January 13, 2021 DRB Minutes

January 20, 2021

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            January 13, 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            Arbor Farm Market Hearing

Alisha Utter

Kyle Bowley

John Skutel

Janine Bellinghiri

 

Bayview Crossing Discussion

 

Cindy Read (Director of Development, Cathedral Square)

Greg Montgomery (Project Manager, Cathedral Square)

David Roy (Weimann Lamphere Architects)

Matthew Reed (Weimann Lamphere Architects)

Jay Buermann

Robin Way (CIDER)

 

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

 

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

 

 

Hearing:                    Arbor Farm Market Site Plan Review 324 US Rt 2

 

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

Alisha Utter & Kyle Bowley (Applicants)

John Skutel (CLB Properties, Landowner)

 

Hearing Notes

  1. Utter said that they are currently farming in Grand Isle and seek to open a retail storefront for the farm in the old CIDER building at 324 U.S. Rt 2. April 30th is the target opening day. The applicants propose to sell fresh produce, baked goods, flowers, houseplants, and a variety of Vermont products.  Proposed hours are W-F 11-7, Sat & Sun 10-4.  Maximum staff on-site at any given time will be two.  The maximum number of customers expected is 15 per hour, with an average visit time projected at 15 minutes.  The store will be a retail outlet and not have a dine-in facility.
  2. Bowley said that seven parking spaces are proposed, with two in front and five head-in along the east side of the building. VTRANS did not have any issues with the existing curb cuts. Power and phone are served from the utility pole at the curb in front of the building. The building is served by a water line.  A propane tank is at the northeast corner of the building.  The front porch will have seating and flowers and will serve as the main entrance.  The rear entry will be used as an exit to promote one-way flow during COVID.
  3. Brightwell asked for the number of square feet in the building. M. Taylor-Varney said that she calculated 860 square feet and confirmed that the applicable use was retail, and that the minimum number of parking spaces required was two. The proposed number of parking spaces exceeds the minimum requirement.  J. Brightwell observed that the apparent clearance from the head-in parking spaces to the property boundary to the east might be insufficient.  M. Taylor-Varney said that the town owned the property to the east and was discussing creating a pocket park associated with the “honeymoon cottage” along the CIDER building’s eastern boundary.  J. Brightwell asked if the alley between the parking spaces and the eastern property boundary was sufficient and noted that the parking area was gravel and parking spaces would not be striped.  J. Skutel said that there is plenty of room, and that during CIDER’s tenure there were sometimes 10-12 parked cars, and that he had gone into the back with trucks with no problem.  He said the parking area in the back was open for shared parking with other tenants.
  4. Bowley said that the distance from the building to the property line on the east was about 42 feet. He said that they would install railroad ties to delineate parking spaces.
  5. Brightwell asked where the handicap space was. K. Bowley said that the first space in the head-in parking along the building would be designated handicap because it was nearest to the ramp onto the porch.
  6. Kilcoyne asked if the angled parking proposed on the east side of the building would make it difficult for cars to back out and head for the exit.
  7. Rowe asked how wide the aisle was between the parking areas and the property boundary. K. Bowley said approximately 32 feet.

Robin Way said that CIDER often had 10-12 cars parked there and even with 3-4 cars parked along the east side there was enough room for the trash haulers and other trucks to get to the back of the building.  John Skutel agreed that there was plenty of space along the east side of the building for both head-in car parking and for vehicular ingress/egress to/from the rear parking lot.

After discussion, the Board and the applicants agreed that the head-in parking should be perpendicular to the building (head-in, not angled) to facilitate backing out and heading out towards the exit.

  1. Maxham asked if the applicant had spoken to VTRANS. K. Bowley said he had spoken to Ed Pierce a couple of times. He said that VTRANS’ main concern was that he obtain a right-of way to use the curb cut immediately to the east on Town property, which is the only way to access parking on the lot from the highway.  VTRANS did not see a problem with the existing curb cut from an engineering perspective.  M. Taylor-Varney said that she had received an email from Ed Pierce that an 1111 access permit is not required.  On Monday the Selectboard agreed that the project could share the existing curb cut, as CIDER had used it previously.  The Selectboard is willing to put that in writing if required by the DRB.
  2. Brightwell said that the Board should ask the Selectboard to put this in writing. M. Taylor-Varney said that she would communicate the request to the Selectboard.

The Board discussed the proposed two parking spaces in front of the building and concluded that the applicant did not need the two spaces to comply with regulations.  Discussion highlighted that eliminating the spaces would open up the front of the building and make the business more attractive, and also preserve access across the lot from the west.  M. Taylor-Varney said that Section 603 regarding parking area design in the Village district specified that parking should be to the side or rear, so that eliminating the spaces in front would support the new regulations.

The parking discussion ended with the applicants deciding to amend the plan to show four parking spaces along the side of the building, head-in, perpendicular to the structure.

  1. Maxham opened the proceedings for comment from the public. Jeanine Bellingham said that she thought the proposal looked great, would be a lovely addition to the village, and endorsed parking on the side. She said that parking in the village was always an issue and that she felt that each business needed to have enough parking for its actual requirements.
  2. Maxham asked if the people who worked there would park in back. K. Bowley said yes. T. Maxham asked John Skutel if there was enough space in back for equipment as well as employee and shared parking.  John said that Cedar Ledge no longer kept equipment there, and that there was plenty of space.  He said that the parking behind the building was shared with the other businesses in the complex.
  3. Maxham said that he felt that if the business was successful, they may pull in a lot of traffic and that some of the town shared parking might be needed to service peak demand.
  4. Taylor-Varney asked if the applicants would be willing to agree to a condition to come back before the Board in a year to review parking. The applicants agreed.

The Board agreed to accept the site plan with 4 parking spaces along the side, with the southern-most space designated as the handicapped space.

The applicants asked for a waiver from site plan requirement to show contours.  G. Hunt made a motion to grant the waiver.  D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

  1. Hayward made a motion to accept the site plan as revised during discussion as complete. G. Hunt seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
  2. Maxham closed the hearing at 7:07p.m.

