August 22, 2018 DRB Minutes | Town of Town of South Hero

SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD August 22, 2018

Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown; Nate Hayward; Bob Krebs (alternate)

Members Absent: Sherry Corbin; Gareth Hunt; Liza Kilcoyne

Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Public Present: Paul Boisvert; Mitchel Richardson; Sandy Gregg; Joan Falcao; Kurt & Deb Sherman

Call to Order: Meeting was called to order by T. Maxham at 7:00 p.m.

Changes to Agenda: None

Public Input: None.

Hearing: 19-09-FR138 Revision to Conditional Use and Site Plan Review – 18-48-FR138 Mitchel Richardson

Tim Maxham opened the hearing at 7:05 p.m.

Notice & Oath

Patterson read the hearing warning. T. Maxham administered the oath to the attending members of the public.

Appearing on behalf of the applicant:

Mitchel Richardson Owner/Applicant

Paul Boisvert Engineering Ventures

Boisvert gave an overview of the revised site plan. Previously, the applicant requested a building of approximately 3000 square feet with 36 parking spaces, with access from Rte. 314 at the top of the knoll for better sight distance in both directions than the current agricultural access. The closest neighbors are to the (west) side (indicating the Sherman Farm). The previous and revised site plan features a berm to divert runoff on the west side, storm water treatment and gravel wetlands on the (north) side, driveway access to Rte. 314 on the east side, frontage to Rte. 314 on the south side, and utility connections to the existing well and power pole on the west side.
Brightwell requested clarification as to whether the drive (access from Rte. 314) had changed from the previous proposal. P. Boisvert indicated that the drive had the same slope but different alignment to the large (oversize) entry door on the east side of the building.

In the revised site plan, the edge of pavement on the Rte. 314 side is the same, while the building is 10 feet closer to Rte. 314. On the east side, the building is the same distance from the edge of the parking area, while on the west side, the building is 6 feet closer to the edge, so there is a little less pavement on that side.

In the revised plan, access for vehicles is on the east and west side, and access for people is on the north side. The new site plan features 56 parking spaces. The elevation is 34’-8”, the same as the previous proposal. The building size is 7880 square feet vs approximately 3000 in the previous site plan. Utility connections remain the same as in the previous proposal, with power and well on the west side, and waste line going north from the building site to the septic located in Grand Isle.

The site size is sub-jurisdictional with regards to the storm water system, but the applicant is building the storm water system as though applying for the permit, and has considered 1, 10, 25, and 50 year storms in the design.

Brightwell requested that the major differences in the current and previous site plans be highlighted. P. Boisvert highlighted that the building orientation is rotated so that the bays are on the east and west sides rather than on the north and south side. The building position is a little closer to 315 on the south side; 6 feet further out on the west side; more parking (+20 spaces); the storm water system is scaled up.
Brightwell asked if there is now no parking on the south side of the building. P. Boisvert confirmed that parking on the south side of the building (facing 314) was removed in the new site plan. J. Brightwell asked if the parking and driveway area square feet is now also larger. P. Boisvert confirmed that the area is larger, and likely grew from about .6 acres impervious surface to .95 acres, but was not sure of the exact figures. J. Brightwell asked in which direction the lot expanded; P. Boisvert said that the expansion of the lot was primarily to the north compared to the previous plan.
Maxham asked where the handicapped parking would be. P. Boisvert indicated that the HC parking space was on the east side of the building near the driveway entrance from Rte. 314. With discussion, P. Boisvert and T. Maxham agreed that as the main people entrance is now on the north side, the HC parking should be moved.
Brightwell asked for confirmation of his understanding that automotive and farm equipment would be repaired inside the building, and the need to accommodate large farm equipment was the motivation for the increase in the size of the structure and alignment of the oversize doors with the driveway entrance to the parking area. P. Boisvert confirmed that farm equipment and autos would be repaired in the building, and that the doors were aligned so that large equipment could be driven from the driveway directly into the oversize door opposite the driveway. On the east side of the structure, equipment can exit through an oversize door to the driveway on the west side. J. Brightwell asked if there was sufficient space for turning on the west side. P. Boisvert said that ran simulations of vehicles with a 30’ wheelbase exiting and turning, and that the driveway design was based on those simulations. T. Maxham observed and P. Boisvert confirmed that the width of the driveway on the west side was 40’.
Boisvert said that in the new proposal, the applicant anticipates having 6 employees, vs. the 4 employees in the prior proposal. P. Boisvert said that anticipated use of the larger bays would be 50/50 between ag equipment and other vehicles.
Brightwell asked if the proposal includes repairing equipment other than that owned by the applicant. M. Richardson replied that they would repair other agriculture equipment. J. Brightwell asked if the other equipment would be brought in on flatbed trucks; M. Richardson replied that they would drive in. J. Brightwell asked if this meant that Mr. Richardson expected to service largely on-island equipment. M. Richardson confirmed that he expected to service largely on-island equipment.
Boisvert indicated that erosion prevention/sediment control was largely the same as in the previous proposal. Everything is flowing in a west and northerly direction so they are looking at silt fence and check dams in the swales they are creating. The gravel beds would be built last, after the site had stabilized. Construction entrances will be built on the ends; there will be soil stockpiles which will be temporary.
Patterson asked if the area for the gravel beds would have to be cleaned out before the gravel treatment was put in. P. Boisvert confirmed, and said that the gravel beds were basically a horizontal filter, where water comes in from the top of the incline, flows down into the open gravel media where there is an anaerobic environment that removes sediment and phosphorus. There is a two-cell system which provides a two-step treatment.

