BARRETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2006
The Chairperson, Paul Malone, called the BarreTown Board of Adjustment public hearing held at the MunicipalOfficeBuilding on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 to order at 7:04 p.m. The Zoning Administrator and interested parties were sworn in.
Board Members Present:
Paul Malone, Chair
Paul Badger
Mark Reaves
Mike Gallo
Richard Jensen
Staff Members Present:
Chris Violette, Zoning Administrator
Others Present:
Jim & Sue Edson David Dewal
Steve Sanford Ed Gallo
Erwin Kreis Andre & Dawn Provost
Jeff Paronto Brice Lewis
Sidney Bailey Daniel & Kathleen Thompson
Jon Willard Viola Willard
Pat Gallo Tony Amaral
Elizabeth Amaral Charles Pastor
Gregory Rabideau Mike Bilodeau
Board Secretary:
Heidi Bennett, Clerk
A. WARNED HEARINGS:
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Jeffrey Paronto for conditional use determination to allow a multi-family dwelling for property located at 12 Morin Road; Tax Map 015, Lot 020; Zoned: RES A (CUP-06000003)
Applicant: Jeffrey Paronto
Date: June 15, 2006
Mr. Paronto is before the Zoning Board this month seeking a conditional use permit for the purpose of allowing a multi-family dwelling (duplex) in a residential A zone. Section 4.0 i., under conditional use permits, states that a person can have a multi-family dwelling up to two living units in a new house and up to four in an existing house upon review and approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Paronto currently has two dwellings on his .72-acre parcel on a dead end street in South Barre. He has a singlewide mobile home along with a large garage that also has an apartment inside. The current situation with the two separate living units is in violation of current zoning. While disagreeing to some degree about whether he knew this or not, I have documentation that I had concerns about it as far back as 2001. Regardless of that situation, Mr. Paronto assures me he is hoping to make this situation right. Any approval should carry a condition that the garage apartment be eliminated.
Mr. Paronto is proposing the creation of this multi-family dwelling by using the existing singlewide home and attaching, by way of a carport, a doublewide mobile home. In effect, this creates one structure with two units and would then technically comply with the regulation of not having more than one dwelling on a single lot.
Mr. Paronto currently has two sewer allocations allotted to this property. One for the singlewide and one that had been previously allocated to the garage. As a result, no additional sewer allocation would be necessary. I am still a little uncertain as to water service to this property. Municipal water exists as well as a drilled well. What is Mr. Paronto’s plan for water supply? If it includes any expansion of the municipal water usage, he will have to get written approval from the City of Barre.
Access to the property is not really an issue to worry about for what is being proposed. The project is located on a short dead-end town road with only a few houses and connects on the VT. Rt. 14 (South Barre Road). The addition of this multi-family dwelling is not likely to increase the daily trips beyond what would be reasonable. In fact, it is likely no additional traffic will be generated because two dwellings already exist. A total of three parking spaces would have to be available based on current zoning but I would suggest at least four parking spaces be required. I do not think providing that much parking is an issue.
There has been concern in the past about allowing stand-alone (non-owner occupied) multi-family dwellings. I think that is a legitimate thing to consider under the general standards when considering a conditional use permit. However, I am not opposed to multi-family dwellings especially duplex’s so I think consideration should be made to allow this. The method may not be the best but there is nothing that disallows it to be done this way.
The following are the standard that should be considered before granting a conditional use permit.
General Standards:
1. The capacity of the existing or planned community facilities; or require an extension or capital expense to the present maintained highway system.
2. The character of the area affected; impact on neighboring uses;
3. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
4. By-laws in effect; and
5. Utilization of renewable energy resources.
Specific standards include the following:
Recommended Conditions:
Final Conditions:
4. Meet with Harry Hinrichsen, Town Engineer on sewer service.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Malone asked the applicant if the garage was still active as a business. Mr. Paronto stated that he pays commercial tax but is not allowed to use the garage for commercial purposes. Mr. Paronto stated that when he thought he did everything he was supposed to do with the apartment, he paid the extra sewer allocation and drilled a well as requested.
Mr. Malone asked the Zoning Administrator if the requirements that were placed by the Board of Adjustment in regards to the business are still in effect. The ZA did not believe so, the garage hasn’t been ran as an active business for some time; however those conditions can be added.
