Feb 10, 2021 DRB Minutes

March 1, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            February 10, 2021

Members Present:     Tim Maxham (Chair), Doug Patterson (Vice Chair), Jim Brightwell, Nate Hayward, Gareth Hunt, Liza Kilcoyne, William Rowe, Mike Welch (alternate, sitting for the hearing as full member in place of T. Maxham)

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      T. Maxham (recused – joined after the hearing as noted below)

Public Present            Randolph DeLong

James Martin & Beth Curtis

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by D. Patterson at 6:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

 

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

Hearing:                      Bond combined Preliminary/Final Site Plan Review for a 3-lot Subdivision at 7 Martin Rd. (21-39-MR007).

 

Notice & Oath

  1. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning. D. Patterson administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Hearing Notes

  1. Bond said that he is proposing to subdivide the approximately 6.3 acres of Lot #1 into three lots to create new Lots #5 and #6, leaving Lot #1 with 3.75 acres and Lots #5 and #6 with 1.2 acres each. Because Lots #4 and #5 were subdivided within the past ten years from the original parcel, this application is considered under town regulations to be a major subdivision.

The two new lots are to be served by a driveway leading in from Martin Road.  In sketch plan review, the Board provided feedback that by regulation, all lots for a major subdivision must be served by a 50’ right-of-way for the driveway, and that the right-of-way to Lot #5 did not meet the requirement.

  1. Taylor-Varney said that the applicant had requested a waiver for the 50’ ROW requirement from the edge of Lot #1 into Lot #6 and to Lot #5. Lots #5 and #6 would be the only lots accessed from the ROW and due to their size could not be further subdivided. If the waiver is granted, and if Lot #1 were to be further subdivided in the future, access to any lots subdivided from Lot #1 would be from the section of the driveway with a 50’ ROW.
  2. Patterson asked the applicant for the reason for the waiver request. J. Bond said that he wanted to minimize the impact on Lot #6 and that he and his engineer felt that a 30’ width was adequate.
  3. Rowe asked where the 30’ ROW ends. M. Taylor-Varney said the ROW ends as the driveway enters Lot #5. D. Patterson said that he wondered if a cul-de-sac was required for a turnaround according to Section #605 D(3) of the bylaws which says “Single access roads shall terminate with a suitable cul-de-sac or hammerhead “r”, “T” or “Y” design configuration to allow emergency vehicles to adequately turn around.”
  4. Welch asked if the 30’ ROW encroaches onto Lot #6. M. Taylor-Varney said yes. M. Welch suggested configuring the driveways to Lots #5 and #6 to create a “Y” to meet the regulatory requirement.  J. Bond agreed that the driveway configuration could be easily done.  L. Kilcoyne suggested that the road layout would need to include the driveway locations.  D. Patterson said that the driveway locations and turnaround would have to be shown on the site plan.   N. Hayward said the turnaround component would have to be recorded on an easement.

Hearing no further questions from the Board, D. Patterson opened the hearing to questions from the public.  R. DeLong said that he is the owner of 33 Martin Road, which abuts 7 Martin Road to the west.  He said he was concerned about the encroachment of the shadow from the septic serving Lot #5 onto his property.  The encroachment is about 160’ onto his property, restricting over 100,000 square feet, including an area that is the most attractive homesite on his property.  He said that although the shadow would not prohibit construction, it would limit where a well and leach field could be located for a house built in that area.  He said he was concerned that it may turn out that the restricted area would be the only area on his property where potable water could be found.  R. DeLong asked if the density of the houses proposed conformed to Town regulations.  R. DeLong said that he was negotiating with J. Bond to come up with a mutually satisfactory solution to the septic location and asked that the Board not arrive at a final decision.