The proposed landscaping is similar to what was presented in the original proposal: apple trees at the entrance sign, swamp white oak along the drive, on the berm a combination of arborvitae in groups and white pines, and autumn blaze (maple) along the parking lot and in the parking lot islands. Rain garden plantings consist of native wetland plants in the storm water treatment areas.

Taylor-Varney said that in the original proposal there was split-rail fencing along the parking lot to visually designate parking spaces and that this feature did not appear on the current plan. P. Boisvert and M. Richardson agreed that they still planned to have the split-rail fence.
Maxham asked if the islands in the parking area were sized to indicate two spaces. P. Boisvert confirmed. T. Maxham observed that the proposal specifies parking spaces of 9’ x 18’, whereas town regulations call for 9’ x 20’. M. Taylor-Varney observed that the previous proposal had specified 9’ x 20’. P. Boisvert confirmed that they would bring the proposal up to 9’ x 20’. T. Maxham asked what the width of the aisle was between the two parking rows. P. Boisvert said the aisle width was 24’. T. Maxham said that he was concerned that if the parking spaces on either side of the aisle were increased to 20’, the aisle might not be wide enough.
Boisvert said that the lighting plan was created by a professional lighting consultant. The applicant is presenting two alternatives, one alternative with lighting along the entrance drive, and a second alternative without lighting along the entrance drive, and is requesting feedback from the board on which alternative is preferred. The brightest illumination on the property is about 5 foot-candles along the entrance on the back side of the building, away from Rte. 314. Otherwise light levels are low, ranging from 1 to 3 foot-candles, and dropping off quickly at the edges. M. Richardson said he was presenting the alternative with lighting along the driveway in response to comments made earlier by the board; he was not pushing that alternative.
Brightwell asked to be reminded what the proposed hours of operation will be. M. Richardson responded 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. J. Brightwell asked if the lights were on during business hours only. M. Richardson said that lighting engineer was hired to ensure that they could light the property when it is dark for security reasons (lights will be on a photocell to turn off during the day) without unnecessarily contributing to light pollution.
Brightwell asked if opening the oversize doors after dark would allow a lot of light to spill out into the neighborhood, especially towards the neighbors and Rte. 314 to the west. M. Richardson said they hadn’t considered this, but he plans to store the wrecker in the east bay (facing the agriculture area) so that no light would be let out towards the west on emergency calls.
Brightwell asked if there were any visual barriers towards the Sherman’s farm to the west that would stop any light spilling out. P. Boisvert pointed to the trees planted on the berm, which will start out at 6 feet high.
Maxham asked the applicant to explain why he was back before the board asking for a building twice the size of the original application. M. Richardson explained that they had a preliminary meeting with the Act 250 District Coordinator, who indicated that all repair work should be performed inside, driving the requirement for a larger building. M. Richardson stated that 3000 sq. ft. of the building space was for the drive through, to be used to service agricultural equipment, so that all work could be done indoors.
Brightwell asked the reason for the requirement that all work be done indoors. P. Boisvert said that the Act 250 coordinator they were working with was interim District Coordinator Susan Baird. M. Richardson said that they were pursuing the Act 250 approval simultaneously with town approval, and so far had only had a preliminary meeting with Ms. Baird. M. Richardson said that he was not provided the reason why all work had to be done indoors. J. Brightwell said that the town was being asked to look at a fairly large building, and that it would be helpful to explain to residents the logic of why the building had to be so large. M. Richardson said that the Act 250 requirements for esthetics were very stringent, which was why the building had an agricultural appearance, and all parking was to the rear. He felt that for a business, he was set back quite far from the road.
Hayward asked if there was still a 2^nd floor, and if the square footage provided included the upstairs. M. Richardson replied that there was a small second floor only in the center, and that the square footage figure provided was only for the footprint.
Hayward asked if it was suggested or mandated that repair work only be done inside. M. Richardson replied that it was suggested by the interim District Coordinator.
