SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD October 24th, 2018
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown, Sherry Corbin; Nate Hayward; Gareth Hunt
Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)
Members Absent: Liza Kilcoyne;
Public Present: Catherine Dingle; Joseph Flynn; Daniel Troidl; Karola Troidl; Ruby Brezinski; Robert Wigness; Brereton Hall; M Blasberg; Gretchen Patterson; Samera Hilliker; Judy Duval; Beverly Blakely; Ethelyn Dubuque; Mark Clifford
Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by T. Maxham
Changes to Agenda: None.
Public Input: None.
Hearing: 19-06-RT318 Continuation: Site Plan Review of Granny’s Attic
- Maxham re-opened the hearing at 7:02 p.m.
- Patterson recused himself for this hearing.
Notice & Oath
- Maxham noted that all members of the audience were present at the original hearing and had been administered the oath.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant:
Samera Hilliker
Hearing Notes
- Maxham said that Granny’s Attic had submitted a written request for a waiver for the following elements of a site plan: 1) show contours, 2) show vegetation, 3) show existing structures and access across Route 2, 4) show building elevations. S. Corbin made a motion to enter the request into the record and grant the waivers; R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.
- Maxham requested a motion to enter the new site plan into the record. S. Corbin made the motion; R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.
Samera Hilliker thanked D. Patterson for assistance with the site plan and said that the site plan shows everything requested by the Board at the September meeting, including parking spaces and traffic flow.
- Maxham asked how many cars could be accommodated in the parking area. Sam Hilliker said the parking lot could hold a maximum 20 cars at once. S. Corbin asked are the parking spots on the Fifield property that are shown on the site plan accessible to Granny’s Attic. Sam Hilliker said that the parking spaces on the Fifield property are reserved for use by Blue Paddle and not available to Granny’s Attic. S. Corbin asked what the hash marks on the site plan represented. Sam Hilliker replied that the hash marks indicated parking for the red building, and that there are a total of 23 spaces without counting spaces on the Blue Paddle lot and the Fifield property.
- Corbin asked whether we know for sure that this will be a free municipal parking lot. M. Taylor-Varney replied that the town has designated it as a municipal lot. S. Corbin asked if the lot will be signed as such. M. Taylor-Varney replied that it would not be signed at present. R. Brown noted that signage marks the entrance and the exit. S. Corbin said that she was concerned that without designated spaces, Granny’s Attic could come in on a Saturday morning and find the lot full due to an event such as a bike ride, 10K run or other event.
- Hilliker offered that Granny’s Attic could put up sandwich board signs on Friday night to designate Granny’s Attic parking, and pick the signs up a close of business on Saturday. S. Corbin said that would solve the problem. S. Corbin suggested permanent signage indicating the days/hours parking is reserved for Granny’s Attic. T. Maxham suggested and S. Corbin concurred with the approach of leaving the issue of parking signage up to Granny’s Attic and the Town to work out.
- Brown made a motion to accept the site plan as complete; R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.
- Maxham noted that 6 Board members sitting for this application including the alternate, J. Brightwell, sat in on original and subsequent portion of the hearings for this applicant.
The hearing was closed by T. Maxham at 7:18 p.m.
Hearing: 19-13-FL058 Continuation: Change In Conditional Use Review – Hall/Blasberg
- Maxham re-opened the hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Notice & Oath
- Maxham noted that all members of the audience were present at the original hearing and had been administered the oath.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant:
Catherine Dingle, Esq.
Hearing Notes:
- Dingle said that the Board had requested additional information during the site visit and wanted to make sure the Board knew that the information had been provided, including the measurement from the drip line of the roof to the boundary line. The information was provided October 1 by email, and indicates that at one end the building is 11.03 feet from the property boundary; at the other end, the building is 12.86 feet from the property boundary.
- Maxham said additional information was provided at the site visit. C. Dingle said that the information provided at the site visit had previously been given to the Zoning Administrator, and consisted of the revised numbers based on the additional information obtained at the hearing. This information modified the numbers that were provided with the application, and are included in the memo dated September 27th. The information was provided again at the site visit as a convenience to the Board.
- Maxham asked about another letter dated Sept 27 from Mr. Flynn that had been submitted. C. Dingle said that the letter from Flynn was submitted accompanying the memorandum. The letter from Flynn corrected his original figures provided at the hearing with information from the Listers’ cards, and shows the encroachments into the setback area.
- Maxham requested a motion to accept the memorandum from September 27th; including the letter from Flynn, plus his updated aerial map/drawing. S. Corbin made the motion, which was seconded by G. Hunt and passed by acclamation.
