April 28, 2021 DRB Agenda

May 3, 2021

TOWN OF SOUTH HERO

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

April 28, 2021

 

Meeting to be held via Zoom

Meeting begins at 6PM

 

Contact the S. Hero ZA for a Zoom invite before 4:30PM on April 28, 2021

zoning@southherovt.org

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

  1. Changes to the Agenda
  2. Public Input
  3. Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Mobile Vendor – Goulet (21-65-RT467)
  4. Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Mobile Vendor – Victoria’s Café/Alexander (21-73-FR014)
  5. Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Mobile Vendor – Tappan South Hero LLC/Seb’s (221-68-RT295)
  6. Old Business
  7. Review of Minutes
  8. Administrator’s Report
  9. Adjournment
  • Deliberation

 

 

 

 

 

April 28, 2021 DRB Minutes

May 3, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            April 28, 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.

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:        Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Mobile Vendor – Goulet (21-65-RT467)

 

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Guy & Lori Goulet

Public Attending: Ilmar Vanderer, Tiiu Vanderer, Michele Gammal

Hearing Notes

Chair T. Maxham recused.  Vice-chair D. Patterson opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m.

  1. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning. D. Patterson administered the oath to the applicants and members of the public who wished to speak.

Lori Goulet said that they are looking to host mobile food vendors on their farm on an occasional basis.  The vendors will set their own hours between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.   The Goulets hosted vendors for a short time last year, posted no-parking signs along Route 2 and had sufficient parking on their farm such that they were able to prevent parking on the highway.  They provide water and power (via extension cord) on-site to the vendors.  The driveway to their farm is wide enough to accommodate two dump trucks side-by-side, and one-way signs direct traffic around the parking area.  There is overflow parking further up the driveway that can accommodate oversize vehicles.  The food vendor truck parking area is alongside the current farm stand along Route 2.

  1. Rowe asked how many food trucks there will be at one time. Guy Goulet said at most 3 at one time, most of the time two or one.
  2. Brightwell asked how many cars can park around the circle in front of the barn. Guy Goulet said up to 30 cars, but there have not been more than about 15 at any given time.
  3. Brightwell asked if the Board could mandate no parking along Route 2. M. Taylor-Varney said that the Town was negotiating with VTRANS to have no parking zones on the highway in select areas of the Village district. J. Brightwell observed that the situation worked well last year because the applicant seemed to be able to keep people from parking on the highway.  Guy Goulet said his goal was to keep people off the highway.
  4. Rowe asked if there would be picnic tables. Guy Goulet said there were no plans for picnic tables at present – people got their food and got back in the cars and did not eat on-site.
  5. Brightwell asked if there were any improvements planned on the site as a part of the application. Guy Goulet said no.
  6. Kilcoyne made motion to waive the requirement for contours on the site plan. M. Welch seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
  7. Patterson opened the floor to questions from the public.

Michele Gammal said she thought the proposal was a great idea.  She asked if each of the vendors would have to apply for a mobile vendor license and asked how many trucks would be approved.  M. Taylor-Varney said that each vendor would have to obtain a license from the Town, which is good for a year, and the approval would likely be written for “up to three” vendors.

  1. Brightwell made a motion to accept the site plan as complete. M. Welch seconded the motion, which was approved by acclamation.

The hearing concluded at 6:22 p.m.

 

 

 

Hearing:        Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Mobile Vendor – Victoria’s Café/Alexander (21-73-FR014)

 

 

Public Attending

None.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Bill Alexander

Hearing Notes

  1. Maxham assumed the chair and opened the hearing at 6:25 p.m. M. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning.

 

The applicant did not appear, so W. Rowe made a motion to recess the hearing.  The motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation.

 

 

 

Hearing:        Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Mobile Vendor – Tappan South Hero LLC/Seb’s (21-68-RT295)

 

 

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Heidi Tappan

Public Attending

None.

Hearing Notes

Chair T. Maxham opened the hearing.     M. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning.

 

  1. Maxham administered the oath to the applicant and members of the public who wished to speak.

Heidi Tappan said she wanted to host vendors once or twice a year on the lawn between her parking lot and South Street.  While she does not have concrete plans at this time, she has in mind the caramel apples / cotton candy food truck she hosted last year, and perhaps local merchants such as Snow Farm vineyard.   She also wanted to consider doing an evening farmers market.  The events would take place within her current permitted business hours.

  1. Kilcoyne asked if the food trucks would be parked on the lawn. Heidi Tappan said yes, on the lawn.
  2. Brightwell said he was concerned about the sight distance for cars turning from South Street onto U.S. Route 2 and asked how far back the food trucks would be parked from Route 2. Heidi Tappan said the vendors would be parked further back on the lawn.
  3. Welch asked if there was power on the lawn. Heidi Tappan said that there was a conduit providing power on the lawn with two separate outlet locations. M. Taylor-Varney said she would work with the applicant to add the power outlets to the site plan.
  4. Brightwell said he was concerned about parking along South Street given the proximity to the proposed mobile vendor locations. N. Hayward said there were two lanes for right and left turns on South Street at Route 2 and there was not really space on the concrete apron for parking. T. Maxham said that the Board does not have the ability to regulate parking on Town roads.
  5. Brightwell said he would ask for a condition that the mobile vendors not be parked any closer to Route 2 than the historical marker along South Street to preserve sight distance for cars existing from South Street onto Route 2.
  6. Rowe asked where on Route 2 cars could legally park. M. Taylor-Varney said it is legal to park in a travel lane on a state highway, but she is talking to VTRANS to further restrict on-highway parking in selected areas within the village district.
  7. Taylor-Varney asked how many vendors would be present for a farmers’ market. Heidi Tappan said she had not approached anyone yet but suggested that there might be ten vendors. She said she wanted to explore the idea.  D. Patterson said that the parking lot is often full, and that adding a farmers’ market might be overkill.   T. Maxham said the farmers market was well established, operating Wednesday night and Saturday morning, and run according to a set of bylaws.  He expressed concern that a farmers’ market at the location might cause congestion.
  8. Brightwell asked if Heidi would object to the Board conditioning its approval with up to, for example, 3 food trucks or trailers and if plans advanced for a bigger event, that Heidi return to the Board for a separate approval. Heidi Tappan said up to 3 trucks sounds reasonable and was agreeable to appearing again if her plans evolved further.