The ZA asked Mr. Paronto if the cars will be removed. Mr. Paronto stated that there are only 3 unregistered vehicles, 2 of which don’t belong to the applicant. Mr. Paronto stated that it is a garage and uses the garage to do his own personal use, but is not an active business. The ZA asked how long the vehicles have been there. Mr. Paronto stated that one registration ran out last fall and one in January. The ZA stated that he will keep an eye on the vehicles and bring it up at a different time if needed.
Mr. Gallo asked about what Mr. Paronto is going to do for his water supply. Mr. Paronto stated that he has a drilled well. The existing dwelling is hooked up to BarreCity; new dwelling will be served by on-site well and garage if a toilet will be allowed to stay.
Laura Coates, (13 Morin Road) stated that she has concerns with the amount of traffic on the road going to Mr. Paronto’s dwelling
The ZA asked for clarification regarding the apartment in the garage. Mr. Paronto stated that the apartment will be removed. He also stated that he and his wife will be moving to this property and that the garage was only used for his parents when they came up from Florida.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Reaves, seconded by Mr. Badger, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the request by Mr. Paronto for conditional use determination to allow a multi-family dwelling on property located at 12 Morin Road; Tax Map 015, lot 020; Zoned: RES A. Approval is subject to conditions 1 –4. (CUP-06000003)
CONDITIONS Yes X No___
MOTION BY: REAVES
SECOND BY: BADGER
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Steve & Kelly Sanford for a 7’ variance from side yard setback for the proposed construction of an attached carport on property located at 707 South Barre Road; Tax Map 026, Lot 003.00; Zoned: COMM (V-06000004)
Applicant: Steve & Kelly Sanford
Date: June 2, 2006
Mr. & Mrs. Sanford are before the Zoning Board of Adjustment this month to seek a 7’ variance of section 4.7 of our current zoning ordinance. The subject parcel is quite small at .2 acres and is located in commercial zone. Commercial accessory setback is 10’.
In September of 2005, the Sanford’s converted an existing garage into a hair salon. I assume because they lost the use of the garage, they now would like to build a carport and cannot meet setback. The plans that have been presented show that they would like to build a 12’ x 21’ carport on the right side of the existing salon (old garage) towards the right property line. It appears as though the salon building is only 15’ from the property line leaving a 3’ setback and thus the 7’ variance request.
The lot in question is small; there is no doubt about that. The lot also has issues with regard to its shape narrowness. All of these are important components that should be look at when determining whether to issue a variance or not. However, having said that I should point back to what I eluded to earlier, without the conversion of the garage into the salon, the variance would not be necessary. Having said that, I am not necessarily against the variance because of the shape and size of this lot. I just point these things out because I think they should be considered.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Sanford stated that he has to put a roof on the garage and was going to extend the roof over the carport.
Mr. Malone asked Mr. Sanford the Five Criteria for Variance questions. Mr. Stanford answered yes to all five questions.
1. Are there unique physical circumstances or conditions as to: YES
a. Irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot sizes or shape; or
b. Exceptional topography or physical conditions peculiar to particular property; or
c. Unnecessary hardship due to the above?
2. Are there physical circumstances or conditions that prevent conformity to zoning regulations; And a variance is necessary to enable “reasonable use” of the property? YES
3. Is it true that no unnecessary hardship was created by the applicant? YES
4. Is it true that a variance will not: YES
a. alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
b. substantially or permanently impair appropriate use of development of adjacent property?
c. reduce access to renewable energy sources?
d. be detrimental to the public welfare?
5. Is it true that the variance represents the minimum deviation from regulation and plan to provide relief? YES
Mr. Badger asked Mr. Stanford if any neighbors have said anything, Mr. Sanford stated that his neighbors have not said anything.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Badger, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the request by Steve & Kelly Sanford for a 7’ variance from side yard setback for the proposed construction of an attached carport on property located at 707 South Barre Road; Tax Map 026, lot 003.00; Zoned: COMM. (V-06000004)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: JENSEN
SECOND BY: BADGER
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Erwin Kreis for a 17’ variance from the town right-of-way for the proposed construction of a 8’ x 20’ attached deck on property located at 13 Orchard Terrace ; Tax Map 017, Lot 040.00; Zoned: RES A (V-06000005)
Applicant: Erwin Kreis
Date: June 15, 2006
Mr. Kreis is before the Zoning Board of Adjustment this month to seek a variance of section 4.7 of our current zoning ordinance, right-of-way setback (Orchard Terrace). The subject parcel is located in a residential A zone which requires a setback of 25’ from a town road right-of-way. The subject parcel is .28 acres in size and is fairly regularly shaped.