Brightwell asked if given the scale of the building there was any consideration to moving the building further back into the property. Given the diagram, you’re looking at a building that’s on average two stories high over approximately 8000 square feet. J. Brightwell asked how many feet from the road the building was, and how big it would appear from Rte. 315. J. Brightwell cited for comparison the fire station at 6500 sq. ft., at about 250’ back from the road, while the proposed building is about 120’ back from the road. J. Brightwell also cited the new garage in Grand Isle, which is reportedly 9200 sq. ft. and appears to be further back from road. J. Brightwell suggested that a way to mitigate the size would be to push the building further back from the road. M. Richardson said that he was attempting to build an esthetically pleasing structure. M. Richardson said that he wanted to build on the shallower soils nearer the road ; further back the soils were higher quality.
Hayward observed that if you’re driving down 314 abreast of the proposed building, you’re about 8’ higher than the floor of the proposed building, which will mitigate the visual impact to passers-by.
Richardson said that he didn’t want to put a big square building out there, and that is the reason behind the architectural features. N. Hayward observed that the proposed building is less commercial looking than the original proposal, with the main entrance and bays now located on the side and back.
Taylor-Varney asked if the applicant would be willing to move the building further back. M. Richardson answered yes, but emphasized that he still had this application pending with Act 250. M. Taylor-Varney asked if M. Richardson would be willing to ask the State if he could move the building further back on the property. M. Richardson responded yes.
Taylor-Varney said that she understood that the entire property is in current use, whereas in the original application, the building was sited based on the understanding that its location was not in current use, having been the site of a previous structure. M. Richardson confirmed. M. Taylor-Varney said that now that we understand that the State is agreeable to having a mixed use building built on land that is in current use, it might open up the option to move the structure elsewhere. M. Taylor-Varney said that she felt the town would like to know what the options are.
Richardson said that two things to keep in mind are that the further away from utilities the more expensive, and tillable ag land. M. Taylor-Varney observed that the land is currently grazing land. M. Richardson asked where the town would propose to put the building.
Krebs observed that the new Island Auto Haven garage in Grand Isle was larger than the proposed building, and didn’t look out of scale to him. J. Brightwell said that he thought that the Island Auto Haven building looked set back from the highway about the same distance as the new South Hero fire station.
Richardson said that he believed the setback met the Act 250 guidelines so further setback would not likely cause a problem with them.
Krebs said we owe the applicant some guidance. D. Patterson agreed. T. Maxham said he felt that Act 250 should be at the table, otherwise South Hero could give guidance but Act 250 could then give a different guidance.
Patterson asked if the applicant could provide a timeline for the Act 250 steps. P. Boisvert responded that the timeline was variable and depended on whether a hearing was requested. He confirmed that Act 250 notifies abutters and places notices of hearings in the paper.
Hayward said that he felt the new building is less imposing as the gables are rotated 90 degrees (to parallel to instead of facing the road) and the elevation begins 8’ below the grade of the road.
Maxham asked what the footprint of the building is. M. Richardson said roughly 70’ x 100’. The wings of the building are approximately 20’ high (doors are 16’). T. Maxham said that for comparison, his barn was 200’, and he did not feel that it was out of scale. J. Brightwell asked how far back his barn was from the highway, and T. Maxham replied 200’. J. Brightwell suggested that this distance helped make the barn less imposing and was roughly what he was suggesting for the applicant’s setback.
Richardson said that he asked that he not be held to a different standard than everyone else. R. Brown clarified that the applicant was not being held to a different standard.
Krebs asked if there were any change in peak traffic movements. M. Richardson stated that he was not anticipating additional business, but the traffic numbers were based on square footage, of which 3000 sq. ft. are related to the repair of agricultural equipment. R. Krebs asked why the applicant was also doubling his parking. Applicant responded that he had calculated the new parking requirement by interpolating the earlier suggestion of the DRB for number of spaces by the additional square feet of the new building, an amount which exceeds the town’s regulatory requirement. R. Krebs suggested that the board clarify that the additional parking is not required. R. Krebs asked if any conditions imposed by the town in the original approval caused any heartburn. M. Richardson replied no.
Maxham opened the meeting to public input.