There was no comment from the public.

  1. Hunt moved to accept the site plan as complete, with the addition of the power sources. L. Kilcoyne seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

The hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m.

 

Chair T. Maxham reopened the previously recessed hearing for Victoria’s Café/Alexander.  Since the applicant was still not present, D. Patterson made a motion to recess the hearing to May 12th at 6:00 p.m.  W. Rowe seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

 

Old Business               None.

Review of Minutes 

  1. Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of March 24th, 2021, with corrections. D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Upcoming hearings:

May 12            Continuation of Alexander mobile vendor conditional use hearing; conditional use and site plan hearing for the first floor of the Zlotoff Tool Museum.

May 26            Continuation of the hearing for the Gammal subdivision.

June 9              Continuation of the hearing for conditional use and site plan review for The Anchorage.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Welch moved to adjourn to deliberative session for Bayview Crossing. The motion was seconded by D. Patterson and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session 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.

April 14, 2021 CRB Agenda

April 11, 2021

TOWN OF SOUTH HERO

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

April 14, 2021

 

Meeting to be held via Zoom

Meeting begins at 6PM

 

Contact the S. Hero ZA for a Zoom invite before 4:30PM on April 14, 2021

zoning@southherovt.org

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

  1. Changes to the Agenda
  2. Public Input
  3. Final Site Plan Review for Bayside Senior Housing – Cathedral Square Corporation (21-60-CL010)
  4. Continuation of Anchorage Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for an Added Use – David and Melissa Morrissette (21-54-FL117)
  5. Old Business
  6. Review of Minutes
  7. Administrator’s Report
  8. Adjournment
  9. Deliberations

 

March 24, 2021

April 5, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            March 24, 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            Mike & Michelle Gammal

Susan Thompson

Robert Fireovid

Sandy Gregg

 

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:        Conditional Use/Site Plan review – Events By Dale (21-53-FR007)

 

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Susan Thompson

Hearing Notes

Chair T. Maxham opened the hearing.   M. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning.  T. Maxham administered the oath to the applicant.

Susan Thompson is applying for an accessory use (food truck) at the Green Frog, a business owned by Nancy & Stan Woods at 7 Ferry Road.

  1. Thompson said that she is the current owner of a 20-year-old catering business, Catering by Dale, primarily serving corporations and weddings. The business has been relying on its food truck during the pandemic and since S. Thompson resides in Grand Isle and has contacts in the area, the food truck has a stop scheduled at the Green Frog 1 day per week. Food preparation on-site is limited to assembling items prepared at the kitchen in South Burlington.  Most business is based on pre-orders from area residents.  The business is warm-weather only and does not operate through the winter.
  2. Maxham asked the Board to first consider Conditional Use. M. Taylor-Varney asked for clarification of the days/times of business requested. S. Thompson said that she has been at the Green Frog on Wednesdays from 4:00-6:00 p.m. and wants to also operate Thursdays to accommodate possible expansion.
  3. Patterson asked the applicant to clarify whether she is asking for a food truck (including food preparation) or a delivery service only. S. Thompson said she is asking for both. She said she will use the food truck during warmer weather to accommodate drop-ins with on-demand meal assembly from pre-cooked items and will provide delivery-only service during cooler weather.  She said there is no cooking on the truck.
  4. Brightwell asked if the truck is self-sufficient for power, water, and waste. S. Thompson said she is fully outfitted as a food truck and licensed by the Department of Health. The truck is self-sufficient for water and waste but uses an extension cord to plug in to the Green Frog.
  5. Brightwell asked if meals are eaten on-site. S. Thompson said the business is pick-up only with no on-site consumption.
  6. Maxham asked the Board to proceed with review of the site plan. S. Thompson said that the food truck will be parked to the west side of the parking area near the building. M. Taylor-Varney asked what the operating hours overlap is with the food truck and the Green Frog.  S. Thompson said the Green Frog is open until 5:00 p.m. and that there has never been enough traffic to create a conflict for parking spaces.
  7. Patterson asked if there are any waivers requested. M. Taylor-Varney said there is a waiver requested for contours, but that the site is flat. She said she had also checked with VTRANS and confirmed that an 1111 permit is not required.
  8. Maxham asked for a motion to enter the response from VTRANS into the record. J. Brightwell made the motion, N. Hayward seconded the motion, and the motion passed by acclamation.
  9. Patterson observed that there are no parcel boundaries or proposed signage on the site plan. The Board agreed that M. Taylor-Varney could assist the applicant with adding parcel boundaries and signage to the site plan. T. Maxham asked for a motion for the requested waiver for contours.  W. Rowe made the motion, which was seconded by L. Kilcoyne.  The motion passed by acclamation.
  10. Kilcoyne asked the applicant to confirm that there will be no outside dining. S. Thompson confirmed that she is not interested in providing outside dining.
  11. Kilcoyne moved to accept the site plan as complete. The motion was seconded by W. Rowe and passed by acclamation.

Hearing no further discussion, T.Maxham closed the hearing at 6:32 p.m.

 

 

Hearing:        Combined hearing for 3-Lot Subdivision and PUD review – Michael Gammal (21-59-RT456)

 

 

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Mike & Michelle Gammal

Hearing Notes

Chair T. Maxham opened the hearing.   M. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning.

