. Coons 3 Deputy Sheriff Badge Number County of Sullivan State of New Hampshire of South Burlington na Levesque Sullivan County Sheriffs Office CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Number: 175-8-00 Vtec Sheriff File Number: MIS03000114 I, Deputy Sheriff Walter D. Coons, of the Sullivan County Sheriffs Department, Newport, New Hampshire, certify and affirm that on 22 January 2003 at 02:12PM , I served the within Decision and Order upon Donna Levesque, the defendant named herein, in the following manner. PERSONAL SERVICE By leaving at the last and usual place of abode, 4 Bond Street Claremont, NH 03743 a true and attested copy thereof. Left with her husband, Ernest. Basic Service Fee ($15.00), Postage and Handling ($1.00) Total Charges $16.00 Dated: January 29, 2003 Walter D. Coons 3 Deputy Sheriff Badge Number STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M.EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 E-MAIL(FIRM2555 @FIRMSPF. COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 January 17, 2003 Michael L. Prozzo, Jr., Sheriff Sullivan County Sheriff's Department PO Box 27 Newport, NH 03773 Re: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Sheriff Prozzo: AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed is a Decision and Order for service upon Ernest and Donna Levesque. They reside at 4 C Bond Street, Claremont, New Hampshire. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/jp Enclosure CC: Raymond J. Belair son504O.cor STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT f� City, of South Burlington, } Plaintiff, } } V. } } Ernest and Donna Levesque, } Defendants. } } Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Decision and Order FiLE- DEC 2 0 2002 V: R,.-,-!ON" i ENVIROe IfkiENTK COURT In Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec, Appellant Ernest Levesque, Jr. appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the City of South Burlington, denying a variance for the construction of a third rental unit and an accessory handicapped residential unit on his property. In Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec, the City brought an enforcement action against Defendants Ernest and Donna Levesque for the construction of rental units within the main building without zoning approval. The two matters were consolidated, heard, and a decision was issued on October 12, 2001, concluding Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec and ruling in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec on the injunctive relief and penalty sought by the City. Thereafter, the Court granted in part the City's motion for reconsideration in Docket No. 175-8-00, by vacating and deleting only the final two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 4 of the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order, and leaving the remainder of the order in effect, so that the finding of violation and the injunctive relief ordered by the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order remained in effect, but the issue of whether and what monetary penalty should be imposed in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec was left open for future hearing. Appellant -Defendant Ernest Levesque appeared and represented himself; the City of South Burlington is represented by Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. A supplementary evidentiary. 1 hearing was held before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written requests for findings and memoranda of law. Upon consideration of the evidence and the written memoranda and proposed findings, the Court finds and concludes as follows as to the question of monetary penalty. All findings in the October 12, 2001 decision remain in effect and are hereby incorporated by reference. We repeat them here only to the extent helpful to understand this decision. Defendants own and at the time of the events in this case occupied a two-family dwelling at 195 Hinesburg Road in the R-4 (Residential 4) zoning district of the City of South Burlington. Defendants' property is improved with the house and a detached -garage/workshop. The property obtained two zoning permits for renovations and additions in 1982 and 1983, and a zoning permit was issued in 1984 to allow its conversion to a 2-family dwelling, based on a frontage variance also issued in 1984. It met and continues to meet the density requirements for a 2-family dwelling. At the time of the events in this case, Defendants lived in the main portion of the duplex (which consists of the downstairs of the house and an upstairs bedroom), and rented out the second floor apartment. We will refer to these units as the upstairs duplex apartment and the main duplex apartment. After converting the house to a duplex, Defendants obtained four more zoning permits between 1986 and 1993 for additions to the house and to build the 28' x 28' detached garage and storage area. After those additions had been completed, the main duplex apartment had four outside entrances, six bedrooms (one of which was upstairs), 2 3/4 bathrooms (one having a shower but no bathtub), a `great room,' a full kitchen, a dining room, and a pantry or galley kitchen with a sink, refrigerator, freezer and laundry facilities, but no stove. At some time prior to September 27, 1999, Defendants converted' the main duplex ' Defendants wish to contest whether their work on the first floor of the house actually constituted the creation of any additional dwelling units. Mr. Levesque testified to having added the outside entrances and other internal alterations to provide his own teenaged children a more independent living situation as they grew older. However, because 2 apartment to add two dwelling units to the first floor of the building.' The City described the first of these unapproved dwelling units as the "small dwelling unit" in the southwest corner of the first floor, having a separate entrance from the outside into a single main room furnished as a bedroom/living room but also furnished with a refrigerator; and having a bathroom equipped with shower, toilet and sink. The `small dwelling unit' had a door leading from its main room into a room of the main duplex apartment. The door was equipped with a lock; the evidence did not reveal whether it was operable only from the small dwelling unit's side of the door. The City described the other of these unapproved dwelling units as the "large dwelling unit" in the northwest corner of the first floor, having a separate entrance from the outside into a single main room furnished as a bedroom/living room; having a galley kitchen equipped with refrigerator, microwave (but no stove) and sink; and having a bathroom equipped with bathtub, toilet and sink. The `large dwelling unit' had a door leading from its main room into a room of the main duplex apartment. The door was equipped with a lock; the evidence did not reveal whether it was operable only from the large dwelling unit's side of the door. The connecting room of the main duplex apartment also has a door into the remainder of the main duplex apartment. As of September 30,1999 two microwaves were located in that room. Defendants argue that the building permits they received between 1986 and 1993 allowed the additions of the downstairs bathrooms and outside doors for the two back bedrooms at issue in this case. While the building permits allowed those physical renovations, those permits did not authorize Defendants to use the renovated space as separate dwelling units. Defendants were entitled to renovate the interior of their house for the use of their own Defendants did not appeal the September 27, 1999 notice of appeal, they are precluded from contesting that fact. ' Defendants agreed to the admission of an exhibit showing the configuration at trial, but argued in their post -hearing memoranda that it was not correct. They did not request that the hearing be reopened to take any additional evidence. 3 family members, but not to create separate dwelling units (that is, with separate sleeping and kitchen facilities) beyond the two approved for the house as a duplex. Soon after the September 1999 inspection, Defendants had the small dwelling unit vacated. However, they were involved in a dispute with the tenants of the large dwelling unit that involved those tenants refusing to vacate, withholding rent, and reporting Defendants for health violations. At some time in the spring of 2000, Defendants succeeded in evicting those remaining tenants of the large dwelling unit, at some expense to. Defendants. As of the September 13, 2000 inspection by the City's Administrative Officer the small and large dwelling units were vacant, but their outside entrances and their interior doors to the main duplex area were still in place. The refrigerator had been removed from the galley kitchen area of the large dwelling unit. The City claims that Defendants were still in violation at this time because the two units were physically capable of being separated from the interior of the main duplex apartment, and physically capable of being entered from the outside and therefore of being separately used. However, under the City's zoning regulations and the prior permits issued for this property, Defendants were entitled to have the two additional outside entrances. Also, nothing in the City's zoning regulations prohibits a house or a single dwelling unit from having interior doors, although the question of whether those doors are capable of being locked, and whether it is the main house or the separate unit residents who have a key or control the lock, may relate to whether the space in question is `physically separated' from the rest of the house. Most importantly, as of the September 2000 inspection, neither the `small dwelling unit' nor the `large dwelling unit' fell within the definition of `dwelling unit' under §28.116 of the City's Zoning Regulations. That is, to be considered a separate `dwelling unit,' the unit has to have all of the following characteristics: it must be "physically separated" from other rooms or units in the same structure; and it must contain independent cooking and sleeping and bath facilities; and it must constitute a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy or rental or lease. Even assuming that the interior doorways mean that the units E were `physically separated,' in September of 2000, neither unit had independent cooking facilities (neither had a refrigerator nor a stove), neither unit was an independent housekeeping establishment, and neither unit was either owner -occupied or leased to a tenant. In November of 2000, a man and his young son were living in the `large dwelling unit." There is no question that the space was rented or allowed to be used by them for sleeping and bath facilities. But there was no evidence that the unit had independent cooking facilities at that time. At that time, there might have been a violation of the use of the house as a rooming house without a permit(§28.146), or of two `families' using the main duplex dwelling unit only allowed to be occupied by a single family under §28.114. But there was no continuing violation of the two additional `dwelling units.' This Court's order granting injunctive relief (October 12, 2001, as amended by order January 31, 2002) required Defendants to "remove any limitations on internal access within the house to the rooms rented out to lodgers, so that the house consists of two and only two dwelling units." At the City's inspection in February of 2002, the rooms occupied by the `small dwelling unit' and the `large dwelling unit' were unoccupied and were used for storage of Defendants' furniture or household items. None of the plumbing or bathroom fixtures had been removed; the doors between the rooms had not been removed but they were not locked. As of the supplemental hearing on April 26, 2002, Defendants had moved to New Hampshire and had rented out at least the front part of the main duplex apartment, so that the house was being used for only two dwelling units. They may have kept the use of some of the back rooms for storage of their own personal belongings. The City has expended $204.75 in City employees' salary and $2,607.40 in legal fees and costs in its enforcement efforts in this matter. The City argues that the violations in place in 1999 should be counted as extending to the date of the supplemental hearing on April 26, 2002) because Defendants had not removed the plumbing fixtures or the lockable doors between the `dwelling units' and the rest of the main duplex apartment. The City also argues that the potential penalty should not be mitigated by any consideration of Defendants' costs 5 of evicting the recalcitrant tenant, because their motivation for that eviction was his non- payment of rent rather than to cure the zoning violation. Although the City requested penalties in the full amount of $100/day, for the period from October 4,1999 to the April 26, 2002 hearing, the court determines that a lesser penalty is warranted in this case, even without considering Defendants' expenses in evicting the recalcitrant lodgers. After receiving the Notice of Violation, Defendants failed to remove limitations on internal access within their dwelling unit and failed for a time to remove the large dwelling unies cooking facilities and thereby to fully restore the main duplex apartment to its single -dwelling -unit configuration. Defendants were not and are not required to alter any of the outside doors, or to remove any interior doors or plumbing'. All they were required to do is to remove the locks on the interior doors (except for rooms used for storage) and remove any refrigerators and cooking facilities from either of the former unpermitted dwelling units. The City expended approximately $2,800 on enforcement of this matter, but some portion of that was spent seeking remedies not warranted by the zoning regulations, such as removal of fixtures or interior doors. Accordingly, for the 345-day period from October 4, 1999 until the September 13, 2000 inspection when both units were vacant and the refrigerator had been removed, we impose a penalty of $2.50 per day for a total of $862.50. All that was left undone from the November 2000 inspection to the April 26, 2002 hearing was the removal of the barriers to internal access within the main duplex apartment. For that period, the internal doors were capable of being unlocked and may have actually been unlocked; thus the only violation occurred because they were capable of being relocked and therefore of being used as separate ' The Court understands that it would make enforcement of the zoning regulations as to the number of allowed units easier if these other features had to be removed, as it would make it more difficult for a homeowner to reconvert to the illegal units after the inspector leaves the premises. However, this is the result mandated by the City's zoning regulations; the City may wish to initiate amendments of its definitions or enforcement provisions for this purpose. 2 dwelling units or rooming units. Accordingly, for the 512-day period from the November 20004 inspection to the April 26, 2002 hearing we impose a penalty of $1 per day for a total of $512. The total penalty imposed in this matter is therefore $1,374.50. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants shall pay a penalty to the City of South Burlington of $1,374.50 for the zoning violations at issue in this case. Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 20`' day of December, 2002. Merideth Wright Environmental Judge 4 Without the date of that inspection in evidence, we will use November 30, 2000 to calculate the penalty. 7 City of South Burlington, Plaintiff, V. Ernest and Donna Levesque, Defendants. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT FILE--D D" 2 0 2OW V- .. v ENVIPOI ,MENTAL COURT } Docket No. 175-8-00 V ec } CITY CLERK'S OFFICB lc.� } Received o 20 at � PaY Recorded i ol. on f Of So. Burlington Land R ecords ��� } Attest: —c� Decision and Order nnma S. Kif-MHP,, City rierk In Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec, Appellant Ernest Levesque, Jr. appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the City of South Burlington, denying a variance for the construction of a third rental unit and an accessory handicapped residential unit on his property. In Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec, the City brought an enforcement action against Defendants Ernest and Donna Levesque for the construction of rental units within the main building without zoning approval. The two matters were consolidated, heard, and a decision ,.vas issued on October 12, 2001, concluding Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec and ruling in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec on the injunctive relief and penalty sought by the City. Thereafter, the Court granted in part the CitY s motion for reconsideration in Docket No. 175-8-00, by vacating and deleting only the final two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 4 of the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order, and leaving the remainder of the order in effect, so that the finding of violation and the injunctive relief ordered by the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order remained in effect, but the issue of whether and what monetary penalty should be imposed in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec was left open for future hearing. Appellant -Defendant Ernest Levesque appeared and represented himself; the City of South Burlington is represented by Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. A supplementary evidentiary hearing was held before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written requests for findings and memoranda of law. Upon consideration of the evidence and the written memoranda and proposed findings, the Court fords and concludes as follows as to the question of monetary penalty. All findings in the October 12, 2001 decision remain in effect and are hereby incorporated by reference. We repeat them here only to the extent helpful to understand this decision. Defendants own and at the time of the events in this case occupied a two-family dwelling at 195 Hinesburg Road in the R-4 (Residential 4) zoning district of the City of South Burlington. Defendants' property is improved with the house and a detached garage/workshop. The property obtained two zoning permits for renovations and additions in 1982 and 1983, and a zoning permit was issued in 1984 to allow its conversion to a 2-family dwelling, based on a frontage variance also issued in 1984. It met and continues to meet the density requirements for a 2-family dwelling. At the time of the events in this case, Defendants lived in the main portion of the duplex (which consists of the downstairs of the house and an upstairs bedroom), and rented out the second floor apartment. We will refer to these units as the upstairs duplex apartment and the main duplex apartment. After converting the house to a duplex, Defendants obtained four more zoning permits between 1986 and 1993 for additions to the house and to build the 28' x 28' detached garage and storage area. After those additions had been completed, the main duplex apartment had four outside entrances, six bedrooms (one of which was upstairs), 2 3/4 bathrooms (one having a shower but no bathtub), a `great room,' a fitll kitchen, a dining room, and a pantry or galley kitchen with a sink, refrigerator, freezer and laundry facilities, but no stove. At some time prior to September 27, 1999, Defendants converted' the main duplex ' Defendants wish to contest whether their work on the first floor of the house actually constituted the creation of any additional dwelling units. Mr. Levesque testified to having added the outside entrances and other internal alterations to provide his own teenaged children a more independent living situation as they grew older. However, because 2 apartment to add two dwelling units to the first floor of the building.' The City described the first of these unapproved dwelling units as the "small dwelling unit" in the southwest corner of the first floor, having a separate entrance from the outside into a single main room furnished as a bedroom/living room but also furnished with a refrigerator; and having a bathroom equipped with shower, toilet and sink. The `small dwelling unit' had a door leading from its main room into a room of the main duplex apartment. The door was equipped with a lock; the evidence did not reveal whether it was operable only from the small dwelling unies side of the door. The City described the other of these unapproved dwelling units as the "large dwelling unit" in the northwest corner of the first floor, having a separate entrance from the outside into a single main room furnished as a bedroom/living room; having a galley kitchen equipped with refrigerator, microwave (but no stove) and sink; and having a bathroom equipped with bathtub, toilet and sink. The `large dwelling unit' had a door leading from its main room into a room of the main duplex apartment. The door was equipped with a lock; the evidence did not reveal whether it was operable only from the large dwelling unies side of the door. The connecting room of the main duplex apartment also has a door into the remainder of the main duplex apartment. As of September 3 0,1999 two microwaves were located in that room. Defendants argue that the building permits they received between 1986 and 1993 allowed the additions of the downstairs bathrooms and outside doors for the two back bedrooms at issue in this case. While the building permits allowed those physical renovations, those permits did not authorize Defendants to use the renovated space as separate dwelling units. Defendants were entitled to renovate the interior of their house for the use of their own Defendants did not appeal the September 27, 1999 notice of appeal, they are precluded from contesting that fact. ' Defendants agreed to the admission of an exhibit showing the configuration at trial, but argued in their post -hearing memoranda that it was not correct. They did not request that the hearing be reopened to take any additional evidence. 3 family members, but not to create separate dwelling units (that is, with separate sleeping and kitchen facilities) beyond the two approved for the house as a duplex. Soon after the September 1999 inspection, Defendants had the small dwelling unit vacated. However, they were involved in a dispute with the tenants of the large dwelling unit that involved those tenants refusing to vacate, withholding rent, and reporting Defendants for health violations. At some time in the spring of 2000, Defendants succeeded in evicting those remaining tenants of the large dwelling unit, at some expense to Defendants. As of the September 13, 2000 inspection by the City's Administrative Officer the small and large dwelling units were vacant, but their outside entrances and their interior doors to the main duplex area were still in place. The refrigerator had been removed from the galley kitchen area of the large dwelling unit. The City claims that Defendants were still in violation at this time because the two units were physically capable of being separated from the interior of the main duplex apartment, and physically capable of being entered from the outside and therefore of being separately used. However, under the City's zoning regulations and the prior permits issued for this property, Defendants were entitled to have the two additional outside entrances. Also, nothing in the City's zoning regulations prohibits a house or a single dwelling unit from having interior doors, although the question of whether those doors are capable of being locked, and whether it is the main house or the separate unit residents who have a key or control the lock, may relate to whether the space in question is `physically separated' from the rest of the house. Most importantly, as of the September 2000 inspection, neither the `small dwelling unit' nor the `large dwelling unit' fell within the definition of `dwelling unit' under §28.116 of the City's Zoning Regulations. That is, to be considered a separate `dwelling unit,' the unit has to have all of the following characteristics: it must be "physically separated" from other rooms or units in the same structure; and it must contain independent cooking and sleeping and bath facilities; and it must constitute a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy or rental or lease. Even assuming that the interior doorways mean that the units 4 were `physically separated,' in September of 2000, neither unit had independent cooking facilities (neither had a refrigerator nor a stove), neither unit was an independent housekeeping establishment, and neither unit was either owner -occupied or leased to a tenant. In November of 2000) a man and his young son were living in the `large dwelling unit." There is no question that the space was rented or allowed to be used by them for sleeping and bath facilities. But there was no evidence that the unit had independent cooking facilities at that time. At that time, there might have been a violation of the use of the house as a rooming house without a permit(§28.146), or of two `families' using the main duplex dwelling unit only allowed to be occupied by a single family under §28.114. But there was no continuing violation of the two additional `dwelling units.' This Coures order granting injunctive relief (October 12, 2001, as amended by order January 31, 2002) required Defendants to "remove any limitations on internal access within the house to the rooms rented out to lodgers, so that the house consists of two and only two dwelling units." At the City's inspection in February of 2002, the rooms occupied by the `small dwelling unit' and the `large dwelling unit' were unoccupied and were used for storage of Defendants' furniture or household items. None of the plumbing or bathroom fixtures had been removed; the doors between the rooms had not been removed but they were not locked. As of the supplemental hearing on April 26, 2002, Defendants had moved to New Hampshire and had rented out at least the front part of the main duplex apartment, so that the house was being used for only two dwelling units. They may have kept the use of some of the back rooms for storage of their own personal belongings. The City has expended $204.75 in City employees' salary and $2,607.40 in legal fees and costs in its enforcement efforts in this matter. The City argues that the violations in place in 1999 should be counted as extending to the date of the supplemental hearing on April 26, 2002, because Defendants had not removed the plumbing fixtures or the lockable doors between the `dwelling units' and the rest of the main duplex apartment. The City also argues that the potential penalty should not be mitigated by any consideration of Defendants' costs 5 of evicting the recalcitrant tenant, because their motivation for that eviction was his non- payment of rent rather than to cure the zoning violation. Although the City requested penalties in the full amount of $100/day, for the period from October 4,1999 to the April 26, 2002 hearing, the court determines that a lesser penalty is warranted in this case, even without considering Defendants' expenses in evicting the recalcitrant lodgers. After receiving the Notice of Violation, Defendants failed to remove limitations on internal access within their dwelling unit and failed for a time to remove the large dwelling unit's cooking facilities and thereby to fully restore the main duplex apartment to its single -dwelling -unit configuration. Defendants were not and are not required to alter any of the outside doors, or to remove any interior doors or plumbing'. All they were required to do is to remove the locks on the interior doors (except for rooms used for storage) and remove any refrigerators and cooking facilities from either of the former unpermitted dwelling units. The City expended approximately $2,800 on enforcement of this matter, but some portion of that was spent seeking remedies not warranted by the zoning regulations, such as removal of fixtures or interior doors. Accordingly, for the 345-day period from October 4, 1999 until the September 13, 2000 inspection when both units were vacant and the refrigerator had been removed, we impose a penalty of $2.50 per day for a total of $862.50. All that was left undone from the November 2000 inspection to the April 26, 2002 hearing was the removal of the barriers to internal access within the main duplex apartment. For that period, the internal doors were capable of being unlocked and may have actually been unlocked; thus the only violation occurred because they were capable of being relocked and therefore of being used as separate ' The Court understands that it would make enforcement of the zoning regulations as to the number of allowed units easier if these other features had to be removed, as it would make it more difficult for a homeowner to reconvert to the illegal units after the inspector leaves the premises. However, this is the result mandated by the City's zoning regulations; the City may wish to initiate amendments of its definitions or enforcement provisions for this purpose. R, dwelling units or rooming units. Accordingly, for the 512-day period from the November 2000' inspection to the April 26, 2002 hearing we impose a penalty of $1 per day for a total of $512. The total penalty imposed in this matter is therefore $1,374.50. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants shall pay a penalty to the City of South Burlington of $1,374.50 for the zoning violations at issue in this case. Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 20`' day of December, 2002. Merideth Wright Environmental Judge 4 Without the date of that inspection in evidence, we will use November 30, 2000 to calculate the penalty. 7 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) May 21, 2002 Jackie Stevens, Acting Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: City of South Burlington v. Levesque 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Jackie: AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed for filing please find, in connection with the above -referenced matter, the City of South Burlington's Response to Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Please call with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/jp Enclosures CC: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Ernest and Donna Levesque Son4821.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171BATTERYSTREET P.O BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Plaintiff, ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec V. ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendant. ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. and hereby responds to Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and asks this Court to make the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the City of South Burlington. As a preliminary matter, the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City") objects to Defendants' request to expunge Exhibit C from the record. Defendants stipulated to said exhibit and thereby stated on the record that they raised no objections thereto. In addition, the City Administrative Officer (hereinafter the "AO"), Ray Belair, referred to Exhibit C several) times during his testimony. Specifically, Mr. Belair testified that Exhibit C accurately depicted the layout of Defendants' house on their property in the City as he observed on four separate occasions. Exhibit C is properly a part of the record and there is no reason to remove it therefrom. STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171BATTERYSTREET P.O BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 In addition, the Court should disregard the following findings and/or conclusions proposed by Defendants: Summary number 2, last two paragraphs; number 3, first paragraph, number 4, and on the "Conclusion" page, the second and third paragraphs and the fourth paragraph (except for the first sentence). The information provided in these findings and/or conclusions was either not presented as evidence at either of the Court's hearings on this matter or was specifically excluded by the Court and therefore is not part of the record of these proceedings. It is not appropriate for Defendants to attempt to present this information in the context of proposed findings and conclusions, thereby depriving the City of the opportunity to explore the credibility and accuracy of these statements through cross examination. Defendants' proposed findings and conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence before this Court. The evidence demonstrates that Defendants added two dwelling units to the house on their property in the City without first obtaining approvals from the City. The Administrative Officer testified that on four separate occasions he observed two dwelling units in the western part of Defendants' house for which Defendants had not obtained City approvals. On two of those occasions, a family occupied one or both of said dwelling units and used its respective dwelling unit as a "separate, independent housekeepingi 2 establishment". Moreover, Defendants have not identified any approvals which permit them to add two dwelling units to their house. This Court has granted the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that Defendants could not contest the existence of the violations as stated in the notice of violation issued by the City. The subject dwelling units have been in place since October 4, 1999, and the Court should grant the City relief that appropriately addresses the length of this violation. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, as well as in the City of South Burlington's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that the Court impose a penalty of $100.00 for each of Defendants' offenses since October 4, 1999. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 21st day of May 2002. son916.lit STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys f r Amanda S. E. Lafferty, 3 ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 4 C Bond Street CLAREMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03743 Jackie Stevens, Acting Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: City of South Burlington vs. Levesque Docket No. 175 - 8 - 00 VTEC Dear Jackie: May 6, 2002 Enclosed for filing please find, in connection with the above referenced matter, Ernest L. Levesque's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Common Sense and sprinkled with facts. Sincererly, Ernest L. Levesqu Jr Enclosures cc: Ray Beloir, Administrative Officer Amanda S. E. Lafferty STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. ] I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ] l V. ] I ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ] Defendents. DOCKET NO. 94 - 5 - 00 VTEC DOCKET NO. 175 - 8-00 VTEC CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR HEARING NOW COMES Ernest and Donna Levesque, asks that this Court not to ammend it's Decision and Order in the above - referenced matter on October 12, 2001, for the following reasons. Note: Before we begin to summarize the issues before the court, we need to let the court know we only received pages 5 thru 9 from Attorney Rafferty for her summary for the city of South Burlington. We did not get pages 1 thru 4. The pages we did receive did come on time, we received them on May 7th. Therefore the summary we will submit on time will be what we would have indicated in court on April 26, 2002, if we had done so at that time. SUIvIAARY 1. We need to ask that the marked up house plan that the city of South Burlington submitted to the court on April 26th be expunged from the record. We later realized after the hearing that it was a plan that we submitted last year to the City Zoning Board for future expansion. It is not the plan as the house exit now; nor as the house existed at the time the city indicates we are in violation. 2. We have not violated any rules or in the City of South Burlington. We did not appeal the false Notice of Violations as no violations existed. We had all Building Permits in place for renovations, as such, for our property. In fact, the City, through their Attorney, did not want our Building Permits entered as evidence. They do exist and were accepted by the court. The issue that the City of South Burlington continues to push is that we have two extra living units that do not have Building Permits . This is not a true statement as we have permits for the two back bedrooms, each with it's own bathroom area and outside door for egress. The Pantry space in the north bedroom area existed when we bought the house in 1983, and was next to the pre - existing Dining Room. It was used as a laundry room and housed our freezer and extra refrigerator. The Sink existed in the Pantry. We later relocated the Washer and Dryer to the front of the house in a pre - existing closet next to a front bathroom. We closed the entrance from the north bedroom to the front pail of the house for our own privacy. A second permit was issued allowing us to widen the bedroom and add the bathroom for our own privacy. The entrance to the bedroom then existed from the old dining room at the back of the house. The door to the Dining Room was replaced with a solid exterior door as the door would provide for sound control as the children grew to adulthood. Of course we had a lock on the door as it would provide for privacy. One our sons moved into this bedroom. It gave him the privacy he needed for himself. 3. A permit was issued to build the south bedroom in the back of the house and was built with Idlers. Levesque's handicap in mind. The permit for that room allowed for an outside door egress. It included an extra large bathroom area to accommodate her need for a jacuzzi for therapy. In court, Attorney Lafferty kept implying that permits did not exist for this bedroom and bath. We submitted the list of permits to the court at the first hearing. They were accepted by the court at that time. 4. The issue of renting the back north bedroom to Mark Wizzell created a serious problem for us as he moved into the room in June without his 8-year old his son. He indicated that his son would be visiting him. Within days of moving in he had his son there fultime because the boy's mother had abandon him. Since we fell sorry for him we allowed the boy to stay. We soon learned that his son was stealing from us, and that IV r. Wizzell was leaving his son unattended ( or he would ask us to watch him for an hour-or-4wo then not show up until the next day). Also, we soon discovered that Iv1r. Wizzell had led to us. And he was in court because he had a drug problem, and so did some of his friends. This we did not want to deal with. We gave him notice to leave in September. This was the beginning of a long court process, which took us until the following June before he was out of the house. In the mean time we had to keep the door to the north locked from our side for our safety and for the safety of the family that rented our apartment when we went to Claremont, NH, to live and work in September. This in turn meant he could no longer have kitchen privileges nor laundry privileges. We tried in vein to accommodate the wishes of the city and get him to leave. As you can see this process took over 9 months and no rent being paid for the room. The city indicated that Mr. Wizzell caged the City Zoning Administrator to see violation for wiring in his bedroom area. Before Mr. Wizzell moved in we were having the whole house rewired and the electrician came to finish the work in the north bedroom, only not to be able to get in to finish his work. Mr. Wizzell would not allow him to do so. Also the City's attorney indicated other repair problems in that area. Again, we were not made aware by Mr. Wizzell that these problems existed. Therefore, we could not do the repairs. Because he would not allow the electrician in to finish his work, and he would not allow us to go into the bedroom to do any of the repairs. 5. We did not contest the existence of the violation as no violations exist or existed as we akemys had the proper Building Permits in place before we would start a project. We ask that the court continue to uphold the orignial judgement of no violation exist. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. J I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ] l V. ] ] ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ] Defendents. ] DOCKET NO. 94 - 5 - 00 VTEC DOCKET NO. 175 - 8.00 VTEC CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR HEARING NOW CONES Ernest and Donna Levesque, asks that this Court not to ammend A Decision and Order in the above - referenced matter on October 12, 2001, for the following reasons. Note: Before we begin to summarize the issues before the court, we need to let the court know we only received pages 5 thru 9 from Attorney Rafferty for her summary for the city of South Burlington. We did not get pages 1 thru 4. The pages we did receive did come on time, we received them on May 7th. Therefore the summary we wiN submit on time PAN be what we would have indicated in court on April 26, 2002, if we had done so at that time. 1. We need to ask that the marked up house plan that the city of South Burlington submitted to the court on April 26th be expunged from the record. We later realized after the hearing that it was a plan that we submitted lest year to the City Zoning Board for future expansion. It is not the plan as the house exit now; nor as the house existed at the time the city indicates we are in violation. 2. We have not violated any rules or hm in the City of South Burlington. We did not appeal the false Notice of Violations as no violations existed. We had all Building Permits in place for renovations, as such, for our property. In fact, the City, through their Attorney, did not want our Building Permits entered as evidence. They do exist and were accepted by the court. The issue that the City of South Burlington continues to push is that we have two extra living units that do not have Building Permits . This is not a true statement as we have permits for the two back bedrooms, each with it's own bathroom area and outside door for egress. i 1 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICEJTDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 of 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTYC&FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 6C-2552 TIMOTIiY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) May 3, 2002 Jackie Stevens, Acting Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: City of South Burlington v. Levesque 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Jackie: AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed for filing please find, in connection with the above -referenced matter, the City of South Burlington's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Please call with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Laffer Enclosures cc: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Ernest and Donna Levesque son4797.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171RATTERYSTREET P.0 BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendant. ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. and hereby asks this Court to make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all times material to this proceeding, the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City") has had zoning regulations (hereinafter the "Regulations") in effect. Exhibit B. 2. Ernest Levesque, Jr. and Donna Levesque (hereinafter the "Defendants") own and/or occupy real property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the City (hereinafter the "Property"). Testimony of Ernest Levesque, Jr. and Ray Belair. 3. There is an existing structure on the Property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two-family dwelling (hereinafter the "House"). A separate, 1 unattached garage also exists on the Property. Testimony of Ray Belair. 4. On or about September 27, 1999, the Administrative Officer for the City provided Defendants with written notice of violation pertaining to the addition of two dwelling units to the property. Defendants failed to appeal said written notice of violation.' Exhibit A, Testimony of Ray Belair. 5. On September 30, 1999, the City Administrative Officer (hereinafter the "AO") inspected the Property. During said inspection, the AO observed one area in the western portion of the first floor of the House that he considered to be a dwelling unit that Defendants had added without first obtaining approval from the City. Testimony of Ray Belair. 6. The first unapproved dwelling unit is located in the southwestern corner of the first floor of the House (hereinafter "Small dwelling unit"). The Small dwelling unit has its own separate entrance from the outside and contains a refrigerator, a bedroom/living room, a bathroom, including shower, toilet and ' By Decision and Order dated October 12, 2002, in this matter, this Court ruled that "[t]he Notice of Violation advised Appellant/Defendants of their right to appeal to the DRB within 15 days. Appellant/Defendants did not appeal the Notice of Violation, and therefore cannot contest the existence of the violation." 2 sink. The sink contained dirty dishes at the time of this inspection. There is a door between the Small dwelling unit and the room labeled as "living room". Immediately outside the Small dwelling unit, in the living room, two microwaves were stacked on top of each other. There is a door between the living room and the remainder of the House. At the time of inspection, Defendants were renting the Small dwelling unit to at least one individual. Exhibit C, Testimony of Ray Belair. 7. The second unapproved dwelling unit is located in the northwestern corner of the first floor of the House (hereinafter "Large dwelling unit"). The Large dwelling unit has its own separate entrance from the outside. At the time of this inspection, the tenant in the Large dwelling unit did not permit the AO to complete a full inspection of the Large dwelling unit. Exhibit C, testimony of Ray Belair. 8. During the first hearing in the above -referenced matter, on August 31, 2000, Defendant Ernest Levesque, Jr. claimed that Defendants were no longer in violation. On September 13, 2000, the AO again inspected the Property, with the Defendants' permission. During this inspection, the AO observed that each dwelling unit, which had been rented during the previous inspection, was now vacant. c 9. Also during this inspection, the AO observed that the Large dwelling unit, which he did not have the opportunity to inspect completely during the previous inspection, contained a bedroom/living room, a bathroom, including tub, toilet and sink, and a full kitchen including cabinets, refrigerator, microwave, and sink. There is a door between the Large dwelling unit and the room labeled as "living room". The Small and Large dwelling unit are separated from each other by a wall. Testimony of Ernest Levesque, Jr., Exhibit C, Testimony of Ray Belair. 10. Sometime in November 2000, the AO accompanied the City Manager, acting as Health Officer, and the City Fire Chief on an inspection of the House on the Property. Defendants had rented the Large dwelling unit to another individual, who apparently was using the Large dwelling unit as an apartment separate from the rest of the House. The layout, fixtures and appliances were the same as the AO observed in September 2000. Testimony of Ray Belair. 11. In a Decision and Order dated October 12, 2001, this Court stated that Defendants had evicted all tenants from the House on the Property as of the Spring of 2000. See Decision and Order dated October 12, 2001, Docket Nos. 94-5-00 Vtec and 175-8- 00 Vtec, page 3. The Court also granted the City's request for 0 preliminary injunctive relief, stating " . . .Defendants shall remove any limitations on internal access within the house to the rooms rented out to lodgers, so that the house consists of two and only two dwelling units." 12. In February 2002, the AO inspected the House on the Property for a fourth time. The AO observed that, while vacant, the layout, fixtures and appliances in both the Small and Large dwelling units were the same as the AO observed in September 1999 and.September 2000, respectively. Testimony of Ray Belair. 13. The AO spent just over ten (10) hours of time attempting to enforce the Regulations in this matter and inspecting the House for the possibility of a cure of the violations and for compliance with the Court's Decision and Order dated October 12, 2001. The AO testified that said time amounted to $204.75 of his salary. Testimony of Ray Belair. 14. The City has expended $2,607.40 in legal fees and costs during its attempt to enforce the Regulations in this matter. Testimony of Ray Belair. k, PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Regulations define a dwelling unit as: [o]ne or more rooms connected together, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy or rental or lease on a weekly, monthly , or longer basis, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities and bath facilities. See the Regulations, Exhibit B, section 28.116. The Small dwelling unit constitutes a dwelling unit under the Regulations because it is two rooms that are connected together that contain sleeping, cooking and bathing facilities that are independent of the remainder of the structure. Moreover, when the AO inspected the House in September 1999, the Small dwelling unit was being used as a separate, independent housekeeping establishment and very easily could be returned to such use. The Larger dwelling unit is a dwelling unit because it is three rooms and a foyer that are connected together. The kitchen area includes a refrigerator, stove, cabinets and sink and the bathroom contains a tub and toilet. The third room provides sleeping facilities. This area was being used as a separate housekeeping establishment in September of 1999 and 2000 and again in November 2000. 1.1 In its Decision and Order dated October 12, 2001, this Court ruled that Defendants "shall remove any limitations on internal access within the house to the rooms rented out to lodgers." See Decision at page 4(emphasis added). Defendants have failed and/or refused to comply with this order. Both the Small and Large dwelling units are "physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the structure". While there are doors that connect each dwelling unit to the room labeled as "living room", these doors, which can be closed and locked, do not remove any limitations on internal access within the House. The ability to close and lock the doors permits either the tenants in each dwelling unit or the Defendants to constructively create a dwelling unit at any time without the City's knowledge or approval. If an interested person fails to appeal a notice of violation, the determinations contained in the notice are final and that interested person is foreclosed from contesting said determinations. See 24 V.S.A. §§4444(a), 4472(a) and (d). 24 V.S.A. section 4444(a) provides that "[a]ny person who violates any bylaw after it has been adopted under this chapter . . . shall be fined not more that $100.00 for each offense." See 24 V.S.A. §4444(a); see also Sherburne v. Carpenter, 155 Vt. 126, 7 132 (1990). In the current matter, Defendants failed to appeal the notice of violation issued to them by the AO in September 1999. Moreover, since the date of the notice of violation, the AO has observed, on four separate occasions, the existence of two unapproved dwelling units in the western part of the first floor of the House. On two of these occasions, in September 1999 and November 2000, Defendants had rented out these unapproved dwelling units to tenants. Defendants therefore leased the unapproved dwelling units to new tenants after they had stated to this Court that tenants were evicted as of the spring of 2000. On each of the four occasions, Defendants had failed and/or refused to remove all limitations on internal access within the House because doors that may be closed and locked remained in place between each of the unapproved dwelling units and the remainder of the House. Therefore, Defendants have consistently had two violations of the Regulations in place in the House since October 4, 1999. "[T]he use of the fine provision in §4444(a) to reimburse towns for the cost of enforcement is contemplated by the statute and is rationally related to the damages suffered from landowner's violation of Town's bylaw." Town of Hinesburg v. : Dunklina, 167 Vt. 514, 527-528 (1998). It is, therefore, reasonable to determine the amount of a fine with regard to the City's attorney's fees and costs. See id. at 529. In the current matter, the City has expended $2,607.40 in legal fees and costs in attempting to enforce the Regulations in this matter. In addition, the AO has spent just over ten (10) hours of his time attempting to ensure compliance with the Regulations. Based on,his yearly salary, the AO estimated that the City has paid him $204.75 to pursue enforcement of the Regulations. Defendants claim that they evicted some tenants from the House "at some expense." However, Defendants failed to submit any testimony or evidence to substantiate the amounts in a way to make them certain to this Court. In addition, Defendant Ernest Levesque, Jr. testified at the hearing this Court held in August 2000 that they did not evict the tenant(s) from the Large dwelling unit in response to the notice of violation, but rather because said tenant(s) had failed and/or refused to pay rent. Defendants are not entitled to any mitigation of the fine amount for action that they took for reasons other than attempting to cure the violation. 