HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-12-01 - Decision - 0007 Lyons AvenueCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MADDISON- 7 LYONS AVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-12-01
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Robert & Marilyn Maddison, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking miscellaneous
approval to construct a 300 sq. ft. 1-story addition to a non -complying single family dwelling, 7 Lyons
Avenue
The Board held hearings on this application on March 6, March 20, and April 3, 2012. The applicant
represented themselves.
The Board conducted a site visit to the property on March 20, 2012.
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:
1. Robert & Marilyn Maddison, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking miscellaneous
approval for to construct a 300 sq. ft. 1-story addition to a non -complying single family dwelling, 7
Lyons Avenue
2. The owners of record of the subject property are Robert & Marilyn Maddison.
3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Neighborhood Zoning District.
4. The plan submitted was prepared by the applicants and is undated.
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:
QCP Zoning District
Required
Existing
Proposed
w► Min. Lot Size
7500 S.F.
3,290 S.F
No change
�l Max. Building Coverage
40%
25.2%
31.2%
�l Max. Overall Coverage
60%
25.2%
31.2%
�► Min. Front Setback
loft
<10 ft
>10 ft
�l Min. Side Setback
5 ft.
13 ft
5 ft
Min. Rear Setback
10 ft.
>10 ft.
No change
Max. Buildino Hei ht
25 ft.
Unknown
187'
�► Pre-existing non-compliance
Zoning compliance
The applicant is seeking approval to add an addition to the east side of the existing home. Because
the principal building is non -complying, the project must be reviewed under 3.11(D) [Alterations to
#MS-10-08
Non -Complying Structures] and 4.08(E), and (F) [Queen City Park District] of the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations (SBLDR).
Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the Land Development Regulations states that "except as otherwise provided
in sub -sections (2) and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park District, and in Article
12, Section 12.01(D), any non -complying building or structure may be altered, including additions to
the building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent
(35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for industrial and commercial property
of the current assessed value as determined by the City Assessor and in compliance with Section
3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an expansion to a building or structure is proposed, the
addition or expansion itself must comply with the provisions of these regulations (e.g., setback
requirements)"
Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR's states that "the thirty-five percent (35%) limitation for residential
properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence prior to
February 28, 1974".
This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11(D)(2) of the SBLDR's is not subject to the 35%
limitation described in Section 3.11(D)(1).
Section 4.08 (F). Non -complying structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be
subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements
and restrictions:
(1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not:
a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and twenty five
percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as determined by the
City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the
Administrative Officer, or
b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve an
increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
The applicant's proposal does involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure.
Therefore, the non -complying building may not be altered except as allowed by Section 4.08(F) (2)
and (3):
(2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and
twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's
height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use
Review.
The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled 'Conditional
Use Review' below.
(3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed
alteration or expansion will not adversely affect:
a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
c. Adequate on -site parking.
2
#MS-10-08
As subsection `a' and `b' above are unique in the Land Development Regulations in that they are to be
evaluated from the perspective of adjoining and/or nearby properties, the Board conducted a site visit
of the property. The proposed addition is proposed to be located to the east side of the existing home.
There are no existing homes to the east, but there is a shared, common park. There is a wooded area
between the subject property and the lake, and the subject property is elevated above the lake.
As such, the Board relied upon its site visit with respect to the proposal's compliance with criteria `a'
and `b' above. The Board finds that the plan for consideration in this decision meets these criteria.
The subject property is unique in that it does not have any on -site parking. There is no driveway or
parking area on the property. It appears that the subject property utilizes an adjacent, shared lot.
However, the text above reads that the "expansion" shall not adversely affect on -site parking. The
expansion itself does not require additional parking per the SBLDRs, nor does it propose to eliminate
any existing on -site parking. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposal is in compliance with criterion
c.
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 Board finds that the proposed addition is consistent 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.
According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is formed
in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing
character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's historic
development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the
conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences.
The existing use as a single family home is not changing; therefore, the Board finds that the proposed
use is in conformance with the purposes of the district.
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 steps will not adversely affect municipal services.
(b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located,
nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses.
3
#MS-10-08
The Board finds the proposed addition is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined
by the Comprehensive Plan.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed alteration will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, the property is in compliance with the
bylaws in effect.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed addition will not impact adversely the abutting property owner's access to solar energy.
DECISION
Motion by Roger Farley, seconded by Bill Stuono, to approve Miscellaneous application #MS-12-01 of
Robert & Marilyn Maddison, subject to the following conditions:
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.
Tim Barritt— yqa/nay/abstain/not present
Mark Behr —yea/nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — y2a/nay/abstain/not present
Michael Sirotkin — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of 4 — 0 — 0
Signed this 4th day of April 2012, by
Digitally signed by Mark C. Behr
Mark C. Behr D14: cn=Mar .C. Behr, t Richard Henry Behr
Architect P.C., ou,email=mark@rhbpccom,
e=115
Date: 2012.04.0410:01:32-04'00'
Mark Behr, Chairman
4
#MS-10-08
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermont*udiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
5