January 8, 2020 DRB Minutes

January 21, 2020

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            January 8, 2020

 

Members Present:    Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown, Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator); Steve Welch (alternate nominee)

Members Absent:      Sherry Corbin

Public Present:          Bond, Jim; Cobb, Jim; Curtis, Beth; DuBuque, Everett; Egan, Carol; Little, Matthew; Spence, Cynthia

Call to Order:              Meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.

Changes to Agenda:   None

Public Input:               None

 

Hearing:                      20-18-MR007 James G. Bond 3-Lot Subdivision Final Plan Review

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:02 p.m.   T. Maxham recused himself for the duration of this hearing. D. Patterson assumed the chair.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

James Bond & Beth Curtis

Hearing Notes

  1. Bond stated that per the previous sketch plan review, he is applying to subdivide the 8.5 acre property at 7 Martin Road. He said he is creating two one-acre lots on the northwest corner of his property with the intent of resale. He is contemplating building a retirement home on one of the lots and selling the original farmhouse and one of the new lots.
  2. Patterson said that in the sketch plan review there were 5 issues identified that the applicant needed to address in the final plat. The issues included: (1) correcting abutter information (2) show any wooded areas (3) show location of septic and wells for each lot (4) note that subdivision is entirely within rural-residential district (5) include correct signature boxes for the DRB rather than the Planning Commission. D. Patterson said that all of those issues appear to have been addressed in the final plat presented for approval.
  3. Patterson asked if permit applications for potable and waste water have been submitted.   J. Bond said that they were submitted this morning.
  4. Patterson asked for any questions from the Board. There being none, D. Patterson asked for comment or questions from the audience.

Matthew little said that he was appearing on behalf of Randy Delong, a neighboring property owner. The said that Mr. DeLong asked him to present his concern on the overshadowing of the leach field from the septic on his property.

  1. Patterson asked Mr. DeLong if he was aware that that septic was State and not Town jurisdiction. Mr. Little said yes.

There being no further questions or comments, R. Brown moved to accept the application as complete; N. Hayward seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.

  1. Patterson closed the hearing 7:13 p.m.
  2. Maxham resumed the chair.

 

Hearing:                      20-32-RT266 Carol Egan/Turn To Joy Child Center Site Plan Revision

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:16 p.m.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Carol Egan / Jim Cobb

 

 

Hearing Notes

  1. Maxham asked the applicants to highlight the changes to the site plan. Carol Egan said the revised site plan notes specify that there were will a total of 6 staff and 24 children (the original application was for 22 children). There will be a new wastewater system, and changes to parking. The revised plan includes parking for 12 cars and an additional 4 spaces on the Wally’s side of Carter Lane (northeast corner of the property).
  2. Patterson asked if the 6 staff number includes Carol Egan, and whether all staff will be present all day. Carol Egan said that the staff number includes her. She said that 4 of the staff will be there most of the day; sometimes all 6 will be there simultaneously.   Employee hours will be staggered.
  3. Kilcoyne said that there was a comment (in the Administrator’s summary) that the daily traffic flow seems high. She said that with 22 kids, there would likely be 22 trips in and 22 trips out, plus staff trips makes about 60 trips.   The administrative write-up says that the engineer prepared the daily trip estimate based on information provided by the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) and noted that the estimate was high. She asked if the Board was obligated to address the estimate.
  4. Patterson cited a case in New Hampshire for a childcare center with 40 employees and 210 children where the trips were 67% below the ITE book. With discussion, the Board concluded that the ITE figure could be discounted based on common sense.
  5. Kilcoyne said that it seems the number of parking spaces is reasonable for pick up and drop off especially considering the cars are there for maybe 10 minutes.
  6. Hunt said that Note 6 on the site plan had not been updated to show the expected 24 children.
  7. Maxham asked if the applicant was still planning on a two-stage expansion. C. Egan said that they will start with a summer program for 12 infants and toddlers in the existing space, and add 12 preschoolers in the fall once the addition is completed. The second stage will add handicapped accessibility and a handicapped bathroom.
  8. Maxham asked if any lighting was planned for the parking. C. Egan said we plan to do lighting from the building. Note 4 shows the plan for the lighting.
  9. Maxham asked if the applicant would be using both the front and side entrances. C. Egan said infants and toddlers will come in the front; preschoolers in the side. Handicapped access will be on the side. Doug Patterson asked if that’s where the existing concrete pad is. C. Egan said yes.
  10. Maxham asked if there will be a path in front of the cars for kids and parents to use in walking from the parking area to the building entrance. C. Egan said that there will be a gravel path in front of the cars in the parking area. Large stones will separate the cars from the path.
  11. Maxham expressed a concern that with heavy snow, the applicant would need to remove snow from the walkway so that the employees don’t have to use Carter Lane to get to the building.
  12. Maxham said he only sees 3 parking spaces on the diagram. C. Egan said that they came up with a plan to do 4 spaces.
  13. Welch asked how many year-round residences there were on Carter Lane. M. Taylor-Varney said there were 4 year-round residences. S. Welch said that he was concerned that snow not pile up on the north end of the parking area and block the line of sight of cars coming out of Carter Lane.
  14. Patterson said it looked like there were about 5 parking spaces encroaching into the Carter Lane right-of-way and that the two boulders protecting the septic system were also in the right-of-way. C. Egan said that the septic system depicted was the existing system. With discussion, the applicant agreed that because there would be changes to the septic, the boulders could be moved out of the right-of-way and closer to the septic system. N. Hayward observed that the offending parking spaces could be moved further west and out of the right-of-way without impacting access to the building.
  15. Maxham asked what the size of the parking spaces was. M. Taylor-Varney said 9’x20’.
  16. Maxham said that he had a concern that special events may put pressure on the available parking. He said that the applicant would need to consider how to handle that so that Carter Lane residents would not be impacted.