01 CONCLUSION For the above -stated reasons, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that the Court impose a penalty of $100.00 for each of Defendants' offenses since October 4, 1999. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 3rd day of May 2002. son886.1it CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON BY: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys Amanda S. E. Lafferty 10 Direct Examination of Ray Belair Name Residence (Town, Vermont) Employed? Employer? Position? For how long? Responsibilities of position? Zoning Regulations Include enforcement of the City Have you ever issued'a Notice of violation to Ernest and Donna Levesque? ��j� With regard to what property? #�7W/o j Zoning District? 1 Have you reviewed the City's records regarding that property? What violation(s) did you include in the notice? Ali `v Why is that a violation? Has anyone appealed that notice? Have you ever visited the property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the City of South Burlington? How many times? Four When was the first visit? September 30, 1999 What exists on this property? House, separate garage, etc. Why did you visit the property in September 1999? What did you do when you visited the property? Met Mr. Levesque, who showed me around the first floor of the house. What did you observe during this review of the house? Based on these observations, were the Levesques still in violation of the City Zoning Regulations? Why? When was the second visit to the property? September 13, 2000 Why did you visit the property at that time? In Court on August 31, 2000, Mr. Levesque claimed that they were 1 not longer in violation. So I contacted him to schedule another review of the property. What on the property did you review? What did you observe during this visit to the property? Based on these observations, are the Levesques in violation of the Zoning Regulations? Why? When was the third visit to the property? November 2000 Why did you visit the property then? What did you review on the property during this site visit? What did you observe during this visit? Based on what you observed during this visit, have the Levesques cured the violation alleged in the notice of violation? Why or why not? When was the fourth visit of the property? Why did you visit the property then? What did you review on the property during this site visit? What did you observe during this visit? Based on your observations during this visit, have the Levesques cured the violation alleged in the notice of violation? Why or why not? How much time have you, as the Administrative Officer for the City, spent on this matter? /Don't include time reviewing variance application. /� ' 4 Ao- i On what basis are you paid? Hourly? When did the City file its complaint in this matter? August 2000 Have you reviewed the records regarding the legal fees and costs that the City has incurred in pursuing this matter? Do you know the amount that the city has incurred in legal fees and costs in pursuing the enforcement of the notice of violation? Fd What is that amount? $2,607.40 son891.lit MEMORANDIUM TO: Project File Raymond J. J `'`(it, L FROM: y J Administrative Officer RE: Site Visit, Ernie Levesque Residence DATE: April io, zooz On February 22, zooz @ 4:00 P.M., I met Mr. Ernie Levesque at his property located at 185 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Levesque was waiting for me at the southeast corner of the house. This was a portion of the house that he was renting during my first visit. I observed that no one was living in this portion of the house. He then brought me across the hall into the other unit that was previously used as a rental unit without a permit. I observed that a large number of boxes were piled in the living room/bedroom of the unit. No one was living there. Mr. Levesque indicated that those boxes contained his and his wife's personal effects. This last unit was still set up as a separate living unit with a door that separated it from the rest of the house with its own outside entrance. The kitchen cabinets and sink were the same as when it was lived in. These items should be removed so this part of the house can not be considered a dwelling unit. MEMORANDIL' TO: Amanda Lafferty, Esquire FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administi� t fficer RE: Ernest Levesque Inspection Timeline DATE: October 24, 2001 To the best of my knowledge, this is what I recall of my three (3) inspections of the Levesque property. ist visit -9/3o/og- After Mr. Levesque received the Notice of Violation he called me and told me he wasn't in violation. I set up a time to visit his premises to see for myself. During this site visit, I was allowed to visit Mr. Levesque's living space. He showed me an area at the southwest corner of the first floor of the house which was rented out to someone who was not present. It was like an efficiency apartment (see area in yellow on attached plan). end visit - 9/13/oo- We learned in court from Mr. Levesque that he was no longer in violation. I made an appointment with him to inspect his property. I saw that both dwellings units that were previously occupied were now vacant. Even though they were vacant, all the physical components of a dwelling unit were present to return them to use. 'I was then asked to go outside around to the side to enter the other dwelling unit. This unit was occupied by two (z) people. (see blue area on plan). I partially entered the unit but was then told to leave because the police officer present would not leave the steps. This space was a complete dwelling unit. rd 3visit - November z000. I was asked to accompany City Manager Chuck Hafter and Fire Chief Mike O'Neil on a complaint by the residents of the larger apartment (see blue space on plan). This space was now occupied by two (z) different people who complained about exposed electrical wires. This space was inspected by the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry shortly after we inspected it. I'm trying to get the date of their inspection. It appeared that the smaller space was also occupied but no one was home. We were not able to verify if it was occupied or not. APR-25-2002 THU 03:49 PM STITZEL MGE FLETCHER PC FAX K 8026602552 P. 02 Ray -ae,j al r NIiyte 1" o F'i do 11 C L, (TOW11, Vermont) Fmp1uy".-d? h1gqjloYO:r? tjr� of poF>ition? Include enforcement of the City 1j,j Notic� of violation to Erncst and Donna .111n? 4? Wj.,t,'jj r., o-gFird to what property? 14a4 /V W)-I,'j. violation(s) did you irjc,L,ude in the notice? appoz'Lod 'that notice? 1)�2 lj�jvc. yC)II, C.,,Vcr -i/i7 ted the property locLAtO.d at 3,95 Hinesburg Read in tjio City of SOUth BLtrlington? 11(:)w litally 'Lilqer'? lecill, Whon war; tho first Visit? September 30, 1599 J�rj,jnt, oxl.str, on thIs property? House, separate garage, etc Wl�,v c,,.L(j you vj-e-it the property in 5apternbCr 1999? VN'kt4yt. Oid yoU do when you visited the property? M(-t M,r. who showed inc around the first floor of tha What di(1 you ob-serve. during th.-L,3 review of the house? ,jcj, s I � ;acj �yjj obL-Lorvations, were the Levesques ti 1 in vicsiation c'r this City Fonirlg RcNgulati011s? Wiff., Wj-jE,r-j wijs tjry.e socond Visit to the property? September 13, 2000 v,,j-jy +.Jirj yotj visit tb8 property at that time? In 0)urt on AWjM-t 31, 2000, Mr. J,evesque claimed that they Wero langar in violation. So I contacted him to schedule another rcr/i.nw' Of the prop(torty- oil t1jo property did you review? mia'L diri you Observe during this visit to the property? 1 APR-25-2002 7HU 03:49 ?M STITZEL PACE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. 8028602552 P. 03 on these 0b3(-':UVati.0n`*, are the LeVeSques in violation of tYio �',cwdncl j�c,.gujjticns? wf, y? November 2000 Vjt(,�Ij W- ,Is ti,le third v.l,sit to the property? V7,,Iv c1l.tj you, vi:�it tllc,, property then? What did you revic-W 01'I the property during this site visit? Wh,,�'It di(I you ollsorve during this visit? V.,IIF t youervc obF -cl clurir�g this visit, have the Levesques 'Llic Violation alleged in the notice of ViOlati0n? - Why or 'Why Ilot"? j.-,he fotj't,-k:h visit of the Property? jqhy (.1i.rl yo%l ViF.i,t tho property then? t;jjjjjt c',liel you revj,c,,w on the property during this, site visit? dij you ob.,,5orve during this, visit? on your obs-,(-'�y-vc-.jtiojji during this visit, have the Levosquos CUTC-d tj�(-Ml"Vi0jjjtiojj alleged in the notice of ViOlati0n? Why or why not.? �Iucjk time heave yogi, as the Adxnl,n4Str-Lltive officer for the .fur r , Tl I t CA-LY, jpollt on this lylatt0-0 Do include time rcv.iewinq ')PplicLitioll. jqjj=-Lt bisi8 Fire you Paid? Hourly? l7ow Imicli in jeqjj. foes has the city paid in this matter? V0 I C = 3, 5- "4w ��T4- L&OtS(�>q Cf- 72002 ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 4 C Bond Street Claremont, New Hampshire 03743 603 - 543 -1774 Jacalyn M. Stevens Acting Clerk Environmental Court District Court of Vermont Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit 255 North Main Street Barre, Vermont 05641 Dear Ms. Stevens: February 4, 2002 At this time, I wish to thank you for informing me of the City of South Burlington's Motion for Reconsideeatim issued by JLK!ge McRjeth *1ri,+d c.n Januarys 31, 2002 rested to the Real of South Burlington v. Levesque Docket Number 175 - 8 0 00Vtec. In response, I wish to state again, I created quality living space in the rear of our home for our growing family with the proper building permits that were issued by Dick Ward the City Zoning Administrator. The right and left side of our first floor apartment each have a seperate entrance to the main kitchen through the computedfamily room that is directly behind the kitchen. We +rave not created the additional two (2) dwelling units as the City continues to lie about. It is that simple. did rent two rooms to a Mark Wissell and his Son who had access to our kitchen and laundry. However in Case S1654 - 00 CnC Chitttenden Superior Court, County Courthouse, P. O. Box 187, Burlington, VT 05402, the Judge settled the case by awarding only one third of the past due rent and Court Fees. When asked to leave he, stopped paying rent and it was nine (9) months before the Superior Court ordered him to leave. Since we were renting two rooms and a wet bar area, after this 37 year old dad and his grade 4 son had access to our main part of the house, we occured no problems until we could not locate our portable phone when we were not home. I should have known better since his mother wrote the first rent check and then nothing was paid in back rent since June of 2000. In August, My wife and I left to New Hampshire to seek teaching positions. We issued an eviction proceding against this dead beat Dad. I reversed the lock to his living space and rented out the three bedrooms in the front of the house to wonderfull single mother Nurse and her three daughters.and kept the back two bedrooms of tt- five (5) bedrown apartment ar:d tt'* gtmlit3; IM M,, spy that had the legal building pe., ,i:s in place that created this great five (5) bedroom apartment that had four (4) entrances to the fire (5) bedroom apartment. Since I could not get rid of the leak of society we denied him and his Son access to the rest of our home. My wife and I then only came back to South Burlington on occasional weekends. At the present time, we are storing household goods in the North side of our rear apartment. No one is living in that quality space except our personal collection of material goods. We have been waiting over five months for an apprasial of our duplex. When we get the apprasol, we will sell our duplex and get out of Town. The City will then be happy. It was not until June 1, 2001 were we able to get rid of this character who prays on senior citizens in the Burlington area with not paying his rent. We also had a couple renting from us, the second floor apartment and when I finally had their pay attached by Court Order they fled the State. We then were able to get a real working couple who do pay the rent but we lost over $4,800.00 in back rent from the couple who fleas the State.. The now Zoning Administrator of South Burlington continues to lie without any foundation of fads. He indicates "the other dwelling unit appeared to be occupied because there were curtains in the windows, but no one was present at the time of the inspection". I am still looking for the other "living unit". as we do have building permits for creating quality living space for a duplex not a four plea. Earlier in his statement he "observed that both dwelling units for which the Levesques did not have approval from the City were still in existance". Of course we did have LEGAL BUILDING PERMITS in place that created our five (5) bedroom apartment that has two and three quarter (2 3/4) bathrooms. The curtains are in place to protect the storage of our expensive furniture that is stored there, to discourage thief of our stored items. We will get out of Vermont and sell our dream space in South Burlington.. it is no longer safe to live in that City with its present leadership. So much for being a member of the Town and then City of South Burlington Planning Commission and Fine Arts Committies for a period of ten (10) years as the Assistant Chairperson of both bodies and a Community Library Trustee for a period of three (3) years. I must also add that I was the Industrial Arts Department Chairperson and teacher for the local h`, gh schrool fou a p?rlio d of seveiritma N 7) years. Tia se tioiit: yp o des wwa mi greatest e"..m. rm-*— in the State of Vermont next to me being the Town Zoning Administrator for the Town of St. Albans, Vermont for a term of Four years. Boy, the City now has certainly done our family in. Again, I want to emphasize that we do have building permits for our additions and Judge Wright admitted them as eivdence in our case. I must remind the Judge that the City did issue building permits to neighboring properties to my South and North that were not legal. The statement that Judge Wright made concerning that some things were done in the early earlier years do not have a bearing on our case. I do rat have funds to fight this so we are again shafted by the system that I tried so very hard to follow and respect. Any monetary judgement to the City regarding our case would be counter productive to the little people who try and protect their senior citizen status by having extra income in the form of rent to support ourselves in old age. I am now 71 years old and the harrasment by the City of South Burlington is certainty getting more then we care to live with. For your interest, I am working in a modular horse factory in Claremont, New Hampshire that builds over 375 homes a year that are the pride of the industry. I am one of two Quality Control Inspectors in this company and with my varied career of several different industrial, construction, education and municipal goverment positions, these experiences have given the position a great strength to the company. I will stay in this position until a greater challenge comes along. My wife, Donna will retire from teaching Math in June and wilt stay home and paint many subjects and scones until she drops in order to make enough money to support us as we had from renters who paid their rent. I look foward to the same consideration that was given to the Warren, Vermont duplex that we own where my oldest Son, Ernest III lives. Any monetary jugement over (0) dollars would be a FRAUD that would give substance to go after all future senior citizens who are trying to stay afloat in our sick country. One does not have to go any higher then Washington to know this from either party that holds office in what was a great honor to be a part of....... Sincerely, Ernest & Donna Levesque No Text STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE" E-MAIL(FIRM2555(&,FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) March 8, 2002 -i'_ mond J. Belair �z City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: City v. Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ray: AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed please find the Notice of Hearing as well as correspondence from the Defendant to the Court, both in connection with the above -referenced matter. Please call with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S.E. Lafferty( ASEL/jp Enclosures son4763.cor Environmental Court of Vermont State of Vermont 255 North Main St., First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 (802) 479-4486 Amanda Lafferty, Esq. Stitzel, Page & Fletcher PO Box 1507 Burlington VT 05402 II N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G I� March 7, 2002 South Burlington, City of VS. Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Ernest Levesque Jr.; Donna Levesque This is to notify you to appear at the Court named in connection with the above named case for the following: Other Friday April 26, 2002 at 09:00 AM This is a hearing on the penalties and will eld at the Costello Courthouse 32 Cherry Street, Burlington. < J/ {\ 4 t Env' onmental Court Clerk Notice sent to: Amanda Lafferty, Attorney for Plaintiff, South Burlington, City of Defendant, Ernest Levesque Jr. Defendant, Donna Levesque party for informational purposes, Ernest L. Levesque Jr.(NH address) DID d DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February ii, zoo2 Ernest & Donna Levesque 4C Bond Street Claremont, NH 03743 Re: Site Inspection - 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Levesque: Please contact me no later than 2/20/02 to schedule a time when I can inspect your 195 Hinesburg Road property for compliance with the Environmental Court order. I hope your schedule will allow for an inspection no later than March 6, 2002. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Sincerely' Raymon J. Belair Administrative Officer CC: Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. Td Environmental Court of Vermont State of Vermont 255 North Main St., First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 (802) 479-4486 Amanda Lafferty, Esq. Stitzel, Page & Fletcher PO Box 1507 Burlington VT 05402 II N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G t February 7, 2002 `�`!' ��x �7y �J s . I.�.�.� �EB ... n. STITZPL. FAGS & 6 LETCHER PC South Burlington, City of Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec VS. Ernest Levesque Jr.; Donna Levesque This is to notify you in connection with the above named case for the following: Pre-trial Telephone Conference Friday March 1, 2002 at 03:30 PM Telephone Conference - Phone call to be initiated by the court. MR. LEVESQUE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS DATES DURING A SCHOOL VACATION OR AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR WHEN HE WOULD BE ABLE TO COME TO BURLINGTON FOR UP TO A HALF DAY HEARING. THE NUMBER WE SHOW FOR YOU NOW IS 603-543-1174 IF THIS IS NOT THE NUMBER YOU WILL BE AT FOR THE CONFERENCE, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A NUMBER WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED. Env onmental Court Clerk Notice sent to: Amanda Lafferty, Attorney for Plaintiff, South Burlington, City of Defendant, Ernest Levesque Jr. Defendant, Donna Levesque party for informational purposes, Ernest L. Levesque Jr. .e STITZEL, PAGE & FLEMIER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 0 STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552or 6 0 91119 PATTI R. PAGE" E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) February 4, 2002 Ray Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burli.ngtorl, Vermont 05403 Re: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ray: AMANDA S.E. LAF'FER'TY EDWARD G, ADRIAN Enclosed please find the Order on City's Motion tor Reconsideration in coxinect.ioi) with the above- r-� If e.re.nced enatt:s? . Please call me wi't.b. any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S . E . La f f erty ASEL/myb , Enclosure IL. 40 v � J .,7 per 1 r DISTRICT COURT OF VERMONT it'= Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit In Re: Appeal of South Burlington v. Levesque Docket Number 175-8-OOVtec (802) 479-4252 Mailing Address: 255 North Main Street Barre, Vermont 05641 January 31, 2002 Dear Parties: Enclosed is a copy of the Order on City's Motion for Reconsideration issued by Judge Merideth Wright on January 31, 2002 relative to the above -referenced matter. ,Sincerely, Jacalyn M. Stevens Acting Clerk Environmental Court cc: Ernest, Jr. & Donna Levesque Amanda Lafferty, Esq. City of South Burlington, Plaintiff, V. Ernest and Donna Levesque, Defendants. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec - Order on Citv's Motion for Reconsideration ;x 13 1M vEF,j;��,�T EN001ITMENTAL COURT In Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec, Appellant Ernest Levesque, Jr. appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the City of South Burlington, denying a variance for the construction of a third rental unit and an accessory handicapped residential unit on his property. In Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec, the City brought an enforcement action for the construction of the two units without zoning approval. The two matters were consolidated, heard, and a decision was issued on October 12, 2001) denying the variance and ruling on the injunctive relief and penalty sought by the City. Appellant -Defendant Ernest Levesque appeared and represented himself; the City of South Burlington was represented by Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. The City has now moved for reconsideration in Docket No. 175-8-00, arguing that the merits hearing only addressed the request for preliminary injunctive relief, not permanent injunctive relief or fines, and that City did not have the opportunity to present evidence of the costs of enforcement, the period of violation, and the facts regarding whether Defendants had constructed separate living units or was operating a rooming house. Defendants did not respond to the request for reconsideration. The Court has reviewed the history of both cases before the Court. The documentary 1 record only reflects that the appeal, Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec, had already been set for a merits hearing by the time that the enforcement case, Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec was filed; that the City filed a request in writing, requesting to consolidate the two cases and to use an alternate date a week later "to hold a hearing regarding the request for preliminary injunctive relief;" and that Mr. Levesque opposed continuing the hearing past the originally scheduled date. The docket entries also reflect that Attorney Lafferty telephoned the Court a few days later and spoke to the Deputy Clerk for the District and Environmental Courts, Christine Eisenwinter. The docket entry made by Ms Eisenwinter states in full: "Arty Lafferty phoned - she would like merits hearing held in conjunction with hearing on [t] his appeal." Judge Wright took this to mean that the entire merits of the enforcement case, not just the preliminary injunction, would be heard together with the merits hearing already set in the appeal case. Judge Wright then issued an entry order consolidating the two cases and they were heard as scheduled. After the parties had filed their requests for findings in the consolidated cases, Attorney Lafferty filed a motion for summary judgment in the enforcement case, requesting permanent injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper, and requesting a hearing on the appropriate remedy (by which she must have meant the monetary penalty, as the injunctive relief had both been heard and had been the subject of the motion for summary judgment). Defendants responded to the summaryjudgment issues, but not to the request for a hearing on the remedy. The Coures decision and order addressed all issues raised by the merits of the appeal and the enforcement case, including those issues raised in the summary judgment motion, but without holding any further hearing on the monetary penalty. Based simply on this sequence of events,i it appears that the City might reasonably have 1 We do not here address the Cityes arguments regarding the effect of an unappealed notice of violation and regarding whether a court can order that a zero dollar fine is warranted. We will address those arguments in the decision on the monetary penalty after hearing, if those issues are still pertinent under the circustances. 2 expected that a further hearing would be set on a monetary penalty, even though the City had requested that the "merits" of the enforcement action be set to be heard with the variance case. Especially in the absence of any argument to the contrary from Defendants, we must grant the City's motion to hold the requested hearing on the monetary penalty. Accordingly, in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec the City's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the following extent only: the final two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 42 of the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order are hereby vacated and removed from that order and the remainder of the order remains in effect. The effect of today's order is that Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec remains disposed of by the October 1.2, 2001 Decision and Order, and that the finding of violation and injunctive relief ordered by the October 12, 2001 Decision and Order in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec remains in place. The issue of whether and what monetary penalty should be imposed in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec has been reopened and will be set for a telephone conference and for a merits hearing to take any supplementary evidence not already in the record. Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 3 1 " day of January, 2002. Merideth Wright Environmental Judge a The sentences being removed read as follows: "Although the City also requested penalties in the amount of $100/day, the court determines that no penalty is warranted in this case, beyond Appellant/Defendants' expenses in evicting the recalcitrant lodgers and in removing any limitation on internal access within their dwelling unit. Accordingly, eve impose a penalty of zero dollars per day, for the period from October 4, 1999 until the date in the spring of 2000 when the lodgers moved out." 3 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) October 30, 2001 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: Appeal of Ernest Levesque, Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec City of South Burlington v. Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Carolyn: Jr. AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Ernest and Donna Levesque Enclosed for filing in connection with the above -referenced matters, please find the Affidavit of Melanie Bouchard, as requested by Judge Wright. Please call with questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/myb Enclosure cc: Ray Belair Ernest and Donna Levesque son4696.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Plaintiff, V. ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, Defendants. DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec AFFIDAVIT I, Melanie Bouchard, having been duly sworn, depose and state, based upon my personal knowledge, as follows: 1. I am employed by Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. as a legal secretary and paralegal. 2. On October 26, 2001, Amanda Lafferty, an attorney with Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., requested that I hand deliver to the Environmental Court, for filing, the City of South Burlington's Motion for Reconsideration and for Hearing and an Affidavit in the above -referenced matters. I left for Barre, Vermont from the offices of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. in Burlington at approximately 3:35 p.m. on October 26, 2001. 3. I arrived at the Washington Circuit District Court where the Environmental Court offices are located at 4:30 p.m. on October 26, 2001. I attempted to enter the building through the front/main entrance, but found the door to be locked. I then attempted to enter the building through the back/main entrance but also found that door to be locked. 1 4. Using my cell phone, I immediately called Amanda Lafferty at the offices of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. to inform her that I could not enter the building to file the papers because the doors were locked. She asked me to wait there while she tried to call the Environmental Court. Amanda Lafferty called me approximately 15 minutes later and directed me to deliver the papers to the Barre Post Office. 5. I immediately went to the Barre Post Office and delivered the papers to the Post Office for delivery to the Environmental Court via first-class mail. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 30" day of October 2001. t Melanie Ouchard STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS Subscribed and sworn -to before me this 30th day of October 2001. Ate �m 0, 04"44__> Notar Public My Commission Expires: JO103 Son84I.Iit STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 2 OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:48 PM," TZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. )6602552 P, 01 EI 811'1711.r.. t�ta�rCtlo:t,, �a.c-. ATTORNA'N',q AT1AW rat r!n'c�'cuv �t�rut�a�;r p n, nnx llh7 0,. IP� lL07 S'TXTE OF VERMONT ENVTRONMEENTAL COURT IN FY : APPEAL, OF ) 1�:RNEST' LEV9SQUE, JR. ) 170C�{ET NO. 94-5-00 Vtea ) CITY OF SOUTH ]BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, f , ) DOCKET NO. 175-6-00 Vtec 'V' , ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) I, kaymond Br_.ilair, having been duly sworn, depose and state, based upon my personal knowledge, as follows: 1.. I am the duly appointed Administrative Officer for the 1=l��ir►ti„f.f/2\ppetic:e, c:iLy of South Burli.ngLon (hereinafter tree -City") . Thi.�, Afli.davit i.s made in suppor.L of the City of South, f.3u rlington' s MOt.i Orl for Reconsider-aticn and for Hearing,, pursuant t_0 V.I R. C,. P. 59 (e) . 2. :r issued a notice of violat.''on to Mr. and Mrs. Levesque dat.-ed aeptenber 27, 1999, for construction of two additional dwuili.r"g units to the striic.ture Located at 195 !Hinesburg Road in the: Ci ty. The Levcrsque:s constructed said additions without: approval from the City. 3. On August 31, 2000, 7 attended and was a witness for the City at Lhe EnvironmenLa). Court's hea.rtng on the above -referenced niz"tLers. At that. hearing Mr. Levesque testified that he had ev ,c:t,cd ali Lenants from the subject structure. ,j. On September 19, 2000, or about two weeks after the L,nvironmenLal (.,ourt's hearing, I inspected Mr. 1,evesque's property, with his permission. During that inspection, I ot)served thaL both of the dwelling units for which the Levesquos di,c1 not !give approval from the City were still in existence. E,, sametime in November 2000, I accompanied City Manager Charles 11,-a [ ter and City Fire Chief. Michael O'Neil on an 1 OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:48 P �ITZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. )26602552 P. 02 trl���e cLi.on a1 the subjec-:L, property. Said i.nspoction was in c r*,�,,on�je� t,c r�ompl.aints r)y the tenants of one of the dwelling llrliLs thaL therc was oxposed electrical wiring in the subjec,L ; t,ruc,Lure. . During said inspccti,.oll, I observed that both dwelling Ur-iiLs for which t:he Lr_vesques did not have approval from the City were, sttll in oxistence. In addition, one of these units was rc1,1i.1-1 oc;cttpie,(j k,)y tenarits , The other dwelling unit appeared to be because there were curtains in the windows, but no ()nc: was prc^,cr riL at thc: ti,lnc of t1le DATtD zt. Montpelicr., Vermont th ,2'day 1 r be berg 2001•, Ray m nd Pelair STATE OF VEPS 3NT WASHINGTON COUNTY, SS Sub,lcribcd and sworn to before me this 2Gth day of October Notary ;oftli 11, 111, HJl1( III':Ji, `X- A1'1T)1tNlti5'S TLAW Ail �i'VITI:ItYYI'{Iv11q, CU i1t!# IPII'1 III�Ii LI V(i'1'b+d, 4Flth,il)\ C i!h 11l: 14�1'� 2 My Colnrnissicn Expires: _ ,W , OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:23 E )TITZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. .b26602552 P. 01 �.•,v l,, nm tl�l, 7.J, w7 P�t,'� e "AL STATE OF VERMONT ��' �° �'s ��"�'� ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPtAL OF ) ERNEST LEVESQUE� JR. } DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec } CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec IV. 9 D ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defencc�amts . ) AFFIDAVIT 1, Raymonci neJair, having been duly sworn, depose and state, b�ic:ed upon any personal knowledge, as fo1,1_owss 1. 1: 7aa the duly appointed Administrative officer for the PlLlint.iff/Appellees, City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City'). This Affidavit is made in support of the city of South ilui:lington's Potion for Roconsideration and for Hearing, pursuant 'to V.R.C.P. 59 (e) . 2. 1 issued a notion of violation to M'I . and Mrs. Levesque, dated Scpte lber 2 7, 1999, for construction of two additional dwe'-1.1.ing units to the structure located at 195 Hinesburg Road in th(I city, `ho- Levesques constructed said additions without Zlp�)roval from the city. 3• Oil August 31, 2001, 1 attended and was a witness for the City �'4t the Environmental Court's hearing on the above -referenced Via. •;�.,,_._..,,._, _ X tiYlrle.ril,lf8i rY P�110 76/1 ® � ����� - J +l of �n��c�es o. OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:23 ,tTITZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. a026602552 P. 02 %,4LJ u k a JYAIW:I l� lui ti �`d� eti�. �'L7�..J matters. At that heating Mr. Levesque testified that he had evicted �111. tenants from the subject structure. 4. On September 19, 2000, orabout two weeks after the :E'.nviro'nmcnta„l Court's hearing, I inspected Mr. .Levesque°s,, p.toporty, with his permission. ouriazg that inspection, I 01)8erved that both of the dwelling units for which the Levesques cli,d not havo approval from t City were still in existence. in r1 acitlit.i.0rr, bath units wtierd�o6c:up ed by tenants. 5• Sometime in November 2000, 1 accompanied City Manager CCha l.e:�5 Hafter and City pi,re chief Michael o°Neil on a inspection Of t.tZe subject property. Said inspection was in response to cor.'pltaillts by the tenantF> of one of the dwelling units that there was exposed electrical wiring in, the subject structure. During srai.d inspection, I observed that both dwelling units for which the Leve=sques did not have approval from the City were still in existence. In .addition, one of the units was occupied by toniants. Thc: other dwelling unit appeared to be occupied because thero wex-e curtaillS in the windows, but no one was present at the tune of t..he inspection. DARED at Montpelier, Vermont ',--hi, 2ECh day of October 2001. Raymond Bel.air 2 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M.EUSTACE (`ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) October 26, 2001 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street First Floor Barre, Vermont 05641 Re: Appeal of Ernest Levesque, Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec City of South Burlington v. Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: Jr. AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Ernest and Donna Levesque Enclosed for filing please find the original City of South Burlington's Motion for Reconsideration.and for Hearing and Affidavit in connection with the above -referenced matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/myb Enclosures cc: Ernest Levesque, Jr. Ray Belair son4692.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Plaintiff, V. ERNEST AND.DONNA LEVESQUE, Defendants. DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR HEARING NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59(e), asks that this Court alter or amend its Decision and Order; entered in the above -referenced matter on October 12, 2001, for the following reasons. MEMORANDUM Rule 59(e) of the Vermont rules of Civil Procedure provides the court an opportunity to "reconsider issues previously before it, and generally examine the correctness of the judgment itself." In re Robinson/Keir Parnership, Jack C. Keir & Jack C Keir, Inc., 154 Vt. 50, 54 (1990). '"A motion under Rule 59(e) suspends.the finality of the judgment, and allows.. the trial court to revise its initial judgment if necessary `to relieve a party against the unjust operation of a record resulting from the mistake or inadvertence of the court and not the fault or neglect of a party."' Osborn v. Osborn, 147 Vt. 432, 433 (1986). 1 The City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City") asks the Court to alter or amend its judgment contesting the existence of the violations alleged in the City's notice dated September 27, 1999, after a hearing to present evidence on the issue of the remedy. It is indisputable that the Notice of.Violation issued by the Administrative Officer for the City, dated September 27, 1999, constitutes a final, unappealable decision. See 24 V.S.A. §§4464.and 4472(d). Pursuant,to 24 V.S.A. §4472(d), once such a notice becomes final, all interested persons affected shall be bound by such decision . . .and shall not thereafter contest, either. directly or indirectly, such decision or act: . . . including, without limita.tion, any proceeding brought to enforce this chapter." See 2.4 V.S.A. §4472(d)(emphasis added). In its Decision and Order dated October 12, 2001, this Court agreed with. the City and granted the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the Levesques "cannot contest the existence. of the violation" contained in the notice dated September 27, 1999, which the Levesques failed to appeal. See Decision and Order, dated October 12, 2001, Page 3. However, the Court then concluded that "the evidence only shows that Appellant/Defendants were operating a rooming house; there is no independent evidence of separate dwelling units." See id. at page.4. In effect, the Court contested the existence STITZEL, PAGE & of the violations contained in the notice dated September 27, FLETCHER,P.C., ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 2 - BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 1999, which under 24 V.S.A. §4472(d), the Court does not have the authority to do. Based on this erroneous conclusion, the Court refused to impose a fine for the violations. See id. at 4. The Vermont Supreme Court, in reviewing a lower court's judgment that imposed a daily fine of fifty dollars, but recognized only twenty days of duration, even though the violation had continued for a much longer time, adopted the holding of Village of Sister Bay v. Hockers, a Wisconsin case, under 24 V.S.A. 54444(a). See Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 155 Vt. 126, 133 (1990). The Supreme Court held that "[a]s long as the defendant has the benefit of the zoning ordinance violation, the statute [24 V.S.A. §4444(a)] requires that he pay a daily fine" and reversed the lower court's imposition of a cap on the number of days that the violation continued. See id. This Court is without authority both to contest the decision contained in an unappealed notice of violation and to refuse to impose a daily fine for such violations. In addition, this Court is without authority to rule on the issue of a remedy in the City's enforcement case because the City has not had the opportunity to present evidence regarding a remedy. On or about August 7, 2000, the City filed its Complaint,. Order for Hearing and Pre -hearing Memorandum in the above -referenced enforcement matter (Docket no. 175-8-00 Vtec). At that time, the Court had already scheduled a hearing for 3 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1607 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 August 31, 2000, on the Levesques' request for a variance (Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec). At said hearing, the Court also heard evidence regarding the City's request for preliminary injunctive relief only. The City then filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which only addressed the Levesques' application for a variance and the City's request for preliminary injunctive relief. The City also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 22, 2001, in order to resolve the issue of the existence of the violations. Once the Court had ruled on that motion, the City had expected another hearing in order to present evidence regarding the fine and any permanent injunctive relief to which it is entitled. Since the City has not had the opportunity to present evidence regarding the number of days of. violation, the costs of enforcement and other relevant evidence, the City requests that the Court hold a hearing to address the issues of the, fine and permanent injunctive relief. The City asks the Court to alter of amend its judgment regarding the period of the violation, after a hearing to present evidence regarding same. As stated above, the City would like the opportunity to present evidence regarding the period of violation. In refusing to impose a fine, the Court determined that October 4, 1999 through spring 2000 is the period of violation. See Decision and Order, page 4. In arriving at the spring of 2000 as the end of the violation period, the Court 4 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402,1507 relied on the testimony of Mr. Levesque that all the tenants in the subject structure had vacated the premises by that time.' However, the City Administrative Officer (hereinafter AO). inspected the property on September 13, 2000, and found both dwelling units for which the Levesqes do not have approval from the City still in existence.. See Affidavit of Raymond Belair, attached hereto. In addition the City AO observed in November 2000 that at least one of the dwelling units for which the Levesques do not have approval from the City.was again occupied. See Affidavit. of Raymond Belair, attached hereto. The Levesques have been in violation of the Zoning Regulations beyond the spring of 2000 and the City would like the opportunity to present evidence of such to the Court. CONCLUSION For all the above -stated reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Court alter of amend its Decision and Order, dated October 12, 2001, in the above -referenced matter, as follows: ' Assuming for a moment that the Levesques had not failed to appeal the notice of violation dated September 27, 1999, it is the City's position that once a room or rooms fulfill the definition of "dwelling unit" the City Zoning Regulations do not consider whether such units are occupied. It is the mere existence of a dwelling unit, created without the approval of the City, that constitutes a violation of the Zoning Regulations. 5 1. Conclude that the Levesques cannot contest the existence of the violation(s) contained in the notice of violation dated September 27, 1999; 2. Conclude that.the Levesques must pay,a fine for each day which the violations contained in the notice of violation dated .September 27, 1999, continued past October 4, 1999; 3. Schedule a merits hearing on the issue of the remedies to which the City is entitled for the Levesques' violations of the City Zoning Regulations. 4. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 26th day. of October 2001. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys Amanda S. E. Lafferty son835.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 2 10/26/2001 13:46 FAX 802 223 4689 MAIL BOXES ETC. OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:48 STITZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. __-I6602552 WJUUI P. 01 ti'tYW141Path & ��t,trrrnca,, r.c, A171111,MlWs AT DWI 11,1 11MITIIY'CPURNT r A, 11hx 1607 z%m I.im.MY, t P W INP ,L. It,- u.47 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: AP PEAL OF ) EMEST M;'.V9SQUE, .TR_ ) DOCKET No. 94-5-00 Vtec 3 CITY OF OUT9 BUiZI,INGTON, DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtoc v6 ) ZI1 NZST A14"D DONNA :LEVESQUE, ) Defi3adants _ ) AY :DAVa,, .T 1, •taymond Belair, having bean duly sworn, depose and state, based up -)a my personal knowledge, as f01,10ws: 1. I am the duly appointed ZWministrative Officer for the Plriiritiff/Appellee, City of South Burli.ngLon (hereinafter the "City"). This Affidavit is made in SupporL of the City of South Bur.lirgt z)n' Motion for Reconsideration and for Hearing, pursuant t=o 'V. k.C. Y. 59 (e) . 2. T issues. a notice of violation to Mr. and Mrs. Levesque, c a(,ed ScpLembe:r �7, 1999, for consLruction of two additional c1wol1j.ag units to the structure located at 1.95 Nine burg Road in tht� Ci t.y _ The Leivosques constructed said additions without approval from t:hf! City. 3. On August 31, 2000, Z attanded and was a witness for the CiL,y .at the EnvironmenLa). Court's hearing on the above -referenced raa t:P_Zs. At that. hearing Mr. Levosque testified that he had ev,i.ctcd all LenaTits from the subject structure_ 4. On Sarptember 19,, 2000, or about two weeks after the 2,nvironmunLa Coixrt'v hearing, I inspected Mr. 1,evesque's proport; -,, with h..s permission. during that inspection, I observe6 that' both of the dwelling units for which the Levesques did not have approval from the City were still in existence. 5. Socaetrimc3 In No'VBmber ?.000, I accompanied City Manager Chz'lrl e3 ilea Fier au1d City Fire Chief Michael O'Neil on an 1 10/26/2001 13:45 FAX 802 213 4689 MAIL BOXES ETC. OCT-26-2001 FRI 01:48 S?ITZEL ?AGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO, 6602552 WJ UUG P. 02 &'1' G'1"d.VI L. RAG l : & l''L1ih`C11181t. p'(1. n'I7'0It*V,Y8 AT L-AW 191 &6A%T1:NYKl11V'K11' 1' U PJ% 11W W.W(AN1.Tiui.H a'YoN I' 04441 1 Vr1 innpecL'iori of the subject property. Said :inspection was in r:cst�on5+r t:o complaints by the tenants of one of the dwelling itrdLs thi.AL therc- was cxpo,ed electrical wiring in the subject• aLri�c:Lur� . [wring said inspection, I observed that both dwelling uriiLs foss which the Lovesques did not have approval from the City were sti_.1 in cxi: tenc"e. In addition, one of these .units was agni;i occ;up ed by tenants, The other, dwelling unit appeared to be occ.up:.81i bCCaUSF3 thare were curtains in the windows, but no anci was d; the time of the. ias ion. DATED a.. Mon'tpelicr., Vcrmont th' '' day o Oc berg 2001, R�ym id Be1a9.�' ST2V22: OF VERHONT WAi.SHINO'Z'+JN COUNTY, SS Stib9Cribed and sworn to before mo this 26th day of October 2001. 4oary 9 uub1i _..� My Commission Expires: :1,rsat.1,1. SHANNON RANGNOW p \J��++��,�.,�.II f Notary puelric:� Ve;=Ont '!y �y��'��• �i'J'; �:iV.7 _ _ . 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT In Re: Appeal of Levesque City of South Burlington v. Levesque Docket Numbers 94-5-00 and 175-8-OOVtec Dear Parties: (802)479-4486 255 North Main Street, Suite 1 Barre, Vermont 05641 - 4164 October 12, 2001 Enclosed is a copy of the Decision and Order issued by Judge Merideth Wright on October 12,2001 in the above captioned cases. Sincerely, cal M. Stevens Environmental Court cc: Ernest & Donna Levesque Amanda Lafferty, Esq. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } In re: Appeal of } Ernest Levesque, Jr. } } } h City of South Burlington, } Plointi , } } V. } } Ernest and Donna Levesque, } Defendants. } } Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec DECISION and ORDER OCT 12 2001 I VITMONT SVIRONPAENTAL COURT In Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec, Appellant Ernest Levesque, Jr. appealed from a decision of the Development ReI71ew Board (DRB) of the City of South Burlington, denying a variance for the construction of a third rental unit and an accessory handicapped residential unit on his property. In Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec, the City brought an enforcement action for the construction of the two units without zoning approval. The two matters were consolidated. Appellant -Defendant Ernest Levesque appeared and represented himself; the City of South Burlington is represented by Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. An evidentiary hearing was held before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written requests for findings and memoranda of law. In addition, in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec, the City has moved for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the evidence and the mitten memoranda and proposed fuidings, the Court finds and concludes as follows. 1 Appellant/Defendants own and occupy a 75-foot by 200-foot parcel of land at 195 Hinesburg Road in the R-4 (Residential 4) zoning district of the City of South Burlington. Multi -family dwellings of up to 4 units are allowed, with 6,000 square feet of lot area per unit. The required frontage on a major street such as Hinesburg Road is 170 feet. Appellant/Defendants' 15,000-square-foot property is improved with a 2-family dwelling and a detached garage/workshop. The evidence does not reflect whether the original house was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning. The property obtained two zoning permits for renovations and additions in 1982 and 1983) and a zoning permit was issued in 1984 to allow its conversion to a 2-family dwelling, based on a variance issued in 1984 from the required frontage. It met and continues to meet the density requirements for a 2-family dwelling. Appellant/Defendants live in the downstairs of the duplex (which also has access to some upstairs rooms, and rent out the second floor apartment. At the same time as Appellant/Defendants' variance in 1984) a nearby property (the Goodrich property) on the corner of Hinesburg Road and Simpson Court was issued a variance from the density requirements to build ah addition to an existing duplex to convert it to three 2-bedroom townhouses. Neither Appellant/Defendants' 1984 variance nor the Goodrich variance addressed all of the required elements of 24 V.S.A. §4468; however, neither was appealed and both became final. Appellant/Defendants obtained four more zoning permits between 1986 and 1993 for additions to the house and to build a 28' x 28' detached garage and storage area. In their papers, Appellant/Defendants refer to a May 10, 1999, ruling of the then - Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of South Burlington, apparently upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision that an "accessory residential unit was not allowed on the applicant's property," apparently because under the City's zoning regulations such a unit is only allowed in connection with a single-family residence. §26.75, and see 24 V.S.A. §4406(4). There is no indication that Appellant/Defendants ever appealed that ruling to this Court; therefore it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court in either of these cases. 