The applicant would like to construct an 8’ x 20’ attached deck to the front of his existing single-family dwelling. He has submitted building permit Z-06000109 for that purpose but that permit has been put on hold pending this variance request. If allowed to be constructed the deck would end up being only about 8’ from the edge of the right-of-way. That is the reason for the 17’ variance.
Mr. Kreis’s house, as with many other houses on this section of Orchard Terrace is already closer to the edge of the right-of-way than 25’. Without the deck, the house would only be about 16’ or 17’ away from the edge of the right-of-way.
I do not think the request for the deck is unreasonable and I do not think being 8’ closer than what the house already is will cause any impact on the safety of the road or snow removal. Assuming the applicant can answer the questions in the affirmative, I would suggest granting this request.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Malone asked Mr. Kreis the Five Criteria for Variance questions. Mr. Kreis answered yes to all five questions.
1. Are there unique physical circumstances or conditions as to: YES
a. Irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot sizes or shape; or
b. Exceptional topography or physical conditions peculiar to particular property; or
c. Unnecessary hardship due to the above?
2. Are there physical circumstances or conditions that prevent conformity to zoning regulations; And a variance is necessary to enable “reasonable use” of the property? YES
3. Is it true that no unnecessary hardship was created by the applicant? YES
4. Is it true that a variance will not: YES
a. alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
b. substantially or permanently impair appropriate use of development of adjacent property?
c. reduce access to renewable energy sources?
d. be detrimental to the public welfare?
5. Is it true that the variance represents the minimum deviation from regulation and plan to provide relief? YES
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Reaves, seconded by Mr. Badger, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the request by Erwin Kreis for a 17’ variance from the town right-of-way for the proposed construction of an 8’ x 10’ attached deck on property located at 13 Orchard Terrace; Tax Map 017, lot 040.00; Zoned: RES A. (V-06000005)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: REAVES
SECOND BY: BADGER
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Andre Provost for a 12’ variance from the town right-of-way for the purpose of constructing a 16’ x 24’ workshop/shed on property located at 12 Ridgewood Terrace; Tax Map 033, Lot 029.00; Zoned: RES A (V-06000006)
Applicant: Andre Provost
Date: June 15, 2006
Mr. Provost is before the Zoning Board of Adjustment this month to seek a variance of section 4.7 of our current zoning ordinance, right-of-way setback (Ridgewood Terrace). The subject parcel is located in a residential A zone which requires a setback of 25’ from a town road right-of-way. The subject parcel is .30 acres in size and irregularly shaped because of a curve in the road.
The applicant would like to construct a 16’ x 24’ detached “workshop”. He has submitted a building permit for that purpose but that permit has been put on hold pending this variance request. If allowed to be constructed the workshop would end up being only about 13’ from the edge of the right-of-way. That is the reason for the 12’ variance.
The parcel configuration is probably the reason this variance is needed because it is like a horseshoe. Ridgewood terrace goes around this property creating an irregular lot subject to a lot of road frontage. From what I understand, this is the best location for this workshop due to constraints such as utilities in other areas.
I do not think the request for the workshop is unreasonable and I do not think being 13’ from the road will cause any impact on the safety of the road or snow removal. Assuming the applicant can answer the questions in the affirmative, I would suggest granting this request
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Malone asked Mr. Provost the Five Criteria for Variance questions. Mr. Provost answered yes to all five questions.
1. Are there unique physical circumstances or conditions as to: YES
a. Irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot sizes or shape; or
b. Exceptional topography or physical conditions peculiar to particular property; or
c. Unnecessary hardship due to the above?
2. Are there physical circumstances or conditions that prevent conformity to zoning regulations; And a variance is necessary to enable “reasonable use” of the property? YES
3. Is it true that no unnecessary hardship was created by the applicant? YES
4. Is it true that a variance will not: YES
a. alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
b. substantially or permanently impair appropriate use of development of adjacent property?
c. reduce access to renewable energy sources?
d. be detrimental to the public welfare?
