SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 28, 2028
6:30 PM Site Visit at 99 Phoebe Lane – from sign-in sheet
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice-Chair); Gareth Hunt; Jim Brightwell; Liza Kilcoyne; Nate Hayward; Mike Welch.
Others Present: R. Okner; Mari Okner; Mike and Michele Gammal; Frank Montani; 2 illegible signatures.
7:00PM Meeting at Town Office
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice-Chair); Gareth Hunt; Jim Brightwell; Liza Kilcoyne; Nate Hayward; Mike Welch.
Others Present: Mike and Michele Gammal; Bob and Mari Okner; Frank Montani; Tim Montani; Matt Bartle; Darren Orr; Mike Wickenden; George and Samantha Hoffer; Martha Taylor-Varney (ZA).
7:00PM – M. Maxham opened the meeting and introduced the Board.
Changes to the Agenda
There were none.
Public Input
None.
7:05PM — Site Plan Amendment for PUD #21-59-RT456 at 99 Phoebe Lane (#25-05-PB099)
The warning was read and interested persons sworn in.
Mike and Michel Gammal presented to the Board. They told the Board that they are the owners of 99 Phoebe Lane. The recently completed house has been placed incorrectly on the site, outside the building envelope on the west and east sides. It conforms to the north and south lot boundaries. The height of the house was restricted to no more than 25 feet, measured from average natural grade. Mike told the Board that the definition in the Development Regulations of average natural grade includes measuring from the “pre-construction grade.” He argues that that is the grade created after site work, before the construction begins. Multiple excavations on the property since they’ve owned it, including installation of the wastewater system, roads, etc., changed the original elevations. The base level of Lot 6 was 110 feet. The survey shows the building height to be 134.72 feet. The home does not exceed the 25-ft. height restriction. It is a non-issue.
Mike said the home’s overhang encroaches 8” into the west setback and 24” on the east side. He is asking to adjust the boundary requirements on the east and west sides. Both encroachments only affect setbacks abutting common land. M. Welch asked if, during the original PUD review, there had been any discussions on the 5-ft’ setback on each lot – why not 4 feet, or 10 feet? T. Maxham said that the distance was proposed by the Applicant (Gammal).
Questions from the Board re Building Height
- Hunt asked what the downside might be to altering only one lot in the development? If each home design is up to the future owners, how can this be prevented from happening again?
- Brightwell said that any correction cannot encroach into the PUD common area.
- Hayward said that the average natural grade for Lot 7 [this also had a 25-ft. height limit imposed by the DRB] will need to be established prior to a building permit being issued. They cannot consider pre-construction elevation on Lot 7 as what is there now. It has been altered. The average natural grade is what is shown on the 2012 site plan. Mike Gammal asked that average natural grade “pre-construction” needs to be defined.
- Patterson calculated the home’s height using the contours from the 2012 site plan. The topos ranged from 110’ to 113’, measured to the peak of the roof. The height of the home measured from natural grade is less than 25 feet. N. Hayward agreed. T. Maxham stated that in his opinion, the average natural grade is 110’. This is the “pre-construction” elevation.
Questions/Discussion from the Board re Building Encroachment
- Maxham asked how to remedy an encroachment into a 5-ft’ setback? Reduce the setback distance or increase the size of the lot? The setback must be measured from the drip edge, not the wall. The building permit application may need to state this.
- Patterson asked what the encroachment is on the west (Phoebe Lane) side, including the overhang?
- Hayward stated that the encroachment on the west side is all overhang – 8”. He stated that reducing the 5-ft. setback from 5 feet to 4 feet would correct the encroachment. By doing this, no common land is affected.
- Maxham stated that the Board understands that the Applicant is seeking relief of one foot on the west side.
Mike Gammal told the Board that the encroachment on the east side, including the overhang, is 25.6” into the 5-ft. setback. He is asking the Board to reduce the setback from 5 feet to 2 feet.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
- Hunt moved to enter the certified survey into the record as Exhibit 1; D. Patterson second. All in favor.
- Hunt moved to enter Doug Patterson’s elevation calculations into the record as Exhibit 2; M. Welch second. All in favor.
- Gammal asked what the Board’s timeline is. T. Maxham answered it would be two weeks for the Board to finalize a decision.
- Maxham told the Applicants that he was not pleased that this happened and had to come before the Board for a remedy. Although a hardship for the Applicant, the Applicant has been before the Board numerous times and knows the rules. It never should have happened.
7:44PM — T. Maxham closed the hearing.
7:49PM — Site Plan Amendment to expand the parking lot at Two Heroes Brewpub (#25-08-RT252)
The warning was read and interested persons sworn in.
Matt Bartle present6ed to the Board, accompanied by Darren Orr and Mike Wickenden. Matt told the Board that since opening the business, there has frequently been a need for more parking. He wants to expand the parking lot behind (north of) the pub, adding 33 spaces, to get cars off the grass and RT 2. The expansion will eventually be in two phases. Phase one will take advantage of a time-limited grant opportunity to expand the parking area, with a pervious surface only. The second phase (no timeline at this time) will include paving and possibly an added storage structure adjacent to the lot. This hearing is for phase 1 only. The new area matches the grade of the existing parking lot and will be screened by woods. VT DEC Wetlands said there was no need for additional permitting. The material there was excavated from elsewhere and placed there a long time ago, possibly from a culvert under RT 2. It is not wetland material. There is no documentation. No stormwater permit will be needed for this phase since the area will not be impervious.
- Patterson asked if the new lot will eventually be paved? They will pave the area to the eventual storage building. Stormwater requirements will dictate how much more they can eventually do.
- Brightwell asked where the septic is. It is northwest of the pub, shared with the Community Lane PUD.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
- Welch asked if there would be any lighting in the back for the expanded parking. Matt explained that as part of the grant application effort, conduit will be included during the expansion, so lighting may be added later during phase 2. Solar options may be available before then.
- Kilcoyne said that she was glad to see the Applicant back with this need. Matt stated that customers stay longer than at a take-out restaurant, and he did not want to stress the businesses or services on Community Lane by taking up available parking there.
8:00PM — T. Maxham closed the hearing
Review of August 14, 2024 Minutes
- Kilcoyne moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2024; M. Welch second. All in favor.
Administrator’s Report
ZA Martha Taylor-Varney told the Board that she had asked the Planning Commission about adding conditional use review for restaurants in the two Village Zoning Districts. Currently the only requirement is for site plan review. The Commission expressed concerns about over-regulating restaurants. L. Kilcoyne commented that food trucks must have both conditional use and site plan review per the mobile vendor ordinance. Why not restaurants? Martha asked the Board if they wanted to talk with the Planning Commission about it.
Upcoming Schedule:
September 11 – Continuation of the Boundary Adjustment/Setback Waiver application (Mark Cliffor/Gordon Stewart) at 41 Lake Dr. (recessed from August 14, 2024); 2-Lot subdivision administrative review at Allenholm.
September 25 – Site plan review for a shop building for Guerrina Crane at 61 Station Rd.
Adjournment
8:13PM — M. Welch moved to adjourn; N. Hayward second. All in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Taylor-Varney, ZA
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.