2 Under §26.75 of the City's Zoning Regulations and 24 V.S.A. §4406(4), an accessory residential unit for an older or handicapped relative may only be constructed, with approval of the DRB, if it is within or attached to a primary single-family residence, and if the primary residence is occupied by the owner, and if the accessory unit does not exceed 30% of the floor space of the living area of the primary residence (or 400 square feet, whichever is greater). Appellant/Defendants argue that it is not fair for this provision to apply only to a single-family residence. The constitutionality of that provision is not before the Court, as the March 1999 ruling of the then-ZBA was not appealed. However, unless the distinction between single - fa uly and multiple -family residences is entirely irrational, the decision to make that aistinction is a matter for the state legislature or the City's legislative body, and not for the courts. Commencing on or before September 27, 1999, Appellant/Defendants had rented rooms in their portion of the house, each with an associated bathroom, to persons who arranged for separate mail delivery to the building. Those persons refused to allow an inspector into their portion of the house to determine if it was a separate living unit in September of 1999. Those persons were evicted by Appellant/Defendants as of the spring of 2000, at some expense to Appellant/Defendants. On September 27, 1999, the City issued a Notice of Violation to Appellmt/Defendants, stating that they had commenced land development on the property without a permit, by adding two additional dwelling units to the two approved dwelling units, without first having obtained a zoning permit from the City. The Notice of Violation directed Appellant/Defendants to remove the two additional units and return the property to the originally -approved two dwelling units, and advised them that the City may pursue an enforcement proceeding should they fail to "accomplish the actions directed in this letter." The Notice of Violation advised Appellant/Defendants of their right to appeal to the DRB within 15 days. Appellant/Defendants did not appeal the Notice of Violation, and therefore cannot contest the existence of the violation. Accordingly, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment on this point is GRANTED. 3 However, the evidence only shows that Appellant/Defendants were operating a rooming house; there is no independent evidence of separate dwelling units. Accordingly, the injunctive relief requested by the City is hereby GRANTED: Appellant/Defendants shall remove any limitations on internal access within the house to the rooms rented out to lodgers, so that the house consists of two and only two dwelling units. Any requirement for a permit or permit amendment for the operation of a rooming house is beyond the scope of this case. Although the City also requested penalties in the amount of $100/day, the court determines that no penalty is warranted in this case, beyond Appellant/Defendants' expenses in evicting the recalcitrant lodgers and in removing any limitation on internal access within their dwelling unit. Accordingly, we impose a penalty of zero dollars per day, for the period from October 4, 1999 until the date in the spring of 2000 when the lodgers moved out. Appellant/Defendants applied in February 2000 for a variance to create a third rental unit within the first floor of the house, and to build an 856-square-foot addition to the garage to create a detached accessory handicapped residential unit. The elements of the Zoning Regulations requiring a variance would be the frontage requirement, the 6,000-square-feet- per-unit requirement, the one -principal -building -per -lot requirement (§26.65) and the requirements that an accessory residential unit be within or attached to the primary residence, that the owner occupy the primary residence, and that the primary residence be single-family. (§26.75). Appellant/Defendants make cogent arguments from a city planning perspective that the City's Zoning Regulations should allow a higher density in -filling in the core central area of the City, to avoid suburban sprawl and to provide affordable housing within the City. However, such arguments should be directed to the Planning Commission and legislative body of the City for consideration as amendments to the Zoning Regulations. This Court can only interpret and apply the Zoning Regulations as they exist in a particular municipality, and as they are constrained by state statute and the Vermont and federal constitutions. In order to qualify for a variance, Appellant must meet all five requirements of 24 M V.S.A. §4468, see §27.00 of the Zoning Regulations: (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; (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; (3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; (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; and (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. Now that it has been developed with a duplex and a garage/workshop, Appellant/Defendants' parcel meets only subsection 4 of these five provisions. If it fails any one of the provisions, it fails to qualify for a variance, and therefore the variance application must be denied. The lot is narrower than called for by the frontage regulations, but is not otherwise unusual in its shape or topography. It is already in reasonable use as a duplex. 'The claimed hardship, if any, is an economic one, which is not a proper consideration of the variance process once the landowner is able to make a reasonable use of the property. See, In re McDonalTs Corp., 151 Vt. 346, 350 (1989). Appellant/Defendants'"71sh to rent out three units in the house and live in the accessory dwelling unit, instead of living in one of the duplex units and renting out the other. They have not applied to make any changes within the house to change the configuration of the downstairs to accommodate the handicapped living needs of the family members, which would perhaps be the minimum variance to afford relief. The proposed project would 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. Based on the foregoing; in Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment be entered in favor of the City on Appellant/Defendants' application far a variance: the variance applicatiori.is DENIE"��. Based on the foregoing, in Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the City's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and that injunctive relief is GRANTED as described above. Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 12`h day of October, 2001. "- Merideth Wright Environmental Judge 0 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERIviONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-1555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM255J(.DFIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFrERTY@FIRM`PF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER-S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) October 16, 2001 Raymond J. Belair, Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, 'vecmont 054013 Re: Appeal of Levesque City of So'..i b. Furlington v. Levesque Docket Nos. 94•--5-00 Vtec & 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ray: AMANDA S.F. I.AFFERTY EDWARD G. ADRIAN Enclosed Find o Decision and Order filed w:i.tY, the Ve!-Tnont Environmentai Court in connection with the abc:ve y-r_:_ erenced matter.Please cull ime a F ter you have .had an o por- tunity to rel,73.aw the Court':• decision. Thank yc»u 1 0PIP .' Amanda S. E. Lafferty FUSEL/myb Enclosure 3vn4E73.cor I 1 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. A F FORNEYS AT I_A%k 171 BATTERY S FRFF F P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGI-ON. VERMONF 05402-1-507 (S02)660-2> (VOICE,TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (SO2) 660-25;2 ur 660-9119 PAT'II R PAGE* E-NIAIL(FIRM2�;i5a_YIRMSPFCOM) ROBERT E FLETCHER WRITERS E-MAIL (ALAFFF..RTY'aFIRMSPF.COM) IOSEPH S- McLEAN WRITER'S FAN, 802) 660-2SS2 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ("ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) February 7, 2001 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1 Floor Barre, VT 05641 MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S F LAFFERIY RE: City of South Burlington's Response to Defendant's Response to the City's Motion For Summary Judgment Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: Enclosed for filing with the court is the City of South Burlington's Response to the Defendant's Response. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 v Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/laf Enclosure cc: Raymond Beliar Ernest and Donna Levesque 5]rrrz1:I.. & FLF`l CHER. I'C. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec V. ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, Defendants. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. and hereby responds to Defendants' Response to the Cit_7's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated January 28, 2001. MEMORANDUM This Court should issue an Order granting summary judgment in the Town's favor in the above -referenced matter. In their Response to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants attempt to raise several defenses to this enforcement action. Among other things, Defendants contend that no violation of the City's Zoning Regulations exists on the property located at 195 Hinesburg Road (hereinafter the "Property"), and that they have permits "to create a quality living space." These defenses are not properly before the Court. As previously noted, Defendants failed to appeal the Notice of Violation issued to them by the City. Defendants readily admit in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Undisputed Facts of their Response that they "did not answer the City" after they received said notice. 24 V.S.A. §4472(d) precludes Defendants from "directly or indirectly" contesting the Administrative STITZEL. PAGE FLE] CHER_ PC. 3TTnK\ F) :� A l Officer's act in the context of the current enforcement proceeding. See 24 V.S.A. §4472(d). Therefore, Defendants may not raise any of the defenses contained in their response to the City's Complaint, dated August 25, 2000, and Response to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated January 28, 2001. See Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 156 Vt. 77, 85 (1990). Based on the foregoing, the City objects to the following evidence contained in Defendants' Response, dated January 28, 2001, for the following reasons. The first three paragraphs of Defendants' Response contain a narrative of their personal and employment history in the City of South Burlington, as well as their view of Vermont land development patterns. The current issue before this Court is whether Defendants' failure to appeal the Notice of Violation issued to them by the City precludes Defendants from contesting the rulings therein. Such narrative information is not relevant to the issue of the City's enforcement of its Zoning Regulations and is not admissible pursuant to Rule 402 of the Vermont Rules of Evidence. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 9 of the Statement of Undisputed Facts and in their Memorandum Defendants allege fraud by the City. Pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, the defense of fraud must be affirmatively set forth and established in pleading to a preceding pleading. The City contends that Defendants may not raise such a defense because they failed to appeal the notice issued to them by the City. However, Defendants also failed, in their response to the City's 2 BTITZEI.. PAGE & FLE ; H FR, IT Complaint, to set forth and establish any affirmative defenses and they are now precluded from doing so in this enforcement proceeding. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of their Statement of Undisputed Facts Defendants provide more narrative information and contend either that no violation exists on the Property or that they have permits for the Property. This evidence is not relevant in the matter currently before this Court because Defendants failed to appeal their Notice of Violation and cannot raise these defenses. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, and in the City of South Burlington's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated January 22, 2001, the City respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order denying the Defendants' request for relief' and granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, in the County of Chittenden and the State of Vermont, this 7-" day of February 2001. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys r r' ' I Amanda S. E. Lafferty The request for relief contained in paragraphs 2-5 of the Conclusion of Defendants' Response was already presented to the Court in connection with Defendants' request for a variance in Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec. 3 � I STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATI ORNE.YS A"FLAW 171 BA I TE:RY SI RITI P_U BOX 1507 BURLIN(i'I ON. VI?RMONT 05402-1507 (802,I660-2555 (VOIC'E']DD) STEVEN F_ SEFILEI I AN (802) 660-2552 of 660-9119 PATTIR PA(?L* E_-MAI1,(FIRM25i5�(tFIRMSPE(OM) ROBERTE.FLETCHER WRITF.WSF.-MA!1 fALAFFER"CY/n)FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S McLEAN WRI I'FR'S FAX (802) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMIT TED IN N.Y ) January 31, 2001 Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: City of South Burlington v._Ernest and Donna Leyesaue Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ray: MIA K NRVW,11)'.S AMA.ND `, S.E L.AF'}FIO Y Enclosed please find a copy of Ernest Levesque's Response t City of South Burlington's Motion for Summary Judgment. Please call. if you have any questions. Sincerely, r Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASELjlaf Enclosure Son4525.cor STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) DOCKET NO. 175 - 8 - 00 %hoc V. ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendents MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT NOW COMES a City of South Burlington Tax payer in the City of South Burlington with his wife, Donna, 63, and handicapped, and Ernest Levesque, 70, who have worked as teachers in Vermont since 1965 and lived in the then Town of South Burlington and now the City of South Burlington since 1958 and designed and built two new homes, and renovated a third home in the City of South Burlington. We secured building permits in all three homes to add to and renovate all three homes. The present home at 195 Hinesburg Road with the building permits in place provided for a quality private living space for our three adult children. I spent 17 years In the South Burlington School System as Its Industrial Arts Department Chairperson. With my three (3) college degrees in Industrial Education with a Masters degree in Industrial Education and another in Vocational, Technical and ESdenslon Education as well as being the Assistant Chairperson to the City of South Burlington Planning Commission and the Fine Arts Comrnitee for a period of ten years and a South Burlington Community Library Trustee for a period of three years. With my wife, Donna, raising three children, who was very active in Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts and Youth Ministry and teacher for over 30 years, we thought that we were doing all the correct things that would provide for a peaceful retirement for us as senior cozens. However, the Town of South Burlington grew to a City, and the State of Vermont grew, an Interesting change was taking place. As the population grew, many new people flocked to Vermont, including the Levesque fatuity. However, during this time period, many hundreds of people came with their baggage that they should have left home. Everyone is from sornewl*re but they bring thew "me fast thinking with them and the emmobonal baggage that they should have left In their former State. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The facts necessary to decide the unfounded Motion by the City of South Burlington are certainly in dispute and are set fourth with more as follows. 1. Ernest and Donna Levesque, the Defendents, own and occupy the property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the City (hereafter the "property 2. There Is an ehsting Structure on the property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2) family deweftV (hereinafter the "Stnx ture'. A seperate, unattached garage also exists on the property. 3. C mrrerx*V on or before September 27, 1999, the Defendents did not construct and use two (2) additional dox4ing units in the Structure on the property. The Building Permits as such are on fie at the City of South Burlington's City Ck4Vs Safe. Also, the Judge admitted the entire file of Br kft Permits concerning the Levesque property as evidence A map of the area properties, photographs of the street scene and related letters as it related to the Levesque property etc. were also admitted as evidence. At that time, the Court indicated that an independent review would take place by the Court.. This independent representation as a complete new presentation would not be biased as the presentation that the City of South Burlington City Zoning Board of Adjustment made In its delebratlons over the Property, the existing Building Permits that were In place. The City of South Burlington Zoning board of Adjustment has tried to cover up simple mistakes that they made In the past concerning the Residential 4 District within the City of South Burlington. Ali Building Permits as such were in place at the time of Issuing Building Permits over the years were granted by the City Zoning Administrator who at the time of Issuing the Building Permits had over twetity (20) year. e-,.perrerx~ as the Sc,,#-h Burlington Zoning Administrator. My three (3) children grew up within walking distance to Central School, the Middle School and South ButVton High School. In 19M, we deeded to relocate from our Barrett Street home to 195 Hinesburg Road house. We added qualitry living space with several additions in order to give our children quality living space as they grew to adulthood with their own seperate entrances to the Structure, a private bath, wet bar area and living space for each person with the use of the common mon fast floor apartment kitchen. I taught Architectural Drafting at South Burlington High School for a period of seventeen (17) years and promoted dare to be different to all of the students that took the drafting classes. Several of my former students dive in the local area and own their own businesse as contractors, attorneys, machine shop, and speciality sheetri-setal companies and real estate professlorals. 4. 1 did not answer the City on or about September 27, 1999 as to their false written Notice of Violation due to fact that NO VIOLATION exists since all the Building Permits as such were on file within the City of South Burlington's City Hall. 5. Again, i did not fat to appeal said written notice of a Ml otation to the City Development Review Board within the fifteen (15) day period, and the time had expired to make such an appeal. Why should one respond to such trivia since there was not a violation that had taken place. Again, all Building Permits were on file within the South Burlington City Hall. 6. The City provided the Defendents a written notice of violation that is a complete fraud and a charter assination against the Levesque family as such has taken place. 7. The Defendents as such did not respond to fraud that the City Development Board was trying to make against the Levesque family. 2 8. We the Defendent as such have not failed or refused to comply with the requirements of the regulations as of the date of their motion as the proper Building Permits were in place that created our quality private living space. 9. The City has requested that the Court grant permanent injunctive relief in the Citys favor, requiring Defendents to rernove two (2) of the dv&4N units in the structure. Also, the City is trying to create a scam whereby the Court will be joined into the fraud of the City getting a One Hundred Dollar (100.00) a day fine since October 4, 1999 that the Defendents have been in vioiation of the Regulations. Again, what violation? Now that two of our adult children have left home, we rented their quality private room space out in order that we can pay our taxes, have a handle on inflation and to have a peaceful retirement life style. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56 (C) has been designed as such as to prevent the common man from having a full trial. Well, I am now requesting a full trial as we did not respond to the Citys trumped up charge since all the Building Permits were in place for the Structure as such. MEMORANDUM Yes, it is undisputable that the City is trying to commit fraud and a policy to dispute any Previous Building Permit that pre-exists. We have done nothing wrong and the Court as such should not issue an Order granting summary judgement in the Citys favor in the above referenced matter. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set fourth above, the Defendents respectfully request that this Court: 1. Enter an order that reinforces all of the presented evidence directly or Indirectly the existance of the Building Permits, the drawing of the property relationships, the street photographs and the attached letters that the Judge had admitted as evidence that wiri set this master fc; hearing on the approplate rernmxtr that the City has very cleverly avoided that would prove that the Levesque problem does not exist since aM of the Building permits were in place to create a quality living 2. The Levesque family would like to have the Court issue an order that we can divide the Structure into three (3) living units as presented in Court. This third apartment would cost less then one Thousand Dollars (1000.00) to create. 3. The Levesque family would like the existing garage to have a Handicapped Living Unit added to the existing garage. 3 4. The City of South Burlington did not want the Court to accept the evidence that we presented in Court for the third Ewing unit and our request for the Handicaped Living Unit to be added to the garage. 5A. In place at the present time 75 feet to the South of the Levesque property, A third unit was created in the existing Residential4 District on a lot that has Ten Thousand (10,ODD) square feet. Out bt has Fifteen Thousand (15,ODD) square feet. B. To our North, a single family home was created within One Hundred and Fifty Feet (150) feet of our property on a lot where a multi family home exists. The additional single family home on this lot was now a violation of the South Burlington Residential 4 District In the minutes of the City of South Burlington's Zoning Board of Adjustment, you will find that the property in reoriew that is aiso in your evidence five that the Board created an approval of a Building Permit that was not legal at the time. In fact, a member of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment indicated to the applicant that If he wanted to subdivide the lot at a later date, he would have to come back for another hearing. As of this date, that person that made the commend to the applicant in now the Chairperson of the City of South Burlington Devebpiment Review Board who sat next to me many years ago when I was a member of the City of South Burlington Commission. A sub - standard building lot was created on that lot that again did not conform to the Residential 4 District. As requested the applicant came hack to the City of South Burlington Board of Adjuustmerd and the Board at that time created a lot that did not have the One Hundred feet (100) feet of frontage on Barrett Street. This is a perfect time for the Court to allow a deviation from the City of South Burlington Zoning Rules that could allow for an orderly growth within our inner existing City that could heap the little people create livable additional Ruing units on their property and eliminate the creeping of housing stock in South Burlington and several other communities. Present Boards around the State are only interested in sprawl and high rise apartment buildings and not allowing residents to be creative in creating space and the opportunity to gain additio mfl revenue in order to pay their taxes and to maintain a quality of life in their senior years. 6. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. Dated at South Buurtington, Vermont, this 28 th day of January 20D1 DEFENDENTS By. Ernest and Donna Levesque 4 ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burton, Vermont 05403 802 - 863 - 3353 January 28, 2001 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Sttreet, I st Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175 - 8 - 00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: Enclosed far fling vnth the Cant is the response to the City to the City of South Burlington's Motion for Summary Judgement. 6*e.'�'t Enclosure cc: Amanda S. E. Lafferty Raymond Belair STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plairfiff, ) DOCKET NO. 175 - 8 - 00 Vtec V. ) ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendents MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT NOW COMES a Cky of South Burkoon Tax payer in the City of South Burlington with his wife, Donna, 63, and handicapped, and Ernest Levesque, 70, who have worked as teachers In Vermont since 1965 and lived in the then Town of South Burlington and now the City of South Burlington since 1968 and designed and built two new homes, and renovated a third home in the City of South Burlington. We secured building permits in all three homes to add to and renovate all three homes. The present home at 195 Hinesburg Road with the building permits in place provided for a quality private riving space for our three adult children. I spent 17 years In the South Burlington School System as its industrial Arts Department Chairperson. With my three (3) college degrees In Industrial Education with a Masters degree In Industrial Education and another in Vocational, Technical and Extension Education as wail as being the Assistant Chairperson to the City of South Burlington Planning Commission and the Fine Arts Commitee for a period of ten years and a South Burlington Community Library Trustee for a period of three years. With my wife, Donna, raising three children, who was very active In Girl Sc outs, Boy Scouts and Youth Ministry and teacher for over 30 years, we thought that we were doing all the correct things that would provide for a peaceful retirement for us as senior cltiaens. However, the Town of South Burlington grew to a City, and the State of Vermont grew, an interesting change was taking place. As the population grew, many new people flocked to Vermont, including the Levesque familyy. However, during this time period, many hundreds of people came with their baggage dint they should have left home. Everyone is from somewhere but they bang their "me first" thhft with them and the emotional baggage that they should have left in their former State. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The facts neoessary to decide the unfounded Motion by the City of South Burlington are certak* In dispute and are set fourth with more as follows. 1. Ernest and Donna Levesque, the Defendents, own and occupy the property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the City (hereafter the "property' 2. There is an existing Structure on the property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2) family dowelling (hereinafter the "Structure"). A seperate, unattached garage also exists on the property. .� ..,� I.',, 3. Commencing on or before September 27, 19W, the Defendents did not construct and use two (2) additional dwelling units In the Structure on the property. The Building Permits as such are on fie at the City of South Burlington's City Glens Safe. Also, the Judge admitted the entire fie of Building Permits conceming the Levesque property as evidence A map of the area properties, photographs of the street scene and related letters as it related to the Levesque property etc. were also admitted as evidence. At that time, the Cant indicated that an kxk pen dent review would take place by the Court. This independeint representation as a complete new presentation would not be biased as the presentation that the City of South Burlington City Zoning Board of Adjustment made in its detebrations over the Property, the existing Building Permits that were in place. The City of South Burlington Zoning board of Adjustment has tried to cover up simple mistakes that they made in the past concerning the Residential 4 District within the City of South Burlington. AN Building Permits as such were in place at the time of issuing Building Permits over the years were graved by the City Zoning Administrator who at the time of issuing the Building Permits had over twenty (20) years experience as the South Burlington Zoning Administrator. My three (3) children grew up within walling distance to Central School, the Middle School and South Burlington High School. in 1983, we decided to relocate from our Barrett Street home to 195 Hinesburg Road house. We added qualitry living space with several additions in order to give our children quality living space as they grew to adulthood with their own seperate entrances to the Structure, a private bath, wet bar area and living space for each person with the use of the common first floor apartment kitchen. I taught Architectural Drafting at South Burlington High School for a period of seventeen (17) years and promoted dare to be different to an of the students that took the drafting classes. Several of my former students he in the local area and own their own businesse as contractors, attorneys, machine shop, and speciality sheetmetal companies and real estate professionals. 4. 1 did not answer the City on or about September 27, 1999 as to their false written Notice of Violation due to fact that NO VIOLATION exists since all the Building Permits as such were on file within the City of South Burlington's City Hall. 5. Again, 1 did not far to appeal said written notice of a Vilotation to the City Development Review Board within the fifteen (15) day period, and the time had expired to make such an appeal. Why should one respond to such trivia since there was not a violation that had taken .place. Agin, all Building Permits were on fie within the South Burlington City Hall. 6. The City provided the Defendents a written notice of violation that is a complete fraud and a character assination against the Levesque family as such has taken place. 7. The Defendents as such did not respond to fraud that the City Development Board was trying to make against the Levesque family. 2 8. We the Defendent as such have riot failed or refused to the regulations as of the date of their motion as the comply with the requirements of place that treated our proper Building Permits were in quality private living space. 9. The City has requested that the Court grant permanent injunctive relief in the Cityrs favor, requiring Defendents to remove two (2) of the dwelling units in the structure. Also, the City is trying to create a scam whereby the Court will be joined into the fraud of the City getting a One Hundred Dollar (100.00) a day fine since October 4, 1999 that the Defen dents have been in violation of the Regulations. Again, what violation? Now that two of our adult children have left home, we rented their quality Private room space out in order that we can pay our taxes, have a handle on inflation and to have a peaceful retirernent life style. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56 (C) has been designed as such as to prevent the common man from having a full trial. Well, 1 am now requesting a full trial as we did not respond to the City's trumped up charge since all the Building Permits were in place for the Structure as such. MEMORANDUM Yes, it is undisputable that the City is trying to commit fraud and a policy to dispute any previous Building Permit that pre-exists. We have done nothing wrong and the Court as such should not issue an Order granting summary judgement in the Cityrs favor in the above referenced matter. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set fourth above, the Defendents respectfully request that this Court: 1. Enter an order that reinforces all of the presented evidence directly or Indirectly the existaance of the Building Permits, the drawing of the property relationsidpa, the street photographs and the attached ieiiers that the Judge had admitted as evidence that wtmi set this matter for hearing on the appropiate remedy that the City has very cleverly avoided that would prove that the Levesque probes does not exist since all of the Building permits were in place to create a quality living space- 2. The Levesque family would Ike to have the Court issue an order that we can divide the Structure into three (3) living units as presented in Court. This third apartment would cost less then one Thousand Dollars (1000.00) to create. 3. The Levesque family would like the existing garage to have a Handicapped Living Unit added to the existing garage. 4. The City of South Burlington did not want the Court to accept the evidence that we presented in Court for the third living unit and our request for the Handicaped Living Unit to be added to the garage. Sk In place at the present time 75 feet to the South of the Levesque property, A third unit was created in the existing Residerdial4 District on a lot that has Ten Thousand (10,000) square feet. Our lot has Fifteen Thousand (15,000) square feet. B. To our North, a single family home was created within One Hundred and Fifty Feet (150) feet of our property on a lot where a multi family home exists. The additional single family home on this lot was now a violation of the South Burlington Residential 4 District. In the minutes of the City of South Burlington's Zoning Board of Adjustment, you will find that the property in review that is also in your evidence file that the Board created an approval of a Building Permit that was not legal at the time. In fad, a member of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment indicated to the applicant that N he wanted to subdivide the lot at a later date, he would have to come back for another hearing. As of this date, that person that made the comment to the applicant in now the Chairperson of the City of South Burlington Developiment Review Board who sat next to me many years ago when I was a member of the City of South Burlington Commission. A sub - standard building lot was created on that lot that again did not conform to the Residential 4 District. As requested the applicant came back to the City of South Burlington Board of Adjustment and the Board at that time created a lot that did not have the One Hundred feet (100) feet of frontage on Barrett Street. This is a perfect time for the Court to allow a deviation from the City of South Burlington Zoning Rules that could allow for an orderly growth within our inner existing City that could help the little people create livable additional living units on their Property and eliminate the creeping of housing stock in South Burlington and several other communities. Present Boards around the State are only interested in sprawl and high rise apartment buildings and not allowing residents to be creative in creating space and the opportunity to gain addibOmil revenue in order to pay their taxes and to maintain a quality of life in their senior years. 6. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 28 th day of January 2001 DEFENDENTS By. Envw and Donna Levesque 4 STITZEL, PAGE & FL.ETCHER, P.C. A 140RNEYS A F I_.AW 171 RA FIERY STREET P.O. BON 1507 BlRLING ]'ON. VERNiON F 05402-1507 ( Sue) 660-' 5;; (VOICE I DD) STEVEN F STITZEL FAX (80_i660-'�i2 or 660-9119 PA7FIR - PAGE' E-MAII_(FIRMI���'a FIRMSPF COM) ROBERT E_ FLETCHER \1 RITER S E-MAIL (.ALAFFERT)' a FIRMSPF-COM) JOSEPH S- McLEAN WRITER S FAX (S02) 660-2552 TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN S.Y ) January 22, 2001 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1 Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: MIA KARVONIDFS AMANDA S_E. LAFFERTY Enclosed for filing with the court is the City of South Burlington's Motion for Summary Judgment. Thank you. Sincerely, I Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/laf Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair Ernest and Donna Levesque __..,-__.C�,r STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys; Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks that this Court issue an order granting summary ju-lgment in .its favor in the above --referenced matter_. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The -L"acts necessary to decide this iiiotion are not in dispute and are st forth as follows: 1. At all times material to this m+:ation, the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City") has :lad in effect zoning Regulations (hereinafter the "Regulations"). 2. Ernest and Donna Levesque (hereinafter the "Defendants") own and/or occupy property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the City (hereinafter the "Property"). 3. There is an existing structure on the Property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2)-family dwelling (hereinafter the "Structure"). A separate, unattached garage also exists on the Property. 1 FL.ET HER ;'('_ 4. Commencing on or before September 27, 1999, Defendants constructed and used two (2) additional dwelling units in the Structure on the Property. 5. At no time have Defendants obtained approval from the City to add any dwelling units to the Property, as described in paragraph 4, above. 6. On or about September 27, 1999, the City provided Defendants with written notice of a violation, via Certified Mail, pertaining to the addition of two dwelling units to the Property. A true and correct copy of said notice, marked as Exhibit A, is attached to the City'a Complaint dated ,'-:,ugust 7, 2000_. 7. Defendants failed to appeal said written notice of violation to the City Development Review Board v, ithin the required fifteen (15) day period, and the time for taking such an appe�.l has now passed. 8. In spite of said notice, Defendant has failed and/or refused to comply with the requirements of the Regulations as of the date of this Motion. 9. By Complaint dated August 7, 2000, the City has requested that this Court grant permanent injunctive relief, in the City's favor, requiring Defendants to remove two (2) of the dwelling units in the Structure. Further, the City has specifically requested that the Court award it fines of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for every day since October 4, 1999, that Defendants have been in violation of the Regulations. 2 S'I;TLFl- 11-I'( 1: FLF TC!?E i. PC. A'! : )iiA'KVi _1T 1_A14' SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56(c) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith where it is shown that "there is not genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56 provides a "mechanism for the disposition of issues, claims, and defenses which do not merit a full trial." Gore v. Green Mountain Lakes, Inc., 140 Vt. 262, 264 (1931). Opposition to a summary judgment motion ;aay not rest on allegations in pleadings to rebut credible documentary evidence or affidavits. Id. MEMORANDUM It is indisputable that t-he Notice of Violation issued by the Administrative Officer for the City, dated September 27, 1999, constitutes a final, unappealable decision at this time. 24 V.S.A. 54464(a) provides that [a]n interested person may appeal any decision or act taken, by the administrative officer, in any municipality by filing a notice with the secretary of the . . . development review board of that municipality . . . if the appeal is taken with respect to a decison or act of an administrative officer, such notice must be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision or act and a copy of the notice of appeal shall be filed with such officer. See 24 V.S.A. §4464(a)(emphasis added). Section 4472(a) of Title 24 also specifically states that "the exclusive remedy of an interested person with respect to any decision or act taken, or failure to act, under this chapter . . . shall be the appeal to the . . . development review board under §4464 of this title, and the appeal to the Environmental Court 3 STiTZEL. PAGE & FLETCHER, PC. A"FI A 1- 1.A1 from an adverse decision upon such appeal under §4471 of this title." See also Town of Charlotte v. Richmond, 158 Vt. 354, 356-357 (1992); Town of Sandaate v. Colehamer, 156 Vt. 77, 84-85 (1990). Further, subparagraph (d) of §4472 provides that [u]pon the failure of an interested person to appeal to a board of adjustment [or development review board] under §4464 of this Title, or to appeal to [the Environmental Court] under §4471 of this Title, all interested persons affected shall be bound by such decision or act of such officer . . . or such decision of the board, . . . and shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, such decision or act, . . . or such decision of the board in any proceeding, including, without limitation, any proceeding, including, without limitation, any prc_..ceeding brought to enforce this chapter. See 24 V.S.A. §4472(d)(emphasis added) . The Supreme Court has held that §4472(d), by its terms, clearly applies to defenses raised in enforcement proceedings. See Colehamer, 156 Vt. at 85. Based on the above, this Court should conclude that since Defendants failed to timely appeal the above -referenced notice of violation issued by the City Administrative Officer, they are now statutorily precluded from either "directly or indirectly" contesting those rulings in the context of the present enforcement action. Accordingly, this Court should issue an Order granting summary judgment in the City's favor in the above - referenced matter. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth above, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that this Court: N 1. Enter an Order concluding that Defendants may not contest, either directly or indirectly, the existence of the violations described in the notice of violation issued to Defendants on September 27, 1999, and set this matter for hearing on the issue of the appropriate remedy. 2. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 22" day of January 2001. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys Amanda S. E. Laffert ri l""Tl.. PAGE FLE IY'HER. Pi'_ STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555 n�F1RMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY(rl FIRMSPF.COM) ('ALSO ADMITTED 1N N.Y.) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 October 31, 2000 Court Reporters Associates 117 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec To Whom It May Concern: JOSEPH S McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E LAFFERTY By letter dated August 29, 2000 (copy enclosed), we requested a transcript in connection with the above -referenced matter. To date, the trancript has not been received. Our records indicate that check number 11696 dated August 29, 2000, representing the transcript request fee, has not been processed. Therefore, please return the check to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, i i F Amanda S.E. Lafferty ASEL/laf Enclosure cc: Vermont Environmental Court Ernest and Donna Levesque Raymond J. Belair Scn99E9.cor STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* ROBERT E.FLETCHER ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 E-MAIL (FIRM2555 FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY FTRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 29, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Court Reporters Associates 117 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec To Whom It May Concern: JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVOMDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed please find my completed transcript order form and deposit in the amount of $17.00. I am specifically requesting a copy of the testimony of Raymond J. Belair in connection with the hearing held in the above -referenced matter on August 24, 2000 in Environmental Court (held at the Chittenden District courthouse). If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, U I wwP A - Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bjl Enclosure cc: Vermont Environmental Court (via facsimile and 1" class mail) Ernest and Donna Levesque (via 15t class mail) Raymond J. Belair (via i't class mail) Son4421.cor 00-6146 a LV J J Q ZII IBS h z }C ALLEM CgVRC4 f— Q C EMIENrRy �95 A3sx�a�tou Zdo 4 LIZ `JE5%t- m O O HIINE SZQRG RO AD Ct:MtN TRY N KE Y Ponc+-� [_] APARTMENT L►e1niG Rto� o APARTNi'V-:NT 2. [� PROPOSED THeRC> APARTMENT I kitcHgl RESIDENTIAL cL occae LIWNG UNIT OPEN �C� hcq DRAWN BY: li—ERNM t,EVESqVE 19 S PINES 13ORG VZOAD aR 8R SOUTq _BUT�LINCT0N., Vr 2 - ?- 6'- ZDO b s: s ,�— HIN E 5 BURG ROPtD --Zobl- STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICEITDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 10SEPH S. McLEAN PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FMW555@FIRMSPF.COM) TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) MIA KARVONIDES ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y.) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY August 31, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 15` Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: Enclosed for filing with the court is the City of South Burlington's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Post -Hearing Memorandum in connection with the above -referenced matters, respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bj 1 Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair Ernest and Donna Levesque Son4424.Cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,71 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 054021507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: ) DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec APPEAL OF LEVESQUE ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. and hereby asks this Court to make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all times material to this proceeding, the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City") has had zoning regulations (hereinafter the "Regulations") in effect. 2. Ernest Levesque, Jr. (hereinafter the "Appellant") owns and/or occupies real property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District (hereinafter the 11R-4 District") in the City (hereinafter the "Property"). 3. The Property, a 75-foot by 200-foot parcel, is rectangular in shape and flat. 4. There is an existing structure on the Property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2)-family dwelling. A separate, unattached garage also exists on the Property. 5. On or about February 28, 2000, Appellant made application to the Development Review Board '(hereinafter the "DRB"), requesting a variance "[tjo create a third rental unit 1 ST]TZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW lii BATTERY STREET RO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-]507 within [his] first floor residential apartment. Also, to create a Accessory Residential Handicapped Living unit to the North side of the existing garage with an addition of 856 sq. to the West & South." 6. On or about March 21, 2000, the DRB held a duly warned hearing on Appellant's application for a variance, and denied Appellant's request because "[t]he five (5) criteria necessary for the granting of a variance pursuant to Section 24 VSA 4468 have not been met." 7. On or about April 14, 2000, Appellant appealed the decision of the DRB to the Environmental Court. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the above -stated Findings of Fact, this Court hereby concludes as follows: There is no question that it is not possible to find all. the facts required by 24 V.S.A. §4468 in Appellants favor, and therefore, this Court may not grant Appellant the variances that he requests. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4486, the Environmental Court "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." See In re Fecteau, 149 Vt. 319, 321(1988)(stating "[t]here are five conditions which must be satisfied before a variance can be granted"); Blow v. Town of Berlin Zoning Adm'r, 151 Vt. 333, 335(1989)(stating that "[a] zoning variance must be based on a showing of conformance L STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 177 BA7TER)' STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLIN'GTON, VERMONT 05e021507 with each of the five statutory criteria set forth in § 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). The first fact that must be found is [t]hat there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness or 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. 24 V.S.A. §4468(a)(1). The Property does not have any unique physical circumstances or conditions; rather, it is a regular shape, 200 feet by 75 feet, and is flat. As the DRB concluded, the Property has no exceptional topographical features. Since there are no physical conditions peculiar to the Property, there can be no resulting unnecessary hardship. The first fact is not found in Appellant's favor. The Court also cannot find "[t]hat because of such physical characteristics 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." 24 V.S.A. §4468(a)(2). As discussed above, the Property does not have any unique physical circumstances or conditions. Furthermore, Appellant's Property is already developed with a two-family dwelling'' and a garage. Therefore, 1 Appellant obtained a variance in 1984 to convert an existing single-family dwelling into the two-family dwelling unit that exists today.* Therefore, Appellant's structure, in its capacity as a two-family dwelling unit, is not in violation of 9 STITZEL, PAGE 8 FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 771 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMOtiT 0540.1 1507 even assuming arguendo that the Property did have a physical condition peculiar to it, Appellant cannot claim that it is not possible to develop the Property in strict conformity with the Regulations, and that the authorization of a variance is necessary to enable the reasonable use of the Property. Since there are no conditions peculiar to the Property and since Appellant already has a reasonable use of the Property, the Court cannot find the second fact in Appellant's favor. In addition, the Court cannot find "[t]hat the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant." 24 V.S.A. §4468(a)(3), Appellant testified that he intends to rent the third dwelling unit that he proposes to add to the existing two- family dwelling, and that his immediate family members would use the accessory handicapped dwelling unit. He also testified that it would be an economic hardship if he did not obtain a variance for what he proposes, presumably due to lost rental income. However, "variances are not to be given to guarantee the most profitable use of the property," (In re McDonald's Corp., 151 Vt. 346, 350 (1989)), nor are variances "intended to afford relief from inconvenience or to prevent against potential of lost profits." In re Maurice Memorials, 142 Vt. 532, 536-537 (1983). Moreover, whatever hardship Appellant suffers is not one which is recognized by 24 V.S.A. §4468(a), nor one for which a variance the Regulations. *Note: The City has alleged that Appellant, without first obtaining approval from the City, has in fact already added two dwelling units to the structure, thereby converting what was a two-family dwelling into a multi -family dwelling with four dwelling units. 4 i STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P] BATTERY STREET P.O. BOA 3507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 3507 may provide relief to Appellant. While multi -family homes are permitted in the R-4 District where the Property is located, there are minimum lot size requirements, as well as maximum residential density requirements, in the Regulations that must be met. Appellant was aware that the Property, if developed as he now proposes, would not meet these requirements and by proposing what the R-4 District does not allow, he has created his own hardship. Additionally, Appellant was aware that accessory residential units are permitted only if "constructed within or attached to a primary single-family residence ." See Regulations, Section 26.75 and Appellant's letter to the DRB dated February 25, 2000. In 1984, Appellant created his own hardship when he applied for and obtained a variance to convert a single-family dwelling, to which the Regulations permit the addition of an accessory residential unit, to the two-family dwelling that exists today (see footnote 1), to which the Regulations do not permit the addition of an -accessory residential unit. The Court cannot find the third fact in Appellant's favor. The Court is also unable to find "[t]hat 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 acc-Qss to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public welfare." 24 V.S.A. §4468(a)(4). The Property is located in the R-4 District, 5 ST]TZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 1507 a residential district where single, two and multi -family homes are permitted. However, for each dwelling unit in a multi -family dwelling there must be at least 6,000 square feet of land, and no parcel of land or portion thereof shall be developed for more than four (4) dwelling units per acre. See the Regulations, Section 25.00. This limitation fulfills the purpose behind the R-4 District "to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods." See id. at Section 9. Regarding this factor, Appellant submits, in connection with his application for a variance, information regarding the Zoning Board of Adjustment's (hereinafter the "ZBA") treatment of unrelated applications for variances from 1984, 1985 and 1993. However, these three properties make up a very small portion of those in existence in the R-4 District. Appellant fails to show how his proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, let alone the district, in whibh the Property is located. Moreover, the City objects to this material as irrelevant and moves to strike it from the record in this case. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated that to support a charge of selective enforcement, the so-called Yick Wo standard must be met. That standard requires the landowner who alleges discriminatory treatment to show more than that the municipality has failed to enforce the zoning ordinance in similar circumstances. In Re 0 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 173 BATTERY STREET PO BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 1S07 Appeals of Letourneau, 168 Vt. 539, 549(1998). Rather, to demonstrate selective enforcement, a person must show that: (1) compared with others similarly situated, he or she was selectively treated; and (2) that such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person. Id. Appellant's mere submission of variance applications and the ZBA's approval of those applications does not even come close to meeting this standard. Further, pursuant to Rule 76(e) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's review of this case is de novo. Any information regarding other cases is simply irrelevant to the issue before this Court. Accordingly, this Court must judge Appellant's application on its own merits. Additionally, Appellant submits, in connection with his current application for a variance, his 1984 application, along with co -applicant Robert Boyd, for a variance to convert the "existing single-family unit on the Property -into a two family unit, second unit to contain 814 square feet on a lot containing 15,000 square feet." Appellant claims that since the Property conformed with 24 V.S.A. §4468 at the time of the 1984 application, the Property must also conform with those criteria now, and the Court therefore should grant his variance requests. However, the ZBA's review of Appellant's 1984 application is irrelevant because Appellant's current application and some of the requirements of the Regulations differ greatly from what Appellant proposed to do in 1984. Sixteen years after Appellant proposed merely to convert an existing single-family dwelling to 7 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURL] NGTON, VERMONT i 06a02-1507 a two-family dwelling, he now proposes to add yet another dwelling unit to the two-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit to what would be a multi -family dwelling. Appellant currently proposes greater nonconformity with the density requirements of the R-4 District and the addition of an accessory unit that does not comply with two of the criteria set forth in Section 26.75 and possibly Sections 26.752 and 26.753, as well. The DRB could reasonably determine that Appellant did not fulfill 24 V.S.A. §4468(a), despite the variance obtained in 1984. Moreover, to reiterate, this Court's review of this case is de novo, pursuant to Rule 76(e) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. Any information regarding other applications is simply irrelevant to the issue before this Court. Accordingly, in judging Appellant's application on its own merits, this Court does not find the fourth fact in Appellant's favor. Finally, the Court is not able to find 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." 24 V.S.A. §4468(a)(5). In the present case, Appellant has not established that there is a physical circumstance unique to the Property, nor has he established that some hardship results from such peculiar physical condition, such that a variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the Property. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to any relief. However, assuming arguendo that Appellant had fulfilled the first four facts of 24 V.S.A. L STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 191 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 0540215M §4468(a), the Court does not consider either of Appellant's proposals to be the least deviation possible from the zoning regulations. The Property already deviates from the Regulations because two dwelling units exist on a parcel that is less than a half -acre. See the Regulations, Table 25-1, R-4 District. If Appellant's variances are granted, Appellant will place a third dwelling unit on the Property and also add an accessory residential unit, a use permitted only if attached to or within a single-family dwelling unit. In Maurice Memorials, the Vermont Supreme Court denied a variance to rebuild a roof and raise the roof level six feet on a nonconforming structure because the applicant failed to show that rebuilding the roof six feet higher represented the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation. See In re Maurice Memorials, 142 Vt. 532, 535 and 537 (1983). At trial, applicant's witness had testified that applicant could operate his business as it had operated for the previous fifty years if the roof were repaired in kind or with a raise in height less than the six foot variance granted by the trial court. Id. at 537. In the present matter, Appellant has a two-family dwelling, portions of which he may rent to other individuals if he obtains proper approvals from the City. The addition of two dwelling units, which will put the Property into greater nonconformity with the Regulations, is a far cry from the "least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and from the z- plan." Accordingly, the Court cannot find the fifth fact in Appellant's favor. PJ CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that the Court deny Appellant's request for two variances. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 3152 day of August 2000. Son709.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 173 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BLRLINGTON. VERMONT 05.02-1507 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys � Q I - � Amanda S. E. Lafferty 10 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 771 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402.1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ERNEST AND DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec POST -HEARING MEMORANDUM OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks that this Court grant its Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief set forth in its Complaint. MEMORANDUM This is an action commenced by the City of South Burlington to enjoin a violation of its duly adopted Zoning Regulations. Defendants, Ernest and Donna Levesque, are the record owners of real property (the "Property" herein) located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the City, which is the subject of this proceeding. On or before September 27, 1999, Defendants constructed two (2) additional dwelling units in the existing structure on the Property, without first having obtained approval from the City to do so. On or about September 27, 1999, the City provided Defendants with written notice of a violation pertaining to the addition of two dwelling units to the Property. Defendants failed to appeal said written notice of violation to the City Development Review Board within the required7fifteen (15) day period, and the time for taking such an appeal has now passed. 1 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-150i It is undisputable that the Notice of Violation issued by the Administrative Officer for the City, dated September 27, 1999, constitutes a final, unappealable decision at this time. 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) provides that [a]n interested person may appeal any decision or act taken, by the administrative officer, in any municipality by filing a notice with the secretary of the board of adjustment ... of that municipality ... if the appeal is taken with respect to a decision or act or an administrative officer, such notice must be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision or act and a copy of the notice of appeal shall be filed with such officer. (Emphasis added.) See 24 V.S.A. §4464(a). Section 4472(a) of Title 24 also specifically states that "the exclusive remedy of an interested person with respect to any decision or act taken, or failure to act, under this chapter ... shall be the appeal to the board of adjustment or development review board under §4464 of this title, and the appeal to the Environmental Court from an adverse decision upon such appeal under §4471 of this title." See also Town of Charlotte v. Richmond, 158 Vt. 354, 356-357 (1992); Town of Sandaate v. Colhammer, 156 Vt. 771 84-85 (1990). Further, subparagraph (d) of §4472 provides that [u]pon the failure of an interested person to appeal to a board of adjustment [or development review] under §4464 of this Title, or to appeal to [the Environmental Court] under §4471 of this Title, all interested persons affected shall be bound by such decision or act of such officer ... or such decisions of -the board, ... and shall not thereafter contest, either' directly or indirectly, such decision or act, ... ar- such decision of the board in any proceeding, including, without limitation, any proceeding brought to enforce this chapter. 2 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 150: BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402150, See 24 V.S.A. 54472(d) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that §4472(d), by its terms, clearly applies to defenses raised in enforcement proceedings. See Colhammer, 156 Vt. at 85. Based on the above, this Court should conclude that since Defendants failed to timely appeal the above -referenced notice of violation issued by the City Administrator Officer, they are now statutorily precluded from either "directly or indirectly" contesting those rulings in the context of the present enforcement action. By its Complaint dated August 7, 2000, the City has asked this Court to grant preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using two of the four dwelling units in the structure on the Property. 24 V.S.A. §4445 specifically authorizes the City to bring an action to obtain an injunction "to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such construction of use, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation." Based upon the above -stated statutory language, the City is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief upon establishing the likelihood of the existence of a violation. The City need not demonstrate any irreparable injury, special damage or the non- existence of an adequate remedy at law. See Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 135 Vt. 126, 129 (1990); see also Pisello v. Town of Brookhaven, 933 F.Supp. 202, 213 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); Miller v. Knorr, 553 So.2d 1043, 1044 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1089); Pa. Cent. Realtv Inv.. Inc. V. Township of Middlesex, 566 A.2d 931, 934 3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). In the present case, Defendants have not appealed the notice of violation issued to them by the City. Therefore, the existence of the violations is no longer a question of fact. Accordingly, this Court should issue an Order granting the preliminary injunctive relief requested by the City in the above -referenced matter. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 31't day of August 2000. Son710.lit STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 150T BURLINGTON. VERMONT 0540215o; 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys - j. Y4 Amanda S. E. LaffertyT STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE• ROBERT E.FLETCHER (-ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICEITDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 E-MAIL (FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 29, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Court Reporters Associates 117 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec To Whom It May Concern: JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed please find my completed transcript order form and deposit in the amount of $17.00. I am specifically requesting a copy of the testimony of Raymond J. Belair in connection with the hearing held in the above -referenced matter on August 24, 2000 in Environmental Court (held at the Chittenden District courthouse). If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, anvwP A Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bjl Enclosure cc: Vermont Environmental Court (via facsimile and 1st class mail) Ernest and Donna Levesque (via 1st class mail) Raymond J. Belair (via ist class mail) Son4421.cor 00-6146 Fonn No. DC - 638 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (See instructions on reverse side) For: ❑ Appeal to Supreme Court (You must notify Supreme Court) Please check the applicable box: ❑ If ordering from a court reporter Obtain stenographer's name and address from trial court ❑ If ordering audio -taped or videotaped proceedings Court Reporters Associates, 117 Bank Street, Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 862-4593 Other (Including appeal to Superior Court) Transcript Schedule of Fees Deposit must accompany form to Transcriber/Reporter TYPE ORDERED DEPOSIT Status Conference, Scheduling Conference, Arraignment $ 50.00 Pre-trial or Post -trial Hearing, Bail Review, Sentencing $125.00 Appeals, Full or Partial Day of Trial, Including Jury Draw $250.00/day Copies of Audio or Video Tapes $ 17.00/tape Name of Case Trial Court Trial Court Docket No. Name of Person Ordering Transcript 7.1 :curt: 171i—;i—i)n Vi "- f,- - �'' Circuit/County Supreme Court Docket No. (If Known) Name of Client • lii;l`'�r1Ci it r>ui1� j t%t�) :�: nu�r 7_;ul l:i.i1jLCY1 Attach additional sheets to order more hearings, if necessarv. Date Ordered Date of Hearing Type of Hearing Length of Hearing Name of Judge TAPE or Name of Reporter $ Deposit Must accompany order rti.;ion JL- '_t Send completed transcript to: If transcript is needed by a certain date, please indicate due date Namei _ ",'1 .i: ; ddid'ssy 7 Town/CityZ J r,_ r State VT Zip n / i)Z O:C 1 _3u Ur!i.wjton After completing this form, you are responsible for distributing copies to: Transcriber/Reporter (white), Trial Court (yellow), Supreme Court [if appeal] (green), other parties (pink), Appellant/File (gold). STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VO10Ei7DD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@,FIRMSPF.COM) (-ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 28, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 15t Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: JOSEPH S.McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed for filing with the court are an original summons and returns of service evidencing service of the City's summons, complaint, pre -hearing memorandum and notice of hearing in connection with the above -referenced matter. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bj1 Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair Ernest and Donna Levesque Son4420.cor 00-6146 s STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054021507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., ) DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) DOCKET NO. 175-8-00 Vtec SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq., Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 171 Battery Street, P.O. Box 1507, Burlington, Vermont 05402- 1507, an answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.* If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Your answer must be filed with the Court. Unless the relief demanded in the Complaint is for damage covered by a liability insurance policy under which the insurer has the right or obligation to onduct the defeI:se, or ;Lnl'e_s otdl.r;?7...Er provided in Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any related claim which you may have against the Plaintiff, or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. DATED: August 21, 2000 C H 2 T T E N D E N C O U N T Y S H E R T F F' S D E P A R T M E N'T P_O_ Box 1426 Burlington, Vermont 05402 R E T U R N or S E R V I C E On the day of �/ .Qy I m�e service of the follgwing document(s) upon Defendant Summons ( ) Interrogatories Complaint ( Exhibit(s) Motion (s) ( ) Writ of Possession Affidavit ( ) Judgment Order Summons to Trustee ( ) Order List of Exemptions ( ) Memorandum of Law Disclosure Under Oath Notice of Final Order ( ) Writ of Attachment Trustee Disclosure ( ) Recognizance Sub na W'tness fees of �t42CJ) y -'J r ('-"A U 171 A 1C1 --cam r i- by ylivering a copy of same to the defendant. y livering a 4py of same to a person of suitable age and discretion and then and there a resident at h usual i5lace of ode of s defendan (/k) At Vermont, (for each of them) a copy hereof with my return endorsed thereon. Service Copies Travel 1 �l Miles Postage Copying Copies Town Clerk Pages Notary Fee Other TOTAL C H= T T E N D E N C O U N T Y S HER 2 F F' S D E P A R T M E N T P_O_ Box 1426 Burla.ngton, Vermont 05402 R E T U R N O F S E R V I C E On the �aa L/ y of �20C>(� I mad sere ce of the following gocument(s) upon e defendant / 1'�2 ) z;c /':�e r / /2 Summons v ( ) Interrogatories Complaint _ ( Exhibit(s) Motion (s) ( ) Writ of Possession Affidavit ( ) Judgment Order Summons to Trustee ( ) Order List of Exemptions ( ) Memorandum of Law , Disclosure Under Oath Notice of Final Order () Writ of Attachment Trustee Disclosure ( ) Recognizance ess fees of by delivering a copy of same to ( ) a person of suitable age and discretion and then and there a resident a the usu 1 place o abode of s d defe t. 7 ( At Vermont, thereon. _L Service Copies Travel Miles Postage Copying Copies Town Clerk Pages Notary Fee Other TOTAL ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 8024W)3-3353 August 25, 2000 Raymond J, Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05W3 Amanda S. E. Lafferty Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.G. Attorneys at Law 171 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1570 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1 st Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 17548-00 Ttec. Dear Mr. Belair. This letter is in response to the complaint and hearing concern the complaint that was written on September 27 in the year of 1999. The city of South Burlington cited the Levesque property at 195 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont, was out of compliance by having converted the duplex to four (4) dwelling units. The pre-sentented copies of pre-existing building permits were in place and we did not add two dwelling units as such as described by the City's Administrative Officer. The copies of the building permits that Judge Wright accepted as evidence are the previous building permits that are on file in the city offices. We did not create two additional building units on or before September 27,1999. the pre-existing building permits were to add quality additional living space for our family as the children were growing up and as adults. They have moved on in their lives and are residing elsewhere. We wish to provide rents for senior citizens by coverting our duplex into three smaller units, which in turn will eliminate the previous quality private rooms with their own entrances for our young adult children. To grant the Town fines of 100 Dollars a day for each day we have been in violation of the cty's regulations from October 4, 1999 are completely unjustified. Also, the city indicates we did not receive the building permits when South Burlington was a "town" as indicated in item (3) as the letter from Arttorney Lafferty indicates in her letter of 8-7-2000. We have made every effort to modify our living space to meet the request of the City Zoning Office. This has resulted in a great loss in income which is overwhelming us at this time. We did not make this duplex into a 4-plex as indicated by the city. It was done by the people occupying the rooms at the time who had a domestic fight and refused to use the same mail box as we hve always done. Jesse Smith, who had been renting a room in our home for 5 years, and we were very fond of him and trusted his judgement. He asked if one of our two vacant rooms could be rented to friends of his, John Martel and Mindy Richie, could they rent our North bedroom and bath. Since Smith also occupied a room with his girl friend, Lisa Oliver, we decided to allow them the North Bedroom. Soon the police were called in several times because of terrrible domestic fights between the coulples. Martel on several occasions threated bodily harm to Smith. Although we had not taken sides in the disputes, Martel threatened to "kill' me and verbally attacked me each time 1 went to the back yard to take care of my property. We then called our lawyer. Brian Heir, and he toll us to barracade the bedroom door from our side for our protection. It is a good thing we did as Martel did try to attack me through that door. For the first time we called the police ourselves. Before these incidences occured one of the couples put up two mail boxes indicating two and Richie to leave. Within a few days, Martel and Richie, called the health officiers and said we were violating safety codes and should be investigated. The health officer, fire chief, and state inspectors came and did a safety check. We did need to make some up to date changes in types of window & stairs. Martel and Richie claimed they did not have a fire extinguisher and smoke detector. This was not true. We have always been very conscientious about these things. They were there when Martel and Richie moved in. They deliberately disposed of them. In fact, we replaced them on two occasions. That is, there had been three fire extinguishers and two smoke detectors given to them. We had our electrician deliver the last smoke detector because we were afraid of Martel. When the bedroom was inspected the only violation to be corrected was a toilet handle needed to be replaced, and some cover plates for outlets had to be replaced because Martel and Richie had painted the room and did not relplace them. They would not let us In to correct the problem so we hired the electrician to replace them and check the safety in the room. At first they would not let him in but did so after he made an appointment with them with the help of the police.. We started eviction procedure to evict Martel and Richie in late September 1999 with the help of our lawyer, Brian Heir. It took over $5,000 in lawyer fees, court fees, and home repairs before they left in January 2000. They never did pay the $2000 owed in rent. Because of the violence, Jesse Smith , moved out afraid to stay in our home any longer. As soon as the inspection took place by the health officier, we complied as best we could, but Martel and Richie would not allow us and/or anyone in for inspection, as Mr. Belair testified in court on August 24, 2000. Mr, Belair came on that day at our request to inspect the North and South bedrooms to see that we had made the effort to get it straight that we were renting rooms with bath and not self-contained units. We have had two different landlords indicate to us and let us know they have had similar problems with John Mattel an Mindy Richie before and since. It appears its a good scam to live in a place 4 to 6 months and NOT have to pay rent. We have always taken pride in being obedient to the law. This matter has shaken us deeply and we wish to be freed of the accusations of deliberately breaking the law. Since John Martel and Mindy Richie have left our property, we have had a quiet homesitc. Sincerely yours, Emest ,l. Levesque Jr Donna L. Levesque ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-863-3353 August 25, 2000 Raymond J, Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Amanda S. E. Lafferty Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.G. Attorneys at Law 171 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402-1570 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1 st Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 945-00 Ttec. To the Honorable Judge Wright: This letter is in response to the complaint and hearing concerning the complaint that was written on August 7 in the year of 2000 by the city of South Burlington to Ernest and Donna Levesque concerning the property on 195 Hinesburg Road. It was very clear when Judge Wright allowed into evidence my past copies for the letters and building permits that were in place within the South burlington City Hall that concerned the Levesque property at 195 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont. This will show the duplex has not been altered since 1993. With the exception of a entry deck to the proposed third unit, the building footprint will remain the same as the shown on the plan, exhibit #23. To sum up my presentation of the facts that were the same, when the original building permits were issued by the Zoning Administrator in the year of 1984 where Hinesburg Road was a R-4 Zone and the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development act that pretained to the Goodrich Property and the Boyd presentation at 195 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT meet the five criteria as identified by the pre-existing 4488 of Vermont Planning and Development Law. However, in the year of 2000, the Zone on Hinesburg Road still is a R-4 Zone. We were denied a third living unit to be derived from our outgrown family quality living space that meet the total conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. The reason given to us was that we would be altering the essential character of the neighbood or district in which the property is located, and will substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and would be detrimental to the public welfare. Allowing density greater than permitted by the zoning regulations would after the character or the area. How can this be true, since all conditions of the 4468 Vermont Planning & Development Act were meet in 1984 and in the year 2000 the Zone is the same? The additional statement that the city is presenting, is subject to again very subjective decision making such as 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 of the plan. The property is currently a two (2) family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the property. This certainly is another strong statement, when but (75) feet to my South a third unit was created from a pre-existing duplex and met all of the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. the property is the same then and now in the R-4 Zone. We would like the same privilege as was created for our neighbors. We will have less people, and hopefully a better quality of tenant then we have now. Since this quiet neighorhood is made up primarily of senior citizens , this dwelling change would fit the neighborhood character. A third unit would allow us to offer affordable housing to senior citizens. In 1984 Mr. Goodrich, who is located 75 feet to my South, did not need the additional room that he created for his family any longer, and was granted a third living unit in the R-4 Zone on Hinesburg Road on a lot size of 10,000 sq. feet. This variance met the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, on the same evening, we were granted a duplex in the same R-4 Zone on Hinesburg Road that met the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, at a later date , a third living unit was granted to my neighbor to the North. The McGibney property, was given a building permit to build a single family home on the property where a pre-existing mufti -family property existed. This variance was given and met the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. However, the city rule read that a Accessory Residental Unit can be created only on a property where a single family property exists. Also, that same night, it was suggested that the McGibney come back at a later date and request that a lot be created for the new accessory unit that again that did not meet the conditions of a city lot. A substandard lot, a sixty (60) toot lot, was later created for the accessory unit that was to be cut from the pre-existing mufti -family lot. We would not be asking for a seperate lot. In court, on August 24th, I presented copies and the motions of the projects in question that supported the claims of the Levesque requests for equal consideration. That is, to have an accessory HANDICAPED living unit added as the proposed addition to the garage which is seperate from the duplex. As was granted the McGibneys, we would like to be able to have a variance to have an accessory living unit ON A LOT THAT IS OCCUPIED BY A MULTI -FAMILY HOME. Sincerely, Ernest L. Levesque Jr. Donna L. Levesque City of South Burlington Application to Development Review Board Nameofapplicant(s) Ernest L. Levesque Jr. Address195 Hinesburg Road,S B Telephone#i Represented by Ernest L. Levesque Jr. Landowner Ernest L & Donna Levesque Official Use APPLICATION #! U BEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT 7" 863-335 Location and description of property 195 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington. VT 05403 Adjacent property owner(s) & Address St. John Vianney Church Cementary Association to my direct North. To my Direct South, Everett R & Roxiem Allen, 205 Hinesburg Road, SB Type of application check one: ( ) appeal from decision of Administrator Officer ( ) request for a conditional use )� request for a variance I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. To create a third rental unit within my first floor residential apartment. Also, to create a Accessory Ri sidential Describe request: Handicapped r i vi nc, „nit tntha North side Of the exist—rg garage with an addition of 856 sq.to the the West & South. Other documentation: See theattached letter & drawing 2028, 2000 Date Signature SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, , at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Application of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-91 19 PAM R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) ("ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y.) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 21, 2000 Kevin McLaughlin, Sheriff Chittenden County Sheriff's Department PO Box 1426 Burlington, VT 05402-1426 JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY RE: City of South Burlington v. Ernest Levesque, Jr. and Donna Levesque Docket No. 175-8-00 Vtec Dear Sheriff McLaughlin: Enclosed please find an original Summons and one copy of the Summons and Complaint to be served upon the above -named defendant in connection with the above -referenced matter. I also enclose a Return of Service for your convenience. Our records indicate that the defendant may be served at 195 Hinesburg Road, in the City of South Burlington. We ask that you make service on Wednesday, August 23, 2000, since the hearing in this matter has been scheduled for Thursday, August 24, 2000. Following service, please forward an invoice to this office for your services. Thank you. Sincerely, (Ivv�fm�da j q Y, �t_ Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bjl Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair son4412.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 13ATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONI' 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-91 19 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555 aFIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTYgi�FIRMSPF.COM) (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 14, 2000 Raymond Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec Dear Ray: JOSEPH S. McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed please find a copy of the most recent correspondence in connection with the above -referenced matter. If there are any questions, please feel free to call. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASELJbji Enclosure son4401.cor ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 8024363-3353 August 10, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, 1 st Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Ttec. This letter is in response to the complaint and motion by Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. to reschedule the hearing that is scheduled for August 24, 2000 to a new date of August 31, 2000. We do not need to reschedule. We have our presentation ready for the August 24, 2000 as requested by Judge Wright during the telephone conference on June 28, 2000. Therefore, the court does not need to grant the preliminary injunctive relief as requested by the city. My letter of April 12 is very dear and the city as such will respond due to the fact that the evidence that I will present is in the form of previous building permits that are on file in the city offices. We did not create two additional building units on or before September 27,19W. the preexisting building permits were to add quality additional living space for our family as the children were growing up. They have moved on in their lives and are residing elsewhere. I have secured a teaching position in New Hamphshire and will be leaving for the school year. Now that we are ready to move on in our fives, and we wish to provide rents for senior citizens by coverting our duplex into three smaller units. However, in the year of 2000, the Zone on Hinesburg Road still is a R-4 Zone. Why, would we be denied a third living unit to be derieved from our outgrown pryer family quality living space that meet the total conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. How could we possibly be altering the essential character of the neighbood or district in which the property Is located, and wifi substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and be detrimental to the public welfare. Allowing density greater than permitted by the zoning regulations would alter the character or the area. How, since all conditions of the 4468 Vermont Planning & Development Act were meet in 1884 and In the year 2000 the Zone is the same. The additional statement that the city is presenting, is subject to again very subjective decision making such as 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 of the plan. The statement also the property is currently a two (2) family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the property. This certainly is another strong statement, when but (75) feet to my South a third unit was created from a preexisting duplex and meet all of the conditions of 4468 og the Vermont Planning & Development Act and the property is in the same then and now a R-4 Zone. We would like the same privilege as was created for our neighbors. We will have less people, less traffic on the street, and hopefully a better quality of tenant then we now. Since this quiet neighorhood is made up primarily of senior citizens , this dwelling change would fit the neighborhood character. In 1984 Mr. Goodrich, who is located 75 feet to my South, did not need the additional room that he created for his family any longer, and was granted a third living unit in the R-4 Zone on Hinesburg Road on a lot size of 10,000 sq. feet. This varience meet the conditons of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, on the same evening, we were granted a duplex in the same R-4 Zone on Hinesburg Road that meet the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, later, a third living unit was granted to my neighbor to the North. The McGibney property, was given a building permit to build a single family home on the property where a pre- existing mufti -family property existed. This varience was given and meet the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. However, the Accessory Residental Unit can be created only on a property where a single family property exists. Also, at a later date, a lot was created, that again that did not meet the conditions of a city lot. A substandard lot was created for the accessory unit that was to be cut from the pre-existing multi family lot If needed at a later date. Why was the accessory living unit created on a multi family lot? Only a single family lot can have an accessory living unit. In court, I will present copies and the motions of the projects in question that will support the claims of the Levesque requests for equal consideration. That Is, to chance our duplex into a triplex, and to have a accessory living unit added to our property. as the McGibney property as indicated above. was given a varienoe to have for their accessory living unit. The Town fines proposed fines are again an attemp to slander Ernest L. Levesque Jr., who was a member of the South Burlington City Planning Commission for a period of ten years and also the Assistant Chairperson in that time period. We have made every effort to modify our living space to meet the request of the City Zoning Office. This has resulted in a great loss in income which is overwhelming us at this time. To sum everything up, we will have our day in Court on the 24 th of August In the year of 2000. Sincerely, Ernest L. Levesque Jr cc: Raymond Belair Amanda S. E. Lafferty of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P. C. ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-863-M3 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 256 North Main Street, 1 st Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Ttec. Dear Ms. Hutchinson: August 10, 2000 This letter is in response to the complaint and motion by Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C. to reschedule the hearing that is scheduled for August 24, 2000 to a new date of August 31, 2000. We do rat need to reschedule. We have our presentation ready for the August 24, 2000 as requested by Judge Wright during the telephone conference on June 28, 2000. Therefore, the court does not need to grant the preliminary injunctive relief as requested by the city. My letter of April 12 is very clear and the city as such will respond due to the fact that the evidence that I will present is in the form of previous building permits that are on file in the city offices. We did not create two additional building units on or before September 27, 1999. the preexisting building permits were to add quality additional living space for our family as the children were growing up. They have moved on in their lives and are residing elsewhere. I have secured a teaching position in New Hamphshlre and will be leaving for the school year. Now that we are ready to move on in our lives, and we wish to provide rents for senior citizens by coverting our duplex into three smaller units. However, in the year of 2000, the Zone on Hinesburg Road still is a R-4 Zone. Why, would we be denied a third living unit to be derieved from our outgrown pryer family quality living space that meet the total conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. How could we possibly be altering the essential character of the neighbood or district in which the property is located, and will substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and be detrimental to the public welfare. Allowing density greater than permitted by the zoning regulations would alter the character or the area. How, since all conditions of the 4468 Vermont Planning & Development Act were meet in 1884 and in the year 2000 the Zone is the same. The additional statement that the city is presenting, is subject to again very subjective decision making such as 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 of the plan. The statement also the property is currently a two (2) family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the Property. This certainly is another strong statement, when but (75) feet to my South a third unit was created from a pre-existing duplex and meet all of the conditions of 4468 og the Vermont Planning & Development Act and the property is in the same then and now a R-4 Zone. We would like the same privilege as was created for our neighbors. We will have less people, less traffic on the street, and hopefully a better quality of tenant then we now. Since this quiet neighorhood is made up primarily of senior citizens , this dwelling change would fit the neighborhood character. In 1984 Mr. Goodrich, who is located 75 feet to my South, did not need the additional room that he created for his family any longer, and was granted a third living unit in the R4 Zone on Hinesburg Road on a lot size of 10,000 sq. feet. This varience meet the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, on the same evening, we were granted a duplex in the same R-4 Zone on Hinesburg Road that meet the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. Also, later, a third living unit was granted to my neighbor to the North. The McGibney property, was given a building permit to build a single family home on the property where a pre- existing multi -family property existed. This varience was given and meet the conditions of 4468 of the Vermont Planning & Development Act. However, the Accessory Residental Unit can be created only on a property where a single family property exists. Also, at a later date, a lot was created, that again that did not meet the conditions of a city lot. A substandard lot was created for the accessory unit that was to be cut from the pre-existing multi family lot if needed at a later date. Why was the accessory living unit created on a multi family lot? Only a single family lot can have an accessory living unit. In court, I will present copies and the motions of the projects in question that will support the claims of the Levesque requests for equal consideration. That is, to chance our duplex into a triplex, and to have a accessory living unit added to our property. as the McGibney property as indicated above. was given a varience to have for their accessory living unit. The Town fines proposed fines are again an attemp to slander Ernest L. Levesque Jr., who was a member of the South Burlington City Planning Commission for a period of ten years and also the Assistant Chairperson in that time period. We have made every effort to modify our living space to meet the request of the City Zoning Office. This has resulted in a great loss in income which is overwhelming us at this time. To sum everything up, we will have our day in Court on the 24 th of August in the year of 2000. K9 Raymond Belair Amanda S. E. Lafferty of Stitzei, Page & Fletcher, P. C. STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY a,FIRMSPF.COM) ("ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 7, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 North Main Street, lst Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec City of South Burlington v. Ernest and Donna Levesque Docket No. Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: JOSEPH S.McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed for filing with the court is the City of South Burlington's Motion for More Definite Statement in connection with the Appeal of Levesque (Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec). I also enclose the City of South Burlington's Complaint, Order for Hearing and Pre -hearing Memorandum in support thereof, in connection with the City of South Burlington v. Levesque (no docket no. assigned). I further enclose a Motion to Consolidate in connection with both matters. In light of the enclosed complaint and motion to consolidate, it may be prudent to reschedule the August 31, 2000 hearing to allow Mr. and Mrs. Levesque an opportunity to respond. I wonder, however, if it may be possible to instead use that August 31, 2000 date for the court to hold a hearing regarding the request for preliminary injunctive relief set forth in the City's complaint and pre -hearing memorandum. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have regarding any of the enclosed. Thank you. Sincerely, t v•7 Amanda S. E. Lafferty ' ASEL/bjl cc: Raymond Belair Ernest and Donna Levesque son439E.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER. P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.G. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: ) APPEAL OF LEVESQUE ) DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks this Court to order Appellant to provide a more definite statement of questions as required by V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B). MEMORANDUM On or about April 14, 2000, Appellant submitted a notice of appeal to this Court, along with several other documents. On or about June 9, 2000, the City filed a motion to strike, which the Court granted on or about June 29, 2000, with regard to all documents submitted by Appellant, except Appellant's letter to the Court dated April 12, 2000. Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B), Appellant is required to file a statement of questions that he desires to have determined by this Court. This rule expressly states that "[n]o other paper or pleading shall be transmitted or filed." Appellant's letter of April 12, 2000, contains many unsupported statements of fact, and several references to other properties, but no clear and unambiguous statement of questions to which the City may reply and which this Court may determine. V.R.C.P. 12(e) permits the City to request a more definite statement when a pleading to which a responsive pleading is 1 permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading. While the City is not required to file a response to Appellant's statement of questions, said statement determines the issues that this Court will hear at the merits hearing. Appellant's letter of April 12, 2000, is so unclear, vague and ambiguous that the City cannot reasonably be required to respond to it at trial. The City therefore respectfully requests that the Court order Appellant to provide a statement of questions that complies with V.R.C.P. 76 (e) (4) (B) . DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 7th day of August 2000. scn697.1it CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys i Amanda S. E. Lafferty 2 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) DOCKET NO. V. ) ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., ) DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) ORDER FOR HEARING Upon the City's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief set forth in its complaint, it is ordered that the Defendants, Ernest and Donna Levesque, show cause before this Court on the day of 2000, at o'clock in the noon, or as soon thereafter as they may be heard, why this Court should not grant the preliminary injunctive relief as requested by the City. DATED at , Vermont, this day of August 2000. Son700.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.U. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05e02-1507 1 Presiding Judge STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) DOCKET NO. V. ) ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., ) DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) C O M P L A I N T NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and for its Complaint states as follows: 1. The City of South Burlington (the "City" herein) is a Vermont municipality situated in Chittenden County. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, the City has had zoning regulations (hereinafter the "Regulations") in effect. 3. Ernest Levesque, Jr. and Donna Levesque (hereinafter the "Defendants") own and/or occupy real property located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the City (hereinafter the "Property"). 4. There is an existing structure on the Property approved by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2)-family dwelling. 5. On or about September 27, 1999, Defendants constructed two (2) additional dwelling units in the structure on the Property, resulting in a total of four (4) dwelling units on the Property. STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05A02-1507 1 6. At no time have Defendants obtained approval from the City to add any dwelling units to the Property, as described in paragraph 5, above. 7. The addition of dwelling units on the Property, without having first obtained approval under the Regulations, constitutes a violation of Section 27.10 of the Regulations and 24 V.S.A. §4443 (a) (1) . 8. On or about September 27, 1999, the City provided Defendants with written notice of a violation pertaining to the addition of two dwelling units on the Property. A true and correct copy of said notice, marked as Exhibit A, is attached hereto. 9. Defendants failed to appeal said written notice of violation to the City Development Review Board within the required fifteen (15) day period, and the time for taking such an appeal has now passed. 10. In spite of said notices, Defendants have failed and/or refused to comply with the requirements of the Regulations by taking any of the required corrective actions enumerated in said written notice of violation, referenced in paragraph 8, above. WHEREFORE, the City requests that this Court grant it the following relief: 1. Enter an Order granting preliminary injunctive relief, in the City's favor, prohibiting Defendants from using two (2) of the four (4) dwelling units in the structure on the Property. oil 2. Enter an Order granting permanent injunctive relief, in the City's favor, requiring Defendants to remove two (2) of the dwelling units from the structure on the Property. 3. Award the Town fines of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day, for each day Defendants have been in violation of the City's Regulations from October 4, 1999. 4. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this Vh day of August 2000. Son695.1it CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys Amanda S. E. Lafferty 3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 September 27, 1999 Ernest & Donna Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning Violation, 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Levesque: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a permit from the City as required by Section 27.10 of its Zoning Bylaws and 24 VSA 4443(a)(1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. Added two (2) additional residential dwelling units to your property approved for two (2) dwelling units resulting in a total of four (4) dwelling units without first obtaining a zoning permit from the City. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following Remove all evidence of the two (2) dwelling units added without a permit and return the property to the originally approved two (2) dwelling units approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on 9/24/84. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceeding, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. a EXHIBIT g E T m L7 Ernest & Donna Levesque Zoning Violation September 27, 1999 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filling a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and eighty five ($85) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincerely, Zyyymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RIB/mcp 1 Encl cc: Joseph S. McLean, City Attorney Certified letter # Z 462 927 129 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 71 PATTERYSTREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 054021507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) DOCKET NO. ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., ) DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) PRE -HEARING MEMORANDUM OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON This is an action commenced by the City of South Burlington to enjoin a violation of its duly adopted Zoning Regulations. A true and correct copy of said Regulations, marked as exhibit B, is attached hereto. Defendants, Ernest and Donna Levesque, are the record owners of real property (the "Property" herein) located at 195 Hinesburg Road in the City, which is the subject of this proceeding. On or before September 27, 1999, Defendants constructed two (2) additional dwelling units in the existing structure on the Property, without first having obtained approval from the City to do so. Section 27.10 of the City Zoning Regulations and 24 V.S.A. §4443(a)(1) provide that "[n]o land development may be commenced in the area affected by these regulations without a zoning permit issued by the Administrative Officer." Land Development, as defined in Section 28.123, includes the "construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration . of any building or other structure ." It is the City's position that the Defendants have commenced land development within the meaning of the City's Zoning 1 Regulations. The City further contends that since it has not issued any permits authorizing the addition of any dwelling units to the structure on the Property, Defendants have violated the City's Zoning Regulations. By its Complaint dated August 7, 2000, the City has asked this Court to grant preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using two of the four dwelling units in the structure on the Property. 