DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD March 27, 2019
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown, Sherry Corbin; Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne
Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)
Members Absent: Doug Patterson (Vice Chair);
- Brightwell (alternate) sat as a full voting member.
Public Present: Goulette, Doug; Lee, Emily; Monley, Liz; Nedde, Doug; Tappan, Heidi; Weaver, Rebecca
Call to Order: Meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.
Changes to Agenda: None
Public Input: None
Hearing: (19-45-FR028) Final Plat Review – Lighthouse Estates
28 Sunset View Road
- Maxham opened the hearing at 7:03 p.m.
Notice & Oath
- Kilcoyne read the hearing warning.
- Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant:
Doug Goulette, Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Statement of Doug Goulette
The application is for a 3-lot subdivision of 28 Sunset View Road, a 75-acre parcel on the corner of Sunset View and Route 2. The applicant proposes two new residential lots. Lot #1 is 1.88 acres; Lot #2 is 1.2 acres, both with frontage on Sunset View.
The applicant was before the Board on January 9th with an initial sketch plan. At the initial presentation, approximate locations were shown for the house and mound locations. The applicant now has a full set of plans including additional detail and revisions per the Board’s request. The site plan now shows the building envelopes per the 25’ setback around the property lines; also the water and wastewater isolation distances.
The applicant has received access permits for both driveways from the Town. The Road Commissioner has approved the locations for the driveways.
Through the state wastewater process the applicant has designed a replacement mound system for the existing house so that if the current system fails they have an approved location.
The updated plat was done as an update to the survey by Warren Robenstien.
The applicant submitted applications for water and wastewater permits to the State approximately 2 weeks ago.
- Maxham asked if the Road Commissioner was OK with no culvert on the driveway for Lot #1. D. Goulet replied that the Road Commissioner did not feel a culvert was needed as the driveway was at the apex of the hill.
Liz Monley asked for clarification that 2 lots were being carved out and the remainder of the 75 acres remains with the original house. D. Goulette confirmed that the subdivision is creating two new lots. Liz said that she didn’t see any issues with the subdivision.
- Taylor-Varney told the Board that the deliberative session for this application will be on April 10th.
- Maxham closed the hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Discussion With Tappan South Hero LLC.
Heidi Tappan and Doug Nedde appeared on behalf of Tappan South Hero LLC with questions regarding conditions attached to the approval of Change In Conditional Use and Site Plan review – Tappan South Hero LLC (19-39-RT295) dated March 13th.
- Maxham cautioned that a change of site plan requires a public hearing. The Board can clarify its remarks but needs to respect the limits of what can be done outside of a hearing.
- Tappan said she had questions on four conditions from the approval.
The first is the condition that the current roof sign be lowered to no higher than the roofline. H. Tappan said that the roofline is very low. Lowering the sign will interfere with the proposed awning above the ordering windows, and customers will not see a lower sign.
- Corbin clarified that the Board is not asking the applicant to remove the sign, just to lower it to be in compliance with the regulation.
- Kilcoyne said that the Board envisions that the sign be lowered a foot or so. H. Tappan said if she lowers the sign it will be less than 7’ and the sign will be obscured by the awning.
- Brown observed that the applicant would have to bring the sign down to the eave or lower to get the top below the peak of the roofline due to lack of pitch of the roof.
- Maxham asked the Board to advance to the next issue.
- Tappan said that the remaining issues are clarification of the parking conditions #4, #5, #6.
- Tappan said that condition #5 says “Place a do not enter sign to prevent cars from traveling north past the takeout window” and asked for clarification. S. Corbin said the purpose of the condition was to prevent the cars parked in the back from exiting past the takeout window. The applicant can place the sign on a window or a post as the applicant prefers. H. Tappan asked how that restriction would be enforced and how well that restriction would work. S. Corbin said these issues were the reasons that the Board set a condition for the applicant to return in a year, so that together the Board and the applicant could evaluate how well that and the rest of the traffic flow in the parking area was working.
- Brown said that some members of the Board felt that based upon their experience, the applicant does not have enough parking. While the applicant has parking areas delineated on the plan, the lot itself will be gravel and unlined and in the past people have parked three cars deep. Rather than impose additional conditions at this time, the Board wants to defer the conversation to see how well the proposed parking plan will work.
- Tappan asked what she was responsible for to address the Board’s concerns.
- Kilcoyne said that the Board agrees that the applicant is improving the parking but is concerned whether the proposed changes are going to be enough. However, the Board wants to give it a season and see if the plan works as presented.