  1. Maxham administered the oath to the applicant and audience.

The application is for the subdivision of a 9.5-acre parcel at 456 Route 2 into 3 lots with a PUD on one lot.

  1. Maxham said that this application is a little more complicated than what the Board usually deals with. After discussion, the Board agreed that the minor subdivision process as specified by the Town’s bylaws for minor subdivision includes only a final site plan review and does not include a sketch plan review. M. Taylor-Varney confirmed that the hearing was warned as a final site plan review.
  2. Brightwell said he thought that the Board’s consideration of the subdivision and the PUD should be of a piece. He said he raised the point because the application suggested that the decision for a minor subdivision could be severed from the application for a PUD.  J. Brightwell asked for an explanation of the paragraph in Section 805 which contains the sentence “A single written decision shall be issued for each combined reviews (sic) conducted as part of the combined review, but shall be coordinated where applicable.”  J. Brightwell said that the way he read that section it meant that the Board could consider the PUD while considering the subdivision, and while two separate decisions would be rendered, one application could inform the decision regarding the other.  D. Patterson said that he did not disagree.
  3. Taylor-Varney said this was the issue she considered when she set this as a combined hearing. G. Hunt asked if the hearing was warned as a combined review. M. Taylor-Varney said yes.  The Board agreed to use the list in Section 805.B to organize the review and agreed that while there would be separate written decisions for the subdivision and PUD, the Board can look at both applications during the review process.

Mike Gammal presented an overview of his project.  He said that the subdivision is logical in that each business (marina, trailer park, and food truck) would each be on its own property.  He said that while subdividing, it also made sense to ask for what the property would likely become given that a residential subdivision is more valuable than a trailer community.

  1. Patterson said that the first applicable item from the list in 805.B is the waiver request. T. Maxham said that the applicant requested waivers for providing the square footage for each structure and for providing a survey plat. Mike Gammal said he is looking for conceptual approval as to whether the Board would approve the 3-lot subdivision and the PUD and at this time.   He said he had defined exclusive use areas but not building footprints.  He said that the PUD will be a condominium-type project where there is an area owned in common.  The residents will own their building, its footprint and a surrounding exclusive use area indicated by the red boxes on Page 3.
  2. Brightwell said he did not see any reason to require dimensions for buildings that would be torn down, but that as part of the concept for the PUD the applicant should provide standards for building square feet, setbacks, etc. Mike Gammal said that he wanted to get the 9-lot PUD approved with the exclusive use areas and the purchasers of the lots would subsequently apply for approval of their structures. J. Brightwell said you are basically selling the lots for residents to build their own homes.  Mike Gammal said yes, he is looking to provide an improved building lot.
  3. Patterson said that there should be a demolition plan that shows what will be removed. Then there should be something that describes the conventions and standards for building size, lot appearance, and setbacks for the condominium. Mike Gammal said he will provide that to the Board.  He is currently envisioning carriage homes, a single-story structure designed to appeal to mature residents, with a consistent appearance for the entire development.  J. Brightwell said this will go a long way to answer questions regarding setbacks, number of bedrooms, square feet, etc.
  4. Hunt said that the regulations say clearly that the PUD must be reviewed with the subdivision and thus a plan for the PUD needs to be supplied. J. Brightwell called the applicant’s attention to Section 304.C (application requirements for a PUD), 304.F. (provision of open space/common land), and Section 408 (Development Standards) and said that the proposal needed to address these requirements before the Board can provide a decision.

Mike Gammal said that he would be glad to provide this information, and that in summary the open space is to the east of the houses and the land between the houses is part of the exclusive use zone controlled by the homeowner.  J. Brightwell asked how this is different from a subdivision, where each home has a lot.  Mike Gammal said this met the criteria for a PUD in that the homes are clustered together without regard for minimum lot size, the road footprint is reduced, the lot coverage is reduced, and open space is preserved.  J. Brightwell said there can be some people who will argue that you are not actually clustering the homes – that what you have is 8 individual homes on individual lots, but you are using the PUD to subvert the subdivision of the property into 8 lots.  J. Brightwell asked if the applicant had considered shared walls that would cluster the homes into a much smaller space.  G. Hunt said it is not the Board’s job to alter the applicant’s proposal.  J. Brightwell agreed but said it is within the Board’s purview to consider the issues raised in Section 408, which includes environmental considerations.   N. Hayward said that by quick calculation he concluded that the 7 homes fronting on the lake would consume about 1 acre (about .14 acres each) which to him is clustered – 7 houses on one acre.  M. Taylor-Varney said this is in the village district where there are no minimum lot sizes provided the structures meet the required setbacks.

  1. Patterson asked where in statute it says you can put an exclusive use right on a lot but not call it a lot. Mike Gammal said that to his knowledge there is nothing that says it is allowed, but it is also not prohibited. Mike Gammal said that treating the houses as part of a single PUD rather than individual lots helps to provide for green space, for stormwater treatment, and for uniformity of appearance and use of the land.  He said that for the target market (55 and up) he feels that the detached home has more attraction.  D. Patterson said he was trying to figure out the difference between an exclusive use area and a lot.  G. Hunt said he used to live in such a development in Shelbourne where there are similar provisions to those proposed by the applicant, where the lot size for the carriage house is the footprint of the house and there is an exclusive use area around the house which is .25 acres.  There are 12 homes on the 6-acre lot.  There are bylaws for the PUD; the homeowners association takes care of the plowing, maintenance, mowing the common areas, and the sewer lines to the road.
  2. Brightwell said the applicant doesn’t have the details we are asking for today on the PUD, and proposed reverting to the list (Section 805.B) to guide the Board’s evaluation of the subdivision. G. Hunt agreed and said that the applicant will ultimately have to provide the information for the PUD as specified by Section 304.