Not hearing any additional questions from the Board, T. Maxham opened to public comment and questions.

Cindy Spence, a neighbor, said that she was glad that the building was being occupied and welcomed the facility.

  1. Taylor-Varney noted that she had a conversation with abutter Swanson who was concerned with how the septic might change flow of water onto their property, and that she had explained that septic was under State jurisdiction. She said that these neighbors wanted their concern aired at this hearing, but supported the childcare center and would like to see it happen.

Hearing no further questions, T. Maxham closed hearing at 7:40 p.m.

 

Old Business

  1. Taylor-Varney asked J. Brightwell to recap some questions he had asked on issues of interest to the Board at the NRPC training “Essentials of Land Use Regulation and Training”. M. Taylor-Varney noted that the training would be offered in South Hero at the Worthen Library on Tuesday, February 4th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
  • Regarding how the Board can have discussion to develop additional questions for an application, the NRPC trainers felt that discussion should be held during the hearing itself. They did not feel that discussion of an application outside of a hearing, other than in deliberation after a hearing is closed, would be compliant with open meeting law.
  • Since the main motivation for additional discussion is lack of opportunity to review material and develop questions, the NRPC trainers suggested establishing a deadline for submission of materials. Often newly revised or supplemental materials are submitted at the last minute. The trainers suggested that since information related to an application is supposed to be on file at the Town for public inspection from the time the warning is published, last minute submission of material deprives the public as well as the Board of the opportunity for thorough review. NRPC suggested that deadlines are commonplace in other towns.
  • According to NRPC staff, Boards can perform deliberations in public (after hearings are closed) but are not required to do so.
  • Although appeals to Environmental Court are de novo (meaning that a new hearing with the presentation of new evidence is allowed as if the local hearing did not take place) the judges at the Environmental Division have revealed that they will inquire as to what happened at the lower level to better understand the case, so the written decision and record will be considered.

 

The Board discussed the desirability of establishing a deadline for submittal of materials. M. Taylor-Varney suggested that if the deadline was the warning date, any materials received after that date would not be included with the submittals in the review package, but could be introduced by the applicant at the hearing. The Board could then decide whether the new materials warranted a continuation of the hearing to allow Board members and the public time for review.

After discussion, D. Patterson made a motion that a complete application must be submitted to the Zoning Officer by the warning date 15 days prior to the hearing. J. Brightwell seconded the motion. The motion was carried by acclamation.

  1. Maxham asked J. Brightwell (clerk) where he was with implementing recording of DRB meetings on a Town-owned digital recording device, as the Board had previously voted in favor of a resolution to do so. J. Brightwell said that he had identified and purchased an inexpensive recorder which he would donate to the town and would bring it in for a trial next meeting.

Review of Minutes

  1. Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of minutes of December 11th. The motion was seconded by R. Brown. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

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

Santor Subdivision:

  1. Taylor-Varney said that a 4th lot owned by an abutter that could be served by the right-of-way on the Santor property was overlooked at the time of the recent subdivision approval.   The submittals associated with the application showed the abutting Lyman Brownell property as a single 10-acre lot. M. Taylor-Varney subsequently noticed on the Town’s parcel map that the Brownell property was in fact two lots. Because of this 4th lot that could be served by the ROW, Town development regulations require a 50’ width for the ROW across the Santor property instead of the lesser width that was approved. Santor wants a waiver for this requirement. Abutter Brownell is not interested in doing a boundary line adjustment at this time to merge the two lots back into a single 10-acre parcel.

After discussion, the Board concluded that the ROW across Santor does not extend to the 4th lot, and Brownell has the ability to create a ROW across his property to provide access to the 4th lot should he want to sell it.

  1. Patterson asked if the recorded survey for the subdivision approved by the Board is correct, and said that if it is not correct, it has to be corrected. M. Taylor-Varney said that she would have to check.

Upcoming Schedule:

January 22: No hearing; deliberative for Bond, Egan.

February 12: No hearing or deliberative scheduled.

February 26: Continuation of R.L. Vallee hearing.

  1. Taylor-Varney reminded the Board that since the draft development regulations have been presented to the Selectboard, new applications are being reviewed under both sets of regulations until the bylaws are approved or 150 days, whichever occurs first.
  2. Maxham reminded the Board that the meeting on January 22nd will be a reorganizational meeting and will include election of the Chair and Vice Chair. J. Brightwell (now an alternate) has been nominated to the Selectboard as an alternate; Steve Welch has been nominated as an alternate.

Adjournment

  1. Hunt moved to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and carried by acclamation at 8:55 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.

December 11, 2019 DRB minutes

December 17, 2019

DRB Meeting                         12/11/2019                            South Hero Town Office                       

 

DRB Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chairman), Doug Patterson (Vice Chair), Sherri Corbin, Lisa Kilcoyne, Bob Krebs, Ross Brown, Gareth Hunt.

Public Present: Julie and Brian Wolfe; Kevin Donovan; Cathie Merrihew; Mike Welch; Mike and Michele Gammal; Jeff Sikora; Brad Kline; Peter Velusquez; Martha Taylor-Varney, ZA

Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm by T. Maxham.

