SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD February 14, 2018
Members Present: T. Maxham (Chair); D. Patterson; J. Brightwell; R. Brown; L. Kilcoyn; N. Hayward
Public Present: Koreen Grimes; Mitchel Richardson; Kevin Worden (Engineering Ventures); Andrew Jimenez; Deborah Sherman; Kurt Sherman; Cindy Alsop; Martha Taylor Varney, ZA
Changes to the Agenda
There were none.
Koreen Grimes re: possible subdivision of parcel on Sunset View Rd.
Koreen Grimes, representing her husband, Rodney, and herself, spoke with the Board about the possibility of subdividing their 10.74-acre parcel at 65 Sunset View Rd. into 2 lots. The discussion included the width of the current driveway to the property (within an existing 50-ft. ROW), whether the 1.62-acre parcel that is the quarry would be counted when considering the number of parcels before here would be required upgrades to meet Town road standards, and any constraints that may be caused by wetlands at the beginning of the driveway on Sunset View Rd. T. Maxham said that the Board would have to consider the consequences of further subdivision of the parcels in the future due to the minimum 1-acre lot size, and the impact that may have on the surrounding area. N. Hayward stated that since the quarry lot is not buildable and is only used on a limited basis for educational purposes, he felt it should not be counted as a parcel when considering upgrades to the current driveway.
The ZA has received no application from the Grimes for subdivision review by the DRB. This meeting was for informational purposes only.
Continue Site Plan and Conditional Use review (18-47-RT308) – Levi Kraemer
[At the January 10, 2018 hearing for this application, the hearing was recessed to February 14, 2018. Mr. Kraemer notified the Zoning Administrator on January 16, 2018 that he was withdrawing his application.]
- Brightwell moved to accept the request to withdraw the application; D. Patterson second. All in favor. The application has been withdrawn and the hearing is closed.
Continue (from 1/24/18) Conditional Use and Site Plan Review – Mitchel Richardson (18-48-FR138)
- Maxham reaffirmed the oath by the applicant and Interested Persons present; introductions were made. The Applicant had no objections to including D. Patterson in the continuation of this hearing (he was not present at the January 24, 2018 hearing). The Conditional Use review continued.
Mr. Richardson’s engineer was accompanied by Kevin Worden of Engineering Ventures. Mr. Richardson stated that he had received his Letter of Intent from VTrans for his access permit onto State RT.0314 (Ferry Rd.). The access was moved to the crest of the knoll south of its original location due to sight distance issues. D. Patterson was concerned that this new access was directly across the road from an existing residence. Mr. Wordon explained that the 1111 permit itself will not be issued until there is both Town and Act 250 approval. Changes on the site plan reflect the new access location, the number of parking spaces (as reflected by the discussion at the January 24 hearing), and that storm-water run-off would be directed to the north of the facility to disperse in the field.
- Brightwell listed a number of concerns he had with the proposal as presented at the 1/24 hearing. He is concerned about how an auto repair business would affect the character of the area (as noted in Section 303 in the Development Regulations under Conditional Use review), the location of houses across from the road access, the organic farm (Sherman) immediately to the west of the proposed location, whether there was any other option on the large parcel where this could be located, the existence of rocks and trees that show on an aerial map and whether that would be a suitable location (non-prime agricultural soils), whether water and power could be run to a different location from the existing power pole and well, in addition to re-routing the septic line to the proposed septic field? Mr. Richardson stated that ledge was the biggest problem and that it was difficult to dig through it for septic lines. He said that he was limited by the location of prime ag soils. Mr. Richardson told the Board he would provide a soil map for the parcel.