  1. Taylor-Varney said that the subdivision was in the Rural Residential zoning district with a minimum lot size of one acre, and so the proposed lot sizes meet regulation. She said that septic is regulated by the State and thus is outside the jurisdiction of the Town and the DRB. J. Bond clarified that the well and wastewater applications have not yet been submitted to the State.  After discussion of alternative locations for the septic, the applicant agreed to a continuance of the hearing to March 10th to allow for further revision to the site plan to show driveway and septic changes.
  2. Hayward moved to recess the hearing to March 10th @6:00 p.m. L. Kilcoyne seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

At 7:02 p.m., D. Patterson recessed the hearing to March 10th.

Old Business

None.

Review of Minutes 

  1. Maxham joined the meeting.
  2. Maxham moved to accept the minutes of January 13th as amended. W. Rowe seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Future meetings:

  • Feb 24th. Hearing for a variance request for replacement home for nonconforming lot on Railroad Street.
  • March 10th. Hearing for accessory use and resumption of James Bond hearing.
  • March 24th. Conditional use / site plan review for a food truck and a 3-lot subdivision.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Hayward moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and passed by acclamation. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

James G. Brightwell

Clerk for S. Hero Development Review Board

 

Signed: ____________________________________________ Date: __________________

                        For the Development Review Board

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly-scheduled meeting.  All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.

Jan. 27, 2021 Minutes

March 1, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            January 27, 2021

Members Present:     Tim Maxham (Chair), Doug Patterson (Vice Chair), Jim Brightwell, Nate Hayward, Gareth Hunt, Liza Kilcoyne, William Rowe, Mike Welch (alternate)

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      None

Public Present            Deb Sherman

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 6:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

 

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

 

Hearing:                    Richardson Site Plan revision to add an ADA ramp to a previously approved structure at 138 Ferry Rd – 21-40-FR138.

 

 

Notice & Oath

  1. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Mitchel Richardson, Keeler Bay Repair (applicant)