The Board resumed the discussion of the subdivision following the list in Section 805.B, starting with Item 2, waivers.  Regarding the request for a waiver to provide square footage, L. Kilcoyne observed that the depiction of the homes on the site plan are not to scale.  The Board agreed that absent missing information already discussed it could not provide a waiver at this time.  Regarding the request to waive a survey plat, the Board agreed that since the applicant is requesting a subdivision, he will have to provide a site plan per the provisions of Article IV, and no waiver could be granted.

  1. Patterson said that the applicant needs to provide a proposal of what he wants to do rather than ask the Board for direction. D. Patterson said the Board’s role is to look at a proposal and evaluate it against the regulations. Mike Gammal said that he was there to take the Board’s temperature to see if it is OK with what he is proposing in general before investing in a survey.  D. Patterson said there is no place in the ordinance which allows the Board to do that – instead, the applicant should tell the Board what he wants, and the Board should review it.  G. Hunt said that if a proposal complies with the regulations, the Board will approve it.   L. Kilcoyne said that the application will likely proceed incrementally but she cannot imagine how it can proceed without a presentation and dialogue, and that with the new regulations it is a learning experience for everyone.
  2. Hunt asked what issues the Board would have regarding the subdivision if the PUD were not present. J. Brightwell said that he had several questions regarding the minor subdivision.
  3. Maxham said that the Board should discuss the minor subdivision, starting with Sheet 1.

Mike Gammal said that Lot #3 is delineated by natural boundaries, including the highway on the west and the ridge on the east.  T. Maxham asked whether the food truck needs an easement to access the deck which is on Lot #1.  Mike Gammal said that he had a contractual relationship with the food truck operator.  M. Taylor-Varney said that if the lots are subdivided and Lot #1 sold and there is no easement granted, the relationship would just be severed.

Mike Gammal said there is an easement on Lot #3 to allow for access to Lot #1, as well as an easement for the Montanis.  D. Patterson asked if the driveway to the Montanis should be widened.  Mike Gammal said that the easement and driveway are 20 feet wide.  D. Patterson said that the site plan shows that the driveway is not completely on the Montani easement.

  1. Brightwell said that the parking area granted in the earlier conditional use for the food truck showed the parking area extending further to the south than shown on the plan submitted for the subdivision. J. Brightwell said that for the original conditional use the applicant said he would gravel half of the parking area, which has been done. J. Brightwell said that during the summer at peak times there is congestion at the entrance with cars parked on the access road and highway, and that the applicant should consider expanding and reconfiguring the parking.  He noted that the dumpster is also not shown on the site plan.  Mike Gammal said that he will do a better job with controlling parking this season and agreed with showing the full parking area, the dumpster, and shipping crate on the site plan.  After discussion, all agreed that only real items (not items like the wood pile) should be shown on the site plan.
  2. Brightwell asked about the isolation zone on Lot #3. After discussion, the applicant agreed it is likely in error and would be removed.
  3. Maxham asked about the pile of topsoil at the southern end of the parking area on Lot #3. Mike Gammal said that the pile had been put there as a visual and noise barrier to the adjacent residence. T. Maxham said that he assumed that the soil will be used elsewhere on the property and that the applicant will put up a fence.

Mike Gammal said Lot #1 is 3.7 acres and encompasses the marina.  The bathhouse shown adjacent to P. Velasquez property will be relocated west across the parking area.    The approved gravel parking area is currently grass and is not expected to be needed anytime soon.  W. Rowe asked how wide the right-of-way is as it narrows along the boundary of the Montani property.  Mike Gammal said it narrows to about 17 to 18 feet.

  1. Taylor-Varney read a letter she had received from abutter P. Velasquez objecting to the location of the bathhouse and to additional construction on the northern end of the property.
  2. Welch said that the applicant should show neighboring structures on the next version of the plan.
  3. Maxham asked for a motion to enter the letter from P. Velasquez into the record. The motion was made by J. Brightwell, seconded by D. Patterson, and passed by acclamation.

Mike Gammal said that Lot #2 with 4.56 acres contains the PUD with about 500’ of lakefront.  He said that he wanted to cluster the development to preserve green space and keep the development consistent and attractive.  There are seven homes on the waterfront and one further up the driveway.  There is also an existing house in good shape with frontage on the highway that he proposes to retain for possible future commercial use.

  1. Taylor-Varney read a letter (already in the record) from abutter Frank Montani in which he expressed concern with the location, height and appearance of adjacent new homes, the location of the proposed driveway adjacent to his property, the location and maintenance of the septic system, and the easement for his garage.
  2. Welch asked where the additional parking is for the residences, observing that there is no parking for a second car or guest. Mike Gammal said that the driveways will likely be double driveways.
  3. Brightwell said that there should be a parking area designated for the building on Route 2, recognizing that the parking requirements cannot be known precisely until the type of use is established. D. Patterson asked if the house is occupied. Mike Gammal said yes, it is a single-family residence.

No members of the public indicated a desire to speak.

With the discussion concluding, M. Taylor-Varney said the hearing would need to be continued.   The earliest date available is May 26th.

  1. Maxham asked D. Patterson what he saw missing from the site plan that would need to be provided. D. Patterson said the items on Table 3.2 would need to be provided, including:
  • All utilities need to be underground and will need to be indicated (can be on other sheets),
  • Grading plan
  • Landscaping plan
  • Construction sequence and timing
  • Detail on the turnarounds
  • Lighting plan
  1. Patterson asked how many houses will be served by the well. Mike Gammal said that the seven houses will be supplied with water by the Fire District, and the eighth house will require a drilled well. D. Patterson observed that the site plan differs from that description.
  2. Taylor-Varney asked for a copy of the commitment by the Fire District to provide water service for the houses.
  3. Maxham asked the Board if a site visit is in order. After discussion, N. Hayward moved to schedule a site visit for Saturday, April 24th at 9:00 a.m. The motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and passed by acclamation.  Mike Gammal said the Board should enter at the campgrounds and meet by the bath house.
  4. Kilcoyne moved to recess the hearing to May 26th at 6:00 p.m. D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

 

 

 

 

Old Business               None.