Agenda was read and one change was made: Item 7 on the original agenda, Review of Minutes, was completed first.

  1. Changes to the agenda – as noted above. A motion was made by Doug P. to accept the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Garth H. Minutes approved by voice vote.
  2. Public input – none.
  3. Variance request by Brian and Julie Wolfe to add living space to a replacement structure with a variance from the setback on the new second floor (20-25-PS009). Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m.
  • The variance request warning was read by D. Patterson for PS009 in Shadowland. T. Maxham administered the oath to the two applicants, Brian and Julie Wolfe. Julie stated one correction in that she is now the sole landowner of the property.
  • The current camp was built in 1929 and has been added onto several times. The Wolfes would like to do renovations, however the current camp is on the original cinder blocks and cannot be leveled due to decaying wood. One corner of the camp is 1.5 feet below the other corners and the doors do not close properly. They looked at various options, including putting steel beams under the bottom structure, but the bottom structure would probably rot also. They would like to keep the camp in the family and enjoy it.
  • The proposal is to remove the current camp and replace it with a new structure that will utilize 97-98% of the existing footprint. The current camp is a non-conforming structure. The setbacks are indicated in red on the site sketch. The current camp is 20 ft. x 50 ft. and the new living space will be in a 20 ft. by 40 ft. footprint, with a bump out on the west wall of the structure which will allow for a better staircase to the second floor. The current roof height is 21 to 22 feet, and the new roof peak will be no higher than the current 22 feet. The exterior walls on the second floor will be 4 foot high knee walls, so it will actually be a one and a half story structure. The current camp has five bedrooms and this will be reduced to three in the new camp, two upstairs and one downstairs.
  • The new camp will also be moved back three feet from the lake, which will preserve existing cedar trees that help stabilize the lakeshore bank. The new structure is proposed to be built nearly on the same footprint and will be within 15 feet of the boundary on the east side of the property. The leach field and tank are within the conforming space in the yard on the west side of the camp. The replacement structure will be on a concrete slab and will be insulated but will continue to be used as a seasonal camp. The roof will be a 7/12 pitch and the new roof’s peak will be turned 90 degrees from what it is now. Approximately two thirds of the structure is within a 75 feet setback from the lake.
  • The new camp will continue to be concealed from the lake by existing cedar trees. The current camp is on a non-conforming lot 80 feet by 100 feet total size, which was originally 2 lots in the original Shadowland subdivision in the 1930’s. Overall they are slightly reducing the footprint of the structure on the ground, but increasing the volume by extending the second floor space.
  • Neighbor to the west, Kevin Donovan, has reviewed the plan and is OK with it. Neighbor to the east, Cathie Merrihew, is also OK with the plan. A third neighbor currently living in Long Island also approves (per email).
  • Shoreland Protection allows 100 square feet of impervious surface and the new structure will add 105 square feet. A Shoreland Protection application will be submitted by the applicants pending the DRB variance decision. The DRB has 45 days to render a decision. Hearing was closed at 7:35 pm.
  1. Jeff Sikora/ John Wagner sketch plan review for a two-lot subdivision at 487 West Shore Rd. The subdivision is to create two 5 acre lots.   This is the first review of the sketch plan. Review 20-31-WS487. Hearing opened at 7:37 pm.
  • Patterson read the warning and T. Maxham administered the oath to Jeff Sikora and Brad Kline (neighbor of John Wagner, landowner).
  • There currently is an existing year around house plus a seasonal camp on the property, with the camp on the lakeshore. Lot 1 has a year-round dwelling (a log cabin) and lot 2 will remain a seasonal camp. S. Corbin made a motion that this be a minor subdivision. Moved by G. Hunt and seconded by S. Corbin. Carried by voice vote.
  • Lot 1 has a septic tank and leach field, lot 2 has an operating septic system. New septic systems designs have been submitted to the State due to the subdivision. Both new septic systems will be located on lot 1. Lot 2 will have an easement for the septic on lot 1. Lot 1 will have a 20 ft-wide right-of-way access along its south boundary to lot 2. Lot 1 has a drilled well, lot 2 currently gets water from the lake. It does have availability for a well. The utilities will have an easement to lot 2 and each lot will have their own dedicated transformer.
  • One owner currently owns the entire lot with no plans, at this time, to further develop either lot.
  • Before the second hearing on this project, several items need to be added to the map:
    1. Indicate true North on the map.
    2. Show the easements for the utilities and waste water for lot 2.
    3. Contours need to be continued from lot 1 to the lake.
    4. Septic shields need to be shown on the final plat.
    5. Zoning districts need to be added (lakefront vs. rural residential).
  • Add abutting landowners and deed information for parcels across the street.
  • State permits have been applied for; they are not sure if the site for the lot 1 well has been determined yet. No new structures are planned, just a subdivision of an existing lot.
  • Public input: Kaitlin Kerrington asked if there are any plans to extend the current driveway. The log cabin on lot 1 is the primary driveway and lot 2 goes through that driveway. There are no plans to extend the driveway. The new proposed ROW to Lot 2 is 20 feet south of the current driveway. If the subdivision is granted, lot 2 will need a new street number since there are no additional 911 numbers available for that section of West Shore Rd. The new right of way will need to be named in order to accommodate the 911 numbering.
  • The applicant has 180 days to apply for the second (and final) hearing per state statue. Hearing closed at 8:11 pm.
  1. Keeler Bay Campground and Marina request for an amended site plan 20-30-RT456. The request is that condition #3 be amended (from the October 23, 2019 DRB decision). Hearing opened at 8:13 pm. Michael and Michele Gammal presented.
  • This hearing is to consider the Applicants’ request to amend Condition #3 from the October 23, 2019 DRB decision only. Mr. Gammal explained that the docks need to be next to the launch area for safety reasons and the new request is that the docks be no closer than 100 feet from the property’s north boundary. This is a change from the previously required distance of 150 feet
  • The new docks will be 100 feet from Peter Velusquez’ property. He expressed concern that subsequent Boards had allowed changes to earlier Boards’ decisions, including the location of the boat ramp and the use of the second right-of-way from Rt 2 along the north boundary of the Campground/Marina property.
  • The hearing was closed at 8:25 pm.
  1. Old business – none.
  2. Administrator’s report :
    • This will be the only meeting this month due to Christmas.
    • January 8 will be two hearings: 1.) final plan review for the Bond subdivision; 2.) Site Plan revision for the previously approved daycare proposed for Carter Lane.
    • No hearings are scheduled for January 22 yet.
    • February 12 will possibly be a conditional use/site plan review.
    • February 26 will be the continuation of the RL Vallee CU/SP review.
    • The Select Board will hold a public hearing on January 6 at 6:00 pm at the Worthen Library for review of the new proposed development regulations.
    • There was discussion about moving the start of meetings to 6PM for the winter. After discussion, it was decided to stay at 7:00 pm as it is hard for some people to get to the meeting by 6:00 pm due to work commitments.
  3. Meeting adjourned at 8:47 pm to go into deliberations. Motion to adjourn by L. Kilcoyne and seconded by D. Patterson. Adjourned.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Sam Hilliker; Asst. to the ZA