- Maxham requested a motion to accept the email and drawing attachment from C. Dingle dated October 1st into the record, showing distance between dripline and boundary line on both corners of the building along the property line. R. Brown made the motion; motion was seconded by S. Corbin and passed by acclamation.
- Dingle said that a letter from the builder should have been received. The letter stated that the building was 99% finished by the time the applicant discovered there was a boundary line issue. J. Brightwell asked if that date was June 12th. Brereton Hall said that June 7th was the date that the stakes were put in along the line. C. Dingle said that she was not exactly sure what the date was.
- Dingle apologized for not being able to get the email submitted from the builder, and asked if it could be submitted to the Zoning Administrator tomorrow. M. Taylor-Varney said that she had been asked a week ago if the email from the builder had been received, and had not yet received the email, noting that the builder was just up the road.
- Hunt questioned accuracy of the map with the old and new building footprints superimposed. C. Dingle this is an estimation calculated by surveyor based on the satellite image and his calculations and is not exact.
- Dingle said in summary, based on what was heard in testimony and the site visit, there is some animosity between the neighbors. The neighbors on either side of Bret Hall and Nancy Blasberg are related. Ms. Troidl is the daughter of Mr. Wigness. The applicant is hoping that the Board will consider this application as if it was made prior to construction.
- Patterson asked why the applicants were hoping that the application would be considered as submitted prior to construction. R. Brown said that’s my question too since it was not submitted prior to construction.
- Dingle said that the only reason the applicant believes he can ask the Board to consider the application as if it were submitted prior to construction is that the ordinance is a permissive ordinance. Nancy and Bret would have made this application had they known where the boundary line was. D. Patterson asked whose responsibility it was to know where the boundary line was. C. Dingle replied that it was the applicants’, and they made a mistake.
- Brown said that this could have been a variance request if submitted prior to construction. C. Dingle said that this would not have been a variance request because you cannot create a situation that requires a variance. The Town has an ordinance that permits the Board to grant permission for new construction that reduces the non-conformity on a lot. That’s what the applicant is asking for. R. Brown said normally this would be brought to the Board before construction. C. Dingle answered absolutely; it would have been brought to you if my clients had known. R. Brown said that from the prior testimony it was his understanding that every opportunity was given to the applicant to check those boundaries. C. Dingle said that the applicant thought they checked the boundaries the way they were required to and they were mistaken.
- Maxham said that we are holding a hearing to get the facts; the board has been presented the facts, and discussion was more relevant to the Board’s deliberations than to hearing testimony. The Board understands the idea of granting conditional use based on reducing the non-conformity, and will take that into consideration.
- Corbin said the building permit reads that you will be 15 or 18 feet back from the property line. If you knew where the property line was would you still build this building beyond the setback, or would you have been coming in for this hearing? Brereton Hall said there’s a large cedar tree that’s to the south side off the property line that had been hit several times by trucks coming in. It would have made it tough to turn, so yes he still would have tried to be within the 15’ but probably would have had to change the plan for where the garage is because the circulation is very tight with that cedar tree. It’s a beautiful tree, he didn’t’ want to get rid of it; he had to take part of it out because it had been hit a couple of times. C. Dingle said that in order to construct what the applicant wanted to build they would have had to ask for some leeway on that 15’ setback in order to take the cars in and out of the driveway. D. Patterson suggested they could alternatively change the plan. C. Dingle said yes, but I think they would have asked you for this permit. D. Patterson said yes, but that’s where our prerogative comes in either granting or denying the conditions; the Board can set conditions. C. Dingle agreed, and said what she was asking is that the Board consider the application as though it were submitted before the building was built. D. Patterson said he thought that was ludicrous.
- Maxham opened the hearing for public comment.
Statement of Karola and Dan Troidl
Karola Troidl said that two issues have arisen since last hearing. We have had substantial rain, which made us aware of runoff from 58 Featherbed. The new garage is much higher and has a larger roof surface area. All of this means that the runoff of rain and snow will fall rapidly towards our property. We saw this in the recent rainstorm as new patterns of water runoff have been created by the construction. Unfortunately Hall/Blasberg have altered the slope of the land; they have graded the land, in some cases in the setback area. They have added a higher slope in the setback area for a ramp which is 7’ wide and 10” high that slopes downward 9’ toward our property, all in the area only 13’ from our property line.
With building this size, and a roof of this magnitude along with a steep pitch there should not be a permit allowing encroachment into the setback. There was no need for them to build and encroach.
