SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD July 10, 2019
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Ross Brown; Sherry Corbin; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne; Krebs, Robert (alternate)
Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator); Jim Brightwell (Clerk);
Members Absent: Nate Hayward
Public Present: Bartle, Matt; Diglio, Stephen; Haywood, Nate; Hobbs, Dave; Kerr, Bridget; Lavin, Marty; Lavin, Pat; Maguire, Guy; Orr, Daren; Quinn, Anne; Sikora, Jeff; Wickenten, Mike
Call to Order: Meeting was called to order by D. Patterson at 7:00 p.m.
Changes to Agenda: None.
Public Input: None.
Hearing: 19-45-RT275 Lavin – Final Plat Review for 6-lot Subdivision
- Patterson opened the hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Notice & Oath
The notice for this hearing was read at the initial session of this hearing. This hearing was recessed most recently at the April 10th meeting of the DRB. T. Maxham recused himself; D. Patterson assumed the chair and reopened the hearing.
- Patterson administered the oath to the attending members of the public.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant:
Jeff Sikora, Apple Island Planning
Stephen Diglio, P.E. Kas Environmental Science & Engineering
- Patterson said that in the previous sketch plan review the Board gave the applicant a list of items that the Board wanted to see on a final site plan, and requested the applicant to review those items.
Jeff Sikora said that one of the major items requested was the vernal pool; it is now shown on the site plan per a field survey done previously by VHB, who had worked on the site at an earlier date.
- Diglio said his firm was primarily charged with providing an access road design for the 8 lot subdivision. As the subdivision gets developed it will need a storm water permit since it will exceed an acre. The road is a 20’ wide road with 10’ crown on center, with simple disconnections on either side to help with future storm water needs. As the road approaches Route 2 it rides the ridgeline. At the proposed access there is a culvert on the west side and a series of catch basins on the east side.
- Patterson asked if the applicant needed a storm water permit. S. Diglio said not initially since they are not proposing over an acre of impervious coverage. S. Diglio said that since the plan of development is unknown at present, there is no way to do a storm water permit now, and each lot will have to do its own as it is sold and developed.
- Krebs said that he had just received the site plan, and had not had a chance to review it. D. Patterson said that the applicant, having submitted the plan immediately prior to the hearing, had put the board at a disadvantage since Board members had not had time for review. S. Diglio said that the plans had just been completed and apologized for not submitting them earlier.
- Krebs asked who will keep track of the impervious coverage as each lot is developed, to know when the one-acre limit had been reached. J. Sikora said that like waste water, storm water was regulated by the State and is not regulated by the Town. S. Diglio said that when the development gets to the point that a storm water plan is required, the State would require an association be formed to address a storm water plan.
- Taylor-Varney said that one of the conditions for Town approval for any building permit is that a State waste water permit is applied for if required. She marks the file to maintain awareness that a storm water permit may be required at some point.
- Krebs asked if there was a municipal water permit. J. Sikora said that the lots would rely on drilled wells, the locations of which are not shown because the wastewater is located in a common area away from the individual lots. The location of the wells on the lots will be determined as each lot is developed.
- Patterson asked where the utility easements were located. J. Sikora said that there would be underground power and that the utility easements were up the center of the road. D. Patterson asked if each lot had a transformer pad for electric power. J. Sikora said that transformers would be located as needed; they were not plotted out now since service requirements are not known. D. Patterson said that he was concerned that an easement would be needed for transformers that were placed on individual lots. J. Sikora said that they had specified a 60’ easement for the road and utilities, and that this would be sufficient to accommodate placement of transformers, shutoffs for water, service connections for cable and telephone, etc.
- Hunt said that basically the applicant has no utilities proposed, other than that they will be placed underground within the road and utility easement. J. Sikora agreed, and said they were providing space for utilities but that the specific requirements were not yet known.
- Krebs asked for a summary of the proposed road. S. Diglio said that the access to Route 2 will be paved, but the road will be gravel. R. Krebs asked if there was any intention for the road to be assumed by the Town. J. Sikora said not at this time, although the road will be built to town standards.
- Krebs expressed concern about the soils at the location and said that the road would move around a lot.
- Patterson asked if a wetlands permit was required. S. Diglio said that while they were doing a Class 3 notification to the Army Corps, nothing further is needed.
- Sikora pointed out that this site plan proposed a boundary line adjustment between lots #1 and #2 to move the boundary line to the center of the ROW.
- Patterson asked if this is strictly as residential development. J. Sikora said yes, but at this time there are no proposed projects.
- Krebs asked about access to Lot #8. J. Sikora said that a driveway shown on the site plan provided access to Lot #8, and also provided access for maintenance to the wastewater systems on that lot.
- Patterson opened the session to input from the public.