 

Signed: _________________________________________ Date:_________________________

For the Planning Commission

 

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

 

November 13, 2 019 DRB Minutes

November 20, 2019

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            November 13, 2019

 

Members Present:    Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown; Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      Sherry Corbin

Public Present:          Mike and Michele Gammal

Call to Order:              Meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:06 p.m.

Changes to Agenda:   None

Public Input:               None

Hearing:                      20-02-RT513 RL Vallee Conditional Use and Site Plan Review (continuation)

  1. Maxham re-opened the hearing at 7:08 p.m.

Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant

None

Hearing Notes

The hearing is continued from August 28th, 2019. T. Maxham said that the applicant requests that the hearing again be recessed until the mutually agreeable time of February 26th, 2020 7:00 p.m. at the Worthen Library or at Town Hall.

  1. Kilcoyne made a motion to recess the hearing until the above time/date. G. Hunt seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.

 

 

Old Business:             Keeler Bay Associates to discuss decision 19-72-RT456

Mike and Michele Gammal appeared before the Board to discuss the recent decision re 19-72-RT456 conditional use and site plan for Keeler Bay Marina.

Mike Gammal said that the condition imposed by the Board limiting the dock trees to no closer than 150’ from the northern property line was restrictive to him as a property owner in that it limits his potential for waterfront development. He said that his northern neighbor, Peter Velasquez, bought his property after the campground was established and so knew what his neighbor would be. The Army Corps and engineer Jay Buermann say that the proposed location is the best place for the docks. The Town has jurisdiction over land issues and the State and Army Corps have jurisdiction over water, so the Town should not be attempting to regulate the location of the docks. Placing the docks in deeper water along the northern portion of the property makes sense.

  1. Maxham said that the Board looked at the issue, deliberated, and made a decision, and that it seemed to him that the marina has three choices: (1) live with the decision, (2) make another proposal that’s different, or (3) appeal to Environmental Court.

Mike Gammal said that an appeal is expensive for everybody.

  1. Maxham said that the Board normally likes to discuss all issues related to an application during the hearing, but in this case some issues did not become apparent until the Board had entered into deliberation.

Mike Gammal said that Peter Velasquez is who you’re trying to cater to.

  1. Brown said whoa, we’re working for the town, not a person. We look at the regulations and decide based on what’s good for the community.

Mike Gammal apologized.

  1. Brown said that the applicant made assertions over and over again that the State and Army Corps said we want you to move the docks north and inferred that this was in the current permit. The current permit makes no reference to moving the docks. Mike Gammal said the move was part of his discussions with the Army Corps.
  2. Brown said that if they said you could move, I haven’t seen anything in writing.
  3. Taylor-Varney said that she had a discussion after the hearing closed with Mike Adams at the Army Corps to find out the status of the permit since the current permit on file with the Town did not reflect a change in location. M. Taylor-Varney said that Mike Adams told her that he was going to amend the original permit to reflect the move. M. Taylor-Varney said that she reminded Mike Adams that any changes need to be reviewed with an opportunity for public input. His response was that he would open a comment period for abutting landowners before acting on whether the dock locations could be moved. M. Taylor-Varney said that the conversation had occurred more than a month ago and she hadn’t seen anything yet – and that the Town would automatically be considered one of the interested parties.

Mike Gammal said that he hadn’t submitted anything yet to the Army Corps. He said that he was told by M. Taylor-Varney that the Town had jurisdiction over traffic and parking. No neighbor showed up at the hearing so what was the issue? He said that he was not going to submit an application, which is expensive, until he knows what’s what.

  1. Hunt said that the applicant said the Army Corps was “cool with all of this” (referring to the relocation of the docks to the north) but that the Town has not seen that from the Army Corps.