 

 

 

 

Discussion With Cathedral Square Re Parking At Bayview Crossing

  1. Roy said that based on feedback in the previous meeting, Cathedral Square had developed a parking plan that illustrated the parking proposal and showed the allocation of spaces to the different types of use. The proposed parking includes a new 32-space lot that will be located between the new development and the firehouse. The new lot will be accessed on the south by a curb cut to Community Lane that will be created from four current Community Lane parking spaces.  At the north end, the parking lot will provide access to the Bayview Crossing underground garage.  Fourteen of the spaces will be allocated for use by the Community Lane development; the balance will be allocated to Bayview Crossing residents.  The result will be a net gain of ten spaces to Community Lane (fourteen new spaces less the four existing spaces sacrificed to create the curb cut).

There will be thirteen spaces allocated to Bayview Crossing in the new lot; fourteen in the lower level parking garage under the Bayview Crossing building; and seven at the visitor entry.  A total of three spaces are handicap accessible – one in the visitor area, one in the garage, and the one already mentioned at the CIDER entrance in the new lot.  CIDER will operate from the east side of the one-story portion of the Bayview Crossing building.  Five spaces in the new lot along the east front of this building will be reserved for CIDER, one of which will be handicap accessible.

  1. Montgomery presented a table showing the number of units, number of cars, number of spaces, and number of handicap spaces at each Cathedral Square property. He said that the difference in the spreadsheet between the number of handicap tags possessed by residents and the lower number of handicap parking spaces was explained by the number of residents who have handicap tags but do not require a full handicap space near their residence. G. Montgomery said that many residents have tags so that on trips to Walmart or the grocery store they can park near the entrance; however, they do not require a full handicap space with extra width.  Generally, across all the properties, Cathedral Square has one parking space per apartment.

Robin Way said that the spaces reserved for CIDER will be used only during business hours Monday through Friday and would thus be available for other uses such as community events on evenings and weekends.    C. Read said that the spaces allocated to Cathedral Square staff would be used during business hours and would be free for community use after hours.

  1. Patterson said that at the Cathedral Square Milton development the table presented showed 14 handicap tags but only 3 handicap spaces and he wanted to know how it is determined who gets assigned a handicap space. G. Montgomery said that handicap spaces were available on a first-come first-serve basis, there is a waitlist when needed, and upon occasion when genuine documented need is expressed Cathedral Square has created additional spaces. Cathedral Square has found that 2 or 3 handicap spaces per site to be sufficient.  C. Read said that sometimes they meet a resident’s need by moving their assigned space closer to the entrance, which solves the problem in most cases.  C. Read said that Cathedral Square meets ADA requirements for handicap spaces and achieves further accommodation via assigning closer parking spaces to those with need.
  2. Taylor-Varney asked if all residents were assigned a parking space. G. Montgomery said yes.
  3. Kilcoyne asked how many units were proposed and how many parking spaces were available to be assigned. G. Montgomery said there were 30 units comprising 26 one-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units, and there are 34 total parking spaces. C. Read noted that only one space was allocated to a two-bedroom unit and Cathedral Square did not typically see a demand for two cars.  She said that at Bayview Crossing they have allocated 30 units to residents and 4 spaces to staff and visitors.  C. Read noted that staff parking requirements vary by time of day.   For example, the part-time wellness nurse may come for four hours per week.  There would usually be no more than two staff at the same time, at most three.
  4. Rowe noted that the table showed 6 units having no car and asked whether no cars were allowed for those units. G. Montgomery said that was a projection based on past experience.  In practice they have many apartments where the tenants do not own cars.  N. Hayward asked if that meant that although 30 spaces are allocated for residents at Bayview, likely some of those 30 spaces would not be assigned to a resident due to lack of demand.  G. Montgomery said yes.  C. Read said that they rarely see a two-car household and in any case, they assign only one space per unit.
  5. Brightwell said that he wondered if the Board could put the parking issue to rest if the Board conditioned the approval on Cathedral Square assigning marked spaces, assigning only the number of spaces proposed for residential use, and prohibiting tenants from using other spaces for residential parking. He said that if the Board could rely on the management company to manage parking to the proposed number of spaces there would not be a concern about spillover parking impacting the rest of the Community Lane development.
  6. Read said that Cathedral Square would prefer to build more underground parking and would do so if their construction estimate came in below projection, but at this time could not make any commitments.
  7. Patterson said that he was still bothered by not providing sufficient handicap parking spaces for the number of residents who are expected to hold handicap tags. He said that what is shown meets legal requirements, but he felt there is an ethical requirement to provide a handicap space for every tag, which would amount to maybe 20% of the spaces. G. Montgomery said that if they were to build that number of handicap spaces, it would add 30% to the paved area, and if the spaces were tagged as handicap but not used, people without tags would not be able to use the spaces.
  8. Taylor-Varney asked if it would be possible to transform regular parking spaces into handicap spaces if needed. G. Montgomery said certain spaces could be transformed where there was room adjacent to the space.
  9. Roy said that it was important to keep in mind that all handicap requirements are not equal. Some need the access lane next to the parking space for egress from their car; others may simply want a closer location to the building entrance.
  10. Way said that in his experience, which was considerable, the vast majority of people with handicap tags have them for occasions like going to the store so they don’t have to walk long distances, but most could park in any of the spaces proposed for the development. He said that only a small percentage of people need the extra space beside the car.
  11. Read said that Cathedral Square made reasonable accommodation to move people’s assigned parking closer when necessary.
  12. Kilcoyne said that Cathedral Square really needed only two handicap spaces to comply with code; three are proposed.
  13. Kilcoyne asked what the use was of the large room in the single-story annex. C. Read said that it was intended as a community room for residents of the complex, with access also provided to CIDER. Functions would include resident gatherings and wellness programs.   C. Read said that in their other properties they are able to accommodate parking for visitors to events in the community room without setting aside spaces for that purpose.
  14. Maxham said that perhaps the applicant would be able to create more underground parking, but in any case the Board would have to consider whether parking is sufficient when the final site plan is presented.

Old Business

None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of December 9th as amended. W. Rowe seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

Sue Arguin has resigned from the Board, where she has been serving as an alternate.  Her position will be advertised.

