Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-00-12 AO-00-13 - Decision - 0363 Juniper Drive#AO-00-12 #AO-00-13 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Re: CONSOLIDATED APPEAL OF MICHAEL BRACE - DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER This matter came before the South Burlington Development Board pursuant to the provisions of 24 VSA § 4464(a) on appeal of Michael Brace, hereinafter "Appellant" from two (2) decisions of the Administrative Officer. Appeal #AO-00-12 from the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-00-17 dated 7/19/00. Appeal #AO- 00-13 appealing the denial of zoning permit #ZP-00-420 by the Administrative Officer to add one (1) dwelling unit to a four (4) unit multi -family dwelling, 363 Juniper Drive. The Appellant was present at the public hearing held on 1/16/01 relative to these appeals. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing and as part of these appeals, the South Burlington Development Board hereby renders the following decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The owner of record of this property located at 363 Juniper Drive is Michael Brace. 2. The property owned by the Appellant consists of one (1) of four (4) dwelling units in building #20 of the Quarry Ridge planned residential development. This development consists of 92 residential units in 23 buildings. 3. One of the appeals is an appeal of the Administrative Officer's decision to issue Notice of Violation #NV-00-17 dated 7/19/00 relative to property at 373 Juniper Drive. The zoning violation involves the Appellant converting his dwelling unit into two (2) dwelling units resulting in a building approved for four (4) dwellings units converted to five (5) dwelling units without approval from the Development Review Board and without a zoning permit. 4. Staff was informed about this violation by a phone call from Assistant State Fire Marshall Joe Benard. The Notice of Violation, which is the subject of this appeal, was immediately sent to the appellant notifying him of the violation as required by 24 VSA § 442(a). 5. On July 25, 2000 the Appellant's attorney Francis X. Murray delivered a letter (see enclosed) to the Administrative Officer and among other things asked for what information was used to establish that Mr. Brace was in violatic;-,. Mr. Murray was contacted and informed that the information came from the Assistant State Fire Marshall. Mr. Murray indicated that his client had not added a dwelling unit. The Administrative Officer then asked if he could view the dwelling unit to determine for himself whether there was or was not a violation. Mr. Murray agreed to this and said he would get back to him to set up a time to view the property. Mr. Murray did not call back with a time and date to view the property. 6. The 15 day appeal period from the date of the Notice of Appeal passed without a Notice of Appeal being field by Mr. Brace. Approximately two (2) months after the last conversation with Mr. Murray, the Administrative Officer called his office to set up a meeting to view the property. He spoke to his legal assistant who indicatsed that they had been very busy and forgot to get back to him with a time to view the property. 7. A meeting was setup for October 17, 2000. The property was viewed on that date. The Administrative Officer saw that the basement area was finished off with a complete kitchen which included a full set of cabinets, a double sink, a dishwasher, a full size refrigerator and full size cooking range. The basement area also included a full bath and a large room with a sofa. This area has direct access to the outside via a sliding glass door. It is staff's understanding that Mr. Brace was living in this area at the time the Notice of Violation was issued and was not living there when it was inspected on October 17, 2000. 8. It is the Appellant's position that the finished basement as described above does not constitute a dwelling unit. Section 28.116 of the Zoning Regulations defines dwelling units as: "One room or 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. 9. It is the Administrative Officer's position that the finished basement area constitutes a dwelling unit for the following reasons: 1. The space includes independent cooking, sleeping and bath facilities. 2. This space is physically separated from the main living unit by a stairway and doors and has direct access to the outside. 2 3. The space was used as a dwelling unit by the Appellant prior to the Notice of Violation. 10. After inspecting the property on 10/17/00, Mr. Murray transmitted a letter dated 10/26/00. A response was sent by the City Attorney by letter dated 10/31/00. 11. On 11/9/00 the Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal and a letter to the Chair of the Development Review Board dated 11/9/00 from Mr. Murray. The Notice of Appeal was submitted more than three (3) months after the Notice of Violation was issued. 24 VSA 4464)a requires that a Notice of Appeal be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision. The appeal was not taken within the time period prescribed by the statutes and it is therefore untimely. 12. The other appeal is an appeal of the Administrative Officer's decision to deny zoning permit #ZP-00-420 to add one (1) dwelling unit to a four (4) unit multi -family dwelling. 13. This permit was denied because the Administrative Officer does not have the authority to approve adding one (1) dwelling unit to a four (4) unit multi -family dwelling. Approval must first be obtained form the Development Review Board and this approval has not been obtained. 14. The zoning permit application describes the proposed improvements as "finished great room in lower level." The Administrative Officer has viewed the lower level with all the proposed improvements completed. The completed improvements constitute a "dwelling unit" and the Administrative Officer does not have the authority to approve this dwelling unit without prior approval from the Development Review Board. 15. The zoning permit application was received on 11/9/00. It was denied on 12/8/00. On December 13, 2000, the appellant's attorney, Francis X, Murray, appealed the Administrative Officer's decision without formally submitting a Notice of Appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The Development Review Board concludes that appeal #AO-00-12 of the Administrative Officer's decision to issue Notice of Violation #NV-00-17 dated 7/19/00 was untimely as it was received on 11/9/00 which is approximately three (3) months after the Notice of Violation was issued. 24 VSA § 4464(a) requires that a Notice of Appeal be filed within 15 days of the date of the decision. 2. The Development Review Board concludes that the improvements made to the lower level of 363 Juniper Drive constitute a dwelling unit as defined by the zoning regulations. 3. The Development Review Board concludes that the Administrative Officer does not have the authority to issue a zoning permit to add one (1) dwelling unit to a four (4) unit multi- family dwelling. The Board concludes that the Administrative Officer acted properly in denying zoning permit #ZP-00-420. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington Development Review Board hereby denies the Appellant's request to overturn the Administrative Officer's decision of 7/19/00 that the Appellant's property is in violation of the zoning regulations and hereby denies the Appellant's request to overturn the Administrative Officer's decision of 12/8/00 to deny zoning permit application #ZP-00-420 and affirms said decisions. Dated this i 6 day of January, 2001 at South Burlington, Vermont Chairman or Cler South Burlington Development Review Board 2