Mike Gammal said that he didn’t think it was appropriate for M. Taylor-Varney to call the Army Corps, and said that he was frustrated getting the permit through the Town. He said that the Town was seemingly picking a number, and there is no regulation that requires a 150’ setback to abutting neighbors. Mr. Gammal referred to a handout he provided that showed distances to neighboring properties for other marinas in the area that were less than 150’.

  1. Maxham said that the applicant should understand that the Board is dealing with the specific property in question. T. Maxham said that while the Town recognizes the State and Army Corps jurisdictions, the anchors to the dock trees are on land and he believed were within the Town’s purview to regulate.   Any permits received by the Town related to the application become a part of the package. T. Maxham said that when the applicant applied this summer he had the impression that the applicant had recently received approval for 120 slips in the new location. But during deliberations, in looking at the Army Corps permit the Town had on record, the Board determined that the Army Corps in 2017 had given permission for 120 slips at the current location. The Army Corps paperwork states that if you change anything, you have to file a new application and site plan to get their approval, which opens it up to public scrutiny and input. T. Maxham said that unfortunately we didn’t talk enough about the status of the Army Corps approval of the relocation of the docks during the hearing process. He said that in deliberations the Board has to look out for adjoining neighbors, people who use the lake, and the town as a whole. The Board felt that it took all of those factors into consideration when making a decision.

Mike Gammal asked where the 150’ number came from.

  1. Taylor-Varney said that the town bylaws Section 303 pertaining to conditional uses says that there should not be an undue adverse effect on the character of the area, as defined by the purposes of the zoning district and town plan. While there is no specific setback requirement for marinas related to the Shoreland District regulations, the Board noted that the marina was adjacent to residential properties. The distance from the northern abutting residential property to the current northernmost dock tree is about 300’; the Board felt they were splitting the distance with a 150’ condition on the reconfigured location to protect the properties to the north.
  2. Brown said what the applicant said did not match the Army Corps permit. The Army Corps said you could have 120 slips. They did not approve a move.

Mike Gammal said we have to get Town approval and then get Army Corps approval.

  1. Kilcoyne said you asked the question how we came up with the 150’ number. It isn’t a random number. We spent a lot of time trying to determine what is equitable for you and for your neighbors. You are a commercial property in the middle of a residential area. What we were looking at is the 3 proposed docks – the northern most seemed to be the one crowding the neighbor. Two out of the three docks are where you asked for them. The third one is not. You’re not getting everything that you want but you’re getting 2/3 of it. We also get the idea of the deeper water to the north for water quality and boat operation. We felt once we visited the site that the northern dock is really close to the abutting neighbor, which was our rationale.

Mike Gammal said that the guy on the other side of Peter Velasquez’s house is running a commercial operation, running boats out to Fishbladder Island.   Also Peter Velasquez’s house is oriented away from the marinas’ docks – he would have to go out into the front yard to see them. Mike Gammal said that Velasquez is constantly calling the environmental police, making false allegations. He is an angry man, so I have no interest in catering to him.   We may just do 2 dock fingers out into the bay.

  1. Brown said we said you could have 3 fingers.
  2. Hunt said that the Board was nearly split on just denying the application.
  3. Hayward said we wanted to give you a decision that didn’t require you to coming back to us with a denial.

Mike Gammal said I thank you for your two hours of deliberation. We gave you in the packet evidence of better water farther north.

  1. Brown asked how that makes the water in the bay better.

Mike Gammal said boat propellers chew up the weeds in the shallower water and cause the plants to drift off and grow elsewhere.

  1. Brightwell said that when you were in here before you were saying that you were mowing – mowing does the same thing. Mike Gammal said that he had not said that he was mowing.
  2. Brown said you said that Army Corps had approved the move which is not the case. When somebody brings in a document that is what we look at. We look at paperwork. The relocation to the north is not what the paperwork said.

Mike Gammal said what we discussed in the hearing was traffic, not dock location.

  1. Taylor-Varney said Mike Adams at Army Corps has told her that the Town is not required to approve something the Army Corps has approved – the Army Corps does not trump the town.   The town does have input.

Mike Gammal said yes, through the public input to the permitting process.