Upcoming hearings:

January 27th.  M. Richardson for amendment to the site plan.

February 10th.  Jim Bond final site plan for Martin Road subdivision.  Also a variance request for a setback involving replacement of a non-conforming home.

 

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Hayward moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and passed by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 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.

Nov. 11, 2020 DRB Minutes

November 20, 2020

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            November 11, 2020

 

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

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      Nate Hayward

 

Public Present:           None.

 

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.

Old Business:              None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Hayward moved to accept the minutes of October 28, 2020. L. Kilcoyne seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).

DRB Board Member Alternates serve a one-year term, expiring on December 31st.   All positions must be advertised.  M. Welch and S. Arguin said they would apply to serve in 2021.

The terms of L. Kilcoyne and J. Brightwell (who is finishing S. Corbin’s term) also expire this year.  Both indicated they would apply to serve in 2021.

Upcoming meetings:

November 25..  No meeting

December 9.  Two hearings: (1) Conditional use and site review for a food truck at Candy Lab; (2) preliminary site plan for Lot #6 of the Lavin subdivision.

 

January 13.  (1) Site plan review for the old CIDER building; (2) Martin Road sketch plan review for major subdivision on the Bond property on Martin Road.

February 10.   Bond property Martin Road final plat.

The Selectboard is considering an ordinance at next meeting for mobile vendors that would require landowners to have a site plan review.

  1. Taylor-Varney is working to schedule a visit from VTRANS to South Hero to discuss parking on U.S. Route 2. No date has been set yet.

 

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Patterson moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by W. Rowe and carried by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 6:13 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.

October 28, 2020 DRB Minutes

November 4, 2020

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            October 28, 2020

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

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      None

 

Public Present:           Bayview Crossing

 

  1. Jay Appleton
  2. Ross Brown
  3. Michael Bacigalupo
  4. Jay Buermann
  5. Michaela Carter
  6. Greg and Pat Carter
  7. Bob and Marie Chilson
  8. Willemina Cerauskis
  9. Sandy Gregg
  10. Miranda Lescaze
  11. Kim Loll
  12. Matt Reed
  13. Cindy Reid
  14. David Roy
  15. Joel Templeton
  16. Lori Ann Roy
  17. Judy Steacy
  18. Nancy Andrews

 

 

 

 

Richardson – 138 Ferry Road

 

  1. Mitchel Richardson
  2. Anna Thelemarck (Structur Architects)
  3. Paul Boisvert (Engineering Ventures)
  4. Deborah Sherman

 

 

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

 

 

Hearing:                      Bayview Crossing Senior Housing (10 Carter Lane) – Preliminary Site Plan Review

 

 

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:00 p.m. N. Hayward recused.

Notice & Oath

  1. Hunt read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

  • Jay Buermann, Civil Engineer
  • Cindy Reed, Cathedral Square
  • Miranda Lescaze, Cathedral Square
  • Dave Roy, Weiman Lamphere Architects

Hearing Notes

  1. Buermann said that his role for the project was site planning and permitting, and that he would first introduce the Cathedral Square representatives to cover project history, then he would address the preliminary site plan requirements per town bylaws Section 303 and Table 3.1. David Roy would address the building design and esthetics.
  2. Lescaze said that Cathedral Square is a 40-year-old Vermont non-profit that develops, owns and operates affordable service-enriched housing communities for seniors and persons with special needs. Cathedral Square owns and manages 27 communities in Vermont, provides technical assistance to other non-profit housing providers, and administers the SASH (Support and Services At Home) program statewide. Cathedral Square has been working with CIDER for more than 14 years to create affordable senior housing in the Islands, and after examining many sites, has identified the one presented today as the perfect site.  Positive attributes include location in an area designated for new growth near the Community Health Center and the Town library.  Cathedral Square is planning a 30-unit building of 26 one-bed units and 4 two-bed units.  Six units will be market rate and twenty-four will be affordable units.  The project will help secure the future of CIDER by co-locating their offices within the building.  The  community and conference rooms will be shared with CIDER.  The residents will benefit from CIDER’s services, particularly for transportation and meals.  M. Lescaze thanked the town for supporting the project, particularly for supporting the South Hero Fire District upgrade of the water distribution system and for support of a Vermont Community Development Program (VDCP) planning grant.  She said that the Town is also sponsoring an application for an implementation grant from VCDP.

Actions to-date include securing an option for a septic easement on the Bayview Farm, conducting a site visit with funders and wetland permitting authorities, and completing an archeological review and starting an environmental review.  Cathedral Square also held a meeting with Carter Lane neighbors and VTRANS to consider different options for accessing the site, and received a grant for $110,000 from the Northern Borders Regional Commission to replace a part of the Fire District’s water line to improve water supply to the project.

To secure funding for the project, Cathedral Square has secured an award from the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, has applied to the Community Development Program with a decision expected in April, and expects to receive Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding in April for the largest portion of the development funds.  Cathedral Square has worked with the design team of Weimann Lamphere and Buermann Engineering to develop the current proposal.