5. Is it true that the variance represents the minimum deviation from regulation and plan to provide relief? YES
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Badger, seconded by Mr. Jensen, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the request by Andre Provost for a 12’ variance from the town right-of-way for the purpose of constructing a 16’ x 24’ workshop/shed on property located at 12 Ridgewood Terrace; Tax Map 033, lot 029.00; Zoned: RES A. (V-06000006)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: BADGER
SECOND BY: JENSEN
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Appeal by Daniel & Kathleen Thompson for the Notice of Zoning Violation issued by the Zoning Administrator on May 19, 2006; Section 3.1 of the Town of Barre Zoning Ordinance; Subject property located at 5 Cedar Brook Ave; Tax Map 018, Lots 023.00 & 025.00; Zoned: COMM. (ZV-06000001)
Applicant: Daniel & Kathleen Thompson
Date: June 15, 2006
Mr. & Mrs. Thompson are before the Zoning Board this month on appeal of my issuance of a zoning violation, dated May 19, 2006, in which I issued them a violation of article 3, section 3.1 of the current zoning ordinance for the storage of junk (in this case tires, an appliance, and ground clutter such as old insulation).
The Thompson’s acquired these parcels on October 28, 2004, which consists of a four unit apartment building and a vacant lot across the street. Both parcels are subject to this notice. Upon acquiring, the Thompson’s inherited a significant mess. All of the issues related to this notice were in existence prior to the appellant acquiring the land. However, the Thompson’s were well aware of the issues.
Prior to the Thompson’s purchasing the property I had been working with the former owners to clean up what was a major zoning violation. The previous owners were not real cooperative. My hope was that with the transfer to the Thompson’s, a cleanup would occur. In addition to the junk, there was a considerable likelihood that the building itself had significant health and safety violations. In fact, the Department of Labor Industry did issue an order in February of 2005 citing several issues. Upon purchase by the Thompson’s, the building was eventually vacated of all of its tenants’.
Mr. Thompson received a conditional use permit to expand the four unit apartment house to six units in July of 2005. No movement towards this has occurred as of this date.
Mr. Thompson had assured me on several occasions that the properties in question would be cleaned up and that the apartment house was going to be fixed up and re-inhabited. For the most part, the Thompson’s have kept their word although not without some prodding. However, numerous (over 75) tires have remained on site (018/023.00, parcel without the building) and Mr. Thompson has failed to remove them in a timely manner after repeated verbal reminders of him to do so with less than cordial responses. In addition, while the majority of the junk from both parcels has been cleaned up, there was still a lot of clutter on the ground, most noticeably yellow insulation. There was also an old appliance.
I don’t dispute that significant progress has been made. However, this property has been a blight for a very long time and needs to be cleaned up once and for all. I realize there is a significant cost to removing this many tires but Mr. Thompson knew that when he purchased the property. You can see by the enclosed letters that this problem has been going on for over four years. I request that the board uphold my determination to issue the violation.
It is possible that the violations may be cured before this hearing is actually held. It appears as though the ground clutter has been reduced and the tires have been organized but as of this writing is still present. It is my hope that this hearing can be averted and the property can come into compliance. It is possible that Mr. Thompson may try to raise issue with other property in the area. I am sure that whatever Mr. Thompson tries to raise, I am aware of. You can be certain of one thing, whatever he may point out, probably has not been under some sort of notice like his property for anything close to this long.
DISCUSSION:
The ZA reported that as of June 21, 2006, the property has been brought into compliance. The ZA has recommended that this item be dismissed.
The ZA entered a letter written by Greg Pinard (previous owner) into evidence. Mr. Pinard claims that a pile of tree branches and some junk from Mr. Thompson’s property is on his property and would like the items removed. Chris acknowledged the items but questioned whether they rose to the level of a violation. In addition, there is some dispute over who owns the property. Mr. Thompson stated that he has hired a surveyor to find out whose property it is. Mr. Thompson also stated that the brush has come off the trees on Mr. Pinard’s side of the property. Mr. Thompson asked if the letter was for public viewing. Mr. Malone stated that everything that is part of this hearing is for public viewing.
Mr. Thompson asked if this letter was the original complaint. The ZA stated he issued the violation on his own accord; it has nothing to do with Mr. Pinard. Mr. Thompson is going to wait and see what the surveyor says before he takes action.