  1. Taylor-Varney said that in 2017 she got a communication from the Army Corps in association with the most recent Army Corps permit asking for comment. The Town’s concern was that they had 15 days to comment and hadn’t received an application or any information. Two year’s further on, the applicant has now come in for the Town’s conditional use permit.  She said she contacted Mike Adams to determine the status of the Army Corps permit and ask whether a new one was in progress or had been granted. L. Kilcoyne noticed during deliberations that the 2017 Army Corps permit on file with the Town referenced only the expansion to 120 slips, not their relocation.
  2. Kilcoyne said that to the applicant’s credit, all of the other issues – parking, traffic, etc. were approved without any issues. The Board wanted to move only the first dock finger and grant the other fingers where the applicant had proposed.
  3. Kilcoyne asked what the process was from here. T. Maxham said that the applicant could come back with either a new or amended application.
  4. Taylor-Varney asked what distance from the adjoining property the applicant would accept. Mike Gammal said that 100’ sounded fair, but he didn’t want to pay another $450 fee plus engineering for a revised site plan.
  5. Hunt said that the applicant must realize when he brings something in for review that there will likely be some revision and associated engineering fees.
  6. Gammal said that he didn’t realize the Board had jurisdiction over water. N. Hayward said that sometimes things like the status of the Army Corps permit doesn’t become clear until documents are reviewed during deliberation. The Board tried to find a compromise that will get the applicant over the finish line.
  7. Brown said that he felt that the applicant was asking the Board to deliberate now and that was inappropriate.
  8. Gammal said I’m asking for 100’. I’m fine reapplying – what am I applying for?
  9. Taylor-Varney said you’re applying for an amendment to your site plan. We don’t do the full fee, it just covers the warning. The hearing would be warned as specific to Condition C.
  10. Kilcoyne said that’s part of our rationale – what would be a fair distance from the boundary knowing that it’s not what you asked for, but it’s not a denial so you don’t have to come back with a whole new application.
  11. Brown said we deliberated for 2.5 hrs. I don’t have an opinion on this right now. You want to see what our opinion is.
  12. Gammal said I’d like know whether you would accept something other than 150’.
  13. Taylor-Varney asked what the minimum distance is that the applicant would accept from northerly dock to the property boundary. M. Gammal said 100’ would be reasonable. The proposed ramp is 40’ from the property line. He said he would accept putting the northern-most dock finger 60’ south of that – a total of 100’ south of the property line.
  14. Patterson said that he didn’t think placing the northern-most finger at 100’ would materially affect the site plan. He said the site plan was incomplete – grading wasn’t shown.
  15. Gammal said that 150’ as requested by the Board encroaches on planned storm water and septic areas, which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  16. Gammal thanked the Board for its time, said that he was a little frazzled and that he would submit a new application with a new number.
  17. Kilcoyne said that the application can be an amendment, not a totally new application.
  18. Taylor-Varney asked Mike Gammal if his objection was just to the one condition imposed by the Board regarding the dock location, and not to any other issues. Mike Gammal said yes.
  19. Hunt asked if the Board had to warn and reopen the hearing. M. Taylor-Varney said yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Minutes

  1. Hunt moved to accept the minutes of October 23rd 2019 as amended. R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

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

The upcoming schedule is as follows:

December 11th: Variance request for a small lakefront lot; a sketch plan for a 2-lot subdivision on West Shore Road.

No meeting Thanksgiving week.

No meeting on Christmas.

January 8th: Carol Egan is returning for an amendment to the site plan for a childcare facility at 266 US RT 2 and Carter Lane to accommodate a new septic system.

FEMA is starting the process of updating flood maps for the Lake Champlain basin on the Vermont side.   It’s a 5-year process. The current maps are from 1978.

Adjournment

  1. Patterson moved to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and carried by acclamation at 8:50 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 23, 2019 DRB Minutes

October 29, 2019

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            October 23, 2019

 

Members Present:    Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      Sherry Corbin; Ross Brown

Public Present:          Barone, Russ; Buermann, Bob; Farnham, Joe; Greer, Sharon; Hayward, Nate; Kelley, Cynthia; Kelly, Todd; Lindberg, Susan; Martindale, Rachel; McGovern, Nancy; Thibault, Judy; Wright, Keith; Wright, Paul

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

Changes to Agenda:   None

Public Input:               None

Hearing:                      20-19-WS353 (Wright Family Partnership 3-lot Subdivision Final Plan Review)

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:03 p.m.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Jake McGovern

Hearing Notes

  1. McGovern said that the Wright family had addressed the items requested by the Board at preliminary site plan review. The Board reviewed the final site plan and did not find any discrepancies.
  2. Patterson observed that the setbacks on Lot #1 looked unusual and were more conservative than required by the bylaws.   After discussion, nobody could come up with an explanation. T. Maxham noted that the applicant could correct this on the final mylar.

 

  1. Maxham opened the hearing to questions from the public. J. Farnham asked if the applicant would have to blast. J. McGovern said that he did not know.
  2. Farnham asked if Wright Lane is going to be 50’ and then constrict to 30’. T. Maxham said yes.
  3. Farnham asked if this hearing was warned as final plan review and whether there would be subsequent hearings before a final decision. T. Maxham confirmed that this was warned as a final hearing, and that there would be no more hearings before the Board issued a decision. T. Maxham said that the applicant would need to develop and register a final mylar.
  4. Maxham said that the applicant had provided the Board with everything requested.

Hearing no further questions from the Board or audience, T. Maxham closed the hearing at 7:18 p.m.

 

Hearing:                      20-122-RD056 (Russ Barone Request for Variance to Add Second Floor Living Space Within Side Setback)

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:23 p.m.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Russell Barone, Susan Lindberg

Hearing Notes

  1. Barone said that he was asking for a variance to build a second floor for the 3 bedroom seasonal camp at 54 Richards Road.   He said that when he purchased the property, he knew that work needed to be done, but after purchase discovered that the condition was such that a complete renovation was necessary, and as part of the renovation, he wanted to add a second floor. Mr. Barone said that approximately 90% of the property (all except one corner) is non-conforming. Mr. Barone said that he is proposing to build within the existing footprint, and assumed that since he was doing so he did not need a variance. However, he has learned that the town interprets an increase in volume to be an increase in non-conformity, so he is asking for a variance per a letter submitted to the Zoning Administrator dated October 8th, 2019.
  2. Maxham said that the Board had received a letter in support of the variance from abutters to the north, Cindy & Todd Kelley (attending in the audience) supporting the variance request. Cindy Kelley stated that they supported the variance but requested that the trees and bushes between the residences be allowed to grow “naturally” to preserve privacy between the residences. They also said that they wanted it noted that the end of Richards Road is not part of the right-of-way, but rather is a part of 58 Richards Road.
  3. Hayward made a motion to accept the letter from the Kelley’s into the record. The motion was seconded by G. Hunt and passed by acclamation.
  4. Hayward asked what the elevation of the first floor is. R. Barone said that he did not know, but that the residence was downhill from Richards Road and the peak of the proposed two-story addition would be about 2 feet above the height of Richards Road and would not impede the view from adjacent properties. R. Barone said that the second floor will be set back from the walls of the existing structure.

