SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2027
Members Present: D. Patterson (Chair); Jim Brightwell (Vice Chair); Sherry Dupont; Tim Mullen; Nate Hayward (via Zoom); Liza Kilcoyne; Justin Myers
Members Absent: Gareth Hunt
7:00 PM – D. Patterson called the meeting to order.
Changes to the Agenda
No changes.
Public Input
There was none.
Continuation of Setback Waiver request by Michael Stanley to place a shed within the setback at 70 Wally’s Point Rd. – recessed from May 27, 2026 (26-59-WP070).
7:02 PM – D. Patterson opened the hearing. The warning was read.
Michael Stanley said he had sent a requested email to Martha containing a sign-off from Doug Hunt (the other owner of the duplex). He also confirmed the location of the pin by the telephone pole, and the Board was satisfied with the location of the shed.
L. Kilcoyne asked if the shed was under the phone line. Michael Stanly said it was not and Martha had called the phone company, who said the shed can be near the line but not under it.
N. Hayward asked if the 8×12 dimensions of the shed included the drip line and pointed out that, depending on what he did, the overhang could put him into the setback. Michael Stanley said the drip line of the roof. N. Hayward pointed out that the distance from the north neighbor should read 140’.
L. Kilcoyne said the Board would adjust the numbers in the decision.
D. Patterson presented an email from Bill Johnson of VEC regarding putting a shed in the ROW of VEC. T. Mullen motioned to include the email in the hearing record; seconded by J. Myers, all in favor.
D. Patterson closed the hearing at 7:16.
Combined Hearing for a Residential Major Subdivision Sketch Plan Review/Planned Unit Development at 9 Peters Farm Rd. (Ross Brown — 26-62-PF009)
D. Patterson opened the hearing at 7:17 p.m. The warning was read, and the Board members introduced.
Ross Brown and Jay Buermann were sworn in.
Jay Buermann briefly presented the proposed PUD subdivision, which creates 8 new lots, six of which are single-family residential, and one a duplex. Lots range in size from 0.18 acres up to 0.29 acres. Lot 9 is a common area. The goal is to create a multi-generational community of affordable homes (not income-restricted). To accomplish affordability, the lots are clustered, leaving the remainder as Lot 1, which will continue as a farm.
L. Kilcoyne asked about the size of houses. Jay. Buermann said the houses were for illustration. The building envelopes determine where and how big the houses can be and show the setback of 25’ between buildings.
L. Kilcoyne asked how many bedrooms the houses have. J. Buerman said that, from a wastewater perspective, once a development gets to this size, the number of bedrooms is no longer counted, but rather the number of units, and the usage averages out.
D. Patterson asked about the electric line easement. J. Buerman said VEC claimed a 50’ easement but allowed building within the easement so long as buildings were not directly under the lines.
D. Patterson observed that the right-of-way for the shared driveway had to be 50’ by ordinance but was 40’ on the plan. J. Buerman observed that due to the PUD configuration, they’re not putting utilities down the road ROW and that 50’ would be a waste of space. L. Kilcoyne observed that the DRB had discretion to waive requirements. D. Patterson said that the applicant could apply for relief. Jay Buermann said he was asking for approval of the plan as shown. J. Brightwell asked why a wide ROW was needed; Jay Buermann said the width was normally used for utilities and drainage, which do not apply in this case due to the short length and subdivision layout. J. Brightwell said that a wide roadway would defeat the clustered nature of the development. L. Kilcoyne said she was concerned about emergency vehicle access, and in discussion, it was observed that the road was short and had two entrances, and the development was bordered by two town roads, with the result that emergency vehicles could get pretty close to all of the houses in the development.
J. Brightwell expressed concern about what could be developed within the building envelope. Ross Brown said that he was going to be the builder and would have complete control over the way the project looks. Two units will be deed-restricted 55-plus. Two units will be below market value. He said that he was seeking to build a community and was not going to sell to cash buyers from out-of-state looking for a seasonal dwelling.
J. Myers asked about the open space. Jay Buermann said that was addressed in the summary letter included in the package.
L. Kilcoyne asked what the setback was between building envelopes. Jay Buermann said he was trying to keep to 25’.
N. Hayward asked about driveway apron length and potential impingement on the common driveway. Jay Buermann said he figured 18’ per car.