Sandy Gregg asked if this would be a private association on a private road. J. Sikora replied yes.
Sandy Gregg asked how power is going into the utilities. J. Sikora said that power will come off the road and go underground paralleling the road within the easement.
Sandy Gregg asked if residents would be required to join the association. J. Sikora said that the State would require residents to join an association when and if a storm water permit are needed, and that road maintenance might be a responsibility of the association. Sandy Gregg said that she foresaw problems with road maintenance; J. Sikora said that he had written several association agreements and that they had worked quite well.
- Sikora said that he was working with Dave Hobbs to establish trail access around the periphery of the subdivision, and that after the subdivision is done, they would like to be able to provide a trail easement that provides access from Route 2. Sandy Gregg asked if the trail easement would provide access to South Street. J. Sikora said that it could.
- Krebs expressed concern about the ambiguity of the building envelopes on lots #4, #6, and #7. J. Sikora said that it was because of the wetlands. R. Krebs said that removing uncertainty was the purpose of the building envelope.
Sandy Gregg asked whether this was a major or minor subdivision. Several members of the Board responded that this was a major subdivision.
Bridget Kerr asked when it would be known if there was going to be access to South Street. J. Sikora said that the trail access was not yet clearly defined but that any access to South Street would be a trail only. Bridget Kerr asked for a definition of trail. J. Sikora deferred to Dave Hobbs of the Recreation Committee, with whom he has been working to define the trail access. Dave Hobbs said that the trail would go from the back side of the school parking lot to the library. It would be disability access, gravel, 3’-4’ wide, no motorized access.
- Corbin asked if the only access to South Street was from Lot #4. J. Sikora said yes. R. Krebs said that if there was to be public access to South Street, the applicant would have to return to the Board for approval of an easement – at present, access to South Street is owned by Lot #4, and no easement is shown on the current site plan.
Bridget Kerr expressed concern that the Board members had just received the plan and would not have sufficient time for review. S. Diglio said that the subdivision layout had been submitted in March; it was the road plan and boundary line adjustment that had just been submitted. R. Brown said that the Board would fully look at it.
- Krebs asked if the wetlands were mapped for the entire subdivision. J. Sikora said not for Lot #8.
- Patterson asked what would happen if the first lot sold was Lot #7. J. Sikora said that the Lavins would market the lots in a logical progression, but if that did happen, the road would have to go in.
- Corbin asked what the septic capacity was per lot. J. Sikora said that there was a septic capacity of 665 gallons per lot, but that more realistically there would be at most 3 bedrooms per lot, 24 bedrooms, using 3,360 gallons of septic, less than the 5,320 gallons capacity estimated for the subdivision.
- Patterson asked the Board if they wanted to continue the hearing to allow time to fully absorb the road plan that had just been submitted. After discussion with the Board, D. Patterson made a motion to continue the hearing to August 14th; R. Brown seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation. D. Patterson continued the hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Hearing: 19-58-RT260 (MKN, LLC — Conditional Use/Site Plan Review for a Brew Pub)
Notice & Oath
- Maxham assumed the Chair. D. Patterson read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.
Appearing on Behalf of the Applicant
Matt Bartle, MKN LLC
Nate Hayward, MKN LLC
- Maxham opened the hearing at 7:46. T. Maxham said that the hearing was originally warned for June 26th, and at that time the hearing was opened the warning was read, and the hearing was recessed until July 10th. He clarified that the warning was read again this evening so that everybody could hear it and understand. He said that Board Members L. Kilcoyne and N. Hayward are recused, as is alternate R. Krebs. J. Brightwell (alternate) will participate as a voting member, so that the voting members for this hearing are: D. Patterson, S. Corbin, R. Brown, G. Hunt, J. Brightwell, and T. Maxham.
- Bartle said that he and N. Hayward were proposing a 50-seat brew pub to be located on the parcel east of the PUD they have developed that currently contains the Health Center, Wally’s Bagels, the Library, and the Fire Department. The brew pub will have its own access to Route 2, with two outbound and one inbound lanes. The restaurant will use capacity of the waste water system currently serving the adjacent condominium to support seats in the restaurant. The applicants are applying for an off-site discharge permit for brewery waste. 31 parking spots are planned, a number that exceeds code. Storm water, waste water, and VTRANS permits are pending.
There is a Class 2 wetland fed by the culvert under Route 2; there will be a wetland buffer as a part of the wetlands permit. The applicant will be disrupting the wetlands to put the force main across from the wetlands to the septic behind the fire station. The main will stay on MKN property until it reaches the mound on the north side of the fire station.