Discussion amongst the Board resulted in agreement that due to the topology of the lot, there is no place within the .31 acre parcel to relocate the structure so that it would be less nonconforming. Discussion noted that almost all of the current structure is within the Shoreland setback.

  1. Maxham opened the hearing to questions from the public. R. Buermann said that he would like to be listed as an interested party, as he has land to the west. He said that he had no issues with the requested variance at this time.
  2. Maxham noted that there was an email in support of the variance from the neighbor to the south at 52 Richards Road. D. Patterson made a motion to enter the email into the record. The motion was seconded by L. Kilcoyne and passed by acclamation.
  3. Patterson asked if the applicant was planning to replace the whole structure. R. Barone said that he planned to keep as much as possible.
  4. Maxham noted that the applicant had a low building but was planning to increase the height of the entire building, less setbacks for the second floor.
  5. Taylor-Varney noted that the applicant was asking for a variance on height as well as setbacks.
  6. Maxham closed hearing at 8:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Hearing:                      19-58-RT260 (A) (Amendment To Site Plan For Brew Pub)

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 8:03 p.m.
  2. Hayward and L. Kilcoyne recused. Sitting for the hearing were D. Patterson, J. Brightwell, G. Hunt, T. Maxham.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Nate Hayward

Hearing Notes

  1. Hayward said that he was requesting an alternative location for the dumpster, would like to keep both the original and alternative locations, and would decide which location to use in consultation with the neighbor to the south. Only one location would be used.
  2. Maxham asked what the address was. M. Taylor-Varney said 260 U.S. Route 2 is the current address.
  3. Hunt asked why the two locations had different size dumpster pads. N. Hayward said that they did not want to change the impervious coverage, which would require review again by the State.
  4. Patterson observed that the alternate dumpster location would prevent two of the four adjacent parking spaces from having room to back out in the direction of the dumpster.

After discussion, the Board agreed that designating the four parking spaces in the back for use by employees only would solve the problem. Employees would be aware of the problem and could back out away from the dumpster and turn in the location of the original dumpster pad.

Hearing no further questions or input from public, T. Maxham closed hearing at 8:17 p.m.

 

 

 

Review of Minutes

  1. Patterson moved to accept the minutes of October 9th, 2019. G. Hunt seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.

 

Review & Sign Santor 2-Lot Subdivision Mylar (20-05-WH066)

  1. Maxham signed the mylar, which was approved October 9th, 2019.

 

Administrator’s Report

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

November 13th. R.L. Vallee has indicated they are not ready to proceed with their application, so the Board will need to re-open the hearing on November 13th as warned, and continue the hearing to a future date. The November 13th hearing is scheduled to occur at the Worthen Library.

November 27th – no meeting

December 11th – variance and 2-lot subdivision sketch plan review

December 25th – no meeting

Jan 8th – Carol Egan is renewing her application for the childcare center on U.S. Route 2 next to the Community Health Center with an amended site plan featuring a new wastewater plan.

November 6th – The Planning commission is hosting the Champlain Basin Study Commission and the NWRPC. The NRPC has expanded outreach to municipalities to improve tactical planning efforts for Northern Lake Champlain basin under grants provided by DEC.

 

 

 

Adjournment

  1. Hunt moved to adjourn the business meeting and move into deliberative; the motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation at 8:35 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 9, 2019 DRB Minutes

October 15, 2019

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                                            October 9th, 2019

 

Members Present:    Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown, Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt;

Others Present:          Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent:      Corbin, Sherry; Kilcoyne, Liza

Public Present:         Bond, Jim; DeLong, Randy; Farnham, Joe; Grey, Shannon; McGovern, John; McGovern, Nancy; Thibault, Jim; Thibault, Judy; Wright, Keith; Wright, Nicole;

Call to Order:              Meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.

Changes to Agenda:   A deliberative session was added as final agenda item.

Public Input:               None

Hearing:                      20-18-MR007 (Bond 3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan Review)

  1. Maxham opened the hearing at 7:03 p.m.

Notice & Oath

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Jim Bond

Hearing Notes

The structure at 7 Martin Road is an 1860 Farmhouse with a barn. With the proposed subdivision, 6.5 acres will remain with the farmhouse and barn. The applicant is planning to subdivide two additional lots, and is planning to build and occupy a residence on the back lot (Lot #4) away from Martin Road. The applicant has no immediate plans to build on the front lot.

  1. Maxham asked about a survey and wastewater planning. J. Bond responded that the lot has been staked out, and test pits are scheduled to be dug next week.
  2. Maxham asked about the lot on South Street. J. Bond said that is Lot #2, which has been there for 2-3 years. The proposed subdivision is adding a 3rd and 4th lot to the subdivision of the original lot.
  3. Maxham said that since 4 lots have been created within the past 10 years, by the town bylaws this will qualify as a major subdivision.
  4. Hunt made a motion to classify the subdivision as major. R. Brown seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation.
  5. Maxham asked if the dotted lines on the sketch are the lot setbacks. J. Bond said yes.
  6. Maxham asked if the right-of-way to the two new lots (#3 and #4) was 50 feet. J. Bond said yes.
  7. Bond said that the 50’ right-of-way would remain on Lot #1 and will accommodate two parallel driveways, one to each parcel.
  8. Brown observed that on the sketch an additional driveway was shown to Lot #3. J. Bond said that this represented an alternative, and he was open to either solution, and expressed a preference for the two parallel driveways on one curb cut.
  9. Maxham said that it was up to the applicant to decide what he wanted to do and propose a solution to the Board.
  10. Taylor-Varney asked if there was an existing curb cut. J. Bond said yes, there is a 40’ culvert accommodating the curb cut.
  11. Taylor-Varney said that if there are to be two curb cuts, the applicant would need to apply to the town for a second curb cut, and that the town prefers to grant just one when possible.
  12. Bond said that he would present one curb cut on the final plan.
  13. Maxham opened the hearing to questions from the public.

