SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD January 10, 2024
Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice-Chair); Liza Kilcoyne; Jim Brightwell; Gareth Hunt; Nate Hayward (via Zoom); Mike Welch; Tim Mullen (Alternate).
Others Present: Norm Benoit; Brian Aitchison; (the following via Zoom) Virginia Randlett; Phelps Holloway; Charlie Tipper; and James Preston.
7:00PM – T. Maxham called the meeting to order. He thanked recently retired DRB Alternate Sherry Corbin for her years of service to the DRB, and welcomed new Alternate Tim Mullen. The annual reorganization meeting will be added to the agenda for the January 24, 2024 meeting.
Changes to the Agenda
There were none.
Public Input
There was none.
Request for Setback Waiver for a Replacement Home at 41 Sunset Beach Rd. – Norm Benoit ((24-33-SB041). This hearing was postponed from December 13, 2023.
7:05PM – The warning was read, introductions made, and Interested Persons sworn in.
Norm Benoit, representing the new owner of 41 Sunset View Rd., J. Henry Scott, presented the application to the Board. He proposes to remove the existing home at 41 Sunset Beach Rd. and replace it with a home that is 9 feet taller than the existing structure. The lot is a ¼-acre non-conforming lot. The existing home is within the south and lake setbacks. The replacement home will be on the same footprint in the non-conforming area of the lot. He said that other homes and lots on the road are non-conforming and that he is only asking for additional height. The replacement home would increase the value of surrounding properties, maintain the character of the neighborhood, and would not negatively impact the other properties on the road.
Questions from the Board
- Hunt asked if the only change was to increase the height? Yes. No further into the setbacks? No further.
- Hayward noted that the planned excavation on the lakeside of the house to create a walkout basement would leave a “bathtub” there, where the ground would slope upward toward the ledge above the lake. Mr. Benoit said that that had not been engineered yet, and they had not addressed the question of runoff yet.
- Kilcoyne asked if it would drain toward the house? Not engineered yet. That will be the next step. They need the Shoreland permit first then will be able to engineer proper drainage.
- Hayward – the visual from the lake will be of only the first and second floor of the home. Will not see the walkout basement because of the slope. Was the same site plan supplied to Shoreland as was given to the DRB? Yes.
- Brightwell asked if there had been any response yet from Shoreland Protection? Yes, just received a draft decision and it is in the appeal/comment period. Charlie Tipper said that no neighbors had been notified yet of Shoreland’s decision. Norm Benoit responded that it is posted online or to talk to ANR to get information.
- Maxham asked if the home was seasonal or year-round? The Listers’ card indicates it is seasonal. If the intention is to live there year-round, it will need a new septic system.
- Patterson said that the elevation calculations do not include the basement. The height is measured from the ground. N. Hayward said that the proposed height of the structure is 33.175 feet above the average natural grade. Does this represent the least deviation from the Regulations, as stated in Sec. 305.D.1?
- Hunt said that you cannot increase the height of the structure within the non-conforming area. J. Brightwell said that can be waived when it is not disruptive to surrounding properties.
Why not move the new structure back out of the lake setback to decrease the non-conformity? Cannot because there is not enough conforming space and would still be non-conforming to the south boundary. D. Patterson said that the problem could be eliminated by moving the peaks into the conforming area. M. Welch noted that the existing home is 1 ½ stories. The full second story on the proposed home increases the area within the non-conforming space.
Public Comment
Brian Aitchison (SB015) said he has concerns about the height of the proposed replacement home. Could there be a plan that doesn’t deviate from the regulations as much? He said he is familiar with Shoreland Protections and has concerns that the plans don’t jive. He is not a NIMBY, but it seems that this is pushing the Shoreland restraints.
James Preston is an abutting neighbor (SB035) and spoke as a trustee of the Johnson Family Trust. He said he had no objection to a reasonable rebuild, but not this. [Mr. Preston submitted a letter that will be attached to the minutes]. He asked the Board for the same considerations as a 2014 review of their own rebuild. He said that, at that time, they met the applicable standards. He feels the proposed rebuild at 41 Sunset Beach Rd. is too large. No other homes on Sunset Beach Rd. reach this height. It is not in the character of the neighborhood. It should maintain the same natural grade. The excavation by the lake is also a concern. He felt the proposal was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
- Welch moved to enter the letter from Jamie Preston into the record as Exhibit #1; D. Patterson second. All in favor.
