SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD May 22, 2019
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Ross Brown; Sherry Corbin; Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne
Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator); Jim Brightwell (alternate & Clerk)
Members Absent: None
Public Present: Carol Egan; Jim Cobb
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-RT275 (Lavin 6-Lot Subdivision Final Plat Review)
- Maxham recused himself from the hearing and turned the hearing over to the Vice Chair, D. Patterson.
- Patterson said that the DRB had been requested by the applicant to recess the hearing until June 26th.
- Patterson made a motion to recess the hearing until June 26th. The motion was seconded by S. Corbin and passed by acclamation.
- Patterson closed hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Hearing: 19-48-RT266 (Eagan Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Childcare Center)
- Maxham opened the hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Notice & Oath
The hearing was continued from recess last month. T. Maxham noted that the applicants had been sworn in last time so did not repeat the oath.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant:
Carol Eagan, Jim Cobb.
- Maxham noted that R. Brown had not attended the original hearing but could vote on the matter if no one objected since the Board would fully review the application this evening. No objections were heard.
- Egan said that J. Buermann had done another revision of the site plan showing the fenced area in the front, the renovation to the back porch, the fenced in area in the back with sidewalk and additional parking for staff in the back portion of the lot.
- Corbin asked if the back fenced area would be attached to the house. C. Egan said that it would not be attached, but there is a back door and a walkway to the fenced area.
- Kilcoyne asked what the applicant thought about the suggestion for additional parking made in the previous session. C. Egan said that they had incorporated the idea of additional parking in the revised site plan submitted this evening, and that the staff will park in the rear lot, leaving seven spaces for customers.
- Kilcoyne asked whether arrivals and departures are mostly at the beginning and ending of the day, or scattered throughout the day. C. Egan said that although some staff would arrive and depart mid-day, the majority of customers would arrive at the beginning and ending of the day.
- Corbin asked if the applicant felt that the parking was overkill. C. Egan said that the parking was outside of her budget right now but that parking will be phased in. She is hoping for grant money to help pay for outside improvements.
- Kilcoyne asked if the applicant felt that the parking requirement is overkill. C. Egan said that it was hard to tell and referred to the table in the regulations that referenced parking. She said that in the interim at least one spot would be left open for arrivals/departures. M. Taylor-Varney said that the regulations were not specific for this type of use.
- Taylor-Varney asked how long a drop-off would take. C. Egan said that arrivals/departures would be staggered; she guessed each would take 10-20 minutes.
- Maxham asked what the total number of students would be at the end of both phases – infants initially plus preschoolers in a year. C. Egan said that the existing septic limited them to 12 children and 5 adults, and that they may not bring in more kids until they had supporting septic capacity.
- Maxham asked what the thinking was on lighting the back of the lot where the staff parking is. C. Egan said that J. Buermann thought that exterior building illumination would be sufficient. T. Maxham said that in his experience it might not and suggested that it might be more cost-effective to put electrical in while doing groundwork. He said that a neighbor had been to the initial session of the hearing and had asked about lighting so the applicant would want to be careful about having lighting that projected beyond the lot. T. Maxham said that if the parking lot is constructed in a later phase, the Board can condition the permit to allow that. T. Maxham said that the applicant should be careful to ensure that customers do not park in the right-of-way.
- Maxham asked if there was any more information regarding the fire escape. C. Eagan said that there will be a final inspection but that she hadn’t had any further conversation with the fire marshal. She said that the existing fire escape on the 2nd floor is fine since there won’t be children on that floor, and the rest of the building will have a commercial-grade fire protection system.
- Kilcoyne asked what the planned opening date was. C. Egan said mid-August, with a soft opening planned for mid-July.
- Taylor-Varney asked if the facility was limited to serving children from Vermont. C. Egan said that they could serve children from New York.
There being no other questions, T. Maxham closed the hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Review of Minutes
- Patterson moved to accept the minutes of May 8th, which was seconded by L. Kilcoyne. The motion passed by acclamation.
The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator).
The following hearings are scheduled:
- Conditional use and site plan for food truck on the property of the Keeler Bay Marina and Campground.
- Change in conditional use for a home on Providence Island that is being torn down.
- Site plan and conditional use for a brew pub on Route 2 adjacent to the fire station. N. Hayward and Kilcoyne will recuse; S. Corbin will be absent. All other members are requested to attend.
- Review of a final plat for Lavin subdivision on Route 2.
The spring planning and zoning forum is June 18th. R. Brown and M. Taylor-Varney are going.
- Corbin move to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by G. Hunt and carried by acclamation at 7:35 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.