Mr. Thompson stated that when he purchased the property this place has the most junk of any property in BarreTown. Mr. Thompson stated that he has spent 3,000 dollars cleaning the place up and that this violation was all about tires. Mr. Thompson stated he paid $2/tire to a place in Albany, VT that will pick up the tires. Mr. Thompson stated that he feels this should be dismissed and his money be returned that he’s had to pay to come to the Board.
Mr. Malone asked for the opinion of the ZA regarding Mr. Thompson request. The ZA stated that he disagrees. Having 150 tires on a property for several years and several conversations is unacceptable. He appealed the violation to extend his time; the $47 saved him several hundred dollars in violation fees. Had Mr. Thompson taken care of this within the 7 days, he would have saved his $47.00.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Reaves, the Board of Adjustment voted to dismiss the violation issued by the Zoning Administrator against Daniel & Kathleen Thompson on May 19, 2006; Section 3.1 of the Town of Barre Zoning Ordinance due to testimony of the Zoning Administrator that the violation has been cured and no longer exists. Subject property is located at 5 Cedar Brook Ave; Tax Map 018, Lots 023.00 & 025.00; Zoned: COMM.
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: JENSEN
SECOND BY: REAVES
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Ed Gallo for conditional use determination to allow multi-family dwellings on property located in Stone Mountain Subdivision (Conti Circle), Lot 19; Tax Map 006, Lot 008.20; Zoned: COMM. (CUP-06000004)
Applicant: Ed Gallo
Date: June 16, 2006
This is apparently a conditional use permit request however; there is a lack of information at this point and clarity. The reason for the uncertainty is that the application states that this proposal is for a PRD (planned residential development). My earlier conversations with Mr. Gallo’s father did not indicate that a PRD is what was contemplated. The reason I bring that up is that PRD’s are handled through the subdivision regulations, via the Planning Commission and are not conditional use permits. The other reason I am not clear as to what is being proposed is that I instructed Mr. Gallo that in order for this to be considered, the involved units would have to be attached in some manner. The submitted drawings do not indicate that they will be attached. Several attempts to get in touch with the consultant have not resulted in returned phone calls.
The applicant is proposing to construct 8 units of housing within four separate buildings. Little else is known at this point. Plans for the project would have to be much more detailed. I would suggest considering this request as a conceptual type review to become familiar with what is being proposed. If in fact this is going to be some sort of a PRD, the applicant should go through the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Mike Gallo has been recused from this hearing due to conflict.
The ZA recommends this be heard as a conceptual plan and stated that there is some uncertainty as to whether this request should be before this board or the Planning Commission. The reason is that if the applicant wishes to proceed with detached structures then he would have to propose and Elderly housing PRD. If he wishes to have them attached, he could propose this as a multi-family dwelling and get a conditional use permit from this board.
Greg Rabideau (architect) stated that the Gallo family would like to find a reasonable way to develop this property. Mr. Rabideau stated that within the Stone Mountain subdivision, there are both Residential and Commercial uses, we think this one straddles the board and will fit in nicely. The Gallo family is seeking some guidance from this Board as to which way to proceed.
The ZA stated that if the dwelling were to remain separated, they would need to go to the Planning Commission. If they were to have attached units, they would stay here. The ZA also stated that as the Planner he prefers the unattached dwellings and as the fire chief, he prefers the unattached dwellings also.
Chuck Pastor (47 Conti Circle), if you are proceeding as a PRD, the Zoning Board would have to consider the land use permit; there are covenants and a PRD is in violation of the covenants. The covenants do not allow multi-family dwellings.
Ed Gallo stated that he believes the restriction stated by Mr. Pastor does not affect lot 19.
Anthony Amaral (24 Conti Circle), our covenants clearly state that lot 19 is included.
Mr. Malone asked if the Town was involved in those covenants. The ZA stated that the Town does not enforce covenants, it would be up to the property owners, but it should be very clear to the applicant that if the covenants do not allow this type of thing then I am assuming they would not proceed. The ZA stated that Pat Gallo felt they would be in compliance with the covenants.
Mr. Pastor stated that the covenants clearly state no multi-family dwellings.
Mr. Gallo stated that there are covenants specific to lot 19.
Mr. Malone stated that before either Board makes a move on this request, the Gallo’s need to determine what the covenants state. Once that is figured out, then proceed with the proper Board. The covenants require legal opinion; this is a civil matter, not a matter of the Town.