Review of Minutes 

  1. Patterson moved to accept the minutes of February 24th. W. Rowe seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Future meetings:

  • April 14th. Bayview Crossing hearing for final site plan review; continuation of hearing for conditional use / site plan review for The Anchorage.
  • April 28th. Conditional use / site plan review for food truck at Goulet Farm; conditional use / site plan review for a food truck on Ferry Road for Victoria’s café.
  • May 12th. Two-lot subdivision and conditional use/site plan review for the Car Museum (first floor of the Zlotoff Tool Museum barn) date TBD.
  • April 24th. Site visit for Keeler Bay Associates.
  • May 26th. Continuation of hearing for Keeler Bay Associates.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Hunt moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by W. Rowe and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 8:29 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.

March 10, 2021 DRB Minutes

April 5, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            March 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:      None

Public Present            Anchorage Hearing

Bob Fireovid

Charles & Claire Rousseau

Chris Morse

David Carter

Douglas Cardin

Gail & Timothy Kelly

Gordon Echenberg

Herb Kaufman & Laurie Palmer

Jeff Sikora

Mary Kim, Charles, and Avery Lavery

Mick & Marilyn McConnell

Ruby Brezinsky

Sarah Wallace-Brodeur

Thomas Kaufman

Kara von Behren

 

Bond Hearing

Jim Bond and Beth Curtis

 

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:                      Continuation of 3-Lot Subdivision Final Plan Review – Bond (21-39-MR007)

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Jim Bond and Beth Curtis

 

Hearing Notes

Chair T. Maxham recused himself.  D. Patterson assumed the chair and opened the hearing.  Administration of the oath was omitted as the participants were sworn in previously.

Regarding changes to the site plan since the last meeting, J. Bond said that he had moved the septic system far enough east so that the isolation zone for the mound is now entirely on his property.  He said that he had spoken to Randy DeLong yesterday, had provided him with the drawing, and Mr. DeLong was content with the situation.  J. Bond said that he had also moved the isolation zone for the well near Bill Bannis’ property so that the zone extended only into the 25-foot setback on Mr. Bannis’ property, and Mr. Bannis was also satisfied.  J. Bond said that he had put in a 12-foot easement around the shared mound system so that both property owners have access to the system.  J. Bond said that the hammerhead is now 20’ wide and 45’ long and is located where the driveway goes into lot #5 and lot #6.

  1. Hunt made a motion to accept the applicant’s request to reduce the width of the right-of-way at the point where the driveway enters Lot #6 from 50’ to 30’. L. Kilcoyne seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
  2. Patterson said that Town ordinances require an easement around the hammerhead, as well as continuing to Lot #5. M. Welch clarified that Lot #5 would need an easement to back into the driveway on Lot #6 to turn around. J. Bond said that he would have the engineer add the easement around the hammerhead.

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

 

 

Hearing:          Conditional Use/Site Plan Review for an Added Use – Morrissette (21-54-FL117)

 

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

David & Melissa Morrissette

Hearing Notes

  1. Maxham resumed the chair. M. Taylor-Varney read the hearing warning.
  2. Maxham said that the Board would first hear about the conditional use and then proceed to review the site plan.
  3. Maxham administered the oath to the applicant and audience.

Applicant D. Morrissette said that The Anchorage had been around since the late 1950’s and was started by the Steadman family.  He purchased the property in 2017.  D. Morrissette said that he had been doing remodeling and building the business back up, some of which was by hosting fishing tournaments and family reunions.  He said that in the first year he had been able to get the National Semifinals through the FLW (Fishing League Worldwide) and has been able to host this for the past couple of years.  He said that he was not aware that he needed a Conditional Use permit in addition to the 50-person license he has for lodging and dining.  D. Morrissette said that once he found out that he needed a conditional use permit he made the application.  He also mentioned that he hosted a wedding in 2019 and was unaware that he needed a permit.  He said he is interested in hosting other weddings in the future and is looking to have four events throughout the season with up to double his regular capacity (100 people) except for a one-time event up to 125 people to accommodate a prospective wedding client.

