Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-07-01 - Decision - 0229 Laurel Hill Drive#MS-07-01 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BRIAN R. TESSIER - 229 LAUREL HILL DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-07-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Brian R. Tessier, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval to construct an 8' x 10' open porch to project 9.5 feet into the front setback, 229 Laurel Hill Drive. The Development Review Board held a public meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 2007. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public meeting and the plans and 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 to construct an 8' x 10' open porch to project 9.5 feet into the front setback, 229 Laurel Hill Drive. 2. The proposed porch has already been constructed. This application is to correct the zoning violation. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is Brian R. Tessier. 4. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of two (2) hand drawn plans showing the applicant's house and the houses on either side of the subject property. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. 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 porch is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. - 1 - #MS-07-01 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 addition will not affect density in the neighborhood, so it is not in conflict with the stated purpose of the R4 Zoning District. However, the Land Development Regulations require that structures in the R4 Zoning District maintain a 30' setback, which this project would be in conflict with. 3. 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 addition 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 porch will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Currently, the existing dwelling projects 9.5 feet into the setback. The existing home is an L-shape and the proposed porch is flush with the small section of that 'L'. The proposed porch does not project any further than the existing dwelling already does. An encroachment into this setback will not allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to further encroach into the established setback and would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The Board approves a front setback waiver to the applicable regulations, specifically the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed addition will not affect renewable energy resources (0 General public health and welfare. The proposed addition will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare WA #MS-07-01 Pursuant to Section 3.060)(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; The proposed addition 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 addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the access of sunlight of adjoining properties. (c) adequate on -site parking; and The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on adequate on -site parking. (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining properties. DECISION Motion by (?A� m seconded by b6�V to approve Mis ellaneous Applic tion #MS-07-01 of Brian R. Tessier, subject to the following conditions: 1) All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3) The Development Review Board grants a front setback waiver of 9.5 feet. 4) The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations, or this approval is null and void. 5) Any change to the plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. -3- #MS-07-01 Mark Behr — ea ay/abstain/not present Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstai of rese John Dinklage — ea/nay/abstain of presen Roger Farley — e nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — e ay/abstain/not present Peter Plumeau — nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — e /nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of Signed this day2007, by ark Behr, Vice Chairman Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. 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).