24 V.S.A. §4445 specifically authorizes the City to bring an action to obtain an injunction "to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such construction of use, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation." Based upon the above -stated statutory language, the City is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief upon establishing the likelihood of the existence of a violation. The City need not demonstrate any irreparable injury, special damage or the non- existence of an adequate remedy at law. See Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 135 Vt. 126, 129 (1990); see also Pisello V. Town of Brookhaven, 933 F.Supp. 202, 213 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); Miller v. Knorr, 553 So.2d 1043, 1044 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1089); Pa. Cent. Realty Inv., Inc V. Township of Middlesex, 566 A.2d 931, 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Similarly, this Court is not required to weigh the injury to the public from the violation of the City's Zoning Regulations against the cost of compliance to Defendants, since it is normally assumed that the public injury outweighs the private cost. Carpenter, 155 Vt. At 129. 2 DATED at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden, State of Vermont this 7`r' day of August, 2000. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys son699.1it Amanda S.E. Lafferty 3 lack rF � 1 . WO �... �. , t �.ti • i( �5 j - ( � �j� >~ j Six t F,�� N i 1 � ! 1 '('4'�G 1 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: ) APPEAL OF LEVESQUE ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., ) DONNA LEVESQUE, ) Defendants. ) DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec DOCKET NO. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks this Court to consolidate the above -referenced cases. These actions involve common questions of law and fact. Docket number 94-5-OOVtec is Mr. Levesque's appeal of the City's Development Review Board's decision denying him a variance to add a third residential unit and an accessory residential unit to the two family dwelling unit existing on the Levesque's property at 195 Hinesburg Road in the City. The other matter, which the City files concurrently with this motion, is the City's complaint against the Levesques for violations of the City's zoning regulations for adding two dwelling units to the structure on the Levesques' property at 195 Hinesburg Road in the City. Both these matters involve the same property and the same issues - the addition of two dwelling units to the structure on said property. The consolidation of these matters will allow the parties to avoid the unnecessary costs of 1 presenting essentially the same facts twice at separate trials. The City therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to Consolidate the above -referenced matters. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 7"" day of August 2000. Son696.1it STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17) BATTERY STREET P_O, BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05a024507 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys ��V^k e Amanda S. E. Lafferty 2 AUG-07-2000 MOM 09:49 AM STiTZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. 8025602552 P, 0''iO4 STITZEL, PACIE & FLE'1'01ER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAIC 171 BA1` FRY STREET P.O. k;X 11507 DURLINGTCN, VERMONT 05402.1507 (802) f-G0-2555 (VOICE(M) 51WUN I', S'tITZEL PAN (8o7) o0-;,s52 or 500-PI19 10sr"Wit's, NICI s ,qN PAT) 1 ft. MCA:* E-MAIL(f'If.M24ii�sEF'IRNI.SI';s,t'C)I41.) 1'IM07Hy M. MISTA('t RODERT E. TITICIff"R WRITER'S E-MAIL i ALATFERTYJJFIRMSI'E coo) MIA ISARVONIOFS (-ALSO ABMs TUD sN MY) WIi[I IT'S I'AX (902) 660-2552 AMANUA Sk, I.AI'I'IATY FhC:SIi\ IL, E'1'1ZANSMITTAL SiIEET Date: August 7, 2000 '1V Rav Bclair Fax: 846-4101 R.c� Lev �,,sq v,e Sender: Amanda S, T:, T,affcrty . _ You should receive 4 Page(s), including this cover sheet. If you do not receiver all the pages, Please, call (802) 660-2555. MESSAGE Transmitted herewith is a draft complaint in the above -referenced matter, Plcaso review and call nic with questions anti/or comment!;. Thank you. Thi.i message is iaten&,d Only fOr the ux of the addressee W may contain infumisttion That is privilapd algid confidcmial, 7f you are nut tllc irileii&d rCcipiunt, ytlu arc hcl4'by 11Ut1fICti iillt( iu:y tiiSscrnsililli�n Of this COmmuniCittiOq Bs 5trlClly pt illUltCd, ifyou leave rceeived 1hk poreanunioasioa in orrar, please notify uv immediately by tetcphone (902•G60-2555). ThUyou. RUG-J7-2000 MON 08:50 RM STTTZEL FnOE FLETCHER PC Fax tia, 8nP5602552 F, 02/04 STATE OF VEAXONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Plaintiff, DOCXET NO. V. ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR., nONNA LEVESQUE, Defendants. "_kf,-P L A I N T NOW COMES the city of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Pletcher, P.C., and for its Complaint states as follows: 1. The City of South Burlington (the "city',' herein) is a Vermont Municipality situated in Chittenden County. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, the City has had zoning regulations (hereinafter the mRogulation8ff) in effect. 3. Ernest Levesque, Jr. and Donna Levesque (hereinafter the "Defendants") own and/or cccQpy real property locatad at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District in the city 'hereinafter the -Property"). 4. There is an existing structure on the Property approved, by the City Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1984, as a two (2)-family dwelling, 5. On or about September 27, 1999, Defendantz constructed two (2) additional dwelling units in the structure on the 1 AUG-07-2000 MON JS'z 50 0 STTTZEL FADE FLETCHER FG FA,'S No, 8n;,66U2552 F, 03/04 Property, resulting in a total of four (4) dwelling units on the Property. 6. At no tine have Defendants obtained approval from the City to add any dwelling units to the Property, as described in paragraph 5, above. 7. The addition of dwelling units On the Property, without having first obtained approval under the Regulations, constitutes a violation of section 27.10 of the Regulations and 24 V.S.A. §4443(a)(1). S. On or about SQPtG1nb8r 27, 1999, the City provided Defendants with Written notice of a violation pertaining to the addition of two dwelling units on the Property. A true and correct copy of said notice, marked as Exhibit A, is attached hereto, 9. Defendants failed to appeal said Written notice of violation to the City Development Review Board Within the required fifteen (15) day period, and the time for taking such an appeal has now passed. 10- In spite Of said notices, Defendants have failed and/or refused to COMPly With the requirements of the Regulations by taking any of the required corrective actions enumerated in said written notice Of Violation, referenced in paragraph 3, above. AUG-07-2000 NON 09:51 AN STiTZEL PACE FLETCHER PC FAX t4o. 8n25502552 r)04/04 WHEREFORE, the City requests that this Court grant it tho following relief; 1. Enter an Order granting preliminary injunctive relief, in the Cityfs favor, prohibiting Defendants from using two (2) of the four (4) dwelling units in the structure on the Property. 2. Enter an Order granting Permanent injunctive reliof, in the City's favor, requiring Defendants to remove two (2) of the dwelling units from the structure on the Property. 3. Award the Town fines of One Hundred Dollars ($100,00) per day, for each day Defendants have been in violation of the City's Regulations from October 4, 1999. 4. Award such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 7111 clay of August 2000, son65s. lit CITY OF SOUTH BURLTNCTOIJ BY: STITZE1J, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its Attorneys 3 Amanda S. E. Lafferty STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVENF. STITZEL (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) PATTI R. PAGE* FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAWIRNL1555@,FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF.COM) ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660.2552 June 9, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255 N. Main St., 1st Floor Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-OOVtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KAR V ONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -captioned matter is City of South Burlington's Motion to Strike Thank you. Sincerely, STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By: Amanda S. E. Laffert ASEL/gmt Enclosure cc: Ernest L. Levesque, Jr. Raymond J. Belair, Adm. Officer SON4335.COR 00-6146 STITZEL, PAGE & PLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17] BATTERY STREET 1' 0 BOX 1507 Btd l.1AGTON. VE RMONT U5401-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: ) APPEAL OF LEVESQUE ) DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON'S MOTION TO STRIKE NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and asks this Court to strike from the record of this proceeding all papers, pleading and other materials, other than the notice of appeal, filed by Appellant with the Court to date. MEMORANDUM This is an appeal by Appellant, Ernest Levesque, of one or more decisions of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board (the "DRB" herein). On or about April 14, 2000, Appellant filed a notice of appeal with this Court. The City did not receive a copy of said notice from Appellant. Instead, the City received notice of the appeal only after the Court notified Appellant, by letter dated May 1, 2000, that he was required to send copies of pertinent documents to the City. On or about May 19, 2000, the City entered its appearance in this matter. Thereafter, the Court provided that City with copies of all of the documents previously filed by Appellant (with the exception of the notice of appeal) in connection with the matter. Upon review of Appellant's filings, it is apparent that those materials include substantial narrative description of his proposals, a copy of the decision appealed from (with what appears to be Appellant's handwritten notes in the margins), and STITZEL, PAGE B FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS ATI.AW 171 eATTEev STREET rru BOX 1507 3UM.1\GT0N. VF,RMONT 0,51011i07 various permit applications, minutes and decisions of the Board of Adjustment. To date, Appellant has not filed a Statement of Questions as required by Rule 76. Appellant=s filings do not constitute competent evidence or argument before this Court and should be stricken from the record in this matter. Vermont Rule of Appellant Procedure 3(d) provides in pertinent part that [a] notice of appeal must specify the party or parties taking the appeal . . . . notice of appeal must also designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from; must name the court to which the appeal is taken and must be signed by the appellant or the appellant=s attorney. In addition, V.R.C.P 76(e)(4)(B) provides in pertinent part that [w)ithin 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal to the Environmental court, the appellant shall file a statement of questions that the appellant desires to have determined with the clerk of the Environmental Court and serve it on all other parties in accordance with Rule 5. No other Paper or pleading shall be transmitted or filed. The appeal shall be ripe for hearing when the time for filing a statement of questions and any extension thereof has expired. (Emphasis added). See V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B). It is clear from these rules that a notice of appeal is intended only to inform the Court that an appeal has been taken, by whom, and from what judgment. The statement of questions is intended to provide a framework for the issues on appeal. See V.R.C.P. 76(e), Reporter's Notes. Neither the notice of appeal nor the statement of questions is the place to set forth the factual basis for or legal argument in support of an application 2 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHE.R, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .71 Il A'I"ITRY STREET 1'.Il. RO X M07 i311 R L I \ G'PO,N- V E:IEM ONT "A02-isu7 on appeal.l Appellant is entitled to a trial de novo before this Court, and must present all appropriate evidence at that time. It is patently unfair for Appellant to be allowed to preview his case for the Court, and to set the stage for any arguments he may make through his notice of appeal and documents other than his statement of questions. Accordingly, this Court should strike from the record in this case any portion of Appellant's notice of appeal, other than what is provided for in V.R.A.P. 3(d), and all of Appellant's other filings to date. The City also requests that Appellant be instructed to immediately cease any and all ex pgirte communications with the Court. Appellant is required to act in accordance with V.R.C.P. 5(a), which states, in pertinent part, that every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original complaint .every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party . . .every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of j (Emphasis added). udgment, and similar paper shall be served u on each of the narties. Appellant's "one-sided" communications with the Court are entirely inappropriate, and should cease immediately. The Court should promptly and clearly instruct Appellant in this regard. I The City acknowledges that it has not yet been able to review Appellant's notice of appeal, but to avoid the necessity of another filing should Appellant have included anything other than the information provided for in V.R.A.P. 3 d appeal, the City includes such additional informationninithisf Motion to Strike. 3 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTOWNE.YS AT LAW ni 11%TTER) STREFT rto. BOX BUWU\GTONvaenaonT oranz tnu-, CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the City of South Burlington respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to Strike and instruct Appellant to serve the City's attorney with any copies of any and all relevant materials filed with the Court in the future. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 9"' day of June 2000. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys `C L Arran a S.E. Lafferty Scn675.lit 4 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9I 19 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL (FIRM2555 tot FIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPECOM) (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 June 6, 2000 Raymond Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Appeal of Levesque Dear Ray: JOSEPH S McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY Enclosed please find copies of the most recent filings by Mr. Levesque in connection with the above -referenced matter. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bj1 Enclosure Son4332.cor ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-863-3353 Judge Meredith Wright Vermont Environmental Court 149 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-4201 Dear Judge Wright: F 1:' l ji April 6, 2000 At this time, I am enclosing materials for the Prehearing Conference that I hope will help in speeding up the process due to your busy schedule. The issues in controversy and the documents attached will certaintly counter the decision of the Findings of Fact concerning my South Burlington property that the South Burlington Development Board made on March 21, 2000. The Findings of Fact by the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment that were in place in 1984 concerning the following properties that are located in the R-4 Zone as indicated at 195 Hinesburg Road, 211 Hinesburg Road and 175 Hinesburg Road will show that the three properties conformed to Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Since the R-4 Zone was in place in 1984 is the same now in the year of 2000 then why and how can the South Burlington Development Review Board be allowed to make subjective decisions concerning property with the same rules that have not changed. Also, the then existing South Burlington Zoning Board on May 10, of 1999 upheld the decision of the Administrative Officer that an "accessory residential unit was not allowed on the applicant's property. Again, the allowance of having an accessory residential unit only for a single family home can not be backed up with logic or a cretique as to why and how this discrementary rule was put into place. A third residential unit was added to the existing duplex of the Goodrich property at 211 Hinesburg Road This third residential unit was added to the existing duplex without adding any additional space to the footprint of the property on the 10,000 sq. foot lot. Again, this project and property were in the existing R-4 Zone. A duplex was created to the existing single family home at 195 Hinesburg Road on the same evening that the Goodrich property was allowed to become a triplex. Again, the property at 195 Hinesburg Road was located but 75 feet to the North of the Goodrich property in the same R-4 Zone Both of these projects conformed with Secti and Development Act. on 4468 of the Vermont Planning The Findings of Fact regarding the Appeal of Robert Boyd, 195 Hinesburg Road indicated the following. 2. Consistant with development of neighborhood. 3. No adverse impact to the neighborhood. If the properties that are located but 75 feet apart from each other conformed with Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and the Zone is R-4 then the decisions that were made in 1984 and again in the year 2000 should also be in place for the same properties concerning items 2 and 3 as indicated above. Theirfore, the decisions of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment and the South Burlington Development Review Board concerning the request by Erne Levesque Jr. of 195 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT are filled with untruths and subjective decisions that can not held up with any rational. If ypu { pr erty met the conditions 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act then the property would meet the same conditions now. /V tlt"— „�a It is very difficult to fathom how the varience, if authorized will alter the essential character of the neighboorhood or district in which the property is located, and will substantially or permanetly impare the appropriate use or development of adjacent Property, and will be detrimental to the public welfare. Allowing density greater than i permitted by the zonng regulations would alter the character of the area. The varience, if authorized will not represent the minimum varience that will aford relief and will not represent the least modification possibl of the zoning regulations of the plan. The property is currently a two (2) family dwelling, the property. which is a reasonable use of The unneccessory hardship has been created by the applicant. If the Goodrich property and the Boyd Appeal both conformed with Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act then why does the now Levesque varience e now not meet the same VPDA of 1969 that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment authorized in 1984? -tE r c->N6' cva�X A ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802-863-3353 Judge Meredith Wright April 12, 2000 Vermont Environmental. Court 149 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, Vennont 05620-4201 Dear Judge Wright: At this time, I am enclosing materials for the Prehearing Conference that I hope will help in speeding up the process due to your busy schedule. The issues in controversy and the documents attached will certaintly counter the decision of the Findings of Fact concerning my South Burlington property that the South Burlington Development Board made on March 21, 2000. The Findings of Fact b the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment that were in place in 1984 concerning the following properties that are located in the R-4 Zone as indicated at 195 Hinesburg Road, 211 Hinesburg Road and 175 Hinesburg Road will show that the three g Properties conformed to Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Since the R-4 Zone was in place in 1984 is the same now in the year of 2000 then why and how can the South Burl subjective decisions concernngton Development Review Board be allowed to make ing property with the same rules that have not changed. Also, the then existing South Burlington Zoning Board on May 10, of 1999 upheld the decision of the Administrative Officer that an "accessory residential unit was not allowed on the applicant's property. Again, the allowance of having an accessory residential unit only for a single family home can not be backed un with luuic or a cretique as to why and how this discrementary rule was put into place. A third residential unit was added to the existing duplex of the Goodrich property at 211 Hinesburg Road This third residential unit was added to the existing duplex without adding any additional space to the footprint of the ro Property property on the 10,000 sq. foot lot. Again, this project and P p rty were in the existing R-4 Zone. A duplex was created to the existing single family home at 195 Hinesburg Road on the same evening that the Goodrich property was allowed to become a triplex. Again, the property at 195 Hinesburg Road was located but 75 feet to the North of the Goodrich property in the same R-4 Zone Both of these projects conformed with Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. The Findings of Fact regarding the Appeal of Robert Boyd, 195 Hinesburg Road indicated the following. 2. Consistant with development of neighborhood. 3. No adverse impact to the neighborhood. If the properties that are located but 75 feet apart from each other conformed with Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and the Zone is the decisions that were made iR-4 then n 1984 and again in the year 2000 should also be in place for the same properties concerning items 2 and 3 as indicated above. Therefore, the decisions of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment and the South Burlington Development Review Board concerning the request by Ernest L. Levesque Jr. of 195 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT are filled with untruths and subjective decisions that can not held up with any rational. If your property met the conditions 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and the conditions of the City of South Burlington's Zoning Rules that indicated that the area in question was and is today a R- 4 Zone were the same as were in place in 1984. Then the property would meet the same conditions now now that we are in the 21 st. century. It is very difficult to fathum how the varience, if authorized will alter the essenti character of the neighboorhood or district in which the roe al substantially or permanetly impare the appropriate use or developmenttof located, nitl 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. The varience, if authorized will not represent the minimum varience that will aford relief and will not represent the least modification possibl of the zoning regulations of the plan. The property is currently a two (2) family dwelli the property. ng, which is a reasonable use of The unneccessory hardship has been created by the applicant. If the Goodrich property and the Boyd Appeal both conformed with Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act then why does the now Levesque proposed varience now not meet the same VPDA of 1969 that the South Burl of Adjustment authorized in 1984? ington Zoning Board Also, I did not apply to add an accessory residential unit to the dwelling. the accessory existing 2-family addition added to it. living unit would use one part of the existing garage with an The third residential unit was to utilize the existing space within the existing duplex as the Goodrich approval for a third living unit that was approved in 1984. Thw McGibney approvals of the past are also interesting as you will see when you read the decisions that were made in 1985 and also in 1993 that did not meet the existing zoning regulations in South Burlington. However both projects passed the Zoning Board of Adjustment. All that we are trying to do is have the same opportunity that Mr. Goodrich downsize our property by adding the third residential unit within the existing space -min the existing duplex and add the accessory living unit in part of garage and adding a small addition. I hope at this time, that you will see how unfair the system is. Also, going back to the Planning Commission will do nothing as they are only interested in the large builders filling in the inner city as such by buying up properties and building larger projects. this concept will add to visual polution as now exists on Dorset Street and out in the Southeast Quardrent. Sincerely, &z. X'J., Ernie Levesqu STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICEITDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE* E-MAIL(FIRM2555 nFIRMSPF.COM) ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY r@r FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE MIA KAR VONIDES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) May 19, 2000 Carolyn Hutchinson, Clerk Vermont Environmental Court 255.North Main Street, Tst Floor Barre, VT 05641 RE: Appeal of Ernest L. Levesque, Jr. Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec Dear Ms. Hutchinson: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA Enclosed for filing with the Court is my Entry of Appearance on behalf of the City of South Burlington, in connection with the above -referenced matter. Thank you. Sincerely, UWVaIVIC wi Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bj1 Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair Ernest L. Levesque, Jr. Son4320.cor 00-6146 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: APPEAL OF ERNEST L. LEVESQUE, JR. )DOCKET NO. 94-5-00 Vtec ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY, of the firm of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, F.C., and hereby enters her appearance in the above -referenced matter by and on behalf .of the City of South Burlington. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 19th day of May, 2000. STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By. Amanda S.E. Lafferty Son670.1it 00-6146 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1.507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054021507 ERNEST L. LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802 - 863 - 3353 City of South Burlington February 25, 2000 John Dinklage, Chairperson Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear John & the Development Review Board: At this time, I am requesting a Variance by the City of South Burlingtons' Development Review Board to accomplish the following that fits in with the City's Conceptual Plan for increasing the housing stock of the City and that does not contribute to the sprawl that now exist. However the City Conceptual Plan that was developed by several committees is in conflict with the existing City Zoning Regulations. As a reflection on past history, when South Burlington was a Town in the Mid 1960's, you will find that I had made a presentation to the then existing Select Board when the town Hall was located at Central School. In that presentation, I had proposed a Design Review Board as a start with Dorset Street being the first of many of the Town's areas to follow. An architectural theme was presented that followed a town in the State of Oregon. The film presentation was received well. However, the concept of not in my backyard was prevalent even then. Gene Alexander, a Burlington based Architect had proposed an Automobile Park that would have one entrance off Shelburne Road and we all now suffer due to the lack of foresight from past Select Boards when South Burlington was a Town. Just look at Dorset Street today. That street theme certainly is a collection of unrelated architectural themes that contributes certainly a visual polution as such. The present and past permit approvals throughout the city have no documented rational as to how the zoning as such was arrived at. Also included are densities that can not produce logical rational as to how they were arrived at. Even when a housing density was proposed for Kennedy Drive logic as such did not exist. In the late evening hours before we had to sign off on a new City Plan, the number of 20 units per acre was the density that had been agreed on. After 12 PM in the evening, I indicated, as the Assistant Chairperson of the South Burlington Planning Commission that if you pass that concept of such a dense build out that the street would get built out. Kennedy Drive was to be a limited access highway. I was successful that evening in getting the build out down to 7 units per acre. Now to the present issue of issuing building permits in a small area of Hinesburg Road as an example. You can find that two homes South of my property. One, a former single family home that had two additional residential units added to it on a lot that is 50' x 200' I have a lot that now includes a duplex that is located 75 feet from that triplex apartment complex. My lot size is 75' x 200 ft. If logic were to prevail, then accordingly, I conceivable could have a total of four units on my lot. To my North, a two family housing unit, was given a permit to build a third residential housing unit that created an Accessory Residential Living Unit that was only allowed for a single family lot. This single family home was created before the applicant received a permit to subdivide the lot at a latter date. When the lot was subdivided, the lot did not have the required distances for setbacks or road frontage for a lot. If we move yet further past Barrett Street to the North, a lot was given a right-of-way to Hinesburg Road for a future housing unit. This lot can now have an entrance onto the street that the City Center is on once the City takes over the now private road. However, the developer did not want the lot to have access onto his road. Dimensional Variance wavers should be given for all citizens. You should not have to be a large developer who will cut down old housing stock and build large complexes such as exist now on Dorset Street. In May of 1999, I had made a presentation to the City Zoning Board to have an Accessory Residential Handicapped Living Unit based on Section 26.75. However, this use is only authorized for single family homes. Again, I can not find any written rationale or logic that created this discrimintory zoning regulation. On September of 1999, I made a presentation to the City Planning Commission to amend the City's Plan and Zoning requirements to allow higher densities in the areas bound by Hinesburg Road, Kennedy Drive, Dorset Street and Williston road. In the 1970's this area was known as the Super Block. The City Planning Commission indicated that I had a good concept but it in my backyard" was the result of this hearing. The concept as such was good but the Planning Commission wanted only the large developers to do this type of development.. My concept was simple. Let the existing home owners add a second unit to their single family unit and if the design permitted, add a third unit within the existing space and also if desired by the resident home owner, add a non detached fourth unit to the Property by converting an existing garage to an Accessory Residential Housing Unit. This type of development could infill many lots within the City and this would also Provide affordable housing for retired persons or to young people that are in the workforce. At the present time, only homes over $175,000 are being build in this city and the land is extra. The infilling of the City on the existing neighborhoods can take place and this would take the pressure of the large land masses that still exist within the city. If you look at last year's school vote, one can now make a direct correlation that the City Conceptual Alan that was derived from a series of meetings that by increasing the housing densities for the senior citizens as such could go a long way in elimination the present sprawl that now exists. within the City limits. The vote that took place had a voting total of 33%. However, if you look at the make up of this vote, you will find that over 62% of the City residents voted "NO". This type of vote will continue as voters will become more frustrated with the demands of the schools. Through a well thought out public relations campaign that would include concepts from the several committees on increasing the densities within the city for additional housing units, you now could now get school budgets passed. As you know, 70% of the City residents now do not have their children in the South Burlington School system. My proposal is as follows. I would like to add a create a third unit within my first floor residential duplex. This could be done without building an addition. At the present time, I have two full baths and one three quarter bath on the first floor and five bedrooms in the existing apartment. Also, I would like to add an Accessory Residential Handicapped Living Unit and part of my garage would have an addition of 856 sq. ft.only on the first floor that will meet all setbacks. However, under the present Zoning regulations, this use is only authorized under Section 26,75 for single family homes. If this request is allowed to pass, you will give creditability to the conceptual planning that is being surfaced now for the growth of our City. Sprawl as such could be slowed down and people could find housing as such in the County that will need 1000 housing units a year for the next ten years if the existing employers are going to be able to expand their businesses. The proposal for an additional 160 living units in a group housing concept is yet a very small solution off Shelburne Road for the future growth of the City. At this time, I wish to thank you for listening. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 2, 2000 Ernest Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal of Levesque Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec Dear Mr. Levesque: Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 76(e), as amended effective 7/1/96, please be advised that to my knowledge there are no interested parties relative to this appeal. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincere), d Ray�G. _C,r (,yam, ,�✓�..�.� mond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp 1 Encl cc: Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esquire Environmental Court VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT May 1, 2000 South Burlington, Cit-_u of 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 In Re: of Levesque (802) 479-4486 1st Floor 255 North Main Street Barre, Vermont 05641 Docket No. 94-5-00 Vtec Environmental Court docket number 94-5-00 Vtec has been assigned to the above- r�ferenced zoning board/planning commission appeal. The notice of appeal was received at the Environmental Court on April 14, 2000. Please use the Environmental. Court docket ,number when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case. Vermont Rules of Civil. Procedure No. 74 and 76(e), as amended, set out the procedures to_follow.in this appeal, including the following: 1. A person filing the appeal. is called are "appellant". Appell.ar_t has thirty (30) days from the date the notice of appeal was filed to file with this Court the statement of questions required by V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B). This statement should be specific because it will govern the scope of the appeal. 2. V.R.C.P. 76(e), as amended effective July 1, 1996, requires the clerk of the zoning board/planning commission to provide to the appellant, a list of all into ested parties, with instructions to serve notice upon the interested parties that the appeal has been filed and to give them the address of the Court to allow them to participate in the case here. We request that the town/city send to the Court a copy of the list of interested parties it provided to the appellant. The appellant must, send a copy of its notice to interested parties to this court. Within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, we request that the appellant also send us a list of the people who received the appellant'., notice to interested parties. 3. A person with standing to oppose the appeal is called an "appellee".• Appellees have twenty (20) days: from the date the appellant serves them with the notice that the appeal has been filed, to file their entry of appearance (request to participate) with this 'Court. Failure to file an appearance within this time may result in the case proceeding to a merits hearing without them. All parties who are p-licipating in this case are rest. nsible for sending copies of their court filings to the other parties. The case will be ready for hearing when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired. The Court may extend that time if requested by written motion. The Clerk of the Court will contact the parties to arrange for a pre -hearing telephone conference with Judge Merideth Wright, and the case will be set for a merits hearing to be held in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that under 24 VSA 4471 (1) these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make them on the record. Sincerely, Jadaflyn M. Stevens VtL/Environmental COL CC: Appellant, Ernest Levesque Jr. FYI- South Burlington, City of FAXED COPIES DO NOT MEET FILING DEADLINES. FAXED DOCUMENTS MAY BE AUTHORIZED IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. PLEASE DO NOT FAX WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. IF YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE COURT WITH A TELEPHONE NUMBER WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCES, PLEASE DO SO. VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT Ernest L. Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Levesque: (802) 479-4486 1st Floor 255 North Main Street Barre, Vermont 05641 May 1, 2000 The Environmental Court received a filing from you on April 14, 2000. Generally the original of an appeal is filed with the town along with the filing fee of $150.00 (check/money order payable to the Environmental Court). Sometimes a copy of the appeal is sent to the Environmental Court just as a "heads up. that. an appeal has been filed and will be forth coming to the court. The town then forwards the original of the appeal and the filing fee to the Environmental Court. When we receive copies of an appeal we usually just hold on to them until the. originals. is filed, set up the case and include the copies in the case file. If after a couple of weeks we have not received an original of the appeal from the town then we may make a call to see if in fact. the .appeal has been filed. In this case that is just what, happened and in doing so we have discovered that your appeal has not been filed with the town. Upon closer inspection of the documents filed by you it appears that they are criginy.is. A filing fee of $150.00 is required at the time an appeal is filed, unless it is waived in accordance to a request to proceed In Forma Pauperis. There was no filina fee or request to .proceed In Forma Pauperis with your filing. Please send the $150.00 filing fee to the court at the address above and a copy of the documents you filed with the court to the South Burlington Development Review. Board. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 479-4486. Sincerly, Post -it " Fax Note 7671 Date [� /1 # of 7 p p ages To From J alyrl Stevens Co./Dept. Co. Environmental Court Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # CITY OF SOUTH BI.JRLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 6, 2000 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance requests, 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Levesque: Enclosed please find a copy of the March 21, 2000 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah maccallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Encls Mr. Willard asked if they could then add a third story. Mr. Dinklage said the could if they meet all the requirements. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Application for a variance #VR-00-01 by Ernest L. Levesque, Jr., for a third rental unit and accessory apartment at 195 Hinesburg Road. Application of Ernest L. Levesque, Jr., seeking: 1) a variance from Section 25.00, Area Density and Dimensional Requirements, and 2) a variance from Section 26.75, Accessory Residential (Jnits, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to 1) add a third residential unit on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot currently developed with a 2- family dwelling (minimum lot size required is 32,670 sq. ft.) and 2) add an accessory residential unit to the existing 2-family dwelling, 195 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Levesque noted that Ralph Goodrich had been approved for a 3-unit building in the same R-4 zone and others have as well. He read a statement indicating that he felt the zoning regulations were outdated and did not allow development in the City Center zone. He also felt that a precedent had been set by the Zoning Board in allowing the Goodrich units and also additional units to Boyd and McGibney. He gave the Board copies of the Goodrich, McGibney and Boyd projects. He said he is being discriminated against. Mr. Belair noted the criteria for accessory apartments. Mr. Dinklage suggested Mr. Levesque follow the procedures for a zoning regulation change. Mr. O'Rourke moved the Development Review Board deny App,`: �_.,,n VR-00-01. based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and decision in Document DR- 00-01. Mr. Roth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-00-04 to amend the site plan for the Harbor Sunset extended stay hotel for landscaping at 1700 Shelburne Road. The proposed project consists of amending a previously approved site plan for a 70-unit hotel approved on 1/10/98 to reflect landscape changes: Mr. Rabideau said a landscape screen was required. What was planted grows slowly to about 4-5 feet in height. He felt this plus the retaining wall will provide enough screening. Mr. O'Rourke said he wanted to see bigger trees to screen the entire area. Mr. Dinklage noted that staff recommends additional landscaping replacing what was planted with a variety of Austrian Pines, White Pines, etc, 4-5 feet high. 10 Mr. ®'Rourke moved the Development Review Board approve the site plan application #SP-00-04 of John Larkin to amend a previously approved plan for a 70 room hotel. The amendment consists of amending the landscaping, 1700 Shelburne Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Harbor Sunset Motel 1700 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont," prepared by Rabideau Architects, Inc, dated 2/10/97, last revised 2/23/00, with the following stipulations: 1.All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. Staff and applicant shall agree upon plantings to replace the 4'-5' Mugo Pine shown on the previously approved plan. 3. Any change to the site plan shall requite approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. O'Rourke stepped down during the following application due to a conflict of interest. 9. PUBL.IC HEARING: Final Plat Application #SD-00-11 of Dorset Square Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 54,480 sq. ft. shopping center with four buildings. The amendments consist of 1) temporarily blocking the easterly access to Market Street, and 2) eliminating condition 2b of the 10/19/99 approval, 150 Dorset Street: Mr. ®'Leary said the owner is dropping his request to block off the access. He said it would be very expensive to get the perimeter survey and there already is one in the land records. No issues were raised. Ms. Quimby moved the Development Review Board approve final plat application #SD-00-11 of Dorset Square Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 54,480 sq. ft. shopping center with four buildings. The amendment consists of eliminating condition 2b of the 10/19/99 approval, 150 Dorset Street, with the following stipulations: 1.A11 previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. Condition 2b of the 10/19/99 approval requiring the submission of a perimeter survey for recording is here by eliminated. 11 r' Ernest L. Levesque Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlingtom, Vermont 05403 802-863-3353 Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Ms. MacCallum: Re: Varience requests, 195 Hinesburg Road March 29, 2000 This letter is in response to my request to have you leave a message on my answering machine on March 28, 2000 concerning the procedure that is necessary to follow in order to appeal the Findings of Fact of the Development Review Board meeting of March 21, 2000. Please foward a memo as to what the procedure is that is necessary for me to follow in order to appeal the decision of the Development Review Board. Prehaps you schedule was full as I did not have a recorded message from you on my answering machine. At this time, I wish to thank you for filling my above request. Sincerely, Ernie Levesque CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PIANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH EURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 31, 2000 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Requests, 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Levesque: I am writing to you in regard to your letter of March 29, 2000. I did return your call on March 28, 2000. I left a message with a gentleman at your home number and apologize if the message was never relayed to you. I have since left a message on your home answering machine and hope that you have received it. In the case that you have still not received the information you have requested, I will briefly describe the appeal process for your requests. The appeal of the Development Review Board Findings of Facts of March 28, 2000 must be made to the Vermont Environmental Court. I would advise you to consult a lawyer on this matter. I am afraid I can not be of much more assistance in this matter, but please feel free to call me if you have any questions that you believe I may be able to help with. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Certified Mail #: Z462929511 DEPARTMENT OF PI.ANKING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 23, 2000 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Requests, 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Levesque: Enclosed please find a copy of Finding of Facts of the Development Review Board meeting on March 21, 2000. Please note that there are thirty (30) days in which this decision may be appealed. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerel r - Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 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 1. 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 pursLPH- }^'Zortion 24 VSA 4468 have not been met. Dated this day March, 2000 at South Burlington, VT. Chairman or Clerk South Burlington Development Review Board 3 �qqF- #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 1. 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 perm,^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 purs<!an* *^ cAction 24 VSA 4468 have not been met. Dated this day March, 2000 at South Burlington, VT. Chairman or Clerk South Burlington Development Review Board To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Ernie Levesque Re: Variance Request 1. Third rental unit 2. Accessory Residential Handicapped Living Unit Date: March 21, 2000 Issues: At this time, I am requesting a variance to add a third rental unit within the existing duplex. Dick Ward, the City of South Burlington's Zoning Administrator in 1984 indicated that the area is R-4. You will find that the request to add a third unit to the existing duplex by Ralph Goodrich was approved for the property at 211 Hinesburg Road.. Also on the same agenda, The Decision & Finding of Fact for the Robert Boyd proposal for 195 Hinesburg Road to create a duplex was approved. The consistent application of Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act was adhered to for both of those variances. The above identified appeals were authorized on the evening of September 24th of 1984. At this date of March 21, 2000 it is difficult to understand why the staff is recommending a denial of my variance request to add a third rental unit based on the apparent lack of conformance with the five criteria as they identified. Those comments certainty are not true since the precedent was in place for the applications by both Goodrich and Boyd that were approved by the City of South Burlington's Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 25, 1984 when they indicated that Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development was adhered to in both applications. The added comment from the staff in the agenda for the SBDRB under #7, Variance Request- Ernest Levesque, Jr - Third Rental Unit And Accessory Apartment, 195 Hinesburg R in the third paragraph, "Staff has cited the applicant for adding two (2) dwelling units to the dwelling without a zoning pennit. This application appears to be an attempt to legitimize the additional units". However, the record will show that the following permits were in place when I was allegedly cited. No. 82-96, 09-14-82 Remodel interior, new carpet, fix driveway 84-55, 06-28-83 Add 12 x 30 South, add 10 x 34 front & carport 88-53, 10-23-84 Convert second floor into apartment 00-201, 01-02-86 Porch, bedroom & bath 00-167, 11-22-88 Detached garage & storage 92-27, 03-19-92 Porch l l x 22 & 10 x l 1 93-292, 10-22-93 Bedroom & laundry The present Chairperson, John Dinklage was a member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment during that period of time. In my past proposals, Dick Ward and the present staff have indicated that the rules were different back then. Upon doing the research for this project, I found that their comments were just not true. Therefore, I would like to have the same opportunity to add a third residential unit to my existing duplex as Ralph Goodrich was approved for that used the same R-4 Zoning regulations that are also in place at the present time, were in place in 1984. I was the Assistant Chairperson of the South Burlington Planning Commission when the present rules were in force before I resigned after a ten year hitch on the planning commission when I resigned to take a position in the State of Massachusetts in the Fall of 1982. 