  1. Buermann presented the various components of the application demonstrating compliance with preliminary site plan requirements per the Town bylaws. He said they were requesting a waiver from the Town for including the Letter of Intent from VTRANS with the application as they were looking for feedback on site access from the Town tonight. He also requested a waiver for the lighting and landscaping components of the application as the applicant wanted to get the Town’s feedback on the preliminary plan before investing time in details that would be affected by any major changes.
  2. Buermann said that trash and recycling facilities were provided within the building and that there were no exterior loading docks or storage. He said the applicant tentatively plans to begin construction in 2021 and complete the entire project in one phase.
  3. Patterson made a motion to waive the requirement for lighting and landscaping. A second to the motion was made by G. Hunt, and the motion passed by acclamation.
  4. Patterson asked for J. Buermann to review the discussions to-date with VTRANS before the Board proceeded with a motion to waive the requirement for the VTRANS Letter of Intent (LOI). J. Buermann said that his team had met with VTRANS and that from his perspective the option presented seemed to be the best from the perspective of VTRANS, Carter Lane residents, and the neighboring child care center. J. Buermann said that he wanted the Board’s input before presenting the plan back to the other stakeholders.
  5. Kilcoyne made a motion to waive the requirement for the VTRANS Letter of Intent. A second to the motion was made by D. Patterson, and the motion passed by acclamation.
  6. Roy summarized the site and building architecture. He said the building ridgeline runs east-west, with seven units facing south and eight units facing north. The higher portion of the site is to the west, starting as slab on grade.  As the building moves to the east a lower grade allows for a lower-level of residential storage and parking.  He said a single-floor building will house the common areas and CIDER offices, while the connected residential building will have two floors and a parking level serviced by two elevators.   The main residential entry and seven visitor parking spaces will be on the west side of the building, while the main external parking area and CIDER and garage entrances will be on the east side, towards the fire station.  D. Roy said the building appearance will be residential in nature, with double-hung windows and an asphalt shingle roof.  The building height will be approximately 34 feet from pre-existing average grade so no height waiver is required.
  7. Patterson asked J. Buermann to review the parking plans. J. Buermann said although they will allocate 30 spaces for the 30 residential units, in Cathedral Square’s experience they don’t need all 30 of those, so they are allocating 28 to residents; CIDER will require 4; visitors will require 4, giving a total requirement of 36 spaces (28 + 4 + 4).  There are 14 spaces in the basement of the building; 7 on the west side; and 30 in the parking area on the east side of the building.  The development will use 15 spaces of the west side parking area, and MKN will use the remaining 15.  The east side parking, near the main entrance, will be designated primarily for visitors; CIDER will use the east side parking area, near the CIDER entrance on the east side of the building.
  8. Patterson said that regulations require that two bedroom units have two parking spaces. M. Lescaze said that Cathedral Square had found in their other senior developments that fewer spaces were required. In their rural properties the average number of cars per unit was 0.77, and the average number of parking spaces was 1.13.  This was across 15 rural properties that they own and manage, so if this ratio holds for this property, they would expect 23 cars owned by residents.  She pointed out that CIDER’s transportation services will be available to reduce the need for private cars.  L. Kilcoyne asked where CIDERs vans would be stored.  M. Lescaze said they would be offsite, remaining where they are currently parked in the town lot near the old white meeting house.    D. Roy said that one of the appeals of this site was proximity to services that were accessible without a car, including the library, pharmacy, post office, and restaurants.  M. Lescaze said that although they were proposing 36 parking spaces, they did not anticipate that all of them would be used.
  9. Kilcoyne said that in her experience with her parents, they have visitors during the day, and senior activities would occur in the community room during the day, which is also the peak time for cars in the MKN development. J. Brightwell said there have been occasions when the library had functions and Wally’s was open and every space in the development was taken. He said he was concerned that we not create a situation where the senior housing parking spilled over into parking used by the rest of the development.  J. Buermann said that the situation with overflow parking was when construction was underway and construction crews and activities occupied some of the parking spaces.  J. Brightwell pointed out that since construction has completed, demand for parking has been replaced by the parking needs of the tenants that have moved in.  J. Brightwell said that before COLVID the library had events during both evenings and daytime with between 40-80 people attending.
  10. Maxham said that the Board would need to take into consideration both the needs and the regulations in making a determination.
  11. Buermann said that other permits in the works include the Fire District 4 water main extension, which although not part of the project was needed to ensure adequate pressure. He said a permit from the State has been obtained to construct and to operate.  Other permits include a Vermont wetlands permit; Army Corps wetlands permit, Vermont wastewater system, potable water supply permit, VTRANS access permit, Vermont stormwater construction permit, Vermont stormwater operating permit, land use permit (Act 250), plus various construction code permits (fire, safety, electrical, plumbing, ADA).

Water service will be coming off the existing service by the fire station, not connecting near Carter Lane.

  1. Brightwell asked about the proposed modifications to Carter Lane. J. Buermann said that they were proposing to widen and pave Carter Lane from Route 2 to just north of the Bayview Crossing circle to a width of 24 feet. The circle and Carter Lane would be connected by a 24’ access to the MKN parking area.  J. Brightwell asked if Carter Lane was being moved where it intersects Route 2.  J. Buermann said it was not detailed yet but Carter Lane it is likely going to widen to the east but it would be at the same location.  J. Brightwell asked if there would be any additional curb cuts on Route 2; J. Buermann said no.
  2. Maxham asked to confirm that the Carter Lane access would not move. J. Buermann said that it would not move but possibly widen to the east.
  3. Maxham asked if 24’ was wide enough for VTRANS. J. Buermann said that 24’ was their standard, and VTRANS would require a 30’ turn radius between the white lines of Route 2 back to the travel lane to accommodate service trucks. J. Buermann said that the Carter Lane access relieved some of the traffic that would otherwise be routed through the Community Lane entrance in the MKN development and possibly generate the requirement for a left-turn lane on east-bound Route 2.  J .Buermann said that VTRANS was happy that the Carter Lane intersection will be improved to VTRANS standards.
  4. Patterson asked if there was a breakdown of the use of Carter Lane vs. Community Lane for access to the senior center. J. Buermann said no, because any scenario would require assumptions that may not be valid.
  5. Kilcoyne asked if it was possible that someone who is parking in the garage could come in through Carter Lane. J. Buermann said yes. L. Kilcoyne observed that someone headed for the library could also go through Carter Lane.    J. Buermann said that it makes access to the whole development more efficient to have two accesses rather than one chokepoint.
  6. Maxham asked if the Carter Lane stakeholders and VTRANS were happy with the solution. J. Buermann said that they hadn’t taken the plan back to them yet.
  7. Maxham opened the hearing for public comment and questions.

Greg Carter asked what was planned for the existing water line coming into Carter Lane.  J. Buermann said that it needs to be dealt with and further discussion with residents was needed.

Greg Carter said that he was concerned about lighting.  T. Maxham said that lighting would be dealt with in the final site plan hearing.  Greg Carter said that the lights from the current development were very bright and wondered if the existing lighting could be shielded.  D. Roy said that the intention was that lighting would be downcast.  Greg Carter said that even though the existing lighting was downcast, it was very bright.

Greg Carter said that he would like to see a privacy hedge running east to west between the development and his house.  T. Maxham said that landscaping would likewise be handled in the later hearing.

