STATE OF VERMONT
ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
}
Appeal
of Coon, et al.
}
Docket No. 166-9-04 Vtec
}
}
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 decision 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decision on appeal, was withdrawn as of the time of the hearing.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 evidentiary hearing was held in this
matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the opportunity
to submit written memoranda and requests for findings. Upon consideration of the evidence, and
of the written memoranda and requests for findings filed by the parties, the
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
>subdistrict.= The Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district
is not shown on the official zoning map; rather, it is defined as all areas in
the City Aidentified
as areas of special flood hazard on the National 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, the 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 '307
for the B2 district.
The building is proposed to be served by municipal water supply and sewer
services. The lot slopes slightly
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 Street is directly from
Route 7 (Main Street). Five other
duplexes are located nearby; one is adjacent. At least one three-family house is also
located on New Street.
New
Street is too narrow for two-way traffic if any vehicles are parked on the
street. Posting to control parking
on the street is ineffective.
Resident children play in their driveways and at times in the
street. Vehicles turn around in the
street by executing three-point turns in residents=
driveways, especially in the driveway at the end, creating conflicts with
residents=
vehicles and potential safety problems for resident children. When service vehicles are using the
street, residents=
vehicles cannot get by them.
Vehicles attempting to enter the street from Route 7 or attempting to
enter the street from their driveways sometimes have to back up to allow
oncoming traffic to proceed on the street.
Each
of the two dwelling units in the proposed duplex is 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 duplex can be expected to have one or
at most two vehicles per unit; four off-street parking spaces are required by
'415.7
of the Land Development Regulations.
Appellee-Applicants
propose to provide four parking spaces 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 Exhibit 7).
To
be approved, a proposal must meet all five of the subsections of '502.2. Section 502.2(A) requires that the
proposed project not adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned
municipal facilities. The addition
of the one or two vehicles per unit, with four spaces of off-street parking,
will not adversely affect the ability of fire and rescue or police services to
maneuver to serve any of the properties on New Street. That is, no problems currently
experienced by the fire, rescue or police services in 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 designed 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, close
to a downtown, mixed-use area, the proposed project will not adversely affect
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 the parking demand on New
Street. Limiting the project to a
single driveway access onto New Street will 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 also request a condition that contracts for
fuel and garbage disposal services for the new building be placed with the
companies that otherwise serve properties 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 parties 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 Development Regulations, including those
regulating parking. The project is
proposed to be served 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 utilization of any renewable energy
resource. '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 ADJUDGED that
Appellee-Applicants=
proposal for a duplex at 9 New Street is hereby approved, 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