=
=
; &=
nbsp; &nb=
sp; =
; &=
nbsp; STATE
OF VERMONT
=
=
; &=
nbsp; &nb=
sp; =
; =
ENVIRONMENTAL
COURT
}
Appeal of Coon, et =
al. =
&n=
bsp; } =
&n=
bsp; Docket
No. 166-9-04 Vtec
}
}
=
; &=
nbsp; &nb=
sp; =
; &=
nbsp; Decision
and Order
Appellants Margaret Coon, Ronald Hope, Sally Hope, John
Longley, Carla A. Newton, M. Diane White, Robert Goulette and Rena
Goulette appealed from a dec=
ision
of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the City of St. Albans, approving=
the
construction of a two-family house at 9 New Street. Appellants appeared and
represented themselves; Appellee-Applicants Wendell and Mary Ann Dashno are
represented by Timothy S. Hawkins, Esq.; Appellee-Applicant Mark Ledoux
appeared and represented himself; and the City is represented by Robert E.
Farrar, Esq.
Question 7 of the Statement of Questions, regarding a
variance that was not part of the decision on appeal, was withdrawn as of =
the
time of the hearing. An evid=
entiary
hearing was held in this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental
Judge. The parties were give=
n the
opportunity to submit written memoranda and requests for findings. Upon consideration of the evidenc=
e, and
of the written memoranda and requests for findings filed by the parties, t=
he
Court finds and concludes as follows.
Appellee-Applicants seek conditional use approval to
construct a 40' x 42' duplex (two-family) house on a .27-acre lot at 9 New
Street in the B2-Transitional Business zoning ><=
span
style=3D'font-family:Shruti;mso-ascii-font-family:Shruti;mso-hansi-font-fa=
mily:
"Times New Roman"'>subdistrict.=3D The Flood
Hazard Overlay zoning district is not shown on the official zoning map; ra=
ther,
it is defined as all areas in the City Aidentified as areas of special flood hazard on the Nati=
onal
Flood Insurance Program maps published by the Federal Energy Management
Agency. The property is not =
located
within a Flood Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); therefore, t=
he Flood
Hazard Overlay District provisions do not apply. In any event, '309 only requires that all new construction be approved=
as a
conditional use, which is already required for this project under <=
span
style=3D'font-family:"WP TypographicSymbols";mso-bidi-font-family:Shruti;
mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:"WP TypographicSymbols"'>'307 for the B2 district. &=
nbsp; The
building is proposed to be served by municipal water supply and sewer
services. The lot slopes sli=
ghtly
towards the back towards Stevens Brook, which runs along the rear property
line. The lot is proposed to=
be
drained towards the rear property line through two swales along both side
property lines. The building=
is
proposed to be constructed with footing drains, also draining towards the =
rear,
and equipped with a check valve or backflow preventer.
The lot has 66 feet of frontage on New Street, which is=
a
short, narrow dead-end street, with no turnaround at the end and no
sidewalks. Access to New Str=
eet is
directly from Route 7 (Main Street).
Five other duplexes are located nearby; one is adjacent. At least one three-family house i=
s also
located on New Street.
New Street is too narrow for two-way traffic if any veh=
icles
are parked on the street. Po=
sting
to control parking on the street is ineffective. Resident children play in their
driveways and at times in the street.&nbs=
p;
Vehicles turn around in the street by executing three-point turns in
residents=3D driveways, especially in the driveway at the end, crea=
ting
conflicts with residents=3D vehicles and potential safety problems for resident
children. When service vehic=
les are
using the street, residents=3D vehicles cannot get by them. Vehicles attempting to enter the =
street
from Route 7 or attempting to enter the street from their driveways someti=
mes
have to back up to allow oncoming traffic to proceed on the street.
Each of the two dwelling units in the proposed duplex i=
s 850
square feet in area, with two bedrooms, one bathroom, and an open-plan
kitchen/dining area, open to the living room. Due to the unit size, the du=
plex
can be expected to have one or at most two vehicles per unit; four off-str=
eet
parking spaces are required by '415.7 of the Land Development Regulations.
Appellee-Applicants propose to provide four parking spa=
ces
in the rear of the building, with an area for maneuvering so that vehicles=
can
exit frontwards onto the street through a single driveway. Appellee-Applicants originally pr=
oposed
to install a horseshoe-shaped driveway leading around the building on both
sides, with two access driveways to the street. During the DRB hearings, they pro=
posed
to the DRB, and now propose to the Court, a single access driveway on the =
east
side of the building, with sufficient room for vehicles to turn around in =
back
near the parking area, to reduce the number of entry points for traffic
entering New Street. (See Ex=
hibit
7).
To be approved, a proposal must meet all five of the
subsections of '502.2. Se=
ction
502.2(A) requires that the proposed project not adversely affect the capac=
ity
of existing or planned municipal facilities. The addition of the one or two ve=
hicles
per unit, with four spaces of off-street parking, will not adversely affec=
t the
ability of fire and rescue or police services to maneuver to serve any of =
the
properties on New Street. Th=
at is,
no problems currently experienced by the fire, rescue or police services i=
n New
Street would be made any worse by the addition of this building.
Section 502.2(B) requires that the proposed project not
adversely affect the character of the area affected. The proposed project has been des=
igned
so as not to adversely affect the area due to drainage[1]
from the lot. Further, as the
character of the area includes duplexes as well as single-family houses, c=
lose
to a downtown, mixed-use area, the proposed project will not adversely aff=
ect
the character of the area.
Section 502.2(C) requires that the proposed project not
adversely affect traffic on roads or highways in the vicinity. Because the proposal includes the
required four spaces of off-street-parking, it will not adversely affect t=
he
parking demand on New Street.
Limiting the project to a single driveway access onto New Street wi=
ll
also minimize the potential for conflicts with other vehicles and with
pedestrians on New Street. In
connection with efforts to minimize congestion on the street, Appellants a=
lso
request a condition that contracts for fuel and garbage disposal services =
for
the new building be placed with the companies that otherwise serve propert=
ies
on the street, to minimize additional service vehicle traffic. While such an agreement among the
residents may make sense, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to
require. We encourage the pa=
rties
to discuss this issue among themselves or to enter into mediation to reach=
some
agreement beyond this court case, regarding their use of the street.
Section 502.2(D) requires that the proposed project not
adversely affect current bylaws in effect.
The proposal meets all applicable requirements of the Land Developm=
ent
Regulations, including those regulating parking. The project is proposed to be ser=
ved by
municipal water supply and sewage disposal services, so that no health or
on-site sewage regulations are applicable.
No party suggests that any other bylaws are implicated.
The proposed project does not adversely affect utilizat=
ion
of any renewable energy resource. <=
/span>'502.2(E).
Accordingly, the proposed project, with the single driveway access =
to
New Street, meet all the standards for conditional use approval.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDG=
ED
that Appellee-Applicants=3D proposal for a duplex at 9 New Street is hereby approv=
ed,
with the driveway and parking configuration as shown in Exhibit 7.
Dated at Berlin, Vermont, this 22nd day of
August, 2005.
______________________________________
Merideth Wright
Environmental Judge
|
|