  1. Maxham asked that when the applicant returns for final site plan review that they have in hand a letter from VTRANS so that the question of the Carter Lane intersection was not still an open issue.

Bob Chilson asked for access to the plans, particularly for stormwater plans.  J. Buermann said that portion of the plan was not yet complete but would be for the stormwater permit.  Bob Chilson said there seemed to be a lot more sediment coming down the brook and into the lake near his property.

  1. Patterson asked if the building was sprinkled. D. Roy said yes, serviced by tanks that would be filled (one-time) during off-hours. The tanks would be on the south side of the residential building, underground between the building and the circular drive.
  2. Kilcoyne asked if there would be any outdoor amenities for the residents. D. Roy said there would be a gazebo and a community garden on the south side just north of the visitor parking area.
  3. Kilcoyne asked where the main housing entrance was. D. Roy said that although there was a secondary entrance at the west end of the residential building, the main entrance was through the community building, near where it joins the residential building and near the elevators. L. Kilcoyne asked where visitors to residents would go.  D. Roy said they would park in the circle and go in the main entrance.
  4. Brightwell observed that if the parking in the circle was full, visitors would likely park south of the building in the MKN parking near the office building and walk up to the main entrance.
  5. Maxham asked about the disposal system. J. Buermann said the disposal system consists of the septic tank immediately east of the building, a triplex pump station close to the septic tank, and three disposal fields across Route 2 in Billy Large’s south pasture. There will be three equally size disposal fields.  The site has been walked with Army Corps and the Vermont Wetlands, and the wetlands consultant plans to have those applications submitted by the end of November.  T. Maxham asked if there were any mechanical or electrical systems on the South site of Route 2; J. Buermann said no – the pumps, valves and electronics would be on the north side of Route 2.
  6. Maxham asked how many of the various permits would be in hand by the time approval of the final plan is requested. J. Buermann said the following would be in hand: State wetlands, Army Corps; wastewater system and potable water supply, and VTRANS LOI. The stormwater construction and operating permits will not be in hand but the plans will be 90% done.  Act 250 requires Town approval so it will not be in hand.
  7. Brightwell asked where deliveries would happen. J. Buermann said that parcel delivery would come in to the main entrance via the loading areas in the upper loop.

Kim Loll from Carter Lane said he was happy with what was presented.

Judy Stacey thanked the Board as a representative of CIDER.

  1. Kilcoyne suggested an entrance into the residential portion of the building from the east side. D. Roy said there was an access-controlled entrance on the east side for residents; visitors would be directed to the main entrance. J. Brightwell said that means that visitors would not wind up parking on the east side of the building; if the 7 visitor spaces were full, then visitors would park in the MKN development south of the community building.
  2. Roy said that he thought it would be helpful to work with a subcommittee of the DRB to work out parking issues, to save project and Board time. T. Maxham said he would take the idea up with M. Taylor-Varney.
  3. Hunt made a motion to accept the preliminary site plan as complete, with waivers as motioned earlier. A second to the motion was made by L. Kilcoyne, and the motion passed by unanimous vote, with W. Rowe abstaining.
  4. Maxham closed the hearing at 8:33 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing:                      Richardson  – 138 Ferry Road – Revision to Site Plan

 

Notice & Oath

  1. Hunt read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Mitchel Richardson, Applicant

Paul Boisvert, P.E. Engineering Ventures

Anna Thelemark, Structure Architects

 

Hearing Notes

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 8:35 p.m. N. Hayward resumed his participation as Board member.
  2. Richardson said that changes to his original plan were mandated by the ADA regulations. A. Thelemark said that the State Fire Marshall required ADA accessibility to both levels. The plan was submitted to the State Access Board and they agreed with the Fire Marshall, and asked to bring parking to the front near the ADA access for the second floor.

The revised proposal takes advantage of the site grading to bring direct access to the second floor on the south (street) side of the building via a ramp, with a new parking area with five spaces at the foot of the ramp.  The footprint and ridge height are the same as the previous proposal.  The floor elevation has been lowered to make the ramping work.

  1. Kilcoyne asked how long the ramp was. A. Thelemark agreed with an estimate of 100’.
  2. Thelemark said that they had presented the plan to the Fire Marshall and the Access Board and they were agreeable to the design.
  3. Boisvert said that the second floor was now 30 inches lower than the previous proposal. One of the constraints was that due to the negotiations with the State and Town over the location of the building, they did not want to change the footprint.

In response to a question from L. Kilcoyne, A. Thelemark and P. Boisvert said that the location and orientation of the building were the same as previously approved by the Board.  P. Boisvert said that the access drive location was also very similar.