Paul Boisvert, Engineering Ventures

Hearing Notes

  1. Boisvert said that when they last appeared before the Board the applicant had added an ADA ramp to the front of the building. The application was denied by the Board because the structure was closer than the previously approved 121 feet to Rt 314. The applicant is back before the Board today presenting a revised site plan that places the south edge of the ramp to 121 feet from Rt 314.   P. Boisvert said they had communicated with Regional Planning (Act 250) who indicated they would not object to this change.  The plan is otherwise like the plan previously presented.  Minor changes include a steeper grade on the driveway from Rt 314, changes to the size of the stormwater system (the applicant has just completed their State stormwater application), and preservation of a row of oak trees along 314.  Parking is the same as presented previously.
  2. Maxham asked if the grade changed. P. Boivert said that since the building is pushed down the hill further back from the road, the average preconstruction grade is lower, which helps reduce the presence of the building when viewed from the road and reduces the dimensions of the berm on the west. P. Boivert said the floor elevation is down 4 feet from the last approved plan.  T. Maxham asked if the applicant is now proposing 152 feet; P. Boivert said yes, for the lowest level.  P. Boivert said that by moving the floor elevation down they can provide more floor height desired by the applicant but still maintain a building height of 35 feet.
  3. Maxham asked if the applicant needed to go lower than the excavation that has already been done. M. Richardson said they did not need to go lower and would be raising it. M. Taylor-Varney asked if the existing excavation would have to be changed.  M. Richardson said that the only part of the excavation that needed to be changed is where the building is going to be.  M. Taylor-Varney asked if they would have to fill; M. Richardson said yes, where the building is going to be.  M. Richardson said they would have to excavate first, then fill, because they were now going to do a foundation.  He said his previous plan was to do a slab on shale, but now that they had removed the shale, they would do a foundation.
  4. Hunt asked if the applicant had over-excavated. M. Richardson said they had excavated per the original plan, but now that the plan changed, he was sticking with the original excavation level for the foundation, which will be sitting on virgin material, and then building upwards from the foundation and backfilling around the foundation.
  5. Maxham asked if the existing ag driveway west of the main driveway would be retained and whether it would be used for the business. M. Richardson said that it would be kept, used during construction, and remain only for agricultural access to the west side of the property. He said it would not be used by the business.  P. Boivert said that VTRANS allowed the access to remain as an agricultural access.  D. Patterson asked how he would be getting from where the building is to the west side of the property, since the building and its lot are effectively an island.  M. Richardson said they were not looking to access the west side of the property from the building area, but rather from the road up onto grass (before the building area) with farm equipment during haying season and to access cattle that would be grazing there.  P. Boisvert said that the access on the east side of the building would be the primary farm access.
  6. Welch asked if there would be a gate on the farm access that would block off regular vehicular traffic. M. Richardson said that there would be a gate since there would be animals all around – the shop would be fenced but the animals would graze the perimeter.
  7. Maxham asked if there is a timeframe for construction. M. Richardson said that he wants to continue construction in April as soon as all permits are finalized. T. Maxham asked if construction will be continuous start to finish.  M. Richardson said that he wanted to be done this year, in one construction season.  M. Taylor-Varney said that the original permit from the Town did not include the professional space.  M. Richardson said that he thought that his permit did include that space, and he and M. Taylor-Varney agreed to follow up outside of the meeting to clarify the scope of the permit.
  8. Richardson said that the only change that had been made since the last approval was the ADA access. M. Taylor-Varney said that he had added parking in front. M. Richardson said that the parking was part of the ADA addition required by the State.   M. Taylor-Varney said the applicant had originally stated that there would be no parking in front of the building and that she wondered if alternatives for ADA access had been investigated.  M. Richardson said that he had investigated an elevator but found that it was not cost-effective when considering both the initial cost and maintenance.   M. Taylor-Varney asked if the ramp could have been located anywhere else on the building.  P. Boisvert said that due to the slope of the property, a ramp located elsewhere would have to be extremely long.  M. Richardson said they were taking advantage of the elevation at the front of the property to minimize the ramp.   M. Richardson said that the parking in front of the building was for one handicap-accessible space plus 4 additional spaces as required by Town bylaws for the professional space.  M. Richardson said that access to the professional space was completely independent of access for the repair business and so the parking for the professional space access was located next to its entrance at the front of the building.  M. Taylor-Varney asked if there was a stairwell within the building.  M. Richardson said no, not within the building.