  1. Maxham asked for the hours of operation and the number of vehicles expected. D. Morrissette asked if the question was for special events or regular operation. M. Taylor-Varney said the application is for special events.   M. Morrissette said that they have 14 cabins on-site, 12 of which are up and running.  She said they have parking for all cabins and for special use events would be looking at approximately 25 extra cars.  D. Morrissette said that fishing events are a 2–3-hour event usually on a Friday night where all contestants show up for their briefing meeting and registration and are usually served a meal.  D. Morrissette said that they normally host (sleep) 30-35 at the lodge and the rest of the tournament participants come from other establishments in the area.  They usually arrive between 4:00-5:00 p.m.
  2. Patterson asked if he is correct in understanding that tournaments have been held at the Anchorage “forever.” D. Morrissette said that he is not sure whether the previous owner had tournaments, like hosting a dinner, but there have been people coming and going for at least the past 60 years. He said he had stayed there since the late ‘90’s before he bought the place, had family that had stayed there in the ‘80’s, and he had a group that has been coming for over 50 years that takes the whole place.  D. Patterson asked if the fishing tournament is new.  D. Morrissette said the hosting of the fishing tournament is new, where people would come for their one-time briefing meeting and dinner, and where he is able to make extra revenue.  He said that last year, with COVID, they did not host a dinner.
  3. Rowe asked if the wedding event proposed for this summer is the first wedding event. D. Morrissette said that it would be the second, that he hosted a wedding event in 2019 for 110 people in late September. The wedding booked right now is for July 10th.  He said he requires a wedding party to book the entire property for several days.
  4. Kilcoyne said when there is a wedding for 125 people, allowing for couples, you would need parking for 75 people or so. D. Morrissette drew the Board’s attention to the site plan and reviewed the areas indicated for parking. L. Kilcoyne asked how many total parking spaces were available.  D. Morrissette said that there were a little over 100, not counting the spaces for the cabins.  L. Kilcoyne asked how many people could be hosted in the cabins.     D. Morrissette said 50.  L. Kilcoyne said that if there was a wedding for a whole weekend, people could be coming in and out.  D. Morrissette said that the wedding would be on Saturday, which is when the 75 additional people would be there.
  5. Maxham said that opens things up to the site plan review and asked for a review of the details of the site plan. T. Maxham said that he understood that the applicant was asking for a waiver for showing contours. M. Taylor-Varney said that she had the most recent boundary plat and there were contours on that.  D. Morrissette then reviewed the features on the site plan, highlighting the parking areas.
  6. Brightwell asked where the sanitary facilities were and whether the applicant would bring in Port-O-Lets. D. Morrissette said they would bring in Port-O-Lets for the overflow. He said that each cabin has its own bathroom, and there is an extra bathroom in the main lodge, but he would bring in whatever was recommended for that day.  J. Brightwell asked how trash would be handled, and whether the site had its own kitchen or whether the event would be catered.  D. Morrissette said that the proposed wedding event would be catered, and that they had a big dumpster for trash that is picked up weekly.  M. Morrissette said that they have a kitchen in the main lodge that the caterer would have access to.  D. Morrissette said that the dining room in the main lodge seated 50, but the wedding would be outside.  D. Morrissette said that although the dumpster is by the main lodge, they also have a half-dozen large trash receptacles that they can use throughout the grounds for the day.
  7. Brightwell asked if for the angler event everyone arrived by car and not by boat. D. Morrissette said by car. D. Morrissette said that for the angler event, anglers need to be off the water by 3:00 p.m. on the last day, and the anglers that stay at the lodge come in and park the (cars and) boats in the area where they would park for weddings as well as around the cabins.    The anglers staying elsewhere would usually carpool in and arrive without their boats.
  8. Rowe asked if the Anchorage provided any meals other than the banquet. D. Morrissette said they provide breakfast every day for their guests and would do so for the people staying there for the wedding but would not provide meals for other wedding attendees.
  9. Hayward asked if the parking areas shown on the plan were existing. D. Morrissette said that the parking areas were all grass. N. Hayward asked what is done to delineate the parking areas.  D. Morrissette said they have someone direct parking but there is no marking.  N. Hayward asked how the capacity of the parking areas was calculated.  D. Morrissette said that they used the parking space dimensions provided by M. Taylor-Varney, which were 9’x20’.
  10. Maxham said that before the Board proceeded, he wanted a motion regarding the waiver to provide contours on the site plan, as requested by the applicant. G. Hunt made a motion to waive the requirement for contours; no second was made and no further action was taken on the motion.
  11. Kilcoyne asked how hilly the site is. D. Morrissette described the general topography of the site, involving a crest of a hill along the axis between the lodge and Mary Steadman’s house, descending to the road on one side and to the lake on the other side.
  12. Brightwell asked how large the property is. D. Morrissette said just over 6 acres. J. Brightwell asked what the distances are to the nearest residences and where they are.  D. Morrissette said that Mary Steadman’s residence is the closest, about 30’ to the south off the back of the property (shown on the site plan).  D. Morrissette said that the Kaufman’s were across the street, about 100’ off the road, and the McConnell property has about 4 homes on their property towards the lake side, the closest of which was about 200’.  The Carters and other residences are beyond.
  13. Brightwell asked if the applicant is proposing outdoor music. D. Morrissette said that for the wedding they are proposing a DJ outdoors at the tent site, facing towards the lake.
  14. Maxham said that the Board still needed to address the requested waiver for contours. N. Hayward said that the site has some topography, and the Board has granted waivers in the past, but he thought that this site is like the Keeler Bay Campground for which a site visit by the Board had been valuable. N. Hayward said that if the Board is contemplating a waiver for contours a site visit might be a good idea.  J. Brightwell said that he would support that idea.  L. Kilcoyne said that she agreed and that she felt that the Board needed more information than what is provided on the site diagram.  She pointed out that in addition to having variable topography, the site is wooded.   J. Brightwell said that the concerns of noise, traffic volume, and impact on the neighbors could be affected by topography, by vegetation, by distance, and by how sound carries on the lakeshore.  He said that one of the neighbors impacted could be across the inlet.  D. Morrissette said that he is proposing that the music be finished by 10:00 p.m.
  15. Maxham said that several members of the Board had suggested a site visit, which would mean the hearing would have to be continued. He said that he wanted to be sure that the Board had first provided input regarding what they want to see on the site plan. J. Brightwell said that trash and port-o-let facilities should be shown.  N. Hayward said that the Board would want to see setbacks on the site plan.  D. Patterson said that he wanted to see existing structures and access points on adjacent properties, including those residences directly across on public streets, to give an idea of where the neighbors are.  J. Brightwell said approximate distances to the neighbors would be helpful.  T. Maxham said that the survey showed the Steadman and Sikora residences on the west side of Featherbed Lane but no driveways or buildings on the east side.  W. Rowe said it would be good to see the dwellings.  J. Brightwell said it would also be good to see vegetation, whether adjacent residences were facing and whether the contour of the land would direct the noise, so a site visit would clarify the impact of the proposed activities on the neighborhood.
  16. Maxham said that the Board would determine the date of a site visit before recessing the hearing.