  1. Patterson said that he remembered that the building had a drive-through. A. Thelemark said that the drive-through was east-to-west via one of the bays.
  2. Kilcoyne observed that a lot of site work was required, and asked if it was less expensive than putting in an elevator. A. Thelemark said that the design solved the problem of adjacent parking for the ADA entrance, and avoided the space and architectural features required to support the mechanical components of the elevator. M. Richardson said that the ramp was a one-time cost, as opposed to annual costs to operate the elevator, and had a lower maintenance cost.
  3. Brightwell asked if the previous roofline was aligned along an east-west access. A. Thelemark said the original structure was oriented east-west, but in the second approval the current structure was presented to accommodate the repair of larger agricultural equipment. D. Sherman said that she thought the roofline was a completely different look.  L. Kilcoyne said that we’ve been using the model of a barn out in the field, but the current design is nowhere near that – it’s just an office building now.  A. Thelemark said that they could lower the roofline of the shed roof to reduce its volume and accentuate the main building, which is more barn-like.  A. Thelemark said that what has changed in the current design is the windows – the lower level of the main building previously featured store-like windows on the gable end lower floor which have been eliminated.  A simulated hayloft door on the upper floor has now been replaced by windows and a door to the ramp.
  4. Sherman said that the design looks nothing like what was shown originally. T. Maxham said that M. Taylor-Varney had just pulled the most recent (August 2018) submission and confirmed that the project was the same as what was being presented with the exception of the requested changes.
  5. Kilcoyne asked what the overall height of the building was. T. Maxham said that the sketch shows 34’ 8” based on the average pre-construction grade.
  6. Patterson asked how close the ramp was from Ferry Road. P. Boisvert estimated 38’ 3” from the edge of pavement to the southern edge of the driveway, and approximately 76’ to the edge of the ramp.
  7. Patterson asked if the change had to go back through Act 250. M. Richardson said that Susan Baird said that the change could be administratively approved after the Town approved due to the limited nature of the changes.
  8. Kilcoyne asked if the scope of the Board’s review was the ramp, bridge, and the parking in the front. T. Maxham said yes.
  9. Sherman asked if the parking in the front was additional parking, and asked what is the new total of parking spaces. P. Boisvert said the parking in front was additional bringing the number of parking spaces to 62.  M. Richardson said that he did not want to change the parking design previously approved by both the Town and Act 250, so he added parking to meet the request of the Access Board.  G. Hunt said that the Town had requested that all parking for the development be to the rear of the building.   A. Thelemark said that the Access Board was concerned about the distance from the parking in the rear to the ADA-accessible entrance ramp.  D. Sherman asked why the ramp and ADA entrance could not be put in the rear of the building.  A. Thelemark said that due to the difference in elevation on the site, a ramp in the rear of the building would be prohibitively high.  D. Sherman said that she thought that 60 parking spaces were too many; M. Richardson said that the parking was a result of previous discussions and that he was trying not to disturb elements that had been previously approved by the Town and Act 250.    D. Sherman said that the applicant was not only creating additional parking, but also creating an additional access road to get to that parking.
  10. Maxham opened the discussion to the public, noting that Deb Sherman had previously participated in the discussion. Deb Sherman said she questioned how the building was going to look and said it looked like just another business building, different from what was originally proposed.
  11. Maxham asked what the timeframe was for getting the project started. M. Richardson said after the Town’s approval, it would go to the Fire Marshall, and then back to Susan Baird for Act 250 administrative approval. M. Richardson said he was asking for a waiver from Act 250 and the Fire Marshall to start doing groundwork pending their approval.
  12. Taylor-Varney said that M. Richardson has a building permit now for what was previously approved. She asked how long after Act 250 approval would M. Richardson start construction. M. Richardson said that Susan Baird had led him to believe that he could begin construction after the Town’s approval with some sort of interim waiver.  M. Taylor-Varney said that M. Richardson would have to amend his building permit with the Town.
  13. Kilcoyne said that M. Richardson would not be able to get a State building permit without an ADA-accessible design, so it’s not just Act 250 but also the State Fire Marshall that is an obstacle to getting started.
  14. Hunt said what he did not understand is how Act 250 could require a change in a plan the Town previously approved, and now Act 250 is saying the Town can approve something and they’ll be good with it. G. Hunt asked where the documentation was to show what Act 250 is looking for. M. Richardson said that Act 250 would not give that in writing, and that it was their policy that the Town approves first.
  15. Maxham observed that M. Richardson had approvals for building a garage and could begin construction now, but if he wanted to proceed with including the office space, he would have to meet the requirements of the various authorities for the additional scope. M. Richardson said that his previous approval from the Town included the professional space, and so would need approval from the Fire Marshall and the Access Board. He said that he thought he had all necessary approvals to proceed and had started excavating until stopped by the Fire Marshall.  He said nobody told him to see the Fire Marshall – Act 250, the local Board, nobody.  T. Maxham said that if he remembered correctly, the Board had talked with M. Richardson about what he might have to do for ADA accessibility, and that at the time the applicant said that he didn’t think it was any big deal.  M. Richardson said that he thought he fell under variances based upon an initial meeting with the Fire Marshall.  A. Thelemark said that the initial meeting with the Fire Marshall did not change any of her code review, and it was not until the permit application was submitted and somebody else reviewed the plan that they raised changes.

Hearing no further questions from the Board or audience, T. Maxham closed the hearing at 9:20 p.m.

 

 

Old Business:              None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Hayward moved to accept the minutes of October 14, 2020 as printed. G. Hunt seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).

Upcoming hearings:

  • Nov 11: No hearing scheduled; business meeting & deliberations only.
  • Nov 25: No meeting.
  • Dec 9: Lot #5 Lavin property preliminary site plan.
  1. Taylor-Varney suggested that the Board move the meeting time to 6:00 p.m. for the winter months. No objections were raised.

The Board discussed delegating members to discuss parking for the Bay View development to expedite the process.  D. Patterson said that he felt that it was up to the applicant to convince the Board that they deserved a waiver from the regulations.  J. Brightwell said that he was concerned that some of the spaces were being sold twice.  N. Hayward said that he would be willing to participate as an applicant (interested party) rather than a Board member, and that he was concerned that planning not be for peak use but rather balanced with consideration of environmental impact.  M. Taylor-Varney said that she would consult with VLCT to ensure that having a delegation participate in such a discussion would not violate open meeting laws.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Kilcoyne moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by G. Hunt and carried by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 9:40 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.

October 14, 2020 DRB Minutes

October 15, 2020

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            October 14th, 2020

 

Members Present:     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:      Sue Arguin (alternate).

Tim Maxham joined the meeting at the point of the Administrator’s report.

 

Public Present:           None.

 

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by D. Patterson at 7:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

Old Business:              None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of September 23rd, 2020. N. Hayward seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

  1. Maxham joined the meeting.

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).

  1. Taylor-Varney shared complaints received from the public regarding Blue Paddle on the Bay and discussed violations of the terms of conditional use observed on the site. She said that an email sent to Blue Paddle had not been answered, so she will be sending a notice of violation with a remedy of appearing before the Board to address the violations.
  2. Taylor-Varney will look for a time when all Boards can convene to discuss parking on U.S. Route 2.

 

 

Upcoming hearings:

  • October 28th: Mitchel Richardson hearing for revision to site plan; Cathedral Square for preliminary site plan hearing for senior housing.
  • November 11th: Conditional use and preliminary site plan review for Lavin Lane Lot #5.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Rowe moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and carried by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 7:41 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.

September 23, 2020 DRB Minutes

October 1, 2020

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            September 23, 2020

 

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

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      None.