  9. Patterson asked where the emergency exit was for the second floor. M. Richardson said there was an exterior stair tower at the rear of the building for fire emergency exit. M. Taylor-Varney asked if the emergency exit was required to be ADA compliant.  M. Richardson said no.  N. Hayward asked if the stair was within the structure.  M. Richardson said it was within the structure but separated from the interior per fire code, and that the occupants of the second floor would have to go outside of the building to enter the lower level.
  10. Maxham asked for questions from the audience. D. Sherman asked if the ramp was considered part of the building. M. Taylor-Varney said that because it was attached, yes.  D. Sherman asked if the ramp as part of the building and was thus covered by the setback.  M. Taylor-Varney said yes.  D. Sherman said that the original approval on September 12th states that the building shall be no closer than 160 feet from the edge of the road.  M. Taylor-Varney said that distance was amended in the next hearing because Act 250 wanted the building to be 50 feet from the road and the Board compromised with Act 250 with a distance of 121 feet.  D. Sherman asked if there was documentation from Act 250 on that requirement.  M. Taylor-Varney said yes that Northwest Regional Planning, which was one of the parties that could comment to Act 250, requested that the project be 50-75 feet from the road.  M. Taylor-Varney said that she negotiated 121 feet with NRPC, and both NRPC and Act 250 agreed to that distance.
  11. Sherman said on both the May original agreement and then again on September 12th it was stated that there would be no parking in front of the building, and now there was more parking plus a ramp in the front. D. Sherman said that the project had become quite expanded from the perspective of her property – that it was larger than her property. D. Sherman said that she wanted to reinstate her request for a privacy fence along her property line.   P. Boisvert said the proposal had shown a privacy fence at one time but he had since become unclear whether D. Sherman wanted it.  D. Sherman said that when the building was smaller, if the applicant agreed to the landscaping shown, that she would agree not to ask for the fence.  Now that the building and area around it is bigger, the landscaping would not cover a second story and the ramp – that this is now a commercial building and not a farm building, so she was requesting a fence at least 6 feet high along the property line.  M. Taylor-Varney asked if D. Sherman wanted the type of fence specified or whether she could work with the applicant.   D. Sherman said that if possible, she wanted a vinyl fence because she did not want something that 5 years from now would be all torn apart.  M. Richardson said that he had met previously with D. Sherman regarding the fence and that it was at her request that the fence was removed from the plan, that she said she did not want to look at a fence but would rather see the animals.  D. Sherman said that at that time the building was 3000 square feet.
  12. Richardson said that he was amenable to a fence, but that he was looking for wood – that he did not think a vinyl fence would fit in with the area. D. Patterson said that he did not think the Board should be involved in specifying the type of fence, but rather if the Board specified a privacy fence, the type should be agreed upon between the landowners.
  13. Richardson said that he wanted to remind the Board that the building has been sunk down, so that less of the building and lot are visible.
  14. Hunt asked the applicant to explain how the project fit the general character of the neighborhood. T. Maxham said that the subject of the hearing was the site plan, that the conditional use had been previously granted. T. Maxham said that the site plan was previously rejected by the Board based on the distance from the road and the applicant has come back with the same building plan but with the project pushed backed from the road.
  15. Hunt said that he agreed, but that felt that the front side had a different feel than when it looked like a barn. D. Sherman asked if the earlier denial by the Board was due solely to the distance from the road and not because of the objections by herself and others to the overall design of the building. M. Richardson said that the design of the building had not changed, that the building had been rotated from the original design and the elevation lowered, so that the only features seen from the road would be the second floor access and the ramp.  M. Taylor-Varney said that when the building was expanded from 3,000 to 7,800 square feet it was rotated 90 degrees.
  16. Sherman asked what the front of the building currently looked like. D. Patterson said that the upper parking area is roughly 162’-163’ in elevation and that the floor elevation is roughly 152’ so it is 10’ below what you see from the road. He said that from the road you would not see anything of the first floor, you would just see the ramp going up to the entrance on the second floor.
  17. Kilcoyne asked if the applicant would consider fewer parking places in front, keeping only the handicap space. M. Richardson said that the town code requires the 4 spaces and that the Access Board requires that the handicap parking and access be part of the normal flow of traffic.
  18. Maxham asked that the discussion keep to the site plan, and that the plan had been turned down previously due to the distance from the road and not its appearance, and the applicant has returned with revisions to meet that requirement.