The sidewalk will be extended from in front of the Health Center and Library east to the restaurant. S. Corbin asked why the sidewalk takes a 90 degree turn. M. Bartle said that because the state right-of-way has a big swale, the sidewalk on the condominium is close to the building. The sidewalk is closer to the road in the new development because it cannot be as far from the road when crossing the wetland at the culvert.
- Bartle said they have a letter from Fire District 4 for water, and has talked to VEC to use the pole on the southeast corner of the property and go underground from there.
- Bartle said that MKN is requesting a separate sign for the restaurant because it has a separate access to the highway.
- Corbin asked if the restaurant was a part of the condominium development. M. Bartle said that the restaurant is free-standing but that it uses part of the wastewater of the condominium and would pay a pro-rated share. N. Hayward said that the restaurant will use the last of the condominium’s wastewater capacity.
- Corbin asked how many seats the restaurant would have. M. Bartle answered 50 seats. S. Corbin asked how many meals would be served per day. M. Bartle said two – lunch and dinner.
- Maxham asked if the restaurant was part of the original property purchased in 2011. M. Bartle said yes, 4.24 acres. N. Hayward added that a lot line adjustment brought the total up to 7.27 acres.
- Corbin asked if there would be outside seating. M. Bartle said yes. S. Corbin asked if the outside seating was included in the 50 seats. M. Bartle said yes. N. Hayward clarified that they would have a reduction in interior seating when the patio was opening.
- Corbin asked if there would be music. M. Bartle said that there was a stage proposed inside, and that there would be no outside music.
- Maxham asked what the hours of operation would be. M. Bartle said 7 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to allow for brewery operations.
- Maxham asked what the traffic volume would be. M. Bartle said 276 vehicles per day.
- Maxham asked if VTRANS was OK with the sidewalk being in their right-of-way. N. Hayward said that the existing condominium sidewalk is within the VTRANS ROW and they didn’t have a problem with it.
- Maxham asked if the parking would be paved. M. Bartle said that the parking would initially be SurePak, but eventually would be paved. J. Brightwell asked about a visual barrier between the parking area and the Lee house to the east. M. Bartle said that there would be a stockade fence between the parking area and the Lee house per the site plan.
- Maxham asked for the elevations and square footage of the building. M. Bartle said that the building was still in design but that they were going for a monitor-style barn set perpendicular to the road; that the building size is 48’ x 72’; with 3456 square feet not including the patio.
- Patterson asked how much of the building would be allocated to the brewery. M. Bartle said that the back half would be the brewery, the front half the restaurant.
- Corbin made a motion to enter the elevations presented by M. Bartle; R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.
- Bartle said that the brewery operation will have two employees (not including the two owners) with the possible addition of two more employees at some point in the future. Brewery employees might be doubling at the bar when not brewing. Annual production will be less than 1000 barrels, with the goal of the brewery supporting the food establishment rather than become a large operation on its own. Likely first-year production is in the 400 barrel range.
- Maxham asked how the Board should classify the operation. M. Varney-Taylor said that the most applicable classification in the Town bylaws was as a restaurant
- Maxham asked what the brewery waste volume would be. M. Bartle said that the waste volume is 4 to 5 times the production level. So, 400 barrels produces 1600 barrels of waste.
- Bartle said that the 2000 gallon tank used for brewery waste is located behind the building and is not connected to the septic system.
- Corbin asked if the water district is OK with the projected use. M. Bartle said that they were on board, but that the brewery would likely have a holding tank which would be filled during off-hours.
- Maxham asked if there was lighting proposed. M. Bartle said that lighting was not yet designed.
- Maxham asked if there was solid byproduct left over, and if so how it was handled. M. Bartle said that solid byproduct was stored in 300 gallon tote bins that could be lifted with a forklift, and would be trucked separately as feed.
- Patterson asked that the site plan be enhanced to designate heavy paving areas and lighting.
- Corbin asked where the main entrance to the building would be. M. Bartle said in the front.
- Maxham asked how tall the stockade fence was. M. Bartle responded 6 feet.
- Maxham asked for a motion to accept site plan as complete. G. Hunt seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation.
- Maxham closed the hearing at 8:23.
Review of Minutes
- Kilcoyne made a motion to accept the minutes of June 26, 2019. R. Brown seconded the motion, which passed by acclamation.
The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).
- Variance Request for Russell on Providence Island.
- Variance for Wright family partnership on the right-of-way for their private road.
- Keeler Bay Marina update to conditional use and site plan review for expansion.
- Continuation of the Lavin hearing.
- L. Vallee conditional use and site plan for a service station at the corner of Routes 2 and 314 in Keeler Bay.
- Variance request for non-conforming structure on the property formerly owned by Ed Worthen on Kibbe Farm Road.
- Kilcoyne moved to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by G. Hunt and carried by acclamation at 8:55 p.m.
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.