- Brown acknowledged that while the applicant is creating parking in the back, the Board is concerned that parking be adequate to keep cars from parking on Route 2, because parked cars on Route 2 block the vision of oncoming traffic for cars exiting the lot.
- Tappan said that she was concerned not knowing what she would eventually be liable for. S. Corbin said that the applicant has been granted a conditional use permit; the conversation in a year would be about whether the parking plan was working.
- Hayward said that he had to come back to review parking for his development that houses the Community Health Center and Wally’s Bagels.
- Tappan repeated her concern about what she would be responsible for in a year.
- Tappan said that the next item for clarification are the signs that say “one way traffic” and “additional parking” in the rear.
- Corbin said that cars entering from Route 2 would not know about parking at the rear of the store without a sign that tells them about the additional parking. Once they are in the back, the one-way sign will prevent cars parked in back from exiting past the take-out window. Cars parked along the take-out window will exit in either direction.
- Tappan said that she wanted to share the changes in lighting she is planning to address the Board’s concerns. D. Nedde said that they applicant is planning to eliminate the three existing poles – two on Route 2 and one in the back which are owned by VEC. The one on Route 2 is the one shining on the house to the rear. The applicant is installing three replacement poles which will put light directly on the lot itself and avoid illuminating the neighboring properties.
- Taylor-Varney said that so long as the plan comports with regulations she can handle approval of the lighting administratively as a part of issuing the Certificate of Occupancy.
- Nedde said that the last item was #9 which concerned 2 port-o-lets to be placed in the rear of the building. The applicant is thinking about substituting two composting toilets in the rear of the building and wanted to know how that would be approved.
- Kilcoyne observed that they would be adding on to the building to accommodate the toilets.
- Nedde confirmed that they would be adding two spaces of about 10’ x 12’ to accommodate the toilets, which would be handicapped-accessible. The location would likely be in the back where the port-o-lets are today.
- Nedde said that they were working with the State for relevant permits. M. Taylor-Varney said that a Town building permit would be required for the addition.
- Corbin asked if the store would be open when the ice cream was open in order to provide access to the toilets. H. Tappan said they would have to consider that question.
Emily Lee said that bicyclists and others use the current port-o-lets off-hours when the business is closed. She also agreed that the light that shines on her parent’s adjacent house is the big tall light out by the road. She also expressed concern about light from headlights from traffic exiting onto South Street. S. Corbin observed that during the late season when it is dark earlier, traffic volume will be less and customers will likely park out front.
The Board returned to the issue of the height of the sign and upon examination of the elevation of the building from Google Street View, determined that the sign was below the highest point on the roof of the building complex.
- Maxham said in summary that the Board has to look at what the applicant is proposing, also considering the history of what they’ve seen during past summers. The applicant is proposing parking in front, along the side, and in back where there is no parking today. The applicant is changing the flow of traffic so the Board has to consider safety, and doesn’t know how people will adjust to change, which is why although the Board is requesting only minimal changes, the Board is asking the applicant to come back in a year to evaluate how well parking is working.
- Taylor-Varney asked the Board to confirm that it will allow her to administratively approve whatever happens on the port-o-lets and lights. S. Corbin said she was OK with administrative approval provided that any addition to the building is only to service the composting toilets. T. Maxham suggested that the Board needs to give the Zoning Administrator approval to deal with the light and restrooms to avoid having a site plan revision.
- Corbin made a motion to allow the Zoning Administrator to approve an addition to the building for restrooms only, to approve a lighting plan that meets the bylaws, and to approve that the sign can stay as it currently is. R. Brown seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by acclamation.
Review of Minutes
- Brown moved to accept the minutes of March 13th. The motion was seconded by N. Hayward. The motion passed unanimously by acclamation.
The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).
April 10th. The schedule for this meeting includes a sketch plan review for a 6-lot subdivision on the Lavin property, an amendment of Condition #4 for the Richardson property concerning the setback of the property from the road, and a deliberative session for Lighthouse Estates.
April 24th. The April 24th meeting will consider the Lavin property final plat, and a conditional use and site plan for Carol Eagan, who is proposing a child care center at the top of Carter Lane.
May 10th. This meeting will consider an appeal for zoning violations for the Zlotoff garage on Landon Road and the bottom floor of the Tool Museum.
- Kilcoyne move to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation at 8:22 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.