 

 

Public Present:           Allen Point Fishing Access:

 

  1. Diane Monti-Catania
  2. Brigitte Barrett
  3. Randy DeLong
  4. Russel Brown
  5. Joe Mackey
  6. Tom Clark (Local Motion)
  7. Peter Zamore
  8. Betty Perrotte
  9. Bruce Richardson
  10. Bob Reese
  11. Tom McEnany

 

 

 

Keeler Bay Fishing Access Parking Expansion

 

  1. Dan Riordan
  2. Lucas Jensen
  3. Kathy Murray
  4. Wm Biddle

 

 

Call to Order:              The meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.   The meeting was conducted by Zoom web meeting software.

Changes to Agenda:   None.

Public Input:               None.

 

 

Hearing:                      Vermont Fish and Wildlife Site Plan review for upgrades to the Allen Point Fishing Access (21-15-MR037)

 

 

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:00 p.m. and recused himself. D. Patterson assumed the chair.

Notice & Oath

  1. Hunt read the hearing warning. D. Patterson administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Mike Wichrowski, Vermont Fish and Wildlife.

Hearing Notes

  1. Wichrowski said that he manages all of the Fish & Wildlife access areas throughout the state. The Department is proposing to improve the Allen Point Access Recreation Path from Martin Road to the angler access, about 3600 feet from Martin Road. Improvements will consist of cleaning ditches, cutting back brush, and adding gravel to the road surface, creating a crown in the road, and finishing the road with crushed stone similar to what is on the causeway.  The Department proposes that if resources permit, they will also cut back brush on the causeway beyond the point where vehicular access ends.
  2. Wichrowski said that Fish & Wildlife has an 82.5’ wide right-of-way between Martin Road and about 2600 feet to the south for recreational access. The width of the right-of-way is the same as that previously held by the railroad. At some point prior to Fish & Wildlife acquiring the right-of-way, fee ownership of the property was sold to a private individual and now all of the homes along the waterfront now have ownership and the right-of-way now crosses these properties.  At the point where the water becomes visible from the path, Fish & Wildlife has fee ownership all the way to the end of the southern point of the causeway where the Local Motion bike ferry is located.

The funding for the project is coming through the Federal CARES act and is specific for the purpose of enhancing outdoor recreation.  $1.5M was allocated to the Department, and of that $100,000 is allocated to this project.

  1. Rowe asked if anything was going to be done to enhance the parking area at Martin Road. M. Wichrowski said that the parking area was put in by Local Motion to accommodate bikers and walkers and was not within the scope of the project. M. Wichrowski said that the parking area was adjacent to a wetland and enlargement might entail filling in the wetland.
  2. Brightwell asked M. Wichrowski to clarify whether adding any material to the existing parking area was within scope. M. Wichrowski said that they had focused on the road, which is in poor condition, and had not considered the parking area but it was not outside the realm of possibility that they could do something there.
  3. Brightwell asked M. Wichrowski to explain the arrangement between Fish & Wildlife and Local Motion regarding the access, noting that other accesses are usually reserved exclusively for anglers. M. Wichrowski said that in 2006 the Fish & Wildlife Board established a policy of priority uses that includes hunting, fishing, trapping, and boating at the accesses, and prohibited incompatible activities such as swimming. Other uses not specifically prohibited are at the discretion of Fish & Game.  The Department entered into a 10-year license with Local Motion that allows Local Motion to operate a bike ferry for pedestrian and bicycle use.  That license is revisited every few years, and is expected to continue for approximately 40 years.
  4. Brightwell asked if Fish & Game can regulate activities along the access that might be causing problems, such as parties or bonfires, by signage that prohibits certain activities. J. Wichrowski said that they have a sign at the kiosk at the entrance to the access, and that signage includes a summary of rules. That signage gives wardens the backing they need to ticket for activities that are prohibited at access areas.  J. Wichrowski said he has discussed with neighbors putting up additional signage regarding fires and littering, and those signs have been ordered for installation at the angler area.  J. Wichrowski said the warden for the area also covers Milton and Burlington and so has a busy district, but is aware of problems and encourages residents to call the warden directly (not the police barracks) if they are having problems.
  5. Brightwell asked if Fish & Game had jurisdiction over parking on Martin Road. M. Wichrowski said no.
  6. Rowe asked if Fish & Game would have a problem if Local Motion improved the parking. M. Wichrowski said Fish & Game would not have a problem if Local Motion undertook to improve the parking. He noted that Fish & Game might improve the parking themselves if there were sufficient funds left after the road was improved, given that the project funds were Federal money and not funds from license fees.
  7. Patterson opened the meeting for public questions.

Peter Zamore said that he has been using the access year-round for many years and especially supports the ditch-clearing to improve drainage.  He said that potholes on the road are caused by the ditches filling up with leaves and leaving the water to run across the road.

Joe Mackey said that he walked the path most days and said he felt that 80% of the people using the path are not fishermen.  He said that increased motor traffic was hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians and recommended 4-way stops at each driveway and other means to slow down vehicular traffic.  Joe Mackey asked how many citations have been given out at the access.  M. Wichrowski said that he did not have information citations.  He said that the Department was planning to install speed bumps on both sides of every driveway, and also at least two other speed bumps on the stretch from the angler parking to the southern-most house to slow down vehicle traffic.  He said that they did not currently have plans to install stop signs.

Bob Reese said there should be stop signs at driveways, and pointed out that the Local Motion crossings in Burlington Vermont have stop signs everywhere.  He thanked M. Wichrowski for his site visit.

Tom McEnany said that his property backs up to the bike path.  He said that he and his wife love the bike path.  He asked if the path was to be widened.  M. Wichrowski said no.  Tom McEnany said he wanted to reiterate that speed was a problem and asked for stronger enforcement.  Tom McEnany asked if there was yearly maintenance.  M. Wichrowski said that Fish & Game tries to grade the road yearly but because there has not been enough material the grading doesn’t last.  Tom McEnany asked if the growth behind his house bordering the path would be cut.  M. Wichrowski said that the contractors would meet with the landowners to discuss the proposed work.