  17. Brightwell said that if the Board is going to take additional time with this application, he would like to have an estimate of traffic volume on paper from the applicant, for the weddings and for the angler events. G. Hunt asked that the applicant be briefed by the Zoning Administrator on the requirements for a site plan as listed in Table 3.2 of the regulations.
  18. Maxham opened the hearing for comments by members of the public. He said there were letters that had just been received and they should be read aloud so that all could hear them and called first for the letter from Mr. Lavrey.  Mary Kim Lavrey said that she had written the letter and suggested that it be posted, and she would be happy to summarize it.  Mary Kim said that for her it is not the cars that attended the angler event, but trucks with wide trailers and boats.  She said that Featherbed is a quiet, dead-end road, narrow and windy, and the stream of traffic for the angler events she found disturbing.  She said that the neighborhood had serious problems with the water system and was unsure how these events would impact the water situation.  M. Taylor-Varney said that Featherbed had a private water district, over which the Board had no jurisdiction.
  19. Maxham asked the Kellys to read the letter that they just submitted. G. Kelly said that they had sent two letters, one a couple of weeks ago, and another today. G. Kelly said that she would read the letter submitted today.  G. Kelly said in her letter that her parents had purchased their property adjacent to The Anchorage in 1948 and there had never been an issue with The Anchorage, which is a quiet fishing camp.  She said that she wanted to support The Anchorage as a fishing camp, however she opposes having wedding venues in a residential neighborhood.  She said that nine of the closest families are senior citizens and that having to listen to loud music and guests until 10:00 p.m. is not in character with a fishing camp.  She said that the additional traffic is incompatible the narrow road, which is not designed for heavy use, and would put pedestrian traffic, pets, and children at risk.  She said that having weddings at The Anchorage would reduce property values on Featherbed Lane, would increase road fees, and place strain on the water system.  She said she supports the continued use of the cabins and fishing camp.
  20. Kelly read the letter he had submitted. Reading the letter, he said that he did not feel that the application adequately describes the proposed impact of parking 100 cars and bringing in 200 or more guests. He said he wondered if the water and septic systems are capable of supporting weddings and banquets.   T. Kelly said that they had ignored the increased traffic over the past few years and expressed the concern that the additional traffic would increase the cost of road maintenance for every homeowner and impact the recreational use of biking and walking on the road.  He said the adjacent homes would be subjected to increased noise levels when events are held.
  21. Maxham called on Herb Kaufman. H. Kaufman said that he is happy to have his letter on record but also wanted to make some talking points. H. Kaufman said that he is at 100 Featherbed Lane, directly across from The Anchorage.  He said that he is not opposed to the fishing tournaments but is concerned about the proposal for 8 conditional uses – 8 weddings, which would be the whole summer.  He said that the applicant bought a fishing camp, not a wedding venue.  He said that a wedding venue is not a reasonable or foreseeable use of the property and that use as a wedding venue would not pass the test of having no undue adverse effect as defined in the Town’s regulations.  H. Kaufman said that weddings with traffic, noise and crowds that may last up to three days are not in keeping with the character of the area and would impact the residents’ enjoyment of their property.  He said that the parking areas, aligned along the road, will ruin the scenic nature of the small, rural road.   He said that the Steadmans’ pledge to accommodate parking on their property should not be regarded as a part of the solution since it is a commitment that could be revoked.  H. Kaufman said that the increased volume of traffic is a safety risk, particularly if guests are driving while impaired, and that the road is not designed to accommodate traffic related to special events.  In places the road barely has enough width to support two-way traffic.  Mr. Kaufman said that the combined issues of character of the neighborhood, noise, parking capacity, traffic, and water problems should prompt the Board to deny the proposal.
  22. Maxham called upon Marilyn McConnell to read her letter. M. McConnell said that her grandparents leased property at 118 Featherbed Lane road in 1920. She said that the essence of the neighborhood’s character has been maintained over the years, that she is grateful that the fishing camp attracted families who returned year after year to enjoy quiet low-key vacations and is concerned that expansion of the permitted use will have detrimental impact on the quality of life.  She said that the application is inadequate to assess how the special events would impact adjacent property owners and offered several examples in the areas of signage, traffic, business hours, parking, capacity of lodging, detail of the site plan, noise, and impact on the road and water system.  She expressed concern that the owner would seek to expand the conditional use in the future, that property values would be impacted, and that the increased volume of guests would infringe on the enjoyment of their adjacent property, beach front, and use of the water.
  23. Taylor-Varney called upon Chris Morse to read his letter. C. Morse said that he owns 83 Featherbed Lane and has easements for recreational use of the beach owned by 117 Featherbed Lane (The Anchorage). He said the application does not mention his easements and wants them to be added to the application site plan and accepted.  He said that his deed entitles him to unencumbered access to and from Lake Champlain for bathing, docking, landing, mooring, and storing of boats, and for other purposes for which beach areas are commonly used.  The easement provides that a dock may be erected and maintained within the easement area, but no other structures can be erected.  C. Morse said his deed also provides easements over land that allows him to reach the recreational easement by foot or motor vehicle.  He said that if there are vehicles or other impediments preventing access that it would be in violation of his easement.  C. Morse said that the increased noise and vehicle access for events would have a direct effect on the value of his property, one of the chief virtues being its location on a quiet, dead-end road.  C. Morse also cited adverse impact on the water system, the road, and safety on the road.
  24. Maxham called on Charles & Clair Rousseau. C. Rousseau said that he lived at 79 Featherbed Lane, within ¼ mile of the Anchorage. His letter expressed concerns shared with other neighbors over traffic, noise, safety, and consumption of alcohol.   He also expressed concern that the owner would seek to expand the conditional use to additional events if successful.  C. Rousseau said they moved to the neighborhood because it is a quiet secluded cul-de-sac and granting conditional use would adversely impact his quality of life and property values.
  25. Maxham clarified that a conditional use permit, if granted, would specify the maximum number of events, and could impose additional conditions. M. Taylor-Varney said that the conditional use could be worded to prevent the transfer of the conditional use when and if the property changed hands.
  26. Maxham recognized G. Echenberg. G. Echenberg asked for clarification of the approval process and asked for a copy of the application. T. Maxham said that the Town’s Development Review Board is in a public hearing for the application, which could include a site visit.  Upon completion of the hearing, the Board will approve or deny the application.  M. Taylor-Varney clarified that the Board does not have jurisdiction over the private road or the water system.  She said that the hearing is held so that the Board can take input from not only the applicant but also abutters and residents.  J. Brightwell said that the Board’s decision is based upon the regulations in the Town’s bylaws, which are posted on the Town’s website.  G. Echenberg asked if the Board is also the agency that sets conditions of the approval.  M. Taylor-Varney said that the Board can set conditions on an approval.  L. Kilcoyne said that there are other State regulations that may apply where the Town does not have jurisdiction.

