HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-10-07 - Decision - 0008 Laurel Hill DriveCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
VIGNESH SOLAI - 8 LAUREL HILL DRIVE
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-10-07
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Vignesh Solai, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval to add a gable
entrance which projects into the front setback requirement, 8 Laurel Hill Drive.
The Board held meetings to this application on September 7, 2010 and September 21, 2010. The
applicant represented himself.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting
materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is seeking miscellaneous approval for construction of a gable entrance which projects
into the front setback requirement, 8 Laurel Hill Drive.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Vignesh Solai.
3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District.
4. The plans submitted included four (4) 872" X 11" drawings prepared by the applicant.
The applicant is proposing to construct a gable porch in the front setback. The home sits directly on
the 30 foot front setback line. The new construction is proposed to encroach 7 feet into front yard
setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Board grant a front yard setback waiver of 7
feet. 3.06(J) states that the DRB may allow encroachment of a structure into a required setback
subject to the provisions of conditional use review. These criteria are included below.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use
shall meet the following standards:
The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character
of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed construction is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed
#MS-10-07
use is located.
According to Section 4.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Residential 4 Zoning District
is formed to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing
neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods.
The proposed construction will not affect density in the neighborhood, so it is not in conflict with the
stated purpose of the R4 Zoning District.
The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the
following:
(a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities.
The proposed construction will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located,
nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
The proposed construction does not create the potential to adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood. An encroachment into this setback is no closer than the abutting home to the east and
would not allow by its effect other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach into the established
setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed construction will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
The proposed construction is in keeping with applicable regulations, specifically allowed under 3.06(J)
of the Land Development Regulations.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed construction will not affect renewable energy resources.
(f) General public health and welfare.
The proposed construction will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare.
Pursuant to Section 3.06(J)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use
shall meet the following standards:
Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (a) and (b)
above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14,
Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear
property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review
Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on:
(a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
2
#MS-10-07
The proposed construction will not have an undue adverse affect on the views of adjoining properties.
(b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
The proposed construction will not have an undue adverse affect on the access of sunlight of adjoining
properties.
(c) adequate on -site parking; and
The proposed construction will not have an undue adverse affect on adequate on -site parking.
(d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.
The proposed construction will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining properties.
DECISION a
Motion by Q� tV seconded by k�g-1 o approve
Miscellaneous a plication #MS-10-& of Vignesh Solai, subject to the following 'on ition's!.
1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in
full effect.
2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the
South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months or this approval is null and void.
4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review
Board.
#MS-10-07
Mark Behr — rye /nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birminph— ea nay/abstain/not present
John Dinklage
/nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley —ay/abstain/not
present
Eric Knudsen —nay/abstain/not
present
Gayle Quimby= a
nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — ee /nay/abstain/not
present
Motion carried by a vote of q- o - d
Signed this day of 2010, by
L ' rfe �.
John Dinklage, Chair an
Please note: You have the rig�to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant
to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is
$250.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time
may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472
(d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality).
4