Mr. Gallo stated that we have neighbors that feel this project precludes covenants and we don’t feel that way, a lawyer will have to make the determination. (Mr. Amaral stated that he agrees with having a lawyer look at the covenants) Mr. Gallo would like some guidance from this Board on which way would be best for them and the Town.
Mr. Jensen stated that he does not like the attached buildings, would like to see them look something like Wildersburg.
Mr. Badger stated that the Gallos’ need to get together with the residents of Conti Circle and clear up the covenants before you proceed.
Mr. Reaves stated that it has been shown that this Board is not where they should be. Really, need to get the covenants worked out.
Mr. Malone stated that he shares the views of his colleagues. If you want to keep the dwellings unattached, you will need to proceed through the Planning Commission.
Brice Lewis (28 Conti Circle) stated that he moved to Conti Circle specifically for the covenants, which clearly states only single-family dwellings, no multi.
Jim Edson (273 Quarry Hill Road) stated that he is concerned about his privacy and that he would be like to be kept informed.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Badger, seconded by Mr. Reaves, the Board of Adjustment voted to continue the request by Ed Gallo until July 19, 2006 for conditional use determination to allow multi-family dwellings on property located in Stone Mountain Subdivision (Conti Circle), lot 19; Tax Map 006, Lot 008.20; Zoned: COMM. (CUP-06000004)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: BADGER
SECOND BY: REAVES
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo RECUSED
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Mike Bilodeau for conditional use determination to allow multi-family dwellings on property located on East Barre Road; Tax Map 006, lots 068.01 & 068.02; Zoned: COMM (CUP-06000005 & CUP-06000006)
Applicant: Mike Bilodeau
Date: June 16, 2006
Mr. Bilodeau is before the Zoning Board this month to seek a conditional use permit in accordance article 2, section 2.5. He is proposing the creation of what we would call a multi-family dwelling but what most be would consider a duplex. Article 4, section 4.3 allows the creation of multi-family dwellings upon issuance of a conditional use permit. There is no limit as to the number of multi-family units that can be placed on a lot in a commercial zone.
This request actually involves two separate lots as noted above. However, the request appears to be exactly the same. Each lot would contain similar structures (picture supplied with packets).
When reviewing a conditional use permit many factors are to be looked at which are noted below. One important item when considering residential uses is how they fit in with surrounding uses. In this case, the uses are somewhat mixed between residential and commercial but the majority of the uses are residential. Therefore, from that standpoint I do not see a compatibility problem.
With regard to services to the subject parcels, all utilities including municipal water and sewer are available. However, Mr. Bilodeau should show that he could gain access and connect to these. A site map would be handy in this case with the utilities sketched on them. I do not think we need to see a professional rendering of this, but at least a sketch. Access should also be shown. Has the applicant talk to the State of Vermont with regard to access permits? That assurance should be obtained before a conditional use permit is issued.
Parking should also be considered. Current zoning requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I suggest the Zoning Board require at least 2 parking spaces per unit.
The following standards should be considered when review a conditional use permit application.
General Standards:
1. The capacity of the existing or planned community facilities; or require an extension or capital expense to the present maintained highway system.
2. The character of the area affected; impact on neighboring uses;
3. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
4. By-laws in effect; and
5. Utilization of renewable energy resources.
Specific standards include the following:
I do not have a problem with the issuance of a conditional use permit for the proposal that Mr. Bilodeau has put forth. However, I would like the following information before that permit is issued.
Final Conditions:
DISCUSSION:
The ZA submitted a letter to the Board from Harry Hinrichsen, Town Engineer.
Mr. Bilodeau stated that he already has the State access permits.
The ZA would like to see something more detailed, such as a site plan.
Viola Willard (749 East Barre Road), stated that Mr. Bilodeau is a good neighbor, no complaints.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Badger, seconded by Mr. Reaves, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the request for conditional use determination to allow multi-family dwellings on property on located on East Barre Road; Tax Map 006, Lots 068.01 & 068.02; Zoned: COMM. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 7. (CUP-06000005 & CUP-06000006)
CONDITIONS Yes X No___
MOTION BY: BADGER
SECOND BY: REAVES
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
On a motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Reaves, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the April 19, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting.
C. CORRESPONDENCE & MISCELLANEOUS:
D. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
E. ROUND TABLE:
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
G. ADJOURN:
On a motion by Mr. Gallo, seconded by Mr. Badger, the Board voted to adjourn the June 21, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting at 9:10 p.m.