Barbara Carter said that there was one wedding in 2019, during which she and her husband had dinner on their deck, and that for them the noise was not a problem.

  1. Maxham said that if a decision is made by the Board in favor of the applicant, participants in the hearing can appeal the decision to the State Environmental Court.
  2. Taylor-Varney called upon R. Brezinsky. R. Brezinsky said that the wedding mentioned by Barbara Carter was disturbing to them at 54 Featherbed. She said that the road near their property is straight, there is no regulation or enforcement of speed on the road, and the trucks with boats behind them take up the whole lane.  She expressed concern with access by safety or fire in congested conditions.  She also expressed concern that the applicant had already violated their existing conditional use by holding a wedding.
  3. Taylor-Varney said when the Morrissettes came to her for a building permit and mentioned that they had hosted a wedding and fishing tournaments, she recommended that if they wished to continue these activities, they should come into compliance by adding these uses to their existing conditional use. She said that she had not received any complaints regarding the previous events. She said in most situations regarding violations, its just that most people don’t know the regulations.
  4. Taylor-Varney called upon Sara Wallace-Brodeur. S. Wallace-Brodeur said that she had not heard the wedding from her house, had happened upon it walking her dog, and did not find it noisy. She said she had attended a couple of the bass fishing events and found it very low-key.  She said that David and Melissa were trying to run a business and wanted to be respectful of their neighbors.
  5. Taylor-Varney called upon Mick McConnell. M. McConnell said that his grandfather bought their property next to The Anchorage in 1920. He said that a single one-off event is not the issue, but rather the issue is an escalation to eight events per year.  T. Maxham said the applicant is applying for 2 fishing derbies and 2 weddings per year, and that if the Board did approve it would put a limit on the number of events that could be held.
  6. Kaufman said that the application showed up to 8 events. M. Taylor-Varney said that 8 is on the original application, but the application has been amended to “up to” 2 fishing tournaments and 2 weddings. The fishing tournaments are in September and October.  D. Morrissette said that the only wedding on the docket is for July.  He said their business does not call for special events during the season – their business is 80% families, and 20% fishing, and it is mostly in the shoulder seasons when they would seek to hold up to 4 special events.   He said that this would not cause any more traffic than what had been experienced during the previous four years.
  7. Morrissette said that they park all cars off the road, but he has had a neighbor who holds a party every year where the cars are parked on the road and the music goes late into the night, and that he felt he was being singled-out because he was a business. He said he is trying to keep The Anchorage as it was with the Steadman’s while also bringing the business into the 21st century.

Marilyn McConnell said that the nature of the neighborhood is that it is not a 21st-century community, but rather it is an opportunity to get away from noise and congestion.

  1. Kelly said that it is confusing that the original application is for 8 events per year, which is the whole summer. M. Taylor-Varney said the testimony tonight amended the application to 4 events. M. Taylor-Varney asked D. Morrissette if they were actively soliciting wedding events.  D. Morrissette said that they did not solicit weddings, but as in the case of the proposed July wedding, people sought him out.
  2. Morrissette said that over his four years of operation, he had lengthened the average duration of stay, which gives him an opportunity to educate residents regarding road safety. He said he felt that the road is under-posted – there were only two speed limit signs, both on the way in. He pointed out that there were three houses built, and several sold, which also contributed to traffic on the road.

Hearing no further questions or testimony, the Board agreed to conduct a site visit on Saturday, 3/13 at 11:00 a.m.  G. Hunt said that he was unavailable in the morning but would with the permission of the Board visit the site late that day.  The Board and applicant were agreeable.

  1. Hayward moved to schedule a site visit on Saturday, 3/13 at 11:00 a.m. D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation. T. Maxham said that the public is invited.  M. Taylor-Varney said that no testimony would be taken during the site visit.
  2. Patterson moved to recess the hearing to April 14th at 6:00 p.m. G. Hunt seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

 

 

Old Business               None

Review of Minutes 

  1. Kilcoyne moved to approve the minutes of February 24th. D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Future meetings:

  • March 24th. Conditional use / site plan review for a food truck at the Green Frog, and a combined 3-lot subdivision with a PUD at Keeler Bay Campground & Marina.
  • April 14th. Bayview Crossing hearing for final site plan review; continuation of hearing for conditional use / site plan review for The Anchorage.
  • April 28th. Conditional use / site plan review for food truck at Goulet Farm; conditional use / site plan review for a food truck on Ferry Road for Victoria’s café.
  • Zlotoff conditional use/site plan review for the Car Museum (first floor of the Zlotoff Tool Museum barn) date TBD.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Hunt moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by W. Rowe and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 8:29 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.