    |
  |
        |
|
|
Zoning Board of Adjustment - November 2006
TOWN OF SHELBURNE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2006MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Koerner, Chairperson; John Holt, Boris Funtow. (Absent: Steve Waltien, Gwen Webster) ADMINISTRATOR: Susie Leonard, Interim Zoning Coordinator; Brian Bigelow, Zoning Coordinator. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Reynes, Dawna Hammers, John Andovehir, Grant Olsen, Danna Olsen, Jonathan Wolff, Andrew Thomas, David Hilliard, Christopher Eling, Peter Morris, Michele Palmer-Daid, David Palmer, Jessica Ennis, Andy Simmons, Jeffrey Krupp, David Marshall, Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press). Margery Sharp (Shelburne News). 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Introductions were made. Brian Bigelow, Zoning Coordinator, was welcomed back. Susie Leonard, Interim Zoning Coordinator, was thanked for all her hard work during Mr. Bigelow’s absence. Mr. Koerner reviewed the hearing process and establishment of “Interested Party” status. It was explained with only three of five Board members present, a unanimous vote of approval on an application is needed. The Board may elect to deliberate applications in Deliberative Session at the end of the public hearing portion of the meeting. 2. OLD BUSINESS V/A06-29: Continuation of Variance/Appeal by Patrick Grangien (owner) d/b/a ‘Amandine on the Village Green’ of the denial of a sign permit by the Zoning Coordinator, and the request for a variance to allow a setback of 0 feet where a setback of 10 feet is required at 195 Falls Road in the Village and Village Core Overlay Districts (Article IX) and the Village Design Review Overlay District (Article XV) MOTION by Mr. Funtow, seconded by Mr. Holt, to continue V/A06-29, Variance Application and Appeal by Patrick Grangien (owner) dba ‘Amandine on the Village Green’ relative to a sign permit for 195 Falls Road until the next Zoning Board meeting. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. V06-33: Variance Application by Dawna Hammers (owner) seeking retroactive approval of a deck that encroaches upon the rear yard setback by approximately five feet and exceeds the allowed building coverage (§330.2) at 9 Railroad Lane located in the Village and Village Core Overlay Districts (Article IX) and Village Design Review Overlay District (Article XV) Dawna Hammers, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the application, dated 9/11/06. Mr. Koerner noted the Zoning Board requested a history of the deck on the subject property. APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Hammers reported she was unable to uncover any information other than what was already presented. Mr. Koerner read research notes provided by the Zoning Coordinator (Susie Leonard). A previous owner, built a 4’x 4’ stoop. There was a fire in 2004. The staff report, dated 9/11/06, included a photograph of the deck. Prior to 2003, the deck size may have been 6’x 4’. Ms. Hammers said as far as she could determine the deck was built prior to the new zoning bylaws. Bonnie Thomas, a long time neighbor resident, recalls the 4’x4’ stoop. Another neighbor, Matthew Taylor, recalled the existing deck is the same width as it is now, but longer. A letter from Mr. Taylor was submitted to the Zoning Board at the previous hearing. Mr. Koerner noted Mr. Taylor’s letter spoke in favor of the porch design. Mr. Funtow asked if the Board can conclude the porch is no more non-conforming presently than previously. Ms. Hammers showed Polaroid photographs of the existing deck at the rear of the house. There was discussion regarding the size of the porch, the design of the stairs as shown in the photographs (Hammers) and the photographs from 2003 (Mr. Funtow commented the stairs appear to have been changed), and changes to the zoning bylaws since 1965 that include covered, enclosed decks (the bylaws in 1974 include decks, but it is unclear if the deck in question existed at that time). Ms. Leonard stated the previous homeowners have not responded to communications from the Planning & Zoning Office. Ms. Hammers asked who owned the house in 1974. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Variance, Retroactive Approval for Deck in Rear Yard Setback, 9 Railroad Lane, Hammers (V06-33) The Zoning Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the meeting. Decisions and/or Findings of Fact will be on file in the Planning Office. V/CU06-39: Variance and Conditional Use Applications by Sam Handy, et al (property owners), Bullrock Corporation (applicant), and Stephen Reynes (agent) to remove a retail building (Town and Country Kitchens), utilize portions of an existing restaurant and motel (Ponderosa and Travelodge), and construct new additions to create a 72-unit elderly housing facility as a PRD (§820.22) associated with the Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community at 2522 Shelburne Road, 2538 Shelburne Road, and 2572 Shelburne Road in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII) Steve Reynes, agent, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner noted at a previous Zoning Board meeting, the Board deliberated the application, but there were remaining questions. The Board concluded an opinion was required by the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney drafted a response, dated 11/3/06, which was received one day prior to the meeting. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Reynes noted that the Board had questions regarding landscaping which will be addressed by Doug Moses. Mr. Koerner clarified the concern was that a variance goes with the land unless the lots are merged. Density applies to the combination of lots. Mr. Reynes requested a brief recess in order to read the legal opinion from the Town Attorney. A recess was granted (7:25 p.m.) following which the meeting reconvened (7:55 p.m.). Mr. Reynes stated disagreement with the opinion of the Town Attorney as outlined in the Town Attorney’s letter, dated 11/3/06, and asked for time to evaluate the Town Attorney’s letter in terms of the project. On 10/16/06, the applicant submitted cases from the Vermont Supreme Court relative to increasing non-compliance without Conditional Use approval by the Zoning Board which is consistent with §1620.2 of the Shelburne zoning ordinance. The proposal is not an enlargement of the existing building, stated Mr. Reynes, adding setbacks are increased by merging the lots. The Town Attorney raises the idea of taking everything down. The applicant would like to continue the public hearing to the December meeting of the Board, stated Mr. Reynes. Mr. Koerner asked the applicant to submit any further evidence to the Town. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Variance/Conditional Use, Elderly Housing PRD, 2522 Shelburne Road, 2538 Shelburne Road, & 2572 Shelburne Road, Sam Handy, et al, Bullrock Corporation, and Stephen Reynes (V/CU06-39) MOTION by Mr. Holt, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to grant the request by the applicant’s agent to continue the application by Sam Handy et al (property owners), Bullrock Corporation (applicant), and Stephen Reynes (agent) to the December 4th, 2006 meeting. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 3. NEW BUSINESS V/CU06-41: Variance and Conditional Use Applications by David Palmer (property owner) to modify an existing non-complying structure by replacing a front stoop with an enclosed porch of which a one foot portion encroaches in the setback (§320.2) while the remainder does not encroach farther into the front yard setback (§1620.2) at 331 Shelburne Hinesburg Road in the Rural 1 District (Article III) David Palmer, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the application, dated 11/6/06. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Palmer explained the proposal to enclose an existing 5’x 5’ stoop/porch to create a 6’x 10’ entrance/mud room. The house is close to the road and a variance is required. The pre-existing concrete base of the stoop is imprinted with the date of 1941. The six foot section of concrete has been removed. The stoop is 8’ wide with the roof overhang. The distance from the stoop to the road is 30’. The Assessor lists the stoop as 5’x 5’, but the actual measurement is 5’x 8’. The design and dimensions of the proposed mudroom were taken from Don Moore’s house. Mr. Palmer submitted a photograph of the front of the Moore house for review. Mr. Koerner reviewed the zoning bylaws relative to nonconforming structures. The existing porch can expand along the house, but can be no closer to the road. If the applicant can verify that the concrete was 6’ wide, then the proposed porch could be built out 6’. What was there (pre-existing) can be enclosed. Mr. Palmer questioned the issue if there is no impact to the overall setback and no impact to the neighbors if the porch is six feet instead of five feet. Mr. Koerner replied is the issue is that a precedent would be set if the variance is granted. All five variance criteria must be met by the applicant. With the Palmer application, it is possible to use the property without a variance. Having a 5’x 12’ porch is feasible. Mr. Koerner summarized options as follows:
If documentation regarding the six foot width is submitted, the Board can handle the application at the next meeting (December). It the five foot width is acceptable, the site plan can be amended presently and the change initialed by the applicant. The variance application would be withdrawn. Only the width, not the length would be handled by the Board at this time. After consideration of the option, the applicant decided to withdraw the variance application and amend (and initial) the site plan, dated 10/6/06 to reflect a width of five feet for the porch. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Variance/Conditional Use, Enclosed Porch Encroaching into Setback, 331 Shelburne Hinesburg Road, Palmer (V/CU06-41) MOTION by Mr. Holt, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve the Conditional Use application by David Palmer as amended, CU06-41, to modify an existing non-complying structure by replacing the front stoop with an enclosed porch which does not encroach farther into the front yard setback (§1620.2), based on the site plan reflecting a five foot depth and no more than a 14’ width with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 11/6/06, and as follows:
VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. CU06-04R1: Conditional Use application by All Souls Interfaith Gathering, Inc., (property owner) and Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. (agent) for modifications to a prior Conditional Use approval to include moving a garage that will be used as a fuel plant and for classrooms, and adding a fuel silo for fuel storage as well as other minor site design changes at 291 Bostwick Road in the Rural 1 District (Article III) David Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the application, dated 11/6/06. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Marshall reviewed the elements of the proposal including:
There was mention of the Fire Department reviewing the proposed fuel storage. It was noted the changes to the site plan on 11/6/06 can be initialed by the applicant (agent). PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Minor Site Design Changes, 291 Bostwick Road, All Souls Interfaith Gathering (CU06-04R1) MOTION by Mr. Funtow, seconded by Mr. Holt, to approve CU06-04R1, Conditional Use application to modify the site plan, date stamped 10/4/06, and as amended on 11/6/06 with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 11/6/06 and as follows:
VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. CU06-35R1: Conditional Use application by Ray and Alison Simmons (owners) to add a deck/patio expansion, a balcony and a side deck to a recent Conditional Use approval that allowed modifications to an existing non-complying structure at 175 Palmer Court in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII) Ray Simmons, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the application, dated 11/6/06. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Simmons explained the proposal to expand the deck along the front of the structure once the existing single-family structure is lifted up. A balcony and overhang will be added to the front, and a new deck will be added to the rear of the house. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jessica Ennis, adjoining neighbor, expressed concern that an upper deck will impact her privacy. There is a privacy hedge planted between dwellings, but her bathroom and bedroom would be visible from the proposed balcony. The hedge is trimmed down between six to twelve inches each a year to improve the view of the lake. Ms. Ennis noted she is moving within a month, and is concerned the privacy issue may adversely impact the sale of her property. Ms. Ennis asked to have a balloon floated to show the actual height of the proposed balcony. The Board viewed photographs of the Ennis house in relation to the applicant’s property. Mr. Simmons submitted photographs before and after the hedge is trimmed. Ms. Ennis stated the second floor window of the applicant’s house is visible before the hedge is trimmed. Mr. Funtow pointed out there is no guarantee of having no sight lines unless the homeowner owns all the surrounding land. Mr. Funtow asked the purpose of the balcony. Mr. Simmons replied the balcony would be used to view the lake. The plat plan shows the neighbor’s (Ennis) bedroom cannot be seen. The house is canted away from the Ennis house. A privacy wall can also be constructed. The roof will extend out two feet. Mr. Koerner reviewed that the existing house is a non-complying structure on one-half acre. The required front yard setback is 30’and the sideyard setback is 15’. There is substantial area for the permitted use. The applicant could raze the existing structure and build a house four times the size at 35’ in height. The proposed open deck in the rear is a revision, but the overhang is just a roof. A balloon test could be done but the applicant wants to start construction. The Zoning Board has approved the proposal to raise the structure up. The balcony issue can be negotiated with the neighbor and then the applicant can return if needed, suggested Mr. Koerner. Mr. Bigelow noted the balcony meets dimensional and setback requirements. The applicant does not need to return before the Zoning Board if the proposal meets setbacks per Section 1622. Mr. Simmons can apply for a building permit next spring. Mr. Simmons asked if the existing roof line in front can be extended. Mr. Simmons agreed to remove the balcony from the application if there is approval of the remaining revisions. Mr. Simmons initialed and dated the revised site plan as of 11/6/06. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Modifications to Existing Noncomplying Structure, 175 Palmer Court, Simmons (CU06-35R1) MOTION by Mr. Koerner, seconded by Mr. Holt, to approve the Conditional Use application, CU06-35R1, by Ray and Alison Simmons to add a deck/patio expansion and a side deck to a recent Conditional Use approval as amended on the site plan, dated 10/10/06, with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 11/6/06 and as follows: 1. The changes to and uses of the site shall occur as indicated on the site plan and elevations as submitted prepared by the applicant and date stamped 10/10/06, and as modified, dated 11/6/06, to remove the proposed second story balcony. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. CU06-42: Conditional Use application by Jeffrey and Catherine Krupp (property owners) to modify an existing non-complying structure (§1620.2) by replacing existing concrete steps with wooden steps at 261 Harbor Road in the Village District (Article IX) and Village Design Review Overlay District (Article XV) Jeffrey Krupp, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner noted that the dwelling is a duplex on Harbor Road. The existing steps are concrete. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Krupp explained that the existing concrete steps have weathered and will be removed. The steps will be replaced with wood steps. There are two sets of stairs. The proposal is a modification and within setbacks. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Replacement of Stairs, 261 Harbor Road, Krupp (CU06-42) MOTION by Mr. Holt, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve CU06-42, Conditional Use application by Jeffrey and Catherine Krupp to modify an existing non-complying structure located at 261 Harbor Road by replacing existing concrete steps with wood steps with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 11/6/06, and as follows: 1. Site improvements shall occur as indicated on the site plan and drawing submitted by the applicant, date stamped 10/12/06. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Access Road to Rice Lumber Mr. Marshall, agent representing Rice Lumber, explained that a warned hearing was noticed, but there was confusion regarding what is requested. The application is for construction of an alternate driveway which was granted a variance. Mr. Marshall reviewed the access and revised alignment of the driveway which does not require removal of the garage. There is no increase in lot coverage and no change to the parking configuration. Mr. Koerner asked if the house at 4188 Shelburne Road is occupied. Mr. Marshall was not certain. Ms. Leonard stated staff disagrees with data submitted with the application. Some information is erroneous or missing. The parking information is incomplete. Mr. Marshall noted the previous application received approval. Ms. Leonard said staff attempted to meet with the applicant prior to the 11/6/06 meeting date to discuss the application. There was further discussion of the matter. Ms. Leonard reiterated the parking information is incomplete. The parking requirements need to be documented. The Zoning Board will review a formal application (which was warned, but removed from the agenda). Mr. Funtow observed if the application was warned, then the Board would have reviewed it at the meeting. Mr. Funtow asked about the flexibility (“wiggle room”) being requested and how this can be documented for the file. Mr. Bigelow stated ordinarily the matter is handled with the building permit. With Rice Lumber, lot coverage is the issue. The garage was not a concern in the previous application because it was to be removed. Now the garage will not be removed due to the realignment of the driveway. Parking is adequate. Ms. Leonard determined that the application as incomplete and the complete application would be reviewed at the December meeting. Mr. Holt felt retaining the building is a significant change and the application should be reviewed by the Board. 5. DELIBERATION SESSION MOTION by Mr. Holt, seconded by Mr. Koerner, to close the public portion of the meeting and enter Deliberative Session. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The Board entered Deliberative Session at 8:50 p.m. MOTION by Mr. Funtow, seconded by Mr. Holt, to adjourn Deliberative Session and reconvene the regular meeting. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The ZBA exited Deliberative Session and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Koerner summarized the results of the deliberative session as a decision to continue the Hammers application. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25 and OCTOBER 2, 2006 MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Edelman, to approve the minutes of 12/08/03 as written. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Koerner, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The ZBA meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. February 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes March 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes April 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes May 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes June 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes August 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes September 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes October 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes December 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2010 |