Charlie Tipper read his letter to the Board [attached to the minutes]. Mr. Tipper expressed concern about the height of the proposed structure and disagreed with Mr. Benoit’s statement that the height would be like others on the road. He said all are well under 30 feet, with many under 20 feet or even less. He is also concerned with the excavation between the house and the lake and the review by Shoreland Protection, the number of occupants that the new home could accommodate and the impact of that on the neighborhood, septic capacity and possible updates to it, the increased size of the replacement home, and misinformation on the application.
- Welch moved to enter the letter from Charles Tipper into the record as Exhibit #2; L. Kilcoyne second. All in favor.
Virginia Randlett (SB029) told the Board that her primary residence is her home on Sunset Beach Rd. She sent an email read at the hearing by Zoning Administrator Martha Taylor-Varney [attached to the minutes]. Her concerns include effects of any blasting required as part of the excavation along the lake, the height of the structure, and the character of the neighborhood. She said she had no objection to the rebuild but for the design to compliment the rest of the neighborhood. She stated that she agreed with the points made by Charlie Tipper and James Preston.
- Patterson moved to enter the email from Virginia Randlett into the record as Exhibit #3; L. Kilcoyne second. All in favor.
Michael Hopwood (SB031) sent an email, read to the hearing by the Zoning Administrator, concerned about the increased height and bulk of the proposed replacement home, and felt it did not meet the character of the neighborhood.
- Welch moved to enter the email from Michael Hopwood into the record as Exhibit #4; J. Brightwell second. All in favor.
Continued Questions from the Board
- Maxham asked if the setback measurements shown on the site plan were measured from the overhang? The excessive height of the proposed replacement structure is a concern, in addition to drainage away from the structure. Has Shoreland signed off on this? He wonders now if there should have been a site visit prior to the hearing. The Board will have to depend on the submittals and the concerns of the neighbors.
- Hayward noted that the proposal is a great deal of additional mass because of the increase from 1 ½ stories to a full 2 stories.
- Kilcoyne stated that the scale is not well thought out for the site. The ceiling heights are excessive (10-ft. basement, 11-ft. 1st floor, 10-ft. 2nd floor), and the basement will flood. The design does not take advantage of the assets of the lot. This is not the least approach that can be taken. Norm Benoit said that there are ways to handle the water. It will be engineered. T. Maxham asked if those solutions will encroach on the lake? Does Shoreland have any concerns?
- Patterson asked about the walls on each side of the excavated area. Will they be gabion or wing walls? The drawing shows both. Wing walls will encroach further into the setback. Which is being proposed?
8:30PM – There were no further questions and T. Maxham closed the hearing.
New Business
There was none.
Review Minutes from October 25, 2023
- Hunt moved to approve the minutes of October 25, 2023; M. Welch second. All in favor.
Administrator’s Report
- Edited pages reflecting the recent updates to the Development Regulations were given to DRB members to replace those amended in their notebooks.
- The upcoming schedule: January 24, 2024 – deliberation only.
February 14, 2024 – no hearings scheduled at this time.
February 28, 2024 – Pest Pro site plan amendment hearing.
3. The mini-golf project on Lot 2 of the Lavin parcel, approved by the board in May 2023 (23-43-RT275), has been sold to a new owner. The scope of the project remains as approved except for some changes to the design of various features. The Board will require the new owners to come before the DRB for an amendment to the site plan, since previous designs were part of the original approval.
4. The Zoning 101 class on February 29, 2024 will include Rebecca Pfieffer, River Corridor and Floodplain Protection Program Manager at the VT Department of Environmental Conservation to speak about flooding on Lake Champlain. Recent record levels on the lake have led to concerns about flooding in the spring, and Rebecca will be available to answer questions from concerned residents.
Adjournment
8:50 PM — L. Kilcoyne moved to adjourn; M. Welch 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.