Also since our last hearing, Hall/Blasberg have submitted another aerial map/drawing depicting the footprint and size of the prior structures. These figures still do not conform in size to that of the Listers, which are based on physical inspection. The aerial map is altered and distorted by the superimposed printing. Surveyor Flynn has no methodology or authority to cite for what he has done. In this new submission, he has substantially modified his figures calculating square footage for the prior structures, further demonstrating how much error is in his statements. We reject this and dispute their claims. Hall/Blasberg are asking the Board to adopt speculative and unreliable data to advance their improper behavior and impacting our property.
- Corbin asked what the material for the ramp is. Discussion concluded that the material was similar to Surepak (crushed pebble and fines).
- Maxham requested a motion to enter 5 photos submitted by the Troidls into the record. The motion was made by R. Brown, seconded by G. Hunt, and passed by acclamation.
- Troidl reminded the board that they had earlier submitted dated photos from May that showed the project was not 99% done as described by the applicants.
- Dingle said in response to the Troidls’ statement that she assumed that any objections to the building permit would have been made during the permitting process. There were none made.
- Maxham said the Board understands what the applicant is asking for and will take it under advisement.
- Maxham closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Hearing: 19-15-MR067 Continuation: Variance Request – Mark Clifford
- Maxham reopened the hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Notice & Oath
- Maxham noted that all members of the audience were present at the original hearing and had been administered the oath.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant
Mark Clifford
Hearing Notes
- Maxham said the hearing was re-opened to allow the applicant to inform the Board on the results of his research regarding the Martin Road road right-of-way in front of his property.
Mark Clifford said he can’t definitively tell where Martin road ends. Pat Corbin says it goes up to her barn. S. Corbin asked when the last time was that cows were milked on Pat’s farm. Mark said that he didn’t think she ever worked it as an active farm.
Mark Clifford said he has the original deeds to the 3 parcels now comprising his property, that were sold at different times in the original Shadowland subdivision. One deed refers to the main highway (Martin Road), the second and third lot deeds refer to it as the Larrow Farm road and the road to the lake. Martha, Jonathan and Mark looked through the records and couldn’t find anything that refers to how far Martin Road goes, and how wide the right-of-way is. The road probably hasn’t changed since 1930’s. The garage Mark is proposing to build is 22’ from the center of the road, probably in the town ROW. He’s wondering if he can move it back a few feet but it would kill the tree behind the garage.
- Taylor-Varney said that Mark’s current lot was made up of 3 original lots #150, 151, 152 from the Shadowland subdivision. She said that she had not been able to determine when town roads were deemed to have a 50’ right of way. Based on the geometry of the original lots, she said Martin Road (and the public right of way) might have ended before Mark’s lot. She has looked at Marie and William Corbin’s deed, which does not refer to that farm as being on Martin Road. The town road inventory says Martin Road is .65 miles; it is .6 miles to Mark’s driveway, and another .05 miles up to the barn at the Corbin Farm past Mark’s property. The Corbin’s have a Martin Road address; the snowplow turns around at the base of the Corbin driveway.
- Corbin asked if the Board has the authority to make the decision on where Martin Road terminates and what the right-of-way is. M. Taylor-Varney said no, the Selectboard does.
- Brown said that the real question is where does Martin Road end. And where does it become a private road?
After discussion, the Board suggested that without a survey it does not have enough information to make a determination. The primary avenues for Mr. Clifford to pursue are to (1) hire a licensed surveyor to attempt to resolve the issue as to where Martin Road ends and where the right-of-way is, or (2) ask the Selectboard to make a determination where the road ends, which might require hiring a surveyor to develop facts to present to the Selectboard, (3) make the garage smaller so that it is clearly not within the road right-of-way. Mr. Clifford may be able to do some of the research himself to lower costs.
At the request of Mr. Clifford, the Board decided to recess the hearing to provide Mr. Clifford more time to develop his alternatives. S. Corbin made a motion to recess to December 12th. The motion was seconded by R. Brown, and passed by acclamation.
1:37M
Review of Minutes
- Patterson moved to accept the minutes of minutes of October 10th. The motion was seconded by S. Corbin and passed by acclamation.
Administrator’s Report
The Administrator’s Report was delivered by Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)
- The next meeting of the Board is November 14th. The agenda includes an application by Island Crafts for a conditional use and site plan in the old rescue building, and deliberative sessions for Hall/Blasberg & Granny’s Attic.
- As yet, there is nothing scheduled for November 28th.
- There is only one meeting in December – on December 12th
- The Richardson ACT 250 hearing is Friday October 26th (site visit at 9:30; hearing at 10:30) in the South Hero town hall.
Adjournment
- Hunt move to adjourn the business meeting and go to deliberative. The motion was seconded by D. Patterson 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.