2. At this time, I would like to address my proposal to add a Accessory Residential Handicapped Residential Living Unit to my property. Granted, under the present outdated Zoning regulations, the infilling of the City with added residential units to their property will offend many in South Burlington. However, if sprawl is to be contained and not spill out into the Southeast Quadrant, the recommendations of the committees that were formed in South Burlington to study the growth should be listened to. The Zoning regulations are to strict and the results of these outdated regulations will not allow any growth to be contained within the inner city as such. As I had indicated in my letter to the Development Review Board on February 25, 2000, the following is in place. To my North, a two family housing unit was given a permit to build a third residential housing unit without first obtaining a separate lot. This proposal was presented on February 25, 1985 to the South Burlington Zoning Board of Approval. This was and is still the Frederick and Louise McGibney property at 175 Hinesburg Road. How could the proposed single family dwelling have 119 ft. of frontage on Hinesburg Road when a two family home would be in front of it and not directly of Hinesburg Road as Ms. Bechtel had indicated. Mr. Dinklage said that a future sale of the property might involve one lot with two structures on it and would require coming back to l the board. The appeal was granted unanimously. On July 12, 1993, the ZBA granted the McGibneys another variance that created a substandard lot size. The approval that evening by the ZBA certainly gives creditability to the request of the committees that were formed as to how the growth of South Burlington could be changed to slow the growth South of Kennedy Drive. My proposal and others could certainly help to slow down the unwanted growth and would thus make affordable a place to live for young families or retired residents. At the present time young single persons or married families in the lower income brackets are kept out of the rental market. Since less then 50% of the students that go to college ever graduate, where does that put them and the students that do not go to college with regards to the housing market and the incomes that are required in order to live in the City of South Burlington. At the present time, a student that graduates from the South Burlington School System can not afford to live here. Perhaps, if the rules were made less restrictive, then perhaps we could gain more with regards to provide housing for the youth and others that will carry on when we are gone. With increased housing densities within the Old Super Block concept and other neighborhoods, we could increase the housing stock and then perhaps school budgets of the future could pass. To sum it all up, a precedent was set that allowed a third living unit to an existing duplex at 211 Hinesburg Road and a duplex was created at 195 Hinesburg Road on the evening of September 25, 1984. These properties were but only 75 feet apart. The Findings of Fact for both varience proposals indicated that Section 4468 of the Vennont Planning and Development Act Nvere adhered to. One parcel was 10,000 sq. feet and the other parcel was 15,000 sq. feet. The 10,000 sq. foot parcel had a frontage of 50 feet and the other parcel had a frontage of 75 feet. Both the frontages are on Hinesburg Road. The variance given for the third living unit at 211 Hinesburg road created that evening a standard of 3,333 sq. feet was required for each unit on a project in the then four unit per acre land mass for that section and any other section of land that was designated a density of four units per acre. We then had a mathematical unit in place that the ZBA had established that met Section 4468 of the Vermont Planning and Development Act. Based on that decision, we now can apply a 12 unit density per acre to all of the R-4 Zones within the City of South Burlington. Since my land parcel is 15,000 sq. feet, then I would be allowed 4 1/2 units. Whether or not the ZBA meet that, nevertheless, that is what the ZBA established on that September evening in 1984. The thread that binds this decision together is that both parcels of land met Section 4468 with regards to the Findings of Fact that were established on 211 and 195 Hinesburg Road. Therefore, my request for a total of four living units on the property at 195 Hinesburg Road is justifiable. If the variance that Mr. Goodrich, Mr. Boyd and Mr. McGibney received in my presentation as indicated above that did not alter the essential character of the neighbor or district in which the property is located, and will not substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare, Allowing density greater than permitted by the zoning regulations would not alter the character of the area. Then why then would my proposal that is located only 75 feet from my property and one that was on my property and to my North within 140 feet now be denied based on the approvals that all three (3) of the above projects meet. And again, my property was one of the three (3) that meet the following. SECTION 4468 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969. My presented project certainly meets the above criteria. It is interesting that to my North, within 600 feet, the entrance to the City Center, Market Street exists. However, no written rational or critique as as ` to how the 40 unit per acre number was arrived at. Also, based on the ZBA in its good judgment created a new standard, the only written judgment that is indicated anywhere in South Burlington when they knowingly or unknowingly approved a 3,333 sq. foot standard for a living unit on a lot as indicated earlier in my presentation. That decision thus created 12 units per acre and made a mid point correction to the existing 4 units per acre. The above standard now can be used by the South Burlington Development Review Board to increase the existing densities within our City to help infill the City with additional housing units that in turn could help to eliminate the existing sprawl that the large developers have created. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO ......... . APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT ,st. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone �� , , 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR / 4th Copy APPLICANT - Date .......................................... 19.t.... The undersigned hereby applies for permission co make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Surlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in affect. e • 0- mr4. —so t 0 1 1 - nL�nn■n Offices 00MENn ' • ■ Warehousen®EEN MMO�•� � �' Res. Garage Attic Fl. &®n No. Cars ■ ■I T..- ■ . ■ • . •I.T.Gas Station MMW� m�nn■n .: IWIS MOON IIIIIIII■■■■!•■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Concrete Block nnl�nn ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■OEM son ■Ei0■.■■■S■C■m■■■m■N■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■ ►�lmc�,_-_ SEEN ■ 5�.,:■■ Brick or Stone 0011111=". �-nn■n ■ ■■E■■■■■■■■■ ■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■EE■Ni■■■■ Collar Area Full =nnn= ■_■■■■■■■■■■■Ei■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■N■■■■■EENEN■E■■■■■N■■■■■■■N■ N■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ n n ■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■m E■iNON t1N AN01115Esa■E■EN■■Em■■E■l No Cellar =Finished At= ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■®■ son ■■N■�■■■�■m■m■■■■■om■■l ■■■MEN ■m■■m■■■m■Era■■■EN■■N■■■E■■■■■■■Ee■Nm■■■■ .- SEESESE■■■■E■N■ MEMO N■E■E■■■ESE■■■m■mm■■m%mmm■nl ■■■■■■■■■o■■m■nsum ■■■■!■■■■■■■■N/N'.a■SEE■ ■■■■■ Clapboards IN mom ■!■Nfi[�■1■■■t\ Wide Siding AMI Pi eless Furnace■■■NNE ■m■■N■IAEN■■EN/d■ _���-y -•.., ... ■■N■■■■■mossommmo■■■■Nll7m memo m■mono■■E■■■EENE■ n ■■■■■■■■■■11■E■■■■■N■■li►nm■'lliMOMmNmm■■mo■mommoo■ ■■■■■■■■■s&i..�sss•m_._naA 1�-=.=a.��.�a■■■■N■■■NNE N■NNE■■NEMENESEE■■N ■■r!c9t!!fl■■Ililii■■E■■■■■■■mmn■ .. = Stucco on Frams, 0 NNE 001 rAN �I 110 ME mI■7foo1 ■■■onEjila`■o■■■ rR ice. ��C�wiisil��'�/:�■■b1 t�■mmi�■mN:iE n ■■■N■ENEM aUBrick ■oE■�'��� :..riIRi. on Tile No ON M No No if mom MENEEMEMEN Solid Brick ■■0N■m■Am■■■■■■m■■■10101m EMS o■EI1■o■No■o■ommommo■ - ■■E■■■■i!■EMNON■ off r■■jMM [.i■NE■■11■G�s■E■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■NE■■■■■■N■■NNE■u■IU■■....,.._..Ir�ii�N■■■■m■■■■mm■■ = :; ® SEES■■��■■■■E■■■■■■■�a■■��■�■■N�■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■ ■■■■■�-�•■■■■l■N��������5■,.,.:cue- �■■■■ommemmoommono ■N■■■■■■N■■■ MA ■■NE■■■■■■m■■■■■■■G� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mm■■■■■■mE■ = ■�■■■m■■■■■m■■Nmm■■Jm■■■mE■NE■■o■■■■Eon■moo■■■ Std. Wat. Heat■ = ■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■lil:Gi3■S■uto. ■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Wat. Heat ONO ■��■■■■��■■■��■■�c'n■�■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ n n .�. ROOFING Nood Shingles Asbes. Shingles MOM nis Metal Roll Rooflng O. OF ROOMS ■gin �U FEE COMPUTATION $ . Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ SIGNAThRE NER or BUILDER / ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO Date �k CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT i.;c. Copy CODE OFFICER /C 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER ZoRC.'j ........... 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR " 4th Copy APPLICANT Date .................... ' �................... I9.g .. The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the. National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now In effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET ,e'ar NUMBER / i5 OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage 7 Depth Z-.DV L� Lot No. tingle Family B t 2 3 '� I wo Family Cement OWNERE!;.V4�.jT JQ- BUILDER x } vartment No. Fam. •� Earth ��`"�� '� L-`(lE'S r... �1 �` :tore Pine WATER SUPPLY: Public Private ❑ )ffices Hard Wood varshouse The SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public Septic Tank ❑ Permit mom 170171111777IM7, —OM ������ ... .MEMEMEMENEMM■■ MOM M E■■■■■■.■■.■■■..■..■..■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■!! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i- • -�■ .oncrute Block M`MMS ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■�I(i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 7■ =-Unflrilshed N■w,= ■ ■/■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■J■■MAKERS ■■■/■/■■■■■■■■"mm ■1711M■■■■■■■■■■■■GJ■■■■4■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IN {�r■■/■■■■■■■■N■■■■■/f■/■■■■/■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■�■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■ ■■■i■/■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■ Jo Celler Attic= ■■FL'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ =Finished RNMOM SOME ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EXTERIOR ■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■w■■■ ■■■■■■■■/■■■■■/■■■■//■■I■/■■■■■/■■/■■■■■■DNAMES WALLS ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ONE ■■■■■i■■■■!��/��I.w...li■...�1�// i i■■■■ /■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■�■�����Li���1■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■ )rop Siding = ::: = ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 4o Sheathing Forced Air Furn. 4ucco on Frame ■■■/■■/�■ IG.�rY�/{�I, I.■■■■//■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■.��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Aucco on Tile ■■■■■■ _■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�.atw■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ irick on —Tile . ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■ ■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■iu■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ • Zi C :: ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ = Toilet Room ■■■w■■s�■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■:�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ late Glass ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ww■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■ laula Ion = = ROOFING,sph. Shingles lood Shingles �: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON }.. .. PERMIT NO ....... APP:� ''ATION FOR ZONING PEMML, r �.' 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER i7p V, Ind. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone...:,,„•, 3,d. Copy CITY ASSESSOR {4th Copy APPLICANT Date ..... 1¢V.. ....................... 19 (,f.►3... The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Reoulations now In affact- e s NUMBER ` OCCUPANCY •s- gT SIZE: Frontage Depth tingle Family�500©© 'NM • . ,tore ME= WATER SUPPLY: Public Private E] SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public Septic Tank 0 IMIEWMMMMMM � -�MMMM ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit * les. Garage ■ Overhead -Underground INTERIOR -©©Plot to scale Lot and Building improvements, showing width ot Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point indicating North. En ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!":■■■!�"■■I ■�■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■CIO■N■NO ENE //■■■I l!1■/■■4.,.I��i ���G:1� Paneling■��= ■ ■■■■■■■■oN■■■N■■ NINE ■■■■■■■■■■■■K1r.1f litim000■NN■ ■/■/■■■ ENE /■■■//■■■„■/'No ON■■/■■..%Nb,UEEENNENE ■■/USES ■son ■■■■■Sli■■N■■■■■I ®Re rest. Room■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■N. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■'"7■■■/11■■I KA Finished Attic= ■■■■■■■■■ NOSES ■/■r■11MEN ■N//.i1''!■■■/■■■■_■■4N�+'�rUllllll'1■ M on 1 I I ' SEEN E0■■N/■/E11111111111111111111160" ■■■/■Ee■■E■■EN3■E■■sloN■!`■��■nE■■■N1 .Enl►■N,eL.Zr.NNENE■■I lide Siding.:: E■■NEE ONES E■OE■■ENOEII v■■■■NEE■■■711 �■■■ t I 1■N■ ,rop Siding Hot Air Furnace■■N■/■■now ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■MEMO INEE■■■■1IIE■No■E■■■■EL5iA ■SEEN iNN■E■NNE■■�a :�■ : :> �■■■ Ali, IMPS jo Sheathing■■■■■■eME■■ ' lood Shingles on 0 ■■■■■■■■■■■■. - u[k.1■ FI ■ ,sbas. Shingles Hot Wet. or vapor ENE ■E/EON/ON■ NONE ■Eti■S■■NE■■ENE■EEN■I■rir%mmNNS■ tucco on FrameE■■■■■ao■Eo■■■o■■■n LAE■oE■■aE■■■■ENonn■NI,N■■rick I'll ■■■■■■■■■■NNE■■■Errs■■■■■■ tucco an N■NE■NNE■■EE■■■1r�EE■■■■■ E■■■E rll■ F1■ III EN■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E/■N/E Veneer ■■■■Ii■■Irr,�EEO!:;EE■EIN M Isn■■nN■■E■■■■EN■■o■ENrick E■ an The Is Elmo ENWRIGNIM M Is :)lid Brick ■/■/■Mono■N■I.r■ E■■13u■■■■■■■N■■■■■■E■E■■■11l■■■ (one Von ■■■■A4!!■ono■Ill■■ n■R Nils N■■N■■n■■■E MEN NEE■EN■NEE■ ■!jai■I: /■■■■!!1■NO■IJIEHEEEEEEENE■■E NNE ■■■■O■SNnE■ ==: iN■■■■!I1■■■■ElilEielli&S IIIE■E■■EN■■EE■ENEE■EENE■E■■■ i■ENE■�I�rlE■■Ill■L' :.■■I SEEN ■■■■N■■N■EN■E■■■N■ENE qrra . - Water Closet1■■■■o:i�[*,annn®in/■■NNNI■■■■/NON/o■N■o■■NN■nn■■■o■ mageo�Mmoso tA IE ENSURE ONONE ■■■■ESN/■■■NNE itrolite G'M Glass Std. Wet. Heat H��EN� ' . ' 1�7��G~�oii■�� ■■EE�iJ■iEli�>LIE■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ NNE•O.ERTY Laundry Tubs 7— LINE 77 i ■ .• ■ Utilities closed ■ FstiriI ROOFING iph. Shingles ood Shingles le . ROOMS EE COMPUTATION $ SIGNATURE of OWNER or BUILDER Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED r SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER SUED TO ate 19' _ " g PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJELTTO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO .........1 APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT yc— / Is".. Copy CODE OFFICER Zone............ ?nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR Ith Copy APPLICANT Date ........... ............................... 19.(.96 . the undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- `orm to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET /�f�,1/�5 �,d2iS ✓Zp,q NUMBER LOT SIZE: Frontage '7 Depth 2'OL7 Lot No. ■■■■ •BUILDER ' WATER SUPPLY: Public Private E] SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public :gl' Septic Tank E] Permit # �■e�� ROAD O ELEC. WIRING: Underground 0 Overhead 0 Permit # 3. cars DetAY A-.C1 .I Plot to scal Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at 'Compass point Indicating North. FOUNDATION �MMMEMM..■■........■ ..........................■....■. ■�SO■■■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.�- �.■ )ncreta Block El■■®■ick ...................ACC.....■............. �. or Stone mumm".-MEMEM ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■C�:�1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Ilar Area Full Recrealt. RoomEXTERIOR �:. ■■r�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ Cellar ME Attic -Finished ■■■■■■■ia■■■■eI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I�■■■■ WALLS �` ■■■■■'■■■I■■■■10■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■aN■■Nil■■■_�/I];.'��■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■I■■■■■ ;de Siding Furnace op Siding Hot Air Furnace ■■■■■ ■=E.I■■■■:■■■[I■■ am ■■! J■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■' VENOM ? ■■■■■a:: ■■■■■■■■■■Ii:y■■[Jt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■,1■■■■ Sheathing ■d Air Furn.:)od ■ ■■■■■:■■■I■■■■■n■■�■■ �. _a ■cam■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■ Shingles C MINE,■■■■■■��i��� �cal■■I ■■l�■■■cI T-�_®E■u■■■■■i.•1I■■■ ■■■■■N■;i■��� ic__ �_�:��;;■■■■■■c ¢���®��� E, �■■■■■■■NNE■ ; - •, ■J ■N■■■N�-----alnaafslat—alll■■■■■`.�al�a•,�•r,■■7■■■NN■NE■ = :: 0 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■N■■■■■■■N■■■■■■cc■NEE■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■N■■■■■r�■■■NNE■■■■■■■NN■N■N■NN■■■■■■■■■■ Toilet Room ■■■■■■■■■■■■Eurr►�s^r!��r: r:-�■■EEE■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■ -1 Water Closet ME ■ N■■■■■■■OON■■OO■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EOOMOO■■■■■ MEN IMEM NO i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ altherstrip ph. Shingles ROOFINGbes. tod Shingles ■ Shingles ME: to ' ■ � ■, moosition ■ 11 Roofing NO. OF ROOMS :E COMPUTATION $ 6yp q Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ 4' ✓,��% I�Y�I�.,:t'-'nl..,ori `. / "'� 3 ,�'%"%.�rt. y i�i/.� 1J .t".: �?:' SIGNATURE off OWNER or BUILDER / n ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER SUED TO �-( ..��.r.—__ ate 143 PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED CITY OF SOUTH BURLING'. ( PERMIT NO APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER ZOI1C ! \ 1 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER 3rd. Co CITY ASSESSOR 9 PY �✓ v .i 4th Copy APPLICANT Date :l.... �............................. I9"..... The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspect+ All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and c form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now In effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET /., ,:•r ; , ;, r''„l� NUMBER OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage i% I ��' Depth i '.' Lot No. Single Family B 11 2 3 Two Family cement OWNER BUILDER Apartment No. Fam. Earth f Store pine WATER SUPPLY: Public Private ❑ Offices Hardwood Res. Garage Attic FI. & Strs. No. Cars Det. Att, El I Gas Station INTERIOR FINISH IT Additions -Alterations t 6 11 1 2 3 FOUNDATION Pine Concrete I Hardwood Brick or Stone Piers Cellar Area Full % % No Cellar Unfinished Paneling Recreat. Room Finished Attic SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public Septic Tank ❑ Permit 0 ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # ELEC. WIRING: Underground ❑ Overhead O Permit # Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear ya Mark N at Compass point indicating North. . �Plpeleis �■.■Forced� �MEESE ■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■•■■■••KMMMllIIMMMMNMMM ::: ■■■■■■■■■■■�■■�■■■■■■■ n■■ Furnace ■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Hot Air Furnace .■■■■■..■■.■.ME EMEMEMEMMENMEM : :::■:.:: :: :� ::' o MNS:N O®f O:O o:.: or p c Monson ON . .i . 'i .■.....No C■�.. ■. :■:.::.�:. =Mons■■NONE ■ c:.m�.iC C ■�CA�s..0 :: ....■..■IN Gas Burner 0101 molo IN ON a 11 ■■■■■C■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ MINE ■.■ .......... Solar•■ . ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■i■ ■ ■■■■■ii■■■..■■■■ �. ■C■■■■■■■■■■ ::����� ■ ■_.■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ..■■I l ..■■■■■■■ MESON Elm �■ :::C:::CM MONSOON .■■■■ . ■■■ 0 0C::0 0 MOOSE :i::::::i■'11 oil C......■■.■■ :iSEEM SEEN a .......■ ��■� ...........1 ......� ... ... •CC'C:: !Auto. Wat. Heat 010 ■soon .■soon .=� c■. n■■■�■■■iE■■■i■i■ .,. Laundry Tubs .OF ROOMS P CITY OF SOUTH BURLING. i PERMIT NO ��... APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT let. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone:....... 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR f� 4th Copy APPLICANT" Date ............................... :'.. . The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspect, All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and c form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. • • OCCUPANCYee- Single Family Boom Two Family Apartment No. Fam. ■�■■■■ Offices • ■ Warehouse ■�■■■■ Res. Garage No. Cars • - ■ ■ ■ • r • • ■ • • ■ Gas Station • Oi ■■■■ ..... E.E..E:...:::..:■■..■■:■.■.■ .■.■E■ ■ .. . ■..■■■■MM■■■■■. Brick or Stone■■■■■■ . ■■ ■.■...:� Piers■■■■■) . ......... .................■..■■.. 0 ON 0 OEM Collor Area FullY. Am ■ ■ ■ ■.■No ■■■■■.■� ■■ ............. ■■. . .. NOON ......... ■■::��E::::::: :.. E :�E:�::::::::::SEEM EXTERIOR WALLS .......■........:.......■..■■.■■■■■. Clapboards ■ ■ .■■.■■.......... ■.. . ....■........� No mom M Drop ■ ... .. No MEMO ... . ... ......■..... : ■:■.:SOME■■■:.■■■■ MOM:■..■■■...■■. ONE ... No Sheathing ■ ....■■■■■■■■.... . ■ ... .■...■■OOSME■■ say KI E:E■■IJ!■■�....::..�.�.�.■■..■■■■■■ME wiu,gimilIMM Hot Wat. or Vapor .■IIrME'L . 11 E . E ■ ■MEMENORMENNE■ Stucco on Frame- E■ �i11vammMiM■ :��E E■Ora■r1;�IM�■MM■O■MEMUMMEStucco ■ �lI■■■■■■■r i ■■■ ■■■■■a■■NO■MARROM on Tile ■■■.■■.SEEN -Brick Veneer ONENESS::":MNNC'■■■■■ E: :■■■■ M.■■■..■SOME. Solid Brick'.'.: ■ ::::NNO::::::::::: Stonevenoer■ ■ ■■■ MEN ■ONE ■=E■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■ ■■■SEEM■ Conc. or, Cind. B1. MEMO:::: EM ::.:"' • E■■SON■C:■SOSEEN■ ME ■■■EOM■■■■ NONE■ �E■E■NE■E■■�E■EEE■E� : soon NONE . ■■EME■■■ .■■■■■■ .. .............. . . ■:■■■■.■■■■EME■O■E■....■.■■:■■■■■SS : ■ :: ■ :=:MMEEMOMEEEMMESEOEEESMO:'OM::EEEEMENENE Insulation Auto. Wat. :: ■■■■■SOON■:: ■E■M■■■■■■■■MSNEENNEENEENE■ ■Weatherstrip .,. . . . 1 ■ Asph. Shingles ■Wood ■ Shingles ■ Asbes. Shingles - ■ ■ Composition ■■■cam■ .. .. FEE COMPUTATION $ r r^ Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ SIGNATU +'OWNER or BUILDER �,, ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED A_--(_1e._X_P '�` SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO Date PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS X CITY OF SOUTH BURLINCTON PERMIT NO APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT S ; 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER _ .... 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR - ZOne. 4th Copy APPLICANT ,r �^� . Date �` °,✓�; r i C d ` ..... ...... 19 The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspe( All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, ano form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET r'k t NUMBE OCCUPANCY FLOORS ngle Family B i 2 3 LOT SIZE: Frontage R Depth n L t r. ,, Lot No. aX T y Cement Apartment No. Fam. Earth Store Pine Offices Hard Wood Warehouse Tile Carpet No. Cars Gas Station FOUNDATION Pine Concrete I Wood Shingles TILING Asbes. Shingles Bath Fl. & Wcot. OWNER WATER SUPPLY: Public d SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) BUILDER_ Private ❑ Septic Tank ❑ Permit d •-111,1vjk3• unAerground ❑ Overhead ❑ Permit # Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear y Mark N at Compass point indicating North. PROPERTY LINE Remarks ❑ Demolition ❑ .i7y✓ ALL' �' r'''i7� ¢�� r<: '�J �e �` ,!.Jyj .r - f Estimated Cost Utilities closed ❑ F)=E OMP,UTATI N,.---� •. Plans received Yes ❑. No ❑ SIGNATURE of OWNER or BUILDER ADDRESS of OWNER u APPLICATION:/EJECTED ❑ APPROVEDic SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO i Date CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO,��-? ....a( L— APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER r 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone !....�... 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date ....... ......... P The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET Ai(A,�' NUMBER 4'' '01612,OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage ""� Depth 2 Lot No. Single Family B 1 2 3 .) Two Family Cement OWNER q�/ y- iF ,— BUILDE,�/�'?a/ Apartment No. Fam. Earth Offices I I Hardwood I I I I I Res. Garage No. Cars Dart, Al Gas Station * Additions -Alterations FOUNDATION Concrete Concrete Block Brick or Stone Piers Cellar Area Full No Cellar WATER SUPPLY: Public Private ❑ SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public K Septic Tank ❑ Permit * Carpet ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Attic FI. & Strs. Permit # it ELEC. WIRING: Underground ElOverhead ❑ Permit # INTERIOR FINISH Pine Hardwood Sheetrock Unfinished Paneling Recreat. Roon Finished Attic Fireplace ' Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point Indicating North. "A:IU,{ EXTERIOR WALLS I I I Clapboards HEATING Wide Siding Pipeless Furnace Drop Siding Hot Air Furnace No Sheathing Forced Air Furn. Wood Shingles Steam Asbes. Shingles Hot Wat. or Vapor Stucco on Frame No Heating Stucco on Tile Electric Brick Veneer Gas Burner Brick on Tile Oil Burner . Conc. or Cind. BI. ■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■■���■�■■�!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ =�® ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■� v���■■■■■■,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Terra Cotte - Vltrollte Sink■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ =Kitchen Heat ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■Iti:53■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Insulation Auto. Wat. Heat ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■i/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ = ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■fin■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Laundry Tubs PROPERTY Remarks 0 Demolition 0 Utilities closed 0 Estimated Cost ROOFING Asph. Shingles Nood Shingles TILING 'ksbes. Shingles Bath Ff. & Wcot. Tile LIGHTING vietal Electric ::Omposition No Roll Roofing .ROOMS �Bsmt 2nd� �1st. ■3rd- FEE COMPUTATION $ Plans received Yes 0 .. SIGNATURE .� . ADDRESS . OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED 1:1 APPROVED SIGNATURE OF .. ISSUED Date. . CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 15t. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone/ 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR ., ... c� 4th Copy APPLICANT Date .... `� . �................... 19 . / I— . The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. OCCUPANCY e • OTT Ingle Family wo Family■c•m■■■■■■ Ass. Garar �rs�®■�■ .,. r My ■C■■■� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■`;/■� ■■■■■■■■ '!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�— NEI ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■�i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 7■I ■ l MEW= ■ ■■■■■■ mom ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■mmsa ■■m= low ■■■mom ■■■■■OGJ■■■■i!■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMO .Emmons oml :011ar Area Full ■■Lllr■■■■son F■■■■■■■■■■Of!■■■■■■■■■■■SO■■■MME■■■ Recreart. Room— ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■f■■■■■■■■■■■ SEEM ■ESESSION Finished Attic a 0 ONE -so NONE mom ■■■■■MO■m■■■M■O mom OM■■■I!■■■aM■■■■Ms■■Faso■■■■■ EXTERIOR WALLS - ■■■■■■■■■■■.■■MEMO ■■■■■(!■■■■■■■■M■■ mom ■OI.N, 'lapboards■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■NSE OMENS ■■O■■E■■■■M■■�.I■IwIO.I■1111►"!I/ s AMMO■ ■■■■■■■■■■■E■E■■E■■■■■■E■■■■���■� NONE in PAAMOSE ■PiPsless Furnace■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■I!■■■M■n■■■■■■M■■dOME■E■ )rop Siding Hot Air Furnace .MEN ................��.I........a OEMMMFEF■FM■ Jo Sheathing Forced Air Furn. ■ ■F■■ MEN ■■■ccw■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Mom ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ NEE ■■■L'CaE■■■n■■ ■■■iE■■ MEN ■■■■■■M■■■■M■mO■■ Hot Wat. or Vapor■■■■■M■i[.6■r+■.,III!■■i■■■M■■■■■■■■■■ME■M■■■■ME■■E■ = M■■■ ■■■■■■■yMini. iIN ONE ■■■M■■■■mom ■■M■■■■■■MMEMMONS _ MMgnomon ■■■■■■■■■■■■ESEE■MM■■M■a■MENEM■so MME■M■M ■ a am a ■omMOON ■mom ■■!■■nMon rrMMMF■■■■E mom M■M■■MENEM 3rick on Tile= . mom ■Om■M gnomon ■■■■a■iMM■■■volld ■■■ME■M■■■a■■■ME■E■ Brick == on mom so am ;tone Veneer ■ ■MEESE■■■MMEM■■■n m■m■■■■E■■■E■■am■■■■m■M■m■■ ■■a■■■■NONE ■ME!■■■■ NNE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■O■mmon■ ■ = E■�M■ME MEMO Mm■simE■m mum ■ ■■■■■aEM■ mom F■M■ME■NE■ MEMO a ME M 'errs cotte ■■m■■■■MEMO ■■■EF■■M■■M■■■■■■MONSOON EFE■■■■■■■■■■■muss = = ■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■' ■■■■M■M■■■■■■OE■■soon■ ■ ■�M;■■■■M■■■MM■■■■MME■■EMSM ■■■■n■■m■m■■■■■MME■■E■ late Glass■ IOMOEM■■E■■■!O■slNO■EM■■MESEE■M■■ME■■EEME■■ isulation= . ■O■EEMM■MOM■■M■■■■MMmEOwmE■Mn■m■■m■Msommoomm■■ 4eatherstrIp■■■■■■■■■■■a■■■■r■■na,�■■■■■■■■O■■■■■■■■■■■■■ OPERTY LINE Remarks 0 Demolition Ej Utilities closed El ROOFING', ,sph. Shingles /ood Shingles ,sbes. Shingles late Ile letal OmPosition toll Rooflng .: .. -EE COMPUTATION $ &r SIGNATURE of or BUILDER Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED V �� SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER )ate t 19 z R'1 RT."f .M114 /4AM 9Y1 iert►, r'D c+v nav�s..a�n..q �C` 0=c'eIIIT CI'P.Ilm "T'M ftlI WITHIN Y5 nAvq I:I1 nwr= 1CCI ICr1 ` CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO 1st. COPY CODE OFFICER APPI. ATION FOR ZONING PERA 2r:d. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone. 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date , , , , r V.... ........................ 19 The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now In affect. CONSTRUCTION STREET t; NUMBER OCCUPANCY FLOORS, _ingle Family B 1 2 3 LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth Lot No wo Family Cement +Partment No. Fam. Earth Ifflces Hardwood warehouse The Carpet ies. Garage j Attic FI. & trs. Jo; Cars Det.ta .E3 Height A;(/ ;as Station INTERIOR FIN[ H Additions -Alterations' B 1 2 3 FOUNDATION Pine ;oncrete Hardwood :oncrete Block Sheetrock :rick or Stone Unfinished ers _ Paneling ellar Area Full % Recreat. Room to Cellar Finished Attic Fireplace t.,rr1 WATER SUPPLY: Public SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) BUILDER L,' {'L::%CI!s .19 "t R?-r Private ❑ ' �41, t Septic Tank ❑ .Ir" er F 4k Permit * ELEC. WIRING: Underground ❑ Overhead �1� �. Permit Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rorer Mark N at Compass point Indicating North. yards. --- ■■■■1■■■■■■■■■�IGr:W i11f1���11'R �F' ��CiCi>.. s, ram.. •e 11112 cIII ■ ''' �� � NAME MNER-ME 'iiiiiiii .: !■�L �f Y ! t i � = ■■■■■■.■■■..■..■.■■ n�I ■■■■■i■■°iiiiii �ii■■:.■.■...,l r L Isom' ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■is In I MENOMONIE ONE = ■■■■■■■■■■Ott',.:.._ : �r1g VOi ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■il■r�e!�i/■■■■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■■O■■■E■■t�■■■■■■■■■■■O■■OEEGri�:f■EM■E■I iiiii:�r■���®i�■a:.■iiiiii _ 'Sol■OO■'1■O■E■ii�■�lli1■�■It1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEMO■■■■■MI ■■■■Eli■M■EE■Irk■i1■■■■ICI■■■■■■■■■O■OE■■EEO■■■EEM■■I - ■■■■hHI■■OO■E[■/3■EA■lil■■■■■■■O■■■■■■■■O■■Oso ■■OE■■1 = '; i�■■■■Ri,Imom MORE No I■■■■wR■r7EE■ril■C::.O■�r!■E■■EE■EE■■■E■EE■EEEEE■■■■ t■■■■■�i�t�l■E■■®■■■■■■ni■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■E■■■ IEEEi`■:■■■■■rl■r+■■■�i■■■!!■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ONEMENE No . o sommomomon iW'■lNEG�~f~ii.wow■��Nno an mama ��■■�rim■■■■■un■■�■■■■■■■monsoon ■■■■!■■ - .. . • . tt�.iiiiin■i� in n i -• e s CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO st. Copy CODE OFFICERAPPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT ?nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone ..,.,,_ Srd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR ..... kh Copy APPLICANT Date................................. 19... fhe undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspect >II construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, anor.) d con- orm to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. • ■ •- 1 LOT SIZE: Frontage '7 Depth '-7. Lot No. OWNER -�■■■■ WATER SUPPLY: Public Private SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public 'Ef Septic Tank [I permit Vic■■■■■ e■■ ROAD O•layout) ELEC. WIRING: Underground ■ Overhead ■ Permit # •—�0©©Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side —and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass Point indicating North. ®ate■■®®■ �f ■■■■■■ ■. ■J�■■■■_■■■■■■�■■ ■.■.■■.■■■�■_■�■■�C�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■. ■■■■_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Wvl■1 ■ �= ■ ■■■�■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■MEN ■■■■■■■■SEMI ■C■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■ MOM ■■■■■■■■■■■1 �: ■■■■.■.....f..■.■■.■.■■■.■■■■■.■■■■■.■■■■.■■■I - . - ■■■■■■■11...■�.IEEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■Ifl■■■I ■■■■■;■■fla■■■■;f I■■■:� R] ��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■It■■■m = ■/■■■,.■. SEES ■■■o■■ ■�I ■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i>e'r■■■■ NEI �` ■■■■■'■pia■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■�I■■■■■i�■■1■■ I�':9 ■■L/■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■ IEEE■ ® Ia■f F7■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■i�■■■■ ■ ■ mom ■■■■■aoii����lilli■�1■■ ° ■■fi■■■f '1i.■■i■■■■■■�k�l SEES■....: ..-�—�. ll . C ,M ,• 1, .fi■■/■■I e.er , �■:■■■■■■1°L icylfP�1lA9 7:5:.3i ■F ■■/ C'■■■■Litnil■■■ ■■■ - • ■ ■■■■■�'1 MENU ■■■ SEES■ ._.....■a.....�,-_-�■,......f ■■■■■■ail@Son �t kz��■�;;�■■■�■■f a®SEES a�■■■fe ■n■i■■■i■■■■■ ■, >I■■■■■■■■■■■ .: •. /�■■■�■■■■■■■■■IEEE■' ■■■1:iiF�.r=1�i�■�■�■■■■■■■■■ :: f•Yfti•f>ftf1■■■�■■■■■■■ I�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ _ ■■■■■■■0■■■■■■ifrN■■EY11i■ill■■■■■■'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ IN on ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ •• ■f�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ = ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �EE�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ SEES■■ = = ■ -E COMPUTATION $ Plans received Yes ❑ n' SIGNATURE of OWNER or BUILDER ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED LiAPPROVED L] �� ` ` �a SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER SUED TO ate ` ' 1 PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED 21211101 CITY OF SOUTH BUP" -NOTON i APPLICATION FOR Z,- ANG PERMIT PERMIT NO 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd Copy CITY ENGINEER 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR / �J / Zone 1. 4th Copy APPLICANT ¢ Date..sr�... ............................. 1 The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if r All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermo form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now In effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET f l OCCUPANCY j;,� NUMBER i �t FLOORS Single Family B 1 2 3 LOT SIZE: Frontage y r � , Depth Lot No. Two Family Cement �/ Apartment No. Fam. Earth OWNER �� �.r• r / ! , t ` r BUILDERStore - Offices Pine WATER SUPPLY: Public l�l Private ❑ Hard Wood Warehouse Tile SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public fit Attic FI. & Strs. No: Can Dt.TF At Gas Station INTERIOR FINISH Adglltions-Alterations 8 1 2 3 FOUNDATION Pine Concrete Hardwood Concrete Block Sheatrock Brick or Stone Unfinished Piers - Paneling Caller Area Full % % Recreat RRoom No Cellar 777�. EXTERIOR WALLS HEATING Wide Siding Plpeless Furnace Drop Siding Hot Alr Furnace No Sheathing Forced Air Furn. Wood Shingles j Steam Asbas. Shingles Hot Wet. or Vapor Stucco on Frame No Heating Stucco on Tile Electric Brick Veneer Gas Burner Brick on Ills Oil Burner Solid Brick Solar Panels Stone Veneer PLUMBING Conc. or Clnd. BI. Bathroom Toilet Room Terra Cotte Water Closet Vltrollta Kitchen' Sink Plate Glass Std. Wat Heat Insulation Auto. Wat. Hset Weatherstrip Elect. Wet. Syst. Laundry Tubs ROOFING No Plumbing Asph. Shingles Wood Shin a TILING Asbas Shingles Bath Fl. & Woot Slate Toilet Ff. & Wcot, Tile LIGHTING Metal Electric Composition No U tin Roll Roofing NO. OF ROOMS Bsmt 2nd. 1st 3rd. ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit ELEC. WIRING: Underground ❑ Overhead Permit r'ot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front. Side and Mark N at Compass point Indicating North. PROPERTY LINE Remarks ❑ Demolition [� Utilities closed ❑ ` Estimated Cost �� y J FEE COMPUTATION $, - ,.I- � i Plans received Yes .1 P SIG ATURE of N or BUILDER ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED APPROVED Q� !✓._ <_ �.% `;f SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO " �, �-i' tl Z4 -e ,.,r Date / PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO lat. Copy CODE OFFICER APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 2nd COPY CITY ENGINEER k * 3rd.Copy CITY ASSESSOR Zone 4th Copy APPLICANT Date The undersigned hereby applies for permission co make certain building improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET OCCUPANCY FLOORS NUMBER Single Family 13 1 2 3 LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth Lot No. Two Family — Cement OWNER BUILDER Apartment No. Fam. Earth A., I , ". Store Pine WATER SUPPLY: Public Ej Private E] Offices Hard Wood Warehouse Tile SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public ❑ Septic Tank E] Permit Carpet ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Res. Garage Attic Fl. & Strs. Permit No. Cars Dot. Att, ELEC. WIRING: Underground El Overhead F Gas Station Permit # INTERIOR FINISH Additions -Alterations 0," B 1 2 3 Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. FOUNDATION Pine Mark N at Compass point indicating North. Concrete Hardwood Concrete Block Sheatrock Brick or Stone Unfinished Piers Panoling Caller Area Full Recreat. Room No Collar Finished Attic Fireplace EXTERIOR WALLS Clapboards HEATING Wide Siding Pipeless Furnace Drop Siding Hot Air Furnace No Sheathing Forced A.r Fur. Wood Shingles _Zb... Shingles FIot wat. or Vapor - - - - - t - - - - --- Stucco on Frame _Til. No Heating Stucco on Electric Brick Veneer Gas Burner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- Brick on Tile --iorld _Brick Oil Burner - - Solar - - --- - - Stone Veneer PLUMBING - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Conc. or Cind. BI. Bathroom Toilet Room - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Terra Cotta Water Closet - - - -- - - - - - - Vitralite Kitchen Sink Plate Glass Std. Wat Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - linsulatIO t Auto. �.. Heat -1 J L Weatherstrip Elect,. Wat. Syst. _LLL x, ' PROPERTY LINE J Remarks El Demolition El Utilities closed 0 z6l_ V., -zi✓ Estimated COS`J Laundry Tubs ROOFING Asph. Shingles No Plumbing Wood Shingles TILING Zbes. Shingles Bath Fl. & Wcot. Slate Toilet Fl. & Wcot. Tile LIGHTING Metal Electric Composition No Lighting Roll Roofing NO. OF ROOMS Mt. FEE COMPUTATION, SIGNATUFt of OWNER or BUILDER, APPLICATION: REJECTED Ei APPROVED ISSUED TO Date 19 Plans received Yes 0 No 0 ADDRESS of OWNER C-11 SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTI-IS 1 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO .ram` APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone. ..... 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date",✓�� .fir- .... .... .... 19 ..... �. The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET, , „�,w,�>� NUMBER a , OCCUPANCY FLOORS °-- LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth^; Lot No. Single Family B 1 2 3 i Two Family Cement �/J Apartment No. Fam. Earth OWNER �/ yr1�e�G'� �r BUILDER Store Pine Offices Hardwood Warehouse Tile Carpet Res. -Garage - Attic FI. & Strs. No. Cars Det.❑ Att. Gas Station INTERIOR FINISH Additions-AlterationsYB 1 2 3 FOUNDATION Pine Concrete Hardwood WATER SUPPLY: Public p Private ❑ SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public p Septic Tank ❑ Permit ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # ELEC. WIRING: Underground ❑ Overhead ❑ Permit # Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point indicating North. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■"mm Recreat. Room M Finished Attic ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■ Hot Air Furnace PLUMBING — Bathroom MEN Kitchen Sink Std. _Wat. Heat ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■t■■■■■■■■■. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ -so _ all. I 061LOMA 0 0 . • e Pt, MI 1 ,11 '' 1 ' f . 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 17, 2000 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance, 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Levesque: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and comments from the Fire Department and myself. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ymond J. Belau Administrative Officer RJB/mcp Encls MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: South Burlington Fire Department Re: March 21, 2000 agenda items Date: March 14, 2000 ERNEST LEVESQUE, JR. - 195 HINESBURG ROAD Recommended Denial JOHN LARKIN - IRISH FARM - ALLEN ROAD Sprinklered multi -family units MALCOM WILLARD - 1100 HINESBURG ROAD — Building must be sprinklered — Hydrants should be depicted on plans STEPHEN & SHONA UNSWORTH - FAR WATER, LTD — Sprinklered buildings required — Bad access to buildings west I & 2 — No turn-around's DORSET SQUARE ASSOCIATES - 150 DORSET STREET Acceptable Lighting: All exterior lighting will be downcasting and shielded. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant should submit details of proposed lights to the Director of Planning & Zoning for approval. Access easement: The applicant should record an access easement prior to permit issuance for the properties to the north to enable them to use the 24 ft. r.o.w. through this property. This easement should be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording. The exact location of the easement should be determined at a later date prior to its construction. Sidewalk: Staff recommends that the applicant construct a sidewalk on the west side of Hinesburg Load. Dempster: A screened dumpster storage area is provided. Sewer: Sewer allocation has not been requested at this time. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. Other: Since the proposed structure will be significantly down -slope from Hinesburg Road, the parking lot will perhaps be more visible than the building. The parking area will appear to be the front yard of the structure from Hinesburg Road. In an area where parking lots are currently not visible from the road, the proposed plans will not be aesthetically compatible with surrounding developed properties. Section 26.151 (Planned Unit Developments) requires under criteria h that projects `,xill not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic natural beauty of the area, is aesthetically compatible with surrounding developed properties, and will protect rare and irreplaceable natural areas and historic sites." Staff recommends that the site be designed as previously approved with the building along the road and all the parking behind the building. 7) VARIANCE REOUEST ERNEST LEVESOUE9 JR — THIRD RENTAL UNIT AND ACCESSORY .APARTMENT, 195 HINESBURG ROAD 1&. Levesque is seeking 1) a variance from Section 25.00 Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements, and 2) a variance from Section 26.75, Accessory Residential Units, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission 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. This property is located in the Residential 4 District. In order for the Development Review Board to grant a variance the five criteria (refer to Section 4468 of the Planning and Development Act of 1969) must be met. Staff has cited the applicant for adding two (2) dwelling units to the dwelling without a zoning permit. This application appears to be an attempt to legitimize the additional units. Section 25.00 Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements Variance Criteria: 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 no exceptional topographical features. 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. ® The unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellant. • 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. 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. Section 26.75, Accessory Residential Unit Variance Criteria: ® 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. 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. 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. 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 9 the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will be detrimental to the public welfare. 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. Staff recommends denial of Mr. L,evesque's requests for variances based on the apparent lack of conformance with the criteria. 7) JOHN iLARKI T — HARBOR SUNSET EXTENDED D STAY HOTEL — AMENDED SITE PLAN FORLANDSCAPING, 1700 SHEL BURNE ROAD The proposed project consists of amending a previously approved site plan for a 70 unit hotel approved on January 10, 1998 (minutes enclosed) to reflect landscaping changes. The applicant had obtained administrative approval to plant 19 Mugo Pines four to five feet in height in place of 16 Scotch fines of the same height on September 24, 1999. The applicant planted Mugo fines that were a foot or less in height and requests approval for the landscaping currently in place. The project area lies within the Commercial 2 District. The property is bounded on the west by Shelburne road, on the south by another hotel, and on the east and north by undeveloped parcels. Landscaping: The original approval of this project's site plan called for evergreen trees four to five feet in height to be planted along the eastern border of the property to screen the undeveloped parcel from the hotel. This undeveloped parcel is up slope from the hotel and any development that would occur on the parcel would have a direct view of the hotel's parking and utilities. The evergreens were intended to screen the two properties. The Mugo Pines that have been planted provide an insufficient screen and have a slow rate of growth. Staff recommends that the applicant consider additional landscaping or replacing the existing Mugo Pines with a variety of Austrian Pines, White Pines, Arborvitae or other evergreen trees four to five feet in height that would provide suitable screening. 10 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Final plat application of Allen Road Land Company, Inc. to subdivide a 28.21 acre parcel into two (2) parcels of 4.45 acres and 23.76 acres and to further develop the 23.76 acre parcel as a planned residential development of 35 lots resulting in: 1) 32 single family lots, 2) a 12 unit multi -family development consisting of six (6) duplexes, 3) a 2.48 acre open space lot, and 4) a 2.72 acre proposed city park, 200 Allen Road. 2) Final plat application of Dorset Square Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 54,480 square foot shopping center with four (4) buildings. The amendments consist of: 1) temporary blocking the easterly access to Market Street, and 2) eliminating condition 2b of the 10/19/99 approval, 150 Dorset Street. 3) Application of Ernest L. Levesque, Jr. seeking: 1) a variance from Section 25.00, Area Density and Dimensional Requirements, and 2) a variance from Section 26.75, Accessory Residential Units, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to: 1) add a third residential unit on a 15,000 square foot lot currently developed with a two (2) family dwelling (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. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board March 4, 2000 To: Applicants From: Sarah MacCallum, City of South Burlington RE: Project Staff Notes Date: March 3, 2000 VR-00-01 Variance Request by Ernest Levesque, Jr. — third rental unit & accessory apartment —195 Hinesburg Road Previous Action. Zoning Administrative Officer Appeal— accessory residential unit — 195 Hinesburg Road — Zoning Board of Adjustment upheld the Officer's decision resulting from a ruling on Section 26.75 of the Zoning Ordinances, May 10, 1999. Overview. Mr. Levesque is requesting a variance to add a third rental unit and an accessory apartment to his duplex at 195 Hinesburg Road in the Residential 4 District. In order for the Development Review Board to grant a variance five criteria (refer to Section 4468 of the Planning and Development Act of 1969) must be met. Below is a review of how the proposed project meets these five criteria. Issues. ■ 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. • 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 unnecessary hardship has been created by the appellant. ® 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. ® 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. Completeness of Plan: The applicant has submitted sufficient information for Development Review Board to consider the variance. Recommendation: Staff recommends that this application be authorized to proceed for Development Review Board consideration. 1) Staff recommends denial of this variance request based on the apparent lack of conformance with the five criteria listed above. PUBLIC HE��a�IA tCfi1JT-I l;F!_INCT�h! ❑ElEL�FAr1LVT f REJIE'N JAr D i Tie South urlington JI D.e eir prnent Review Snarl will 'gold 3 public hearing at I.he 304th Bur- Iingtcn City HailfConfer- ane¢ room, 575 Dorset, Street,. SoutlY Burlington. Vermonr cn -Tuesday, March 21, 2000. at 7.% P .M. to consider the rol- !owing; 1. Final plat application i of Allen Road Land Coni 'I parry, Inc. to subdivide a, 28.21 acre parcel into two [21 parcels of 4.45 and 23.76'r acres and to further develop the 23.76 acre parcel as a planned residential development of 35' lots resulting in: 1"1 132 single family lots. 21 a ` i 12:, unit multl4amily de, velopment consisting of: six [61 duplexes, 31. a 2.48 acre open space lot, and 41 a 2.72 acre pro- posed city park, 200 Al- len Road. 21 Final plat application o Dorset Square Asseci- s ates to amend a, previ- ously approved planned unit development consis ling of a 54,480 square, foot shopping center with four [4] buildings. The amendments consist of: 11 temporary blocking the easterly access to Market Street, and "1 eliminating condition 2b of the 10/19/99 approval, 150 Dorset Street. 31 application of Ernest I L. Levesque. Jr. seeking: 11 a variance 'rom Sec- tion '25,00, Area, Density'. and Dimensional Re- quirements, and 21 a vari- 3nce from Section=5.'r5. Accessory Residential Jnits. of 'she South But- - lington Zoning Regula- lions. Request is for per - I mission to: 11 add a third 15. 060 cu!:zre root "�z n !,., ;Earn m!tti a sec ':11 'arnflv<y�i�M1relling aini,nutr, h)t :ize re- ;uir^n, . :2,670 souare et9, anc ::1 ado an ac- i �« ssciv resr entry unit the exisani two [21; iar'nii}r welifng. 195 Hi- E - 1 Copies of the applica- �I t+ons are rivailable for residential ..0 rc inspection at the Fouth Surling— mr. City Hall. Jcnn Dinkiage, Chairma.n Sleuth Suningtcn _,evelopment Review Euard ","arch 4, 20,30 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 7, 2000 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Variance Request by Ernest Levesque, Jr. — third rental unit & accessory apartment — 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Levesque: Enclosed please are preliminary staff comments on the above referenced project. If you wish to respond, please do so by March 14, 2000. The project is currently scheduled to go before the Development Review Board on March 21, 2000. Please be sure someone is present to present your request at 7:30PM. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCailum Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. IMPORTANT PLEASE READ PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPELLANTS TO THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Zoning Board of Adjustments a quasi-judicial body empowered to hear appeals to the Zoning Regulations. These regulations have the force and effect of law. It is the responsibility of you, the petitioner to present your documented arguments as to why the Board should grant a variance in your case. The Board has little discretionary power and each of the following five criteria must be met before the Board can grant a variance. Not one - three or four but all of the following facts must be found by the Board before a variance can be granted. Please come prepared to present all the facts necessary for the Board to make an objective and intelligent decision. (Refer to Section 4468 of the Planning and Development Act of 1969 for further clarification). 1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topography or other physical condition as peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. 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 regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. 3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. 4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. 5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. All petitioners are expected to make a presentation in an expedient and reasonable may Failure to do so could result in a tabled action by the Zoning Board. THESE ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR AN ORAL PRESENTATION, THF- BE BROUGHT TO THE MEETING IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ Presentation requirements for applicants to the Zoning Board of Adjustment: Any use designated as a conditional use is subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to present documented evidence as to why the Board should grant the application. The following criteria must be met before the Board can grant approval All petitioners are expected to make a presentation in an expedient and reasonable manner. Failure to do so could result in a tabled action by the Zoning Board. 