- Maxham wanted more information on what portion of the parcel was currently in Current Use. The Listers show only a house and 2 acres. Mr. Richardson said there was disagreement on that and he was attempting to correct it. He also claimed that the penalties for removing land from Current Use are too high. Tim stated that he is concerned that the large parcel has been for agricultural use and is uncomfortable about making a major change to its use. Additional concerns include the character of the area, storage trailers on the parcel (will there be more with this use?), the design of the inside of the proposed structure and waste collection, the storage of chemicals/ used tires/wrecked cars, fencing, traffic, parking, and the height of the structure – Mr. Richardson had told the Board at the first hearing that the structure would be about 25 feet tall; elevations provided by an architect show the structure 35 feet tall. Additional concerns include lighting, storm-water, signage, hours of operation (to include all proposed hours), whether he has attempted to work with his neighbors, the direction the building faces, and whether parking can be moved to the side and back of the structure. Mr. Richardson stated that he had not yet met with the neighbors. He could only develop his site in an area not included in Current Use or in prime ag soils. The proposed site and the existing barns on the property are not in current use. He stated that all but 15 acres of the parcel are in Current Use.
- Hayward expressed a preference to move the structure farther east from the current site to appease the neighbors. Mr. Richardson said he was restricted by Current Use and is in discussion with the Listers to correct the issue. He noted he had taken aesthetics into account when designing the building and that he was willing to make additional changes.
- Kilcoyne asked if there was any flexibility to move the structure to the east to add a buffer between it and the Sherman farm. She stated a preference for the garage doors not to face the road and instead face to the east. Mr. Richardson agreed to the change. Mr. Wordon added that by rotating the structure, the longer length of the garage would face the road and provide more shielding to cars parked behind.
- Brown said that 200 feet was not far enough to contain industrial runoff that could impact the Sherman’s organic farm. He had concerns about the impact of an industrial nature on an organic farm. Mr. Richardson said that the 200 feet area included contours that would direct run-off away from the Sherman parcel. He said he could make modifications to the plan to address run-off concerns. T. Maxham stressed that these concerns affect Conditional Use and what the impact would be.
- Patterson noted that the site plan scale showed the distance from the structure to the Sherman boundary as 160-ft., not 200. Mr. Richardson said he would move it to 200 feet.
Mr. Richardson told the Board he would not be selling cars.
Open to the Public:
Deborah Sherman wanted clarification on exactly what land in under Current Use, and the location of the 2-acres. She said that existing ledge created drainage from the Richardson parcel onto their farm and that heavy rains increased the run-off, delaying their planting. She asked why the building could not be moved farther away from their property. Mr. Richardson stated that it was because of Current Use. He would like to move it but was not allowed. Mrs. Sherman questioned what a soil survey map showed for the property. She was also concerned that the parking was now surrounding the building and more spaces had been added. Mr. Richardson said he would supply a soil map.
Cindy Alsop had concerns about the site distance due to the knoll on Ferry Rd. She said that since the access location had been changed she was no longer concerned. She stated, however, if the building location was moved to the east that she would have additional concerns.
Kurt Sherman again expressed support for a landowner to develop their property unless it impacts the neighbors. He asked that the Board consider the proximity to the neighbors. He said his most important request was to move the building farther away from his registered organic farm. He preferred a location to the right of the current agricultural access. Mr. Richardson said that he was limited by Current Use but would otherwise be amendable to the idea.
- Maxham asked if approval of this proposal would set a precedent and result in additional development of the agricultural parcel? He asked what other options Mr. Richardson had besides developing this parcel, and if he had a deadline. He said that there is a need for Mr. Richardson’s services in South Hero but is concerned about locating his business in this particular location. Mr. Richardson stated that he intends to meet all Hazardous Materials standards to protect the adjacent organic farm and intends to follow best management practices. Mr. Worden stated that the 2 major issues were current use and storm-water management.
- Maxham asked the Board to schedule a site visit for March 17 (Saturday) at 8AM. N. Hayward moved to schedule the site visit; R. Brown second. All in favor.
- Kilcoyne moved to recess the hearing and continue the Conditional Use Review on March 28, 2018 at 7PM; D. Patterson second. All in favor.
The Hearing was recessed until March 28, 2018 at 7PM.
Review of Minutes
- Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes from January 24, 2018; R. Brown second. All in favor.
There was none.
Currently scheduled are a Sketch Plan review for a 2-lot subdivision on February 28, and a Sketch plan for another 2-lot subdivision on March 14. The schedule for the Board remains active into April at this time.
9:05PM – D. Patterson moved to adjourn; R. Brown second. All in favor.
Signed: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________
For the DRB
These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly-scheduled meeting. All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.