Kurt Sherman, an abutter to the west, addressed the board. He said that he thought that the site plan was agreed to with approval of the initial site plan, and could not believe that another meeting was requested for another modification. He expected that a modification was required by Act 250, but could not believe that the request was for a building more than double the original size. Mr. Sherman stated that he felt he was being jerked around. He said he felt that the adjacent landowners were not happy. He said he wanted a compromise, and believed that landowners have the right to use their land as they see fit. He said he had heard a lot about prime agricultural land in the hearing, but if the land is so prime, how can the building size be doubled? He also expressed concern about the maintenance of the visual barrier along his property boundary. Mr. Sherman said that while the applicant had rights, he felt that the neighbors also had rights.

Deb Sherman also addressed the board. She questioned whether the board had received confirmation from Act 250 that the building size needed to be doubled. She also reminded the board that it was a building for commercial use as well as ag use. She questioned the absence of space for parking ag equipment in the plan, was concerned that additional equipment would be parked on the farm, and expressed a concern that this would contribute to the collection of apparently inoperative equipment already on the farm.

The board resumed discussion after public input. J. Brightwell asked if the town had the ability to communicate with Act 250 coordinators, and wanted to see if we could make sure that Act 250 would not have a problem with pushing the building back from the road before the town made that a requirement.

Patterson noted that the applicant had presented two lighting options, and asked if the applicant preferred Option 1 (no lighting along the driveway) or Option 2 (lighting along the driveway). M. Richardson stated that he preferred Option 1.
Krebs stated that the state does not have any setback standards other than esthetics, which can be subjective. M. Taylor-Varney asked if she could contact the Act 250 District Coordinator to try to reduce the likelihood that the applicant would be caught between two conflicting directives. R. Krebs said he felt that it would be appropriate to make that call.
Richardson stated that the proposal before the town had also been submitted to Act 250, and that he expected only minor changes based on the preliminary meeting with the District Coordinator.
Krebs said that the increased size of the building appeared to be driven by the state’s requirement to do all work indoors, and he suggested that the applicant might want to challenge that. He indicated that the applicant was entitled to request a hearing on a specific issue. R. Brown also suggested that the applicant might want to push back.
Richardson said that he is in a time crunch to move out of his current location and was not anxious to take actions such as challenging the state’s suggestion that would cause additional delay.
Maxham asked Mr. Richardson that if the board closed the hearing, with the possibility of imposing a condition to push the building back up to 40’, and perhaps giving the applicant the ability to reduce the number of parking spaces, whether Mr. Richardson would have a problem with that. Mr. Henderson replied “no.”
Hayward said that if the building was pushed back or parking reduced, the board is then not voting on a final site plan. T. Maxham said that the board could require the applicant to file an “as built” site plan. M. Richardson expressed a concern that the current plan has been submitted to Act 250 and any further changes could cause delay.
Maxham asked the board for suggestions on how to proceed. N. Hayward suggested closing the hearing and voting on what was presented. R. Brown, J. Brightwell, and D. Patterson agreed.
Brown moved to close hearing; N. Hayward seconded. The motion passed by acclamation. Chair T. Maxham closed the hearing.

Review of Minutes

The minutes were discussed and corrected. T. Maxham moved to accept the minutes of July 11^th as amended. R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation, with N. Hayward and R. Krebs abstaining as they were not present at that meeting.

Administrator’s Report

The Administrator’s Report was delivered by M. Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Martha has copies of original decision for Richardson.

The next meeting will be September 12^th to consider an application by Grannie’s Attic. D. Patterson indicated that he will recuse himself for that hearing. The hearing for Grannie’s Attic will be warned tomorrow.

The deliberative for Richardson will also be on September 12^th.

Adjournment

Brightwell moved to adjourn the business meeting; the motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation. The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 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.