1) That the proposed use complies with the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed is to be located; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect: a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. b) The character of the area affected. c) Traffic on road and highways in the vicinity. d) Bylaws then in affect or; e) Utilization of renewal energy resources. f) General public health and welfare. THESE ARE GUIDELINES FOR AN ORAL PRESENTATION, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE MEETING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 26, 1999 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, April 26, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Dennis Johnson, Acting Chair; Lance Llewellyn, Randall Kay, and Mary Anne Murray Members Absent: Fred Blais and George Chamberland Others Present: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Lou Bresee, Bill Spalding, Greg Rabideau, Mark Hill, Michael Dugan, John Larkin, Bill Shearer and Dave Flagg. Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 and advised the appellants that there were only four members of the Board in attendance and according to State law all must vote affirmatively for an appeal to be approved. He informed them that if any time they wished to withdraw they could do so without penalty and seek a continuance. Mr. Johnson then proceeded to swear in those who planned to give testimony. Appeal 41 - John Larkin - Allenwood/Harbor View Elderly Housing Projects - 90 Allen Road and 16 t1arbor View Road 1.1 Seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Dimensional requirements. Request is for permission to erect a 14' x 40' canopy covered pedestrian walkway between two (2) elderly housing complexes to within zero (0) feet of the rear property line, located at 90 Allen Road and 16 Harbor view Road. 1.2 Mr. Ward said the area is zoned C-2. Section 25.00 dimensional requirements. Minimum rear yard 30 feet, proposed zero (0) feet. Proposed canopy 14' x 40' covering walkway between two existing elderly housing projects. Constructing canopy across rear property lines. Mr. Llewellyn indicated that he needed to step down from this hearing, thus leaving only three board members. 1.3 The appeal was continued until the May 10, 1999 meeting. Appeal #2 -Ernest and Donna Levesque - 195 Hinesburg Road 2.1 Seeking an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer, resulting from a ruling on Section 26.75 Accessory residential unit of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations for a property located at 195 Hinesburg Road. „ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1999 2.2 Mr. Ward said that the area is zoned R-4 District. Existing use two (2) family dwelling and detached 28' x 28' (two story) garage. Section 26.75 Accessory residential units where a single family residence is permitted, one accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary singlefamily residential unit shall be permitted. Levesque property developed with a two (2) family dwelling. Granted a variance to dimensional requirements September 14, 1984. Applicant requesting to convert garage including an addition into an accessory apartment under Section 26.75. Mr. Ward said it was his opinion that converting the garage under 26.75 is not permitted. Conversion of the garage creates three (3) residential units on one lot. This results in a variance not a conditional use. There units on one lot is also considered a subdivision. Mr. Ward referenced a letter dated March 24, 1999 from Mr. Levesque appealing that decision. 2.3 Mr. Levesque was not present at this hearing, therefore, the appeal was tabled until the May 10, 1999 meeting. Appeal 4 3 - Mark hill/Albert Reyes - 1691 Shelburne Road 3.1 Seeking approval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses, subsection 13.225 automobile service & repair. Request is for permission to construct a 3295 square foot automobile oil and lube drive-thru facility on a lot containing 3.7 acres, located at 1691 Shelburne Road. 3.2 Mr. Ward said the area is zoned C-2 district. Section 13.20 Conditional uses -subsection 13.225 automobile repair and service (Section 26.05 applies). Proposed use oil and lube drive thru facility containing 3295 square feet. Lot 161,948 square feet (3.72 acres) 310 foot frontage. Lot coverage 13.3%, all setbacks in compliance. Mr. Ward indicated that the current driveway will be closed and replaced with one that will be moved to the northern end of the property. 3.3 Mr. Llewellyn said that he represents the abutting property owner and indicated that he didn't feel that it would be a problem. Mr. Johnson agreed and asked the appellant if he felt it would be a conflict? Mr. Dugan replied that he did not feel that it would be. 3.4 Mr. Dugan shared a picture of what the facility would look like and indicated that Mr. Hill has a similar facility in Essex. It will be a oil and lube drive through, there will be two bays for oil and lubes and two bays for minor service. Mr. Hill said they basically do preventative maintenance. Mr. Dugan said the Agency on Transportation wants their access to the southern edge of the property due to long range plans for Shelburne Road which include a median. It will be a right turn into the property and a right turn out. 3.5 Mr. Llewellyn asked about traffic numbers. Mr. Dugan replied that according to Pinkham 2 -ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1999 Engineering the average daily traffic would be 100 trip ends per day in and out, a.m. and p.m. peak hour would be 15. Peak hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. based on the operation in Essex, peak day would be Saturday, Mr. Dugan said. Actual hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Mr. Hill said. Mr. Johnson asked how many cars they expected on a daily basis? Mr. Dugan replied probably 50 to 55 during the week and perhaps 60 to 65 on Saturday. 3.6 Mr. Llewellyn expressed concern about having two drive -ways next to each other and suggested that the two driveways be combined to alleviate a safety problem. There was a brief discussion regarding where the median would go and the AOT curb cut location. Mr. Dugan said that this proposed curb cut is not in the best location for their business but they understand the need for it due to the median placement. Mr. Llewellyn said that perhaps they would have another opinion if they were aware that there were two driveways side by side. 3.7 Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Dugan to address the criteria. 1) The proposed use is in compliance and is allowed in this zone. 2a) There is no impact, the water and sewer use will be minimal. The gallon usage will be approximately 125/gallons per day, there are eight employees, there will be some hand washing and there will be a visitors toilet. This usage is based on the opening of the new treatment plant. 2b) No adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. 2c) No adverse impact. Average trip ends is 100 per day, with 15 in the a.m. peak hour and 15 in the p.m. peak hour. Mrs. Murray asked how that would not impact on traffic in the area? Mr. Dugan replied that with the future plans for Shelburne Road it would put the additional trip ends to the southern section and would not impede the traffic flow. A brief discussion regarding the peak hour trip ends took place and Mr. Johnson stated he felt that it would be a minimal impact and that most of the vehicles would be on the road anyway. Mr. Llewellyn said he would still like Mr. Flagg and Mr. Hill discuss a mutual driveway. Mr. Dugan said that it is a safety issue and they would have a discussion and resolve it. 2d) No adverse impact. 2e) Mr. Dugan said that they currently use waste oil furnaces in the Essex operation and will use something similar on Shelburne Road until that changes. 2f) No adverse impact except for the safety issues discussed earlier. 3.8 Mr. Johnson asked if there were any further questions from the Board or anyone in the audience? Bill Shearer expressed concerns about dust and dirt during construction. Mr. Johnson said that would be a Planning Commission issue. Mr. Ward said that the two landowners would have to work it out among themselves. Mr. Shearer also expressed 3 Z13NING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1999 some concern with regard to the height of the building. Mr. Johnson said the building -was-in compliance with -regulations. Mr: -Johnson -asked -if there were any -further questions? Hearing or seeing none, he called the question. The appeal was granted unanimously. Appeal #4 - Patrick and Terese Aver - 4 Berard Drive 4.1 Seeking approval from Section 15.205 Conditional uses automobile repair and service. Request is for permission to occupy 1060 square feet auto. glass repair shop in conjunction with an autobody shop, located at 4 Berard Drive. 4.2 This appeal was withdrawn. Minutes and Findings of Fact of April 12, 1999 5.1 Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mr. Kay seconded the motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 1999 as presented. The motion was approved. 5.2 Mrs. Murray moved and Mr. Llewellyn seconded the motion to approve the Findings of Fact for April 12, 1999. The motion was approved. Adjournment There being no further business to conduct, Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. Clerk South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment 1 l;54 .19 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 10, 1999 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, May 10, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Dennis Johnson, Acting Chair; Lance Llewellyn, Randall Kay, and Mary Anne Murray Members Absent: Fred Blais and George Chamberland Others Present: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Sonny Audette, Bill Eckhardt, Mike Raimulle, Staige Davis, Doug Reed, Tom Hubbard, John Russell, Ernest Levesque, . Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 and advised the appellants that there were only four members of the Board in attendance and according to State law all must vote affirmatively for an appeal to be approved. He informed them that if any time they wished to withdraw they could do so without penalty and seek a continuance. Mr. Johnson then proceeded to swear in those who planned to give testimony. Appeal #1 -H.F.B. & Lang Realty - 550 Hinesburg Road 1.1 Seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Dimensional requirements (allowable lot coverage). Request if for permission to construct an awning covered entryway on northerly side of existing building (approximately 226 square feet) and install additional sidewalk approximately 620 square feet for an overall lot coverage of sixty-two (62) percent located at 550 Hinesburg Road. 1.2 Mr. Ward said the area is zoned Residential 7 District. Section 25.00 lot coverage requirements - maximum 25% building and 60% overall, building, parking and outside storage. Proposed awning covered entryway, northerly side of building approximately 226 square feet and additional sidewalk approximately 620 square feet for a maximum lot coverage of 62%. 1.3 Mr. Johnson asked if the awning was considered a building and why? Mr. Ward said it was because of coverage. 1.4 Doug Reed said that having been on a planning commission at one point, he was questioned whether walks were considered part of coverage. It seems, he said, buildings, parking and outside storage is coverage but grass, walks, and pedestrian areas are all in open space, and asked if that was the intent in South Burlington, that sidewalks would not be part of the coverage? Mr. Johnson said he didn't believe that they had included sidewalkspreviously, but was not sure. Mr. Reed said that -when they had calculated their, numbers they had included sidewalks as coverage, if they are not to be included, then they are 474 square feet under the allowable. If that is the case, they would not need to seeking a variance. 1.4 Mr. Ward asked that they work it in reverse and would need to come up with 40% green space because what was grass will now be sidewalk. Mr. Llewellyn asked if these percentages had been verified. Mr. Johnson indicated he would like to see a definition of green space. Reference to Section 25.00 was made in response to asking where the definition of green space was located in the regulations. Mr. Reed also referenced 26.10 under Site Plan and Review. 1.5 Mr. Reed said that by putting in a sidewalk they would be separating the pedestrians and cars, he indicated there were other tenants in the building and this would allow them to maintain this other entrance. This would allow the real estate clients easy access to the building. The building is surrounded by open land, there will no trees cut and there is lots of greenery. 1.6 Mr. Johnson asked if this was considered a change in use? Mr. Ward replied negatively and said it is already approved for office space. Mr. Johnson asked if the traffic load would be higher, Mr. Ward said no. Mr. Johnson questioned why they felt they had to have the sidewalk? The response from Mr. Reed was that it would allow the clients to walk in front of the cars versus behind them. Mr. Llewellyn asked about curb cuts, snow removal and drainage. Mr. Reed responded by saying he was not absolutely sure the curb cuts were there already, that they would push the snow away from the building and that drainage would not be a problem as there is a catch basin there now. 1.7 Mr. Llewellyn asked if they could get under the 60%. Mr. Reed responded by saying the question was whether or not the walkway is part of the coverage, if it isn't, then they don't have a problem and are under that percentage. Mr. Johnson said that the pavement is clearly taking of green space but the definition of open space versus green space is somewhat ambiguous.. He also indicated to Mr. Reed that the would have a hard time with Criteria #3 because everything that is being requested is being done by the appellant. Mr. Reed said he felt that the question depended on the definition of coverage. Section 26.10 clearly states, he said, building, parking and outside storage. After further discussion, Mr. Ward recommended that they seek a legal opinion from the attorney regarding the sidewalk coverage issue and come back to this at the next meeting. Mr. Kay moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to continue this appeal until a legal opinion has been obtained and if it is favorable to the appellant there would be no need to return for a variance, or if the sidewalk is removed they would not need to return either. The motion was approved unanimously. 2 Appeal # 2 - City of South Burlington - Recreation Department 2.1 Seeking a variance from Section 25.101 Dimensional requirements. Request is for _ ...__ -- permission to construct a recreational structure (baseball dugout 24' x 261) to within thirty- vive (35) feet of the Dorset Street right-of-way located at Dorset park, Dorset & Swift Streets. 2.2 Mr. Ward said this is zoned Park and Recreational District. Section 25.101 - minimum setback 50 feet from Planned right-of-way, Planned r.o.w. 100 feet, existing 66 feet. Proposed 24' x 26' baseball dug -out to within thirty-five (35) feet of existing right-of-way. Two existing dug -outs granted variance 4/25/95. 2.3 Mr. Kay moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to approve the variance subject to the approval of the April 25,1995 variance and apply that criteria to the this third dugout with all other things being equal. Mr. Johnson verified that nothing had changed in any of the physical dimensions since April, 1995. The motion was approved unanimously. Appeal 43 -John & Lynn Russell - 30 Brigham Road 3.1 Seeking a variance from Section 26.002 Alteration of non -complying structure. Request if for permission to demolish existing 20' x 42' detached garage and guest apartment and replace with new structure. Existing structure is located to within nine (9) feet of northerly side yard and 180 feet of the front yard located at 30 Brigham Road 3.2 Mr. Ward said this is zoned Residential I and Conservation - Open Space District. Section 25.00 Alterations of non -complying structures. F.M.V. of garage/apartment $1200 City Assessor records. Existing garage 20' x 22' and apartment 20' x 20' located to within nine (9) feet of northerly side yard and 180 feet of front yard. Proposed by applicant is replacement of structure (estimated cost $6500 to $8,000) in same location. 3.3 Mr. Johnson asked if the structure would be the same size, have the same setback and footprint? The response was affirmative. Mr. Johnson asked why he needed a variance in that case? Mr. Ward said that you can't extend a non -conforming structure. Mr. Kay asked if it would be in the same location? Mr. Russell said that they had received extensive water damage due to broken water pipes. His original intent was to tear the apartment off and replace it. When repairs began they found that everything was rotted and the decision was made that it wasn't worth saving. When they began rebuilding they didn't rebuild on piers which is what they would have done if they had just done the apartment. What they have now is a slab and what was there before was a slab and piers. They straightened out the jut that was there and while they didn't expand it they raised it up slightly. Mr. Johnson asked how much higher it was and if it obstructed the view. The response was that it approximately seven or eight feet higher but that it was still under the 35 feet allowed and did not obstruct the view. 3.4 Mr. Kay asked the neighbor if he had any problems with the structure? The response was no, that it likely would enhance the neighborhood as the previous structure had not looked gob 3.5 Mr. Johnson proposed that the Board accept the written testimony from Mr. Russell addressing the criteria and decide if they will approve the variance based on this testimony. Mr. Kay said he would second that and include comments from the neighbor indicating that he had no problem with it. Mrs. Murray said it might be better if C4.1 criteria #5 emphasized that the variance was necessary due to the structural damame. The Board agreed. Mr. Johnson asked if everyone was in agreement to use the written testimony as testimony for this variance? Mr. Johnson asked if there were further questions of either Mr. Ward or the appellant? Hearing or seeing none, he called the question. The variance was approved unanimously. Appeal 44 - Tabled appeal of.lohn Larking (appeal #1, April 26, 19n) 4.1 Request to erect a 14' x 40' canopy covered pedestrian walkway between two (2) elderly housing complexes, located at 90 Allen Road and 16 Harbor View Road. 4.2 This appeal was tabled until the next meeting. Appeal #5 -Ernest and Donna Levesque - 195 HinesburpRoad (tabled appeal #2, April 26, 1999 5.1 Seeking an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer, resulting from a ruling on Section 26.75 Accessory residential unit of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations for a property located at 195 Hinesburg Road. 5.2 Mr. Ward said that the area is zoned R-4 District. Existing use two (2) family dwelling and detached 28' x 28' (two story) garage. Section 26.75 Accessory residential units where a single family residence is permitted, one accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single family residential unit shall be permitted. Levesque property developed with a two (2) family dwelling. Granted a variance to dimensional requirements September 14, 1984. Applicant requesting to convert garage including an addition into an accessory apartment under Section 26.75. Mr. Ward said it was his opinion that converting the garage under 26.75 is not permitted. Conversion of the garage creates three (3) residential units on one lot. This results in a variance not a conditional use. There units on one lot is also considered a subdivision. Mr. Ward referenced a letter dated March 24, 1999 from Mr. Levesque appealing that decision. 5.3 Mrs. Murray said she felt obligated to reveal that Mr. Levesque was a client of her office and wanted to be sure people were comfortable with that. Mr. Johnson said he didn't feel 4 N it was an issue as Mr. Levesque was not asking for a variance or conditional use, but rather an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He asked Mr. Levesque if he had any problem with that? Mr. Levesque replied that his case was a totally separate - - issue, not retated to this in any way. lvIrs. Murray agreed. MT. Levesque said that fie ha no problem with Mrs. Murray's participation. Mr. Johnson clarified to Mr. Levesque that all four votes needed to be affirmative. 5.4 Mr. Ward said under the accessory residential units ordinance where a single family residence is permitted it say that an accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to the primary residential shall be permitted. On March 22, Mr. Levesque filed an application to convert his garage to an accessory apartment under that provision. Mr. Ward said that he felt that this does not conform to that by-law and his arguments are: 1) Presently his property has been developed under a variance 2) His primary residence on the property is a two family dwelling 3) He was granted a permit, under a variance, on 9/14/84 to convert a single family home to a two family dwelling. Because he already has this two family dwelling, Mr. Ward stated, he can't qualify for an accessory residential unit. The conversion of the garage would put a third unit on the property and would require a dimensional variance. Under State law, Mr. Ward said, an accessory residential apartment allows for a mother-in-law, in-laws, elderly and disabled. This is new in the statute, Mr. Ward said. 5.5 Mr. Ward said they do have some three unit dwellings in the general area and they have all been before either the Zoning Board or Planning Commission. He referenced the Goodrich property and the McGibney property. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Levesque's letter dated March 29, 1999 references this precedent. Mr. Ward said he felt in order to get this lot conversion it is a variance and would probably need review by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Murray asked about Section 26.65 regarding multiple structures? Mr. Ward said that would be another issue. He said he felt that he was trying to convert the garage under the accessory apartment. Mr. Johnson asked if the garage was attached. The response was no. The key word, Mr. Ward said, is accessory apartment. 5.6 Mr. Levesque referenced the McGibney property and the structures on that property. Mr .Johnson said that this property had been sub -divided into two lots. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Levesque what his intention was regarding the property? Mr. Levesque replied that he would move into the back so he could afford to stay in South Burlington, he referenced Act 60 and the increase in taxes and this accessory unit would help him to pay taxes. Mr. Johnson said that the accessory use is the question on the table and under the new guidelines which speak to the occupants of the accessory use. It sounds like you and your wife would move to the structure in the back and rent the two apartments in the front to whomever, most likely not family members. Mr. Levesque said that was true. Mr. Johnson said that puts, in his mind, him in a category of a sub -division, commercial use and seems not to qualify under the accessory use, because you don't have family in both structures. Mr. Levesque replied that you don't have to, the accessory unit would be occupied by he and his wife. Mr. Johnson said that presupposes that some member of your family lives in the other unit. Mr. Levesque said no, that it doesn't say that, that he was making a subjective observation. Mrs. Murray referenced Section 26.753 regarding the primary residential unit being occupied by the owner, and he could not be in both --" laces mt. reves- ue asked wh it was allowed -in the unit to tiffs north?-. Mt Johnson said P----- 9 --Y• that they had had to fix that. Mr. Johnson asked if what he was trying to do was make an accessory building into a primary residence and rent what was the primary residence? Mr. Johnson asked if that were true? Mr. Levesque replied affirmatively and asked what was wrong with that? Mr. Johnson said there was nothing wrong with it, but it wasn't applicable under the accessory use permit. It might be possible to apply for a conditional use and go before the Planning Commission and get a sub -division and do what he wants to do. Mr. Johnson went on to say that he had no problem with what Mr. Levesque was trying to do, but that this was not the place to be reviewing this request. 5.7 After further discussion, Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The motion was approved unanimously. Minutes and Findings of Fact of April 26, 1999 6.1 Mr. Kay moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 1999 as presented. The motion was approved. 6.2 Mrs. Murray moved and Mr. Llewellyn seconded the motion to approve the Findings of Fact for April 26, 1999. The motion was approved. Adjournment There being no further business to conduct, Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. Clerk South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment 1 71 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 24, 1999 Ernest Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation Dear Mr. Levesque: Please be advised that since you did not appeal my decision that you are in violation of the zoning regulations, the City has no choice but to start legal action to obtain compliance with the zoning regulations. If you wish to discuss this matter, please give me a call. Sincerely,,, e, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 November 29, 1999 Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 0540; Dear Mr. Belair: This letter is in response to your letter of November 24, 1999. I did not appeal your decision that I was in violation of the zoning regulations. I was under the assumption, that you would make a delay making a decision concerning the room rentals in the back of my home until you could enter the North bedroom. We could not enter the North bedroom due to the fact that our roomers in our first floor home would not let us in to the room. Our attorney has had the Court serve papers to evict Mindey Richey and John Martel from our home. We have used this back section, of our home for our bedroom in the past and we will again, when the above are evicted. I hope that this will end the problem that does not exist in regards to not being in complience with the existing zoning regulations. As I had indicated before, as my children grew into high school age, we provided a quality private space for them to enjoy. This space is within the existing duplex as such and not apartments. We are in the process of downsizing our space and have our duplex on the market. We will no longer provide space for young people to get a start in life. By providing rooms within our first floor duplex, this opportunity will no longer exist. Sincerely, Ernie Sr 4' 00()o-q /q5 60ar-d Oi- Ad, Si��Ie-�rm�Iy uri�i- +o a k�o �5Ao lqq zr3A der�i� ��eof �ar��e iY�tG GCcesscr�� C(ooU4-)r�- I�f-- 3.4 Mr. Kay asked the neighbor if he had any problems with the structure? The response was no, that it likely would enhance the neighborhood as the previous structure had not looked good. 3.5 Mr. Johnson proposed that the Board accept the written testimony from Mr. Russell addressing the criteria and decide if they will approve the variance based on this testimony. Mr. Kay said he would second that and include comments from the neighbor indicating that he had no problem with it. Mrs. Murray said it might be better if C4.1 criteria #5 emphasized that the variance was necessary due to the structural damage. The Board agreed. Mr. Johnson asked if everyone was in agreement to use the written testimony as testimony for this variance? Mr. Johnson asked if there were further questions of either Mr. Ward or the appellant? Hearing or seeing none, he called the question. The variance was approved unanimously. Appeal #4 - Tabled appeal of John Larking (appeal #1, April 26, 1999) 4.1 Request to erect a 14' x 40' canopy covered pedestrian walkway between two (2) elderly housing complexes, located at 90 Allen Road and 16 Harbor View Road. 4.2 This appeal was tabled until the next meeting. Appeal #5 -Ernest and Donna Levesque - 195 Hinesburg Road (tabled appeal #2, April 26, MM 5.1 Seeking an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer, resulting from a ruling on Section 26.75 Accessory residential unit of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations for a property located at 195 Hinesburg Road. 5.2 Mr. Ward said that the area is zoned R-4 District. Existing use two (2) family dwelling and detached 28' x 28' (two story) garage. Section 26.75 Accessory residential units where a single family residence is permitted, one accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single family residential unit shall be permitted. Levesque property developed with a two (2) family dwelling. Granted a variance to dimensional requirements September 14, 1984. Applicant requesting to convert garage including an addition into an accessory apartment under Section 26.75. Mr. Ward said it was his opinion that converting the garage under 26.75 is not permitted. Conversion of the garage creates three (3) residential units on one lot. This results in a variance not a conditional use. There units on one lot is also considered a subdivision. Mr. Ward referenced a letter dated March 24, 1999 from Mr. Levesque appealing that decision. 5.3 Mrs. Murray said she felt obligated to reveal that Mr. Levesque was a client of her office and wanted to be sure people were comfortable with that. Mr. Johnson said he didn't feel it was an issue as Mr. Levesque was not asking for a variance or conditional use, but rather an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He asked Mr. Levesque if he had any problem with that? Mr. Levesque replied that his case was a totally separate issue, not related to this in any way. Mrs. Murray agreed. Mr. Levesque said that he had no problem with Mrs. Murray's participation. Mr. Johnson clarified to Mr. Levesque that all four votes needed to be affirmative. 5.4 Mr. Ward said under the accessory residential units ordinance where a single family residence is permitted it say that an accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to the primary residential shall be permitted. On March 22, Mr. Levesque filed an application to convert his garage to an accessory apartment under that provision. Mr. Ward said that he felt that this does not conform to that by-law and his arguments are: 1) Presently his property has been developed under a variance 2) His primary residence on the property is a two family dwelling 3) He was granted a permit, under a variance, on 9/14/84 to convert a single family home to a two family dwelling. Because he already has this two family dwelling, Mr. Ward stated, he can't qualify for an accessory residential unit. The conversion of the garage would put a third unit on the property and would require a dimensional variance. Under State law, Mr. Ward said, an accessory residential apartment allows for a mother-in-law, in-laws, elderly and disabled. This is new in the statute, Mr. Ward said. 5.5 Mr. Ward said they do have some three unit dwellings in the general area and they have all been before either the Zoning Board or Planning Commission. He referenced the Goodrich property and the McGibney property. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Levesque's letter dated March 29, 1999 references this precedent. Mr. Ward said he felt in order to get this lot conversion it is a variance and would probably need review by the Planning Commission, Mrs. Murray asked about Section 26.65 regarding multiple structures? Mr. Ward said that would be another issue. He said he felt that he was trying to convert the garage under the accessory apartment. Mr. Johnson asked if the garage was attached. The response was no. The key word, Mr. Ward said, is accessory apartment. 5.6 Mr. Levesque referenced the McGibney property and the structures on that property. Mr .Johnson said that this property had been sub -divided into two lots. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Levesque what his intention was regarding the property? Mr. Levesque replied that he would move into the back so he could afford to stay in South Burlington, he referenced Act 60 and the increase in taxes and this accessory unit would help him to pay taxes. Mr. Johnson said that the accessory use is the question on the table and under the new guidelines which speak to the occupants of the accessory use. It sounds like you and your wife would move to the structure in the back and rent the two apartments in the front to whomever, most likely not family members. Mr. Levesque said that was true. Mr. Johnson said that puts, in his mind, him in a category of a sub -division, commercial use and seems not to qualify under the accessory use, because you don't have family in both structures. Mr. Levesque replied that you don't have to, the accessory unit would be occupied by he and his wife. Mr. Johnson said that presupposes that some member of 5 your family lives in the other unit. Mr. Levesque said no, that it doesn't say that, that he was making a subjective observation. Mrs. Murray referenced Section 26.753 regarding the primary residential unit being occupied by the owner, and he could not be in both places. Mr. Levesque asked why it was allowed in the unit to his north? Mr. Johnson said that they had had to fix that. Mr. Johnson asked if what he was trying to do was make an accessory building into a primary residence and rent what was the primary residence? Mr. Johnson asked if that were true? Mr. Levesque replied affirmatively and asked what was wrong with that? Mr. Johnson said there was nothing wrong with it, but it wasn't applicable under the accessory use permit. It might be possible to apply for a conditional use and go before the Planning Commission and get a sub -division and do what he wants to do. Mr. Johnson went on to say that he had no problem with what Mr. Levesque was trying to do, but that this was not the place to be reviewing this request. 5.7 After further discussion, Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The motion was approved unanimously. Minutes and Findings of Fact of April 26, 1999 6.1 Mr. Kay moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 1999 as presented. The motion was approved. 6.2 Mrs. Murray moved and Mr. Llewellyn seconded the motion to approve the Findings of Fact for April 26, 1999. The motion was approved. Adjournment There being no further business to conduct, Mr. Llewellyn moved and Mrs. Murray seconded the motion to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. Clerk South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment G MAY 24M9 CIZ i OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 13, 1999 Mr. l;rnest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Levesque: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment denied your appeal from a decision of the Administrative Officer's ruling of Section 26.75 accessory residential units. This office is of the opinion that should you consider converting your garage into a residential dwelling that you will require a dimensional requirement waiver. You may want to discuss your proposal with the City Plainer. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, /axe/ - Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 City of South Burlington .Application to Board of Adjustment Name of Applicant: Address Represented by: Landowner: Ernest & Donna Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road Ernie 'Levesque Telephone: 853 - 3353 March 29, 1999 Ernest & Donna Levesque Address: 195 Hinesburg Roast South Burlington, VT Location of property_ Across from the St. John Vianney Church Cemetery Pond next to than church parking lot that is located next to Barrett Street. Adjaccent property owners &,address: Everett & Roxie Allen to my South. The Church Cemetery Association to my North. to the West. This request is to appeal the Zoning Adminstrator's decision of March 24, 1999 that indicated that my request for a conditional use under Section 9.20 and subsection 9.207 is not a appropriate application due to the fact that Section 26.75 of the Zoning Regulations dealing with accessory residential units only deals with single family homes.. The accessory units are permitted when constructed truithin or attached to a primary single-family residence. Due to Section 26.75 my request to enlarge the existing garage and to convert the garage into a accessory residential unit is not permitted. However, a precedent occurs and is in place to my North on the corner of Barrett Street and Hinesburg Road where there is an existing home with a apartment in the basement. The property owner was allowed to construct a single family home on the property in addition to the existing home and apartment. This separate single family home is not attached to the main home and is located to the West of the large garage and swimming pool complex. The Board of Adjustment authorized this Accessory Residential Unit. This single family home use is in conflict also with Section 25.75. A statement within the authorization for this existing apartment house to have an Accessory Residential Unit, stated that in the future if the home was to be seperated from the property, the party would have to go back to the Zoning Board with a request to have this happen.. I have requested a request for a Conditional use as per Article I X Residential District (4) 9.20 Conditional Uses The foilawing use is allowed in the Residential 4 District as conditional use subject to approval by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.05 9.207 :Accessory residential units 25.05 Conditional Uses A use designated as a conditional use In any district may be permitted by the Board of Adjustment, after public notice and public hearing, according to the following procedures: 26.051 The Board shall review the proposed use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in the regulations. This review shall specifically include consideration of the stated purposes of the district in which the proposed use is located. 26.052 The Board shall determine that the proposed use will not adversely effect: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. Since vie are retired, vie will not impact the above uses- (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in r£ohich the property is located, nor the ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. In fact, since a senior citizen retirement home complex exists six -tenths of a mile to my South and the City Center is located two -tenths of a mile to my North, a transition could be implimited between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy give that would allow for a number of the 70%0 of the citizens in this Zone and other Zones in the the City of South Burlington to enjoy their senior retired status by approving Accessary Living units on their property in order to allow for the payment of increased taxes due to the new Law of Act 60. These accessory Living Units could provide for the additional School Tax such as the 15% increase that the school system is seeking to keep the quality of the schools up to the level of funding that they are looking for to support the current educational programs. With the approval of a Accessory Living unit that is "handicapped accessible' as such (see 26.751) Occupancy of the accessory residential unit is restricted to no more than two (2) persons, one of them is related by blood or marriage to the owner of the primary single-family residence, is disabled as defined in subdivision 252 (2) of Title 16, or is at least 55 years of age. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Ole will not create additional traffic. (d) Bylaws in effect. Section 26.75 at the present time, is not being applied equally to applicants and the Zoning Board as such has granted a Accessory Residential Unit on the corner of Barrett Street and Hinesburg Road. The existing primary home is not an existing single family home as required in order to have to have the Acsessory Residential unit added to the property as stated in Section 26.75. To my South, a distance of eighty feet, a single family home was allowed to have two units added thus making the home a triplex rental unit.in now considred a triplex that also does not fit the Section of 26.75. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. vale will implement 26.902 Solar Energy, that I was responsible for having been added to the Zoning Regulations in the mid 70's. (1) General public health and welfare V'Jith the acceptance of a Accessory Living Unit that will be a handicapped accessible unit, the general pubic health and wellfare of other senior citizens, residents of the City of South Burlington could enjoy the immediate convience of shopping on Hinesburg Road.. At some future date, these residents would also remain on Hinesburg Road with their final resting place of beauty, the church cemetery. Since the existing definition of a Accessory Residentiai Unit (26.75) only exists for single family homes and not for duplexes as such, we are requesting a 7% increase in living space over the required 30% of the main hying space of the single family home requirement for our Accessory Residential Unit that will have handicapped accessibility. Disabled is defined in Subdivision 252 (2) of Title 18 or Is at least 55 years of age. The existing garage has 784 sq. ft of space on the first floor and 393 sq- ft of space on the second floor. The addition footprint will be for the expandable first floor space- one bay of the existing garage would remain a garage. The addition would be for a 28'x 18* space with an additional porch and foyer of Wx W to the South in order to take advantage of the solar orientation. The porch and the foyer vjill,!qual a 6% expansion that takes advantage of 26.902 Solar Energy, In summary, the City of South Burlington's Zoning Regulations favor the large developers and have caused the sprawl that now exists in the City. With 70% of the citizens of South Burlington having no children in the public schools, Act 60 will force many of these folks out of South Burlington as the owners of the expensive homes want their children to have the best for their children - Consideration should be given to ail of the senior citizens that also include those senior citizens as such who have helped South Burlington to grow when they were in positions of teaching, members of the local Town and City Board or as a volunteer within the community - A senior citizen as such should be able to have additional income that will help them to live out their senior years and to enjoy the contributions that helped the Town to become a City. At the present time, the developers are reaping the profits that the citizens helped to create -arid we now make up 70% of the City population. The adding of a Accessory Living Unit as per existing law that is also handicapped accessible, will greatly aid in the ability of residents like us to pay the new taxes due. to Act 60 and was will be able to remain in the City of South Burlington. With the new planning of the City Center as such that is in place, the said concept at the 'Super Block' Dorset Street, VJilliston Road, Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive has not beell implemented in regards to equality within the City Center concept_ The inclusion of Accessory Living Units in this 'Super Block' would allow for a stronger transition from the location of the Senior Center on Hinesburg Road to the New City Center has a density of forty (40) units per acre. This dense housing authorization will dump more traffic onto Hinesburg Road then the old Munson project would have. With Accessory Residential Units being authorized for Hinesburg Road that allows for existing duplex units to have the same opportunity as a single family home, the possibility exist that would allow Hinesburg Road to resist the development pressures of a commercial street_ Planning for the future to stop sprawl could start with the addition of Accessory Residential Living units to be included into Section 26.75 that now restricts a Accessory Residential Living unit only for a single family home. However, this concept is now in place with the past authorization of the Accessory Residential Living Unit that is located on the corner of Barrett Street and Hinesburg Road that is located within 150 feet from my existing duplex. Sincerely, Q4-Z A"rjq- Ernie Levesque SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington. Vermont on Mondayy April 26, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the fol- lowing: #4 Appeal of Patrick and Teresa Ayer seeking approval from Section 15.205 Conditional uses automobile repair and service of the South Bur- lington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to occupy 1060 square feet auto glass repair shop in conjunc- tion with an autobody shop, located at 4 Berard Drive. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer April 10, 1999 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with th South Burlington zonini Regulations and Chapte 117, Title 24, V.S.A. thi South Burlington Zonini Board of Adjustment wi hold a public hearing a the South Burlington Mu nicipal Offices, Confer ence Room, 575 Dorse Street, South Burlington Vermont on Monday April 26, 1999 at 7:0( p.m. to consider the fol lowing: #1 Appeal of Johr Larkin, Inc. seeking e variance from Sectior 25.00 Dimensional re- quirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regu. lations. Request is for permission to erect a 14' x 40' canopy covered pe- destrian walkway be- tween two (2) elderly housing complexes to within (0) zero feet of the rear property line, lo- cated at 90 Allen Road and 16 Harbor View Road. #2 Appeal of Earnest and Donna Levesque seeking an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer, resulting from a ruling on Section 26.75 Accessory residential unit of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations for a prop- erty located at 195 Hi- nesburg Road. #3 Appeal of Mark Hill & Albert Reyes seeking ap- proval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses, sub section 13.225 auto- mobile service & repair of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to construct a 3295 square foot automobile or and tube drive-thru fa- cility on a lot containing 3.7 acres, located at 1233 Shelburne Road. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer April3,1999 j ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Name of Applicant: Ernest & Donna Levesque Address: 195 Hinesburg Road Represented by: Ernie Levesque Landowner: Ernest & Donna Levesque March 22, 1999 Telephone: 863 - 3353 Address: 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT Location of property: Across from the St. John Vianney Church Cemetery Fond next to the church parking lot that is located next to Barrett Street. Adjaccent property owners & Address: Everett & Roxie Allen to my South. The Church Cemetery Association to my North. to the West. This request is for a Conditional use as per Article I X Residential District (4) 9.20 Conditional Uses The following use Is allowed In the Residential 4 District as conditional use subject to approval by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.05 9.207 Accessory residential units 26.05 Conditional Uses A use designated as a conditional use in any district may be permitted by the Board of Adjustment, after public notice and public hearing, according to the following procedures: 26.051 The Board shall review the proposed use for complience with all applicable standards as contained in the regulations. This review shall specifically include consideration of the stated purposes of the district in which the proposed use is located. 26.052 The Board shall determine that the proposed use will not adversely effect: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. Since vie are retired, we will not impact the above uses. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is locatetl; nor the ability to develop adjacent property for appropate uses. In fact, since a senior citizen retirement home exists six -tenths of a mile to my South and the City Center is located two -tenths of a mile to my North, a transition could be implimited betvieen Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive that would allow for a number of the 70% of the citizens in this Zone and other Zones in the the City of South Burlington to enjoy their senior retired status by approving Accessary Living Units on their property in order to allow for the payment of increased taxes due to the new Law of Act 60. These accessory Living Units could provide for the additional School Tax such as the 15% increase that the school system is seeking to keep the quality of the schools up to the level of funding that they are looking for to support the current educational programs. With the approval of a Handicaped Accessary Living Unit as such (see 26.751, ..., or is disabled as defined in subdivision 252 (2) of Title IS IS, or is at least 55 years of age. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. We will not create additional traffic. However, the implimintation of the nevi City Center will greatly impact the traffic onto Hinesburg Road due to the increased densities rhat are allowed with the increased housing units that will be allot,.,Jed. the old Munson project at peak traffic would have generated 500 cars per hour in peak traffic time from the old past approved project that I had voted for when I v-Jas the Assistant Chairperson to the South Burlington Planning Commission- (d) Bylaws in effect, (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. We will implement 26.902 Solar Energy, that I was responsible for having been added to the Zoning Regulations in the mid 70's. (1) General public health and welfare With the acceptance of a Handicaped Accessary Living Unit, the general public health and wellfare of the senior citizens, residents of the City of South Burlington could enjoy the immediate convience of shopping on Hinesburg Road and also walk to the restaurants that are located on Williston Road- At some future date, these residents would also remain on Hinesburg Road with their final resting place of beauty, the church cemetery. Since the existing defination of a Accessory Residential Unit (26.75) only exists for single family homes and not for duplexes as such, we are requesting a 70% increase in living space over the required 3011/6 of the main living space of the single family home requirement for our Disabled Handicaped Residential Unit. Disabled is defined in Subdivision 252 (2) of Title 18 or is at least 55 years of age_ Theexisting garage has 784 sq. ft of space on the first floor and 393 sq. ft of space on the second floor. The addition will be for a first floor only.. One bay of the existing garage would remain a garage. The addition viould be for a 28'x 18' space with an additional porch and foyer, of 6' x 34' to the South in order to take advantage of the solar orientation. The porch and the foyer will equal a 6% expansion that takes advantage of 26.902 Solar Energy. In summary, the City of South Burlington's Zoning Regulations favor the large developers and have caused the spraoil that now exists in the City. With 70% of the citizens of South Burlington having no children in the public schools, Act 60 will force many of these folks out of South Burlington as the ov* ners of the expensive homes want their children to have the best for their children. However, the school administraters and the folks in the Department of Education often go with the winds of the Bolton Flats and are quick to take on any new program in the name of educational progress. Fast existing school programs, many of the finest in Northern New England are no longer in existance due to low enrollments as the administrators of the schools had planned to have these past programs and courses eliminated in order for the South Burlington schools to involve into a private class prep school for the upper class students. Programs no longer exist that were in place during the 60's and 70's. Many of these offerings taught the following. Accountability Dependability Reliability Time management Real -world skills The 70% of the folks that do not have children in the schools within South Burlington are used to these concepts. It is very difficult for them and I to find that the schools as they exist today are not preparing the students for the real t-vorld of work. If you have lived the life of the work ethic and gained either a Summer or Winter home as a second home, you are penalized by Act 60 due to the fact that these homes are in the Gold Towns and you are taxed out of existance by having the second housing unit. Consideration should be given to all of the senior citizens that also include those senior citizens as such who have helped South Burlington to grow vihen they were in positions of teaching, members of the local Town and City Board or as a volunteer within the community_ A senior citizen as such should be able to have additional income that will help therm to live out their senior years and to enjoy the contributions that helped the Tot"Jn to become a City. At the present time, the developers are reaping the profits that the citizens helped to create -arid we nova make up 70% of the City population. The adding of a Handicaped Accessory Living Unit as per existing laty will greatly aid in the ability of residents like us to pay the new taxes due to Act 60 and we ("Jill be gable to remain in the City of South Burlington. In the new planning of the City Center as such, the old concept of the 'Super Block' Dorset Street, Williston Road, Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive was net impliminted in regards to equality . The inclusion of Accessory Living Units in this 'Super Block' would allow for a stronger transision from the location of the Senior Center on Hinesburg Road to the New City Center dense housing authorizations that will dump more traffic onto Hinesburg Road then the old Munson project vgould have. With Accessory housing units authorized for Hinesburg Road, the possibility of Hinesburg Road could exist that would resist the development pressures of a Commercial street. If the Town of South Burlington's Select Board had listened to me in 1966, tejee would not have the architectural nightmare of Dorset street- The street would have had a theme for the new Dorset Street that came into place in 1998. How great a street It could have been. Sinceerety, rnie ves eue 0ow 6, /Uf 44-1 4.41 t4A C IT) OF SOUTH BURLINGTO) N DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 April 13, 1999 Mr. Ernest Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Appeal to Board of Adjustment Dear Mr. Levesque: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, April 26, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your appeal of a administrative ruling from Section 26.75 of the zoning regulations. Please plan to attend this hearing. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp CI7 i ) OF SOUTH BURLINGIJN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 March 24, 1999 Mr. Ernst Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Accessory Residential Units Dear Mr. Levesque: Enclosed is a copy of Section 26.75 of the Zoning Regulations dealing with accessory residential units. Please note that accessory units are permitted when constructed within or attached to a primary single- family residence. Therefore, your request to convert your garage into a accessory residential unit is not permitted under Section 26.75. Your request for a conditional use under Section 9.20 and suh section 9.207 is not a appropriate application. Please contact this office in order to discuss this appeal. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp I Encl City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # HEARING DATE 7i FILING DATE �3 FEE AMOUNT -74 l0 Name of applicant(s) Ernest & Donna Levesque Address 195 Hinesburg road Telephone# 863-3353 Represented by Ernie Levesque Landowner Ernest & Donna Levesque Address 195 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Location and description of property Across from the Church pond on Hinesburg Road Adjacent property owner(s) & Address To the South, Everett & Roxie Allen To the North, the church parking lot To the West, Type of application check one:( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer (x) request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance 1 understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month, (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing. Provision of zoning ordinance in question 9' 2 0, 9.207, 2 6. 0 5, 26.051, 26.052 Reason for appeal A way to pay increased taxes due to Act 60. Other documentation Attached drawing 3-22-99 Date Do not write below this line ---------------------------------------------------------------------------__--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Strcet, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday. at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: Appeal of seekingi- from Sept 6 of the South Burlington Zoning- Regulations:- Request is-for_pmmsn sion t6 e o(G0 7150 r Af 71 /"YZ� s"'�r ��., ��_ _s��`� C.-�' 9 -ram C"' O to SU►a Roor.+1 3 �6 F_9 — 8a 8R to IVYI� C 43 S L 10 0VIHG Roots f�'6Mx2k-r C K11Yf�EN c CL t e C 8R OFF\CE 03, 9 Z BR �„ C AR PORT 4S, 20� lCF? �'r'Ety 1� kll $Al C G\f" to BR t I. Liv\NG 'CL, IE%IZ 2j KITCME f� E x 6 17 rlt 'cti T gfR s REVISIONS NO. DATE BY / 7j-2Z- 2 A? 7 01 � 3 p,P T " Z ADO IT10N 7b EX ISrING GARAGE ° OFFICE OW MASTER BEDROOM W/PRIVATE ENTRY S S 14i. � � N 7r i GARAGE LIVING Roca 12xzg 14�tf� � �s� 3� K1TC1.11=.ty f $R. R 8A�l1' 15� X13 S$ IZx IZ 28 i f (G� DUPLE X E & D LEVE 5QUE 195 HINESSURG BOAT) SOUTH e,VRLINGT0N/ VERMONT DE LEV E SgUE SCALE 1, ZO MATERIAL CHK'D DATE .7. 20 -93 DRAWING NO. TRACED APP'D 'VCTELEDYNEPOST 18AE-01E-8'/:X11 (r � J o c Q s A 0 0 11^ W.{ IU F- CNuRC►t CEMIENrRy w 195 AssaclgTrou m S-V 7 s 1 75 ! HINE 5ZQRG RO AD CrMLN TRY po N KEi F-1 APAP,TMENT "-I = APARTM�.NT 14 Z [] PROPOSED THIRD {PAP VNII; 2T �] PROFO SE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL HA)4.jWaPED L1V1NG UNIT DRAWN $Y: 5-RNM L F-VESt V 1 9 S DINES BURG RbAA SOVTI4 13UP-MNCT0N, Vr 2 - z tv- Zoo o ,::i:;, H I N E S BURG ROPED --Oth City of South Burlington 4pplication to Br- rd of Adjustment r ate 10-20-92 Applicant ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. Owner, leasee, agent Address 195 Hinesburg Road Telephone # APPLICATION # HEARIN(- DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT 863 3353 Landowner Donna & Ernest Levesque Address Location and description of property 195 Hinesburg Road next to the church parking lot and across the cemetery.. Type of application check one ( x ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer.( )request for a conditional use (x ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days r.rior to the hearing. I.agree•to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Sec. 4468 o� the PDA of 1969. Reason for appeal The adjective used Principal Dwelling is not listed in the pianninQ regulation. A minor portion o a T, isn� glslpsuppiThe ownerwH-dppicant should along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. //- 7 % Z Hearing Date Signatu e of Appellant ------------------------ Do not write below this line -_------_--- --------_-_ 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day .of Week Month and Date at Time to consider the following: Appeal of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 October 14, 1992 Richard Ward Zon4ing Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Dick: Thank you for updating my Certificate of Occupancy that you issued to me on 7-24-92. Since you did not answer my letter of July 23 1992 that requested a decision on the amount of useable space for a home Occupation as such, I proceded to purchase some equipment for Green Mountain Impressions. You did, however, answer me verbally on my question of what a minor space was. Also, you indicated that the State of Vermont has not come to a decidable answer to what a minimum space is for a home occupation. A guideline that could be used is the regulation that when you renovate a space that you do not spend over 25% of the original value on the renovation. However, that rule is also not followed in South Burlington. On the subject of the adjective that is used PRINCIPAL dwelling. The word principal is not used. Only the word dwelling unit is used. The term dwelling unit is not up to date with the 21st century that we will be in in only eight (8) years. To say that a garage is not part of a dwelling unit does not fit the society that we are in or will soon be in. How many people as such use a garare as a garage. My living style indicates that I spend much of my life their. If it is building a project or designing a project that is to much for the main house to handle, then I use the so called garage to think out and make up samples of the finished product. With regards to the findings of fact that the Zoning Board will go over, I have listed the items in order as follows. 1. The home occupation normally operates within the dwelling unit. However since I need more space, the use of the garage as such will represent the least possible modification. At the present time, I have space in the main house where it is warm in the winter for the two computers that I use for the printing business. 2. The general character of the garage will not be altered, therefore the essential character of the neighborhood will not be changed. In fact, to the north, my row of trees will hide the garage from view. 3. I have not created a hardship by requesting this use. I am over qualified to work for the South Burlington School System where I spent 17 productive years. With the economy such as it is. I needed to start a business in order to continue to pay the taxes that are due each yea/ 4. The hardship as such is dictated by the use of the dwelling unit to full capacity and the basement is not fuctional. 5. This variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. I look foward to the positive approval of my request. This request is in line with the Zoning regulations concerning rights to the sun that I promoted many years ago that you adopted. Sincerel 44 Z' - V-4— Ernie Le°ysque City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 13, 1992 Mr. Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Home occupation Dear Ernie: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter will confirm our conversation regarding the use of your garage for the purpose of operating a business d.b.a. Green Mountain Impressions. Zoning by-laws provide that a minor portion of a dwelling may be used in order to conduct a home occupation. Garages are generally not considered as the principal dwelling. In order to continue operating from your garage, you would be required to apply for a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Enclosed is an application for an appeal to the Board. My next hearing is planned for November 9, 1992 with a filing deadline of October-21, 1992. The other matter that we discussed, having to do with the installation of the wood stove. I suggest that you talk with Chief Goddette regarding minimum installation standards. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 7, 1992 Mr. Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Ernie: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Under certain provisions set forth within the South Burlington Zoning Regulations any resident may use a minor portion of a dwelling for a home occupation which are customary located in residential areas. On July 23, 1992, we issued a permit to you for a home occupation d.b.a. Green Mountain Impressions. It is my understanding that you are operating your business from a major portion of your garage. In order to clear this matter up, I am requesting that we conduct an inspection of your business. Please call this office at 658-7955 in order to schedule a meeting. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly, x -� Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp � � ) ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Richard Ward July 23, 1992 ZonAng Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear DiK I am over qualified to return to a teaching position at South Burlington High School. In order to stay ih the South Burlington area, I am planning to start a home occupation The name of this business will be Green Mountain ^ Impressions. Quality Speciality Printing - Graphic Design and and Desk Top Publishing. Therefore, a small portion of my property will be used for this venture. Since the zoning regulations do not describe in detail what is a small portion of space that is to be used for a home occupation, I have included the following information for you to make a decision on the allowable useable space. Also what would be the maximum amount of useable space that I could expect to use in the future. The existing space at 195 Hinesburg Road includes: Apartment #1 Apartment #2 Garage Total space 1908 sq. ft. 970 sq. ft. 1159 sq. ft. 4036 sq. ft. Requested business space 279 sq. ft. Business space based on Apt. Business space based on Apt. Business space based on apt. #1 = 14% 01 & Garage = .09% #1, apt #2 & Garage = .069% Which of the three given examples indicate a minor space to be used for a home occupation. At this time, I have not decided to use the allowable 1 foot by 2 foot authorized sign since most of this business is through the mail and off site sales. I look foward to your response. Sincerely, City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 April 13, 1993 Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation, Picnic Tables Dear Mr. Levesque: Please be informed that the manufacturing and sales of picnic tables is a commercial operation which is not allowed in a residential district. Approval of this type of use can only be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4444(a), you have seven 7 to cure this violation or be subject to legal actionyandnfineshof up to $50 per day for each day the violation continues. Your cooperation in complying with the zoning regulations will be greatly appreciated. Since , a���^� Ra mo�J. Bel air Zoning & Planning Assistant cc: Richard Ward ERNEST LEVESQUE JR- 195 MINEEBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLIWGTON, VERMONT 05403 863 3353 Richard Ward April 19,1992 Zoning Administrator 575 Dornm+ City Of South Burlingtom, VT 05403 Dear Dick: This letter is in response to the letter that I received from your assistant, Raymond J. Belair. I wish t you +�r placing me on the May 10 th~ agenda. o our We have been building picnic tables and a lot morei garage for many years~ Levesque Associates n Certificate of Occupancy on 4/20/87 O za es was issued a was Speciality Woodwork, During this time o� the activities that date' I was building products�f zme period and before People in garages within South Burlington. sale like many other economy is the way it is ma ^ gron~ Now that the new enterprises within' many creative People are creating this property with the and on their Property. I purchased I could enjoy the location on term desire` that when I retired carry out some f a zon on Hinesburg Road in order to ' business like o my ideas- Hinesburg Road has some the Mobil Station along the road between Gracies and Road. The a zon that also has a curb cut onta Hinesburg that middle of the street has a pre existing business Too the �s �o� and cemetery lots and they do not pay taxes. �� built that of me, a three story office building will es^ buildingatzs in violation of city standards. However, be will place 2p��se� by the PI�nning Commission. This project e 52.5 trip ends per peak traffic while l '"�°� were allowed and the building is to high Also only 50 Corporate Way project when built out will place /�e cars per hour in peak traffic onto Hinesburgce over 500 existing clock maker that has a seasonal Road. The sale, the Person that sells automobilea from garage and the ongoing lawn sale South of �� rom his front yard seasonal shop now enjoy the fruits me and the Christmas oi extra income. built is difficult to understand why large projects t to r out for profit while the little person is held ge�t , ��you can not do that because of the zone". A hostage group of citizens that are elected or appointed t reasonable can also change the zoning to allow for the�� o boards small seasonai part-time businessp h establishment o� will allow some of us to continue ^ re aps this philosophy tax that continues to rise to live here and pay the se each year. Bincerely, Aw- --~ie Lev sgue � CC; Planning CommiSsiou Other Paper City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 26, 1993 Mr. Ernest Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Levesque: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, May 10, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp LEGAL NOTICES 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Steet, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the following: #1. Appeal of Green Acres, Inc. Ralph Good - Doug Griswold seeking approval from ., 19.35 Removal of and filling with earth prod- ucts of the South Burling- ton Zoining Regulations. Request is for permission to opeate a commercial stone quarry, estimating the removal of 2.5 million cubic yards from an area of 40 acres from a parcel containingg 300 acres, lo- cated at i150-1170 Hines- burg Road, bounded by lands of Lane Press, Green Acres Inc., inter- state 89 and the Town of Williston. 02, Appeal of Ernest Le- vesque seeking a vari- ance from Section 19.10 Home occupation of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to operate a �hnn from an existing 28'x28' detached garage and dis- play products from a resi- dential property located at 195 Hinesburg Road. #3. Appeal of William Dunn and Bret Kernoff seeking a variance from Section 19.00 Non com- plying structures sub sec- tion 19.002 and Section 19.65 Multiple uses of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to con- struct a second story ad- dition (24'x50') to a structure non complying to the rear and side yard requirements on a lot containing 9600 square feet located at 1197 Willis- ton Road. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Of- ficer April 24, 1993 NOW ffimi�wwlakd I i 00, ' - l7 - - - �. .7 ""/A 10,,,�-� 07 i 010 C (. I ~ , ^ � � ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. ! 195 HINESBURG ROAD � SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 October 14, 1992 Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Dick: Thank you for updating my Certificate of Occupancy that you issued to me on 7-24-92. Since you did not answer my letter of July 23 1992 that requested a decision on the amount of useable space for a home Occupation as such, I proceded to purchase some equipment for Green Mountain Impressions. You did, however, answer me verbally on my question of what a minor space was. Also, you indicated that the State of Vermont has not come to a decidable answer to what a minimum space is for a home occupation. A guideline that could be used is the regulation that When you renovate a space that you do not spend over 25% of the original value on the renovation. However, that rule is also not followed in South Burlington. On the subject of the adjective that is used PRINCIPAL dwelling. The word principal is not used. Only the word dwelling unit is used. The term dwelling unit is not up to date with the 21st century that we will be in in only eight (8) years. To say that a garage is not part of a dwelling unit does not fit the society that we are in or will soon be in. How many people as such use a garare as a garage. My living style indicates that I spend much of my life their. If it is building a project or designing a project that is to much for the main house to handle, then I use the so called garage to think out and make up samples of the finished product. With regards to the findings of fact that the Zoning Board will go over, I have listed the items in order as follows. 1. The home occupation normally operates within the dwelling unit. However since I need more space, the use of the garage as such will represent the least possible modification. At the present time, I have space in the main house where it is warm in the winter for the two computers that I use for the printing business. ^ ^ � 2. The general character of the garage will not be altered, therefore the essential character of the neighborhood will not be changed. In fact, to the north, my row of trees will hide the garage from view. 3. I have not created a hardship by requesting this use. I am over qualified to work for the South Burlington School System where I spent 17 productive years. With the economy such as it is, I needed to start a business in order to continue to pay the taxes that are due each year. 4. The hardship as such is dictated by the use of the dwelling unit to full capacity and the basement is not fuctional. 5. This variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. I look foward to the positive approval of my request. This request is in line with the Zoning regulations concerning rights to the sun that I promoted many years ago that you adopted. Sincerely, Ernie Lev�sque PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 October 13, 1992 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Mr. Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Home occupation Dear Ernie: This letter will confirm our conversation regarding the use of your garage for the purpose of operating a business d.b.a. Green Mountain Impressions. Zoning by-laws provide that a minor portion of a dwelling may be used in order to conduct a home occupation. Garages are generally not considered as the principal dwelling. In order to continue operating from your garage, you would be required to apply for a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Enclosed is an application for an appeal to the Board. My next hearing is planned for November 9, 1992 with a filing deadline of October, 21, 1992. The other matter that we discussed, having to do with the installation of the wood stove. I suggest that you talk with Chief Goddette regarding minimum installation standards. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer 1 Encl RW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 7, 1992 Mr. Ernest Levesque, Jr. 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Ernie: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Under certain provisions set forth within the South Burlington Zoning Regulations any resident may use a minor portion of a dwelling for a home occupation which are customary located in residential areas. On July 23, 1992, we issued a permit to you for a home occupation d.b.a. Green Mountain Impressions. It is my understanding that you are operating your business from a major portion of your garage. In order to clear this matter up, I am requesting that we conduct an inspection of your business. Please call this office at 658-7955 in order to schedule a meeting. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp C ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. 195 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 Richard Ward July 23, 1992 Zomging Administrator City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Dick: I am over qualified to return to a teaching position at South Burlington High School. In order to stay ih the South Burlington area, I am planning to start a home occupation. The name of this business will be Green Mountain Impressions. Quality Speciality Printing - Graphic Design and and Desk Top Publishing. Therefore, a small portion of my property will be used for this venture. Since the zoning regulations do not describe in detail what is a small portion of space that is to be used for a home occupation, I have included the following information for you to make a decision on the allowable useable space. Also what would be the maximum amount of useable space that I could expect to use in the future. The existing space at 195 Hinesburg Road includes: Apartment #1 1908 sq. ft. Apartment #2 970 sq. ft. Garage 1159 sq. ft. Total space 4036 sq. ft. Requested business space 279 sq. ft. Business space based on Apt. #1 = 147% Business space based on Apt. #1 & Garage = .09% Business space based on apt. #1, apt #2 & Garage = .069% Which of the three given examples indicate a minor space to be used for a home occupation. At this time, I have not decided to use the allowable 1 foot by 2 foot authorized sign since most of this business is through the mail and off site sales. I look foward to your response. Sincerely, D )YATE INDICATE NORTH JOB ■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■ MEN ■■I0■ daummms NONE ■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ ■ s■■■■■■In MEN ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■®■■■■■■■■■■I■ IMMM■■■I■■ ■■■■ ONE WRIZZM ME ■■■■■ Room MEN ■■■■■■ MM■■■■■■■! !! ■ wam I■■ So ■■■ No ■■■■■■■■■ ■ Ems ■■■■■Boom ■■■ii.■.■. RN■o■i■■to■ ■■■■ !■.10■ ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■min of MEMO ■■■■ ■I■■ ■■�■ ■■■■■■■■to■ ■■■■ MEMO INN ■■lm ■■■■■■/ SEEN ■■■■! !■■■ ■■■■■■�■■■■■OMEN nI ONE moo■■■/■■■■■■■■ ■■fi■■ EN ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■III■■■ Elmo ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ :i■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■PRE ■■■■■ ■■■n■■■■■■ MEN ■■H■■ mom ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ is NONE ■■■■■■ moo■■o■■■■■■ mom ■1■■■■■[ i■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■s■■■■■■mom ■■■■■ IEEE ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ 1■■■■■■■■■■IRR■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■iri■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■f■■■■ SEMI monNONE "NINMENIUMN� ■■■■N■ City of S. �h Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Date Applicant Address Landowner Owner, leasee, agent Telephone # Location and description of property Official Use APPL IATION # HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of seeking a , { from Section HIC/0 4L- -uj► xs . of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to . j V � ye SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zon- ing Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burling- ton Zoning Board of Ad- justment will hold a public hearing at the South Bur- lington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Bur- lington, Vermont on Mon- day, November 9, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. to' consider the following: 1 # Appeal of Knight Accura, Tim Purcell, agent seeking approval from Section 19.05 Conditional uses, sub -section 19.056 extension/alteration of the South Burlington Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to increase the existing parking/display area (approximately 59 spaces) in conjunction with an existing auto- mobile dealership, ona lot containing 1.8 acres, located northerly of 1795 Continued Next Column LEGAL NOTICES 1 #2 Appeal of Ernes Levesque seeking a van ance from Section 19.4f Home occupation of the South Burlington Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to convert an existing 28'x28' detached garage/shop into a graph- ic design/specialty print- ing shop, located at 195 Hinesburg Road. #3 Appeal of Paul Choiniere seeking appro- val from Section 19.05 Conditional uses subsec- tion 19.056 extension/al- teration of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for ppeermission to construct a 30'x30' car care service area and a 48'x54' additional to the existing ,showroom at P.J.'s Auto Village, 2073 Williston Road. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer October 24, 1992 City of South Burlington ` - 4pplication to Bc,--d of Adjustment 1p Date 10-20-92 Applicant ERNEST LEVESQUE JR. Owner, leasee, agent Address 195 Hinesburg Road APPLICATION # HEARINU JATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Telephone # 863 3353 Landowner Donn-. & Ernest Levesque Address Location and description of property 195 Hinesburg Road next to the church parking lot and across the cemetery.. Type of application check one ( x ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer.( )request for a conditional use (x ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days nricr to the hearing. I.agree-to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Sec. 4468 off' the PDA of 1969. Reason for appeal The adjective used Principal Dwelling is not listed in the planning regulation. A minor portion o a we s� p s—part - Q'F m9 N,ling 1 The ownerw'6�dapph ican1 A0uldp submit along with this application (8 copies) Plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. Hearing Date Signatu e of Appellant -----------------------_Do not write below this line ------------------------ 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day ,of Bieck Month and Date at to consider the following: Time Appeal of! ��.. seeking a from Section G ? r of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 26, 1992 Mr. Ernest Levesque 195 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Levesque: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, November 9, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting and present evidence addressing the conditional use criteria (pink sheet enclosed). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very ruly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp 2 Encls June 28, 1983 Mr. Ernest Levesque 62 Barrett Street South Burlington, Vermnt 05401 Dear Mr. Levesque: Be advises that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment has granted your request for a zoning variance. The Board will issue formal findings at a later date . this office will issue a -permit upon your request. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call. me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zon ing Ackninistrative Officer RW/mcg September 25, 1984 Mr. Robert Boyd 2 Canfield Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 195 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Boyd: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment has granted your request for a zoning variance. The Board will issue formal findings at a later date. This office will issue a permit for the conversion upon you request. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg �3kLF "2s: :[qdmq-iQq7-, b"OtH J lqcjcpl , -IM bno�: pludagnill 2ql : 91 :bVO6 .1m IS3G Inginlautf-A to biz()3 E?nlno,3 noJ'L:)nl JjEFO?, 914J :jSdJ x'-j9F!Vbf', AEI 111w blSOU 96T .9onsllsv pniflos z 104 189UPSI 'I-UOY beJnZIP F.:Bff .94ibb 19J61 6 jE apalbaia Is"niol quaal voy iioqju ao!aiqvnc---) eitt jol ljo-19cl a gLje;-! 111w 9ol`tlo alrfT a qLjpq I ,91m lizo of o-tz:!jLqfI !'nob gpsglq Frolztaqvp vnz. gvzfi ijo,�� 11 . L iqo�YIC; pnlrio"'17 P.)(v\WA l ?01?I1'?G BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENT No• 2 .Appeal of Champlain Collete ;r rTo• 2 appeal of champlain college was withdrawn. .i No. 3 Appeal of 7rnest Levesque and Robert Boyd J rn, R,+,I BAR 24, 1984 Appeal of Ernest Levesque and Robert Boyd seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements and Section 18.113 Dwelling standards, request is for permission to convert an existing single-family unit into a two family unit, second unit to contain 814 square feet on a lot containing 15,000 square feet at 195 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ward said the area is zoned R-4. A two family dwelling is a permitted use. Under Section 18.00, Dimensional requirements, the minimum lot required. is 12,000 square feet with 85 foot frontage. The existing lot is 15,000 square feet with 75 feet frontage. Under Section 18.113 the minimum dwelling standard is 850 square feet per unit. The proposed apartment will have 814 square feet. Mr. ?card pointed out that a variance was granted in June for modifications on the house. The modifications were made and it was used as a single family dwelling. Mr. Boyd stated. he could not afford to purchase the property unless he was able to make it a duplex. He said he had. a deposit on the house before he knew he needed a variance before he started construction on the property. Mr. Blais asked Mr. Ward if the neighborhood had been notified. Mr. Ward said they were and no one objected. Mr. Goodrich in the audience said he was a close neighbor and had no objections. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. No. 4 appeal of Ira Tate and C.W. Gregor Appeal of Ira Tate and C.W. Gregory seeking a variance from Section 19.65 Multiple uses and approval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses, request is for permission to construct a building containing 31,200 square feet occupying 8,000 square feet as a kennel and 23,200 square feet for a light manufacturing use in conjunction with a retail -wholesale auto parts business and a residential unit on a lot containing approximately three (3) acres, at 3060 Williston Road. Mr. Ward said the area is zoned Industrial -commercial. Under section 13.20 and sub -section 13.201 a Kennel is a conditional use. The proposal is 8,000 square feet for a pet shop and kennel. Also the existing use, a retail -wholesale auto parts store and reisential unit is a Multiple use under Section 19.65 There will be 8,000 square feet of kennel and 23,200 square feet for light manufacturing use. The lot size is 3 acres with 120 feet frontage. Mr. Ward said a varance was granted on Tune 30, 1983 for this same plan. It also went through site plan revue. The variance expired because the project wasn't done within six months from the.time the variance was granted. Mr. Blais asked if there were any changes made on the plan since the last variance was granted. Mr. Tate said everything was the same. That the reason he could not go through with the project the first time was a financial problem. ir. Dinklage made a motion if passed there be a stipulation that the building be that contained in writing on the drawing presented to the Zoning Board and that the chicken coop be removed immediately and the building known as the auto parts store be removed 5 years from the origianl variance of Tune 30, 1983. Mr. Thibault seconded the motion. All were in favor. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. Pot.dFEIJ — Vim, hroo.��+a� SEor t s '144sTe. W SECOND FLOOR J REVISED L07 -tt 19S H NtSBURG ROAD ZDD -- — ERNES r L EVEsQUE JQ_ ir-/-&3 / rr ; ZO RobaolT` r3a VD 9_1 8y NOTICK, 01 A1 PI%'Al. SOUTII BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -> Name, address and telephone lI of applicant�� Y� Name, address of property owner ./� �/�/�/$% P,[,)C-ST P Property location and description I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearin Ee of $30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Hearing D to Signature of , -Appellant Do_not _write -below -this line 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on at (day of week) (month and date) time to consider the following: Appeal of seeking a f r om Sect ion i�' dy-� rn w� i+-"+ i �n to Burlington Regulations. hoyuest is for I>ermiss Q" September 10, 1984 Mr. Robert S. Boyd 2 Canfield Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Boyd: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, September 24, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this hear ng. Very truly, Richard Ward, zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg I � S�'r z lr,, ky Z clj4vl• ee'd s/'_ 6U/-t . ilf • /}c% /�s ov., x6-e vi SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlinggton Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Tide 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a riublic hearing of the South Bur- ngton Municipal Offices, Con- ference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 24, 1984, at 5:00 P.M. to consider the following: N 1 Appeal of Jeffery L. Davis seeking a variance, from Section 19.00, Non -complying structures - sub section 19.002 of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a 60'x65' addition two stories in her Fit to an existing 41'x60' budding occupying same as a professional office complex, existing building having a set- back of approximately twenty- seven (27) feet on a lot con- taining 37,954 square feet, lo- cated at 1 270 Shelburne Road. 02 Appeal of Champlain College and David Farrell seeking appro- val, from Section 19.05, Condi- tional uses sub -section 19.056 extension of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for per- mission to construct a 20'x40' addition to an existing 58,000 square foot building operating as an indoor -outdoor recreational facility, former Lakeside Tennis, 75 Farrell Road. K3 Appeal of Ernest Levesque and Robert Boyd seeking a vari- ance, from Section 18.00, Di- mensional requirements and Section 18.113 Dwelling ston- dards of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for per- mission to convert on existing single-family unit into a two fami- ly unit, second unit to contain 814 square feet on a lot con- taining 15,000 square feet at 195 Hinesburg Road. M4 Appeal of Ira Tate and C. W. Gregory seeking a variance, from Section 19.65, Multiple uses and approval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a building containing 31,200 square feet occupying 8000 sq are feet as a kennel and 2q,200 for a light monufocturin use in conjuction with rota? wholesale out. parts business and a residential unit on a lot containing approximately three (3) acres, at 3060 Williston Rood. 05 Appeal of.Rolph Goodrich seeking a variance, from Section 18.00, Density and Dimensional requirements of the South Bur- lington Regulations. Request is for permission to convert an existing duplex into three town houses on a lot containing 10,000 square feet with fifty (501 feet frontage at 211 Hines- burg Rood. Richard Word, Zoning Administrative Officer September 8, 1984 Ull I DO � 15 -z,4 1 -3� I D TIM. cAa-D a 7- - --------------- R--v J LOT j R G R. .7), -.'D PT)MC-VA I Deg, E: R /v E :7 7- z 62 Barrett Street South Burlington, VT South Burlington Zoning Board South Burlington, VT I believe that a variance should be granted for 195 Hinesburg Road, when you take into consideration what I want to establish. The 5 facts of the zoning regulation process will be addressed. The unique physical circumstances or conditions that are peculiar to the particular property located at 195 Hinesburg Road are: 1.) The existing home has outlived its original function of providing shelter when you take into consideration the lifestyle of the family who purchased it. This structure was purchased for the following reasons: benefits of the site ar.e- location to schools, church, bus stop, central location, southern exposure, and the opportunity to create a new lifestyle to the old structure which will remain as a core. However, the second,section of the paragraph that isolates the fact that the unnecessary hardship is due to conditions and not the circumstances or conditions that are generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located should be tempered to allow for the upgrading or improvement of old pre -zoned neighborhoods. The establishment of new creative architectural schools or style, if you will, should be encouraged within neighborhoods and tract developments. - 2 - You can find existing evidence of this emergence of design in country club estates and on Barrett Street. Many will point out that these homes are built in the wrong neighborhoods. However, in the other direction, you can find many saying that this certainly is refreshing to witness a new design. 2) Because of the physical circumstances, there is no possibility that the property can he developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authori- zation of a variance is, therefore, necessary to enable the reasonabl( use of the property for a contemporary lifestyle. The agc-, of the home and design prevent this. Again, Point 2 of the zoning criteria is not sensitive to the creativity of the individual who in good faith would like to improve a property. 3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been creates] by the appellant: In fact, when my wife asked me to find a home that I could redesign, in order for the family to have a similar lifestyle as they have been accustomed to in my Barrett Street home --and still be close to the general neighborhood, I found the perfect candidate that I could redesign that also provided for a solar orientation. In my enthusiasm to create a working design, I failed to recognize that a zoning problem would emerge. I purchased the property and found after completing a set of plans that upon filing for a building permit I was told by Dick Ward, the zoning administrator, that my project was non- conforming to the zoning laws. 3 - Looking at this project as a layman, I thought that by removing the existing porch and creating a new structure, I would be OK, since I would be a distance of. 29'3" from the' edge of the sidewalk, whereby my nearest neighbor was a distance of 2816" from the edge of the sidewalk and my next neighbor, #211 finesburg was 24' from the edge of the sidewalk. Then I proceeded to find that the average of 10 selected homes had an average distance of 2313" from the edge of the sidewalk, with one being only 14' from the sidewalk. My request is to extend the space that the porch takes up by 2'7-3/4", but I am asking to be allowed a distance of 2'9", whicl-i will allow for siding. This would put me 9" behind my nearest ne.ighb and 5'3" behind my second neighbor with regards to the front of tho house in relation to the street. 4) This variance, if authorized, will not alter- the essential character of the neighborhood in which the property is located because: a) in point 3, it was identified that the avera<le distance for 10 homes within the lineal neighborhood to have a sidewalk to porch or steps distance to be 23'8" from the sidewalk edge. These homes are identified as follows: #251, 245, 21.1, 195, 71, 135, 139, 145, 111, 97. I dial riot identify in the ten selected homes #55, 231, 225 or 155 Hinesburg Road, which have an average of 24'4" from the house to the edge of the sidewalk. The development of the adjacent property will not be impaired, in fact, the church parking area and the cemetary across the street will give the project a strong visual image and incentive, -4- if you will, to create a further follow-up of the architectural school that I have established -- at least, on the Barrett Street lot. When you look at the fact that with stimulating development, such as Corporate Circle, that will create 500 more automobiles onto Hinesburg Road during peak traffic periods, it will become necessary, as families outgrow or move on, for the linear neighborhood to main- tain and upgrade itself. By creating the second refreshing breath on Hinesburg Road, (the first was the new bank), redevelopment and creative style will emerge, thus protecting property values and thus creating a firm,and not eroding,tax base. 5) This variance of 2 feet nine inches will he compatible to the existing linear neighborhood and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of thc� plan, since all the homes are now non -conform i 11y :;truct:ures and includes one corner of Gracey's store and the hank that replaced the garage that certainly exceed the 25% modification allowance -- as well as the linear neighbor on Patchen Road,that is within 15', that recently was granted a variance for a beauty salon, which also is exceeding the 25% ratio. In the task for the Planning Commission to update the master plan as required by the state, one of the strong points of the Commission was to protect existing neighborhoods. In this case, the linear neighborhoods are not being protected, when you witness the fact that the new or even old road right aways have changed. The old and the new road right away widths make all the homes on Hinesburg Road non conforming. This linear neighborhood should be protected and when possible creative redesign should be -5- established,which will give the visual street new images. I plan to write an article for publication in a magazine of a before and after remodeling project that will give an incentive for many people to look at old neighborhoods and perhaps be able to purchase within their means and recreate a structure that served a useful purpose within a period of ti..me,and to move the structure up to a contemporary lifestyle for the 80's and beyond. A bonus to my article will now be the establishment of the zoning process, where the local boards should look and be sensitive to the pent up housing demand, old housing stock, under- sized lots, high interest rates, and the desire of people who want to create an exciting environment and give a new breath to old existing neighborhoods -- especially those that existed before zoning. 5 L� I _I0-79N11S� k� vAR�ANCE AE4 _' SEC 7' CONFORM W1Tt•11�1 T!-iE GX+STING LINEAR NE�vHa�alloop:1 17 eR PORCH �w�NG ROOW DEcK cL KITCHEN FOYER -vu CO00%,,.L r�BEN 0 l.'AUNQR� CARPORT MUSIC OPEN r�— Qop�^ 6%LCON Y BED RopM � i�EOROGM REDeo� C 1. l 1 C L REv1 SE0 LOT E 9S H INES SUR G R oA D GFlRP,sE -7, �c Zoo. N ERNC_ST LEvESQuc -- — - --- — 6 - 2 4 -6 j 5" 19 L E = F � 2 p, PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby state that we have no objection to the renovation proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Levesque at 195 Hinesburg Road, So. Burlington, Vt., including the extending of the front of the building to accomodate more interior space. The change would be a welcome improvement to that property and would not detract from our neighborhood. /4nnnFqq 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby state that we have no objection to the renovation proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Levesque at 195 Hinesburg Road, So. Burlington, Vt., including the extending of the front of the building to accomodate more interior space. The change would be a welcome improvement to that property and would not detract from our neighborhood. 10 11. 12. 13. ADDRE 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 14. 2-d-1i L z(r Z 1.�- �� tv c V j-,r-J -2- 37 LA c ._ __ .OzD JEC SOUTN BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE n Occordance with the South Bur- Iingfon Zoning R, I.Ilons and Chapter 117, Titic 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of hearing Of the 1$ uth BurlId 0pnglublon Munlcl.a, Offices,- Conference Room, 575 Dorset Sheet, South Burlington. Vermont on Monday. June D, 1M, OfP.M. to an thefollowing: No. I Appeal of Ernest Levesque Jr. seeking I variance, from Sec- mmri and Sedlonsl9^00 Non clon- formhg uses and structures of the South purllrgton Regulations. Re- quest is for Permission to can- struct 12'x3D' addition o the south - they seailfr�lYd iron xside �ItiOn to wlthln twenty nine (29) feet of the proper - iv line Rood. No.,at 195 Hinesburg 2 Appeal Of Edwin J. Ste Morse seeking ONo rconfonce'rm ng Section 19.00, uses and structures and Section 18.113 Dwelling sondords of the South Burlington Regulation$. Ro- quest Is for permission to convert a portlon of a residential unit into addltlo �rd4.gmetal(277 square. COn feet) Vert into office area and remodel a res- idential unit containing 577 squore fee, of 1361 Wfihstan Road. No. 3 Appeal 01 Hons and Helena Mwa seeking o variance, from SSection `19.00. Non•Cont orml ng ection and structures, Section 1B.lU grlinIgtorSReguiatrdsons. Request the Is 'Of permission to Construct a two story 14'x32' addition and convent dwelling Into a two 'amity dwell- ing with one unit containing on - proximately 450 square feet, at 74 AlrpOrt Porkwav, No. 4 Appeal of J.L. Davis, Inc. seeking o variance, from Section 19A0. Non -conforming uses and str ures,of the SPuth Burlington Regulatlons. Request is tot Per— m ission o construct 0 60x62' add,- tlon to On non -conforming, structure tretailncclothing store, at 1 Occupy said building asa270 Shelburne Road, No. 5 Appeal of Gordon and poulelte Lawrence seeking a varl- once, from Section 19... Non -con- forming uses and structures and Sec110n 1t1.113 Dwelling standards iof the South Burlington Regu- lations. Request Is for permission to construct two additions (10'x12' and approximately 26'x30') with an ofloched 24'x24' garage to on ex- isting single family dwelling and convert said dwelling Into a two family dwelling with one unit con- taining 710 square feet, at 6 Gilbert Street, No. 6 Appeal of Usuola Piche, David Boll ev, ogent seeking a var- iance, from Section 18.00, Dimenslonol requirements of the south Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is or Permission to con- struct a 36x36' two 'amity dwell- ing to with,. thirty-four (34) feet of the required front yard and ten (10) feet of the rear yard, at 1600 Williston Road. No. 7 Appeal Of Ying Liu seeking a,Provai, from Section 19.35, FIII- ing with earth products Of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- rauvneisof� approoximately 24on to Il a 000 square feel, a depth average 50 feel with earth material, located to the rear of no.311-313-315 Hinesburg Road. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative officer June 11, 1983 NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Name, address and telephone # of applicant E,,yeJ_7- L VCSQUE 4A, 62 C3 4 2 0+ "^r 3r2EtY )rDv7-14- 4�QC !•v a�-v�, v�- Name, address of property owner L4/1L�'._5J?VC' ci2_ 4 5` lYIAICS .9VA6 a'bAD Property location and description C 4 �_ NIAIP-5 $ UQC An I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearing fee of $30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Hearing Date Signature f Appellant Do not write below this line 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 Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on--�__L(� at .UIJ • day of week 5month and date time to consider the following: Appeal of seeking a from Section F1,144 Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to t of the South zA- / � *X 30 . r ZOidI''IG BOARD OF ADJUSTP"IN :, nR 24, 1934- No. 2 Appeal of Champlain Collete ro. 2 appeal of champlain college was withdrawn. .1 No- 3 Appeal of Ernest Levesque and Robert Boyd Appeal of Ernest Levesque and Robert Boyd seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements and Section 18.113 Dwelling standards, request is for permission to convert an existing single-family unit into a two family unit, second unit to contain 814 square feet on a lot containing 15,000 square feet at 195 Hinesburg Road. Mr. ;lard said the area is zoned R-4. A two family dwelling is a permitted use. Under Section 18.00, Dimensional requirements, the minimum lot required is 12,000 square feet with 85 foot frontage. The existing lot is 15,000 square feet with 75 feet frontage. Under Section 18.113 the minimum dwelling standard is 850 square feet per unit. The proposed apartment will have 814- square feet. Mr. Ward pointed out that a variance was granted in June for modifications on the house. The modifications were made and it was used as a single family dwelling. Mr. Bovd stated he could not afford to purchase the property unless he was able to make it a duplex. He said he had a deposit on the house before he knew he needed a variance before he started construction on the property. Mr. B lais asked Mr. Ward if the neighborhood had been notified. Mr. Ward said they were and no one objected. ter. Goodrich in the audience said he was a close neighbor and had no objections. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. No. 4 appeal of Ira Tate and r W Gregory Appeal of Ira Tate and C.W. Gregory seeking a variance from Section 19.65 1iultiple uses and approval from Section 13.20 Conditional uses, request is for permission to construct a building containing 31,200 square feet occupying 8,000 square feet as a kernel and 23,200 square feet for a light manufacturing use in conjunction with a retail -wholesale auto parts business and a residential �I unit on a lot containing approximately three (3) acres, at 3060 Williston Road. l 11,r. `lard said the area is zoned Industrial -commercial. Under section 13.20 and j sub -section 13.201 a.Kennel is a conditional use. The proposal is 8,000 square j feet for a pet shop and kennel. Also the existing use, a retail -wholesale auto parts store and reisential unit is a Multiple use under Section 19.65 There will be 8,000 square feet of kernel and 23,200 square feet for light manufacturing use. The lot size is 3 acres with 120 feet frontage. 1'''Ir. Ward said a varance was granted on Jane 30, 1983 for this same plan. It also went through site plan revue. The variance expired because the project wasn't done within six months from the time the variance was granted. i, fir. Blais asked if there were any changes made on the plan since the last ;I variance was granted. Mr. Tate said everything was the same. That the reason he could not go through with the project the first time was a financial problem. 1I Mr. Dinklage made a motion if passed there be a stipulation that the building be that contained in writing on the drawing presented to the Zoning Board 11 and that the chicken coop be removed immediately and the building known as w! the auto parts store be removed 5 years from the origianl variance of June 30, 1983. Mr. Thibault seconded the motion. All were in favor. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. June 13, 1983 Mr. Ernest Levesque 62 Barrett Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Levesque; Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall Conference Boom, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, June 27, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend. Very truly, Richard i%ard, Zoninq Administrative Officer W/mcq