  1. Wichrowski said that he can be contacted at mike.wichrowski@vermont.gov and via the Fish & Game website vtfishandwildlife.com to sign up for the landowner meetings.

Betty Perrotte said her property was across from the parking area and was concerned that the vegetative barrier along the parking area not be further cut.

Brigitte Barrett said that there were a lot of cars at night going very fast, that she did not think they were anglers, and wanted to know if a gate could be erected to admit only anglers.

Hearing no further questions from the Board or audience D. Pattterson concluded the hearing at 7:43 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Hearing:                      Vermont Fish and Wildlife Site Plan Review for expanding parking at the Keeler Bay Fishing Access (21-14-SD038)

 

  1. Maxham resumed the chair and opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m.

Notice & Oath

  1. Hunt read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

Mike Wichrowski, Vermont Fish and Wildlife.

Hearing Notes

  1. Wichrowski said that the Keeler Bay Fishing Access is popular in early spring when the water is high, and during winter for ice fishing. Fish and Game is proposing to create an expanded parking area in a 100’ x 150’ lot across the fishing access road. The lot will be gravel.  Ditches will be dug to capture drainage, and the existing culvert at Sunrise Drive and the access road will be replaced.  Fish & Game is also proposing to provide vegetative screening on the property along Sunrise Drive and along the neighbor’s property to the south.  The project is also funded by the CARES Act.
  2. Patterson said that he was concerned that there was over 11,000 square feet of impervious area but he did not see any plans for storm water management. M. Wichrowski said that he spoke with DEC engineers whom they work with on all of their projects and was told that a storm water management plan was not needed. The lot has a natural slope and water would be diverted into grass-lined swales.
  3. Patterson noted that there was nothing on the site plan for erosion sedimentation control during construction. M. Wichrowski said that it was less than one acre so no erosion control was required per the DEC storm water analyst for the area. T. Maxham noted that the site plan called for silt fencing; M. Wichrowski said that if it was on the plan it would be done and that he had been mistaken.
  4. Maxham said that there is no delineation of parking and asked how parking would be indicated. M. Wichrowski said that people could come in at an angle or all come in straight and park along the hedgerow. He said that the Department was trying to figure out how to indicate parking on gravel lots, and would sign the lot in the coming year.  T. Maxham asked how many vehicles could be accommodated; M. Wichrowski said approximately 8 vehicles with trailers.
  5. Maxham asked M. Taylor-Varney to read the two communications received from the public regarding the application. M. Taylor-Varney said that she had received a phone call from Ernie Norris 542 Route 2. Mr. Norris expressed concern that the state does not maintain the fishing access road and wondered if the State would consider paving the road.  M. Taylor-Varney said that she had also received an email from Shannon Winterbottom 36 Sunrise, adjacent to the proposed parking area, who expressed concern for maintaining a vegetative privacy screen, and expressed concern for the usability of the ramp due to rocks.
  6. Hunt made a motion to accept the communication from Ernie Norris into the record as Exhibit #1. D. Patterson seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
  7. Hunt made a motion to accept the communication from Shannon Winterbottom into the record as Exhibit #2. L. Kilcoyne seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
  8. Maxham invited M. Wichrowski to respond to the communications. M. Wichrowski said regarding the ramp, the State was removing the concrete from the old disintegrated ramp, but was not considering replacing the ramp because the site is extremely shallow for much of the year. M. Wichrowski acknowledged the poor condition of the road and said they would attempt to improve maintenance.   Paving is not an option due to the cost.
  9. Maxham opened the hearing for public comment. Mitchel Richardson said he lives north of the fishing access on a private drive across from Sunrise Drive. He said that the State harley-rakes the road once per year and that he has complained many times about the road condition and drainage.  At the parking area, vehicles drive over his property rather than back up to exit the parking area.  He said that during ice fishing season there are frequently over 40 cars on the road, frequently blocking his driveway.  M. Richardson said that the area needs more attention than just a new parking area and would like to see the existing problems addressed.
  10. Wichrowski said that Sunrise Drive residents do not have a right-of-way to use the fishing access road, which is owned in fee by the State, but the State does tolerate Sunrise Drive residents using the access road. M. Wichrowski said that the Department was working to improve maintenance of the road, but noted that they have to maintain 200 fishing accesses around the state, and they do the best they can with the resources they have.  M. Wichrowski said they could put up signs such as “Private Road, Do Not Block” to prevent people from blocking M. Richardson’s driveway or Sunrise Drive.  Regarding solving other problems, M. Wichrowski said the Federal money for this project was targeted and must be spent by the end of November, so time did not permit looking at other, larger problems regarding the fishing access.  Mr. Wichrowski offered to meet with neighbors to discuss maintenance issues.  In response to M. Richardson’s complaint about cars driving over his road from the parking area, M. Wichrowski offered to put boulders along the driveway to prevent driving from the parking area onto the driveway, a solution that M. Richardson said was a good solution.
  11. Maxham asked if the fishing access road was a part of Sunrise Drive. M. Wichrowski said that Fish & Game had an access from Route 2 to the lake and it was not part of Sunrise Drive.
  12. Maxham asked how wide the right-of-way was. M. Wichrowski said it was 20 feet wide. M. Richardson said that the road was actually wider than the right-of-way.  T. Maxham said that the owner of the land, rather than the Town, would need to address that issue with the right-of-way owner, and that the issue at hand was the proposed parking area rather than the access road.

Lucas Jensen said his property is to the south of the parking area, that he was concerned that the current vegetative buffer was going to be removed, and that he wanted a non-deciduous vegetative buffer rather than lilacs in order to maintain a privacy screen.  He also expressed concern that the State maintains the area.

Hearing no further questions from the Board or audience T. Maxham concluded the hearing at 8:30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

Old Business:              None.

Review of Minutes

  1. Hayward moved to accept the minutes of September 9th, 2020. G. Hunt seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).

Upcoming hearings:

  • October 14th: No hearing scheduled; business meeting & deliberation only.
  • October 25th: Mitchel Richardson hearing for revision to site plan ; Cathedral Square for preliminary site plan hearing for senior housing.

Motion to Adjourn

  1. Patterson moved to adjourn to deliberative session. The motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned to deliberative session at 7:30 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.