Randy DeLong said that he was generally in favor of the subdivision but was concerned about the potential creation of a septic isolation zone that would encroach onto his property.

  1. Maxham said that the Board would take note of that, but that the State regulates septic and that Mr. DeLong would need to address that with the State.
  2. Taylor-Varney said that once a septic application is submitted to the State, the State notifies abutters and there is a comment period in which abutters can state their concerns.
  3. Hayward noted that the only type of impairment from an isolation zone would be the ability to put in a potable well, not necessarily a structure.
  4. Taylor-Varney said that the applicant might consider a shared septic to reduce the isolation zone.
  5. Brown said that the applicant could consider putting the septic leach fields on the east side of the property to avoid impacting the neighbors, or consider putting the septic on Lot #1 with an easement.
  6. Maxham said that the configuration of the lots may change based on what the applicant finds for septic capacity. T. Maxham drew the attention of the applicant to the requirements in the bylaws for the items needed for final approval. T. Maxham said that if there were things on the checklist that the applicant felt were not needed, he could ask for a waiver.
  7. Taylor-Varney said that the applicant had up to 6 months to apply for a final review.

There being no other questions from the Board or public, T. Maxham closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing:                      20-19-WS353 (Wright Family Partnership 3-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan Review)

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

Notice & Oath

  1. Patterson read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to attending members of the public who planned to testify.

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

John “Jake” McGovern

Hearing Notes

  1. Maxham noted the site visit which occurred on October 5th with all members of the Board present attending.
  2. Maxham asked if the dispersal field for the mound system had been relocated to accommodate the Martin road right-of-way.   J. McGovern said yes.

The Board had a discussion with the applicant as to whether the plan showed where the right-of-way narrowed from 50’ to 30’ to accommodate the dispersal field. After discussion and examination of the plan, all agreed that the 30’ segment was shown.

  1. Maxham noted that the Board had the discretion under 401 (B) of the town’s bylaws to grant an exception to the requirement that a 50’ right-of-way be provided if the road has more than three houses, provided that the applicant demonstrates that safety is not impaired. He noted that the Board had seen from the site visit that the land along the right-of-way was open and flat.
  2. Maxham asked if the dispersal field was designed to take care of the two houses. J. McGovern said yes, and that the other two lots (#1 and #3) will be seasonal.
  3. Maxham asked if Lot #3 would only have the boathouse. J. McGovern said that there would only be a boathouse on Lot #3 and that it would have a shower and a bathroom.
  4. Taylor-Varney asked if the Board wanted the applicant to show building envelopes on the final plat. D. Patterson said yes.
  5. Maxham noted that the realignment of the dispersal field solved the conflict with the 30’ right-of-way and asked for a motion to declare this a minor subdivision. G. Hunt made the motion to declare the application a minor subdivision. The motion was seconded by D. Patterson and carried by acclamation.
  6. Maxham opened the meeting to the public for questions. Joe Farnham asked if Lot #1 would have new construction. J. McGovern said yes.
  7. Maxham asked if the new septic will serve all four lots. J. McGovern said yes.
  8. Patterson said that if there were any requirements for the final plat in the Town regulations that the applicant felt unnecessary, he could request a waiver.
  9. Taylor-Varney said that the final plat should show that the septic serves all four lots.
  10. Patterson said that the applicant may need to have new easements created to provide access from all four lots to the new septic, and that this should be shown on the final plat.
  11. Maxham noted that Lot #2 is not served by the new septic, and if sold, would have its own septic.
  12. Maxham asked for the length of the section of the road where the right-of-way would be only 30 feet wide. J. McGovern said 125 feet.
  13. Maxham asked for a motion to approve a reduction in width for 125’ of the right-of-way to 30’ based on 401(B) of the Town bylaws. The motion was made by N. Hayward, seconded by R. Brown, and carried by acclamation.

There being no further questions from the Board or public, T. Maxham closed the hearing at 8:02 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Review of Minutes

  1. Patterson moved to accept the minutes of minutes of September 25th. The motion was seconded by R. Brown and passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator). The following hearings are planned:

October 23:     (1) Final plat review for Wright; (2) Variance request on nonconforming lot Richards Road; (3) Site plan amendment for the brew pub.

November 13: Continuation of hearing for R.L. Vallee. The applicant is not expected to be ready at this time, so the hearing will likely be opened and continued to a future date. The Board will enter into deliberative session to consider the applications from Wright and the variance on Richards Road.

December 11: (1) Variance request for a pre-existing non-conforming condition; (2) Two-lot subdivision on West Shore Road.

  1. Taylor-Varney noted that the Zoning & Planning Forum will be in South Burlington on November 13th. The deadline to register is next Wednesday.

 

Adjournment

  1. Hayward moved to adjourn the business meeting and enter deliberative session. The motion was seconded by R. Brown and carried by acclamation at 8:25 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.