There being no further discussion, L. Kilcoyne made a motion to accept the site plan as complete.  M. Welch seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

  1. Maxham closed the hearing at 7:04 p.m.

 

 

Old Business

None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Patterson moved to accept the minutes of January 13th as amended. L. Kilcoyne seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Future meetings:

February 10th.   Final site plan hearing for Jim Bond for the Martin Road subdivision.  There will also be a hearing for another applicant for a variance request related to the setback involving replacement of a non-conforming home.

Feb 24th.  Hearing for a variance request on Railroad Street.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Hayward moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by D. Patterson and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

James G. Brightwell

Clerk for S. Hero Development Review Board

 

Signed: ____________________________________________ Date: __________________

                        For the Development Review Board

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly-scheduled meeting.  All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.

Feb. 24, 2021 Agenda

March 1, 2021

TOWN OF SOUTH HERO

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

February 24, 2021

 

Meeting to be held via Zoom

Meeting begins at 6PM

 

Contact the S. Hero ZA for a Zoom invite before 4:30PM on February 24, 2021

zoning@southherovt.org

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

  1. Changes to the Agenda
  2. Public Input
  3. Variance request to encroach into the setback – Riyaz Merali (21-46-RS002)
  4. Old Business
  5. Review of Minutes
  6. Administrator’s Report
  7. Adjournment
  8. Deliberations (if needed)

 

 

February 24, 2021 DRB MInutes

March 1, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            February 24, 2021

Members Present:     Doug Patterson (Vice Chair), Jim Brightwell, Nate Hayward, Gareth Hunt, Liza Kilcoyne, William Rowe, Mike Welch (alternate, sitting for the hearing as full member in place of T. Maxham)

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      T. Maxham (Chair)

Public Present            Betty Perrotte, Riaz Merali

 

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by D. Patterson at 6:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

 

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

Hearing:                      Variance Request To Encroach Into Setback – Riaz Merali (21-46-RS002)

 

Notice & Oath

  1. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning. D. Patterson administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Riaz Merali, Applicant

Hearing Notes

  1. Merali said that he currently owns a single-wide mobile home on the lot at 2 Railroad Street that is 10’ x 42’ and he is looking to replace it with a double-wide that is 26.4’ x 52’. Because there is a septic tank on the Martin Road side of the home that prevents the home from being placed closer to Martin Road, he wants to encroach on the setback from the south property line to accommodate the wider home. He is looking for a 6’ variance.

In discussion with the Board regarding the dimensions of the lot and setbacks, M. Taylor-Varney said that because of the septic and leach field location and other setbacks, there is no alternative which increases conformance.

 

  1. Rowe asked where the main entrance was. R. Merali said that the main entrance is on Railroad Street, and the side entrance and the 4’ deck facing Martin Road was a secondary entrance. W. Rowe asked if the unit could be moved 4’ north, closer to Martin Road.  M. Taylor-Varney said that the steps were considered as part of the structure and would thus infringe on the setback to the north.
  2. Taylor-Varney asked if the unit would be on a slab. R. Merali said yes.

Hearing no further questions from the Board, D. Patterson opened the hearing to questions and remarks from the public.

  1. Perrotte asked if the driveway would stay where it is now. R. Merali said yes. R. Merali clarified that the new unit would extend a little more towards Martin Road, but mostly towards the south.  B. Perrotte said that it looked good to her.

Hearing no further remarks or questions, at 6:15 p.m., D. Patterson closed the hearing.

 

Old Business               None

Review of Minutes 

  1. Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of February 10th. G. Hunt seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Future meetings:

  • March 10th. The Anchorage is coming in for a hearing on accessory use for special events, there will also be a continuance of the hearing for the James Bond subdivision site plan.
  • March 24th. Conditional use / site plan review for a food truck at the Green Frog, and a combined 3-lot subdivision with a PUD.
  • April 14th. Bayview Crossing hearing for final site plan review.
  • April 28th. Conditional use / site plan review for food truck on Ferry Road by Victoria’s Café.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Welch moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by W. Rowe and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative at 6:24 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

James G. Brightwell

Clerk for S. Hero Development Review Board

 

Signed: ____________________________________________ Date: __________________

                        For the Development Review Board

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly-scheduled meeting.  All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.

February 10, 2021 DRB Agenda

February 4, 2021

TOWN OF SOUTH HERO

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

February 10, 2021

 

Meeting to be held via Zoom

Meeting begins at 6PM

 

Contact the S. Hero ZA for a Zoom invite before 4:30PM on February 10, 2021

zoning@southherovt.org

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

  1. Changes to the Agenda
  2. Public Input
  3. Bond combined Preliminary/Final Site Plan Review for a 3-lot Subdivision at 7 Martin Rd. (21-39-MR007).
  4. Old Business
  5. Review of Minutes
  6. Administrator’s Report
  7. Adjournment
  8. Deliberations