D. Patterson asked for clarification on the open space and what would be available for open space. Jay Buermann said that Lot #9 would be open space accessible to residents. D. Patterson observed that it included a catch basin and was along the road. Jay Buermann said that it could be a playground, a soccer field, etc. Ross Brown said that as the developer, he would develop the open space on Lot #9 appropriately and set appropriate ground rules.
J. Brightwell asked what restrictions there were on Lot #1. Jay Buermann said that the only restriction on Lot 1 was that it had to include the open space offsets from Lots #1-#8. D. Patterson asked what restrictions there were on Lot #1. D. Patterson observed that the open space in Lot #1 included the wastewater system. D. Patterson asked for a rationale from the applicant why the DRB should accept the open space as configured.
N. Hayward asked if there would be a deed restriction on Lot #1 to document the open space contained within Lot #1. Jay Buermann said that’s what he was trying to avoid, because once it’s documented that way, it becomes in perpetuity, and the rules are going to change someday, and one-acre minimums are no longer going to be applicable. So, to meet the current rules, Lot #1 will be approximately 6 acres, plus or minus. That doesn’t mean that if the rules change someday, Ross or whoever can’t come back in and say it’s now only a half-acre minimum, I would like to develop Lot #1, and I don’t need those six acres under the new standards.
J. Brightwell said that another way of doing this would be to create Lot #10 as the six-acre set-aside for open space, not a part of Lot #1. Jay Buermann said then we’re doing this in perpetuity, and not flexibly. J. Brightwell said that it could be that the board sees it as the PUD, in return for the ability to create a higher-density development, provides a benefit to the public in the set-aside of open space, and observed that this is the practice usually observed in other towns. Jay Buermann proposed that, instead, the Board condition that Lot #1 be a minimum of six acres of open space, so that at some point in the future, if the town had half-acre zoning, the applicant could come back in and propose a change to reduce the six acres.
S. DuPont said that the regulations Section 304 F and G clearly state that waste disposal areas cannot be part of the open space, so Lot #1 would have to be delineated somehow to show that the open space was not the waste disposal area.
D. Patterson said he wanted to see the open space delineated. J. Brightwell said that if the 6.5 acres of open space were part of Lot #1, moving around, not defined, there was no clear benefit of open space to the public, and it could be subject to manipulation in the future.
Jay Buermann said there is a benefit because the developer was still providing the overall density to the PUD. We have small lots, but we have a large lot, so we’re still meeting that one-acre density.
L. Kilcoyne asked if Lot #1 was part of the PUD and subject to the same rules as the PUD. J. Buerman said yes.
J. Brightwell said he could see the 6.53 acres as a defined parcel of open space adjacent to Lot #1 (the farm) but without a defined parcel, there was no clear trade of density for public benefit. Jay Buermann said the trade is that Lot #1 needs to be larger to compensate. J. Brightwell said it gets absorbed into Lot #1 and there are no constraints on Lot #1.
D. Patterson said he thought it should be delineated; J. Brightwell agreed.
Ross Brown asked about agricultural activity. D. Patterson agreed that any activity supported by the regulations, including agriculture, were OK.
Jay Buermann said that he could live with delineation provided that the owner could come back in the future and have it changed. D. Patterson said we are developing under today’s regulations.
Ross Brown said he was not inclined to accept the board’s view on the open space. He said he could put 16 houses on the property and was trying to create a good development.
N. Hayward said that the delineated open space could be contiguous with the farm and used for agricultural purposes.
J. Brightwell said the Board was not criticizing the development or the concept, but was focused on how the 6.54 acres of land are accounted for in this transaction.
Ross Brown said the main thrust is to get some young families in South Hero and to maintain the agricultural property, and that the main house (Lot #1) is the gateway to the islands.
D. Patterson asked if the water table could support wells for each house. Jay Buermann said they would drill and find out; they may wind up with shared wells.
L. Kilcoyne said that we’re reading the regulations and trying to interpret them in a way that benefits the residents of South Hero and you.
Hearing no further discussion, D. Patterson said the Board would look for preliminary plans later and closed the hearing.
Review of Minutes
J. Myers moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 2026; S. DuPont seconded. All in favor.
Administrator’s Report
L. Kilcoyne delivered the Administrator’s report.
- The next meeting is June 24th. Business meeting, no hearing, and a deliberation for Stanley and the Meeting House.
- No meeting July 8th.
- Review the packet of draft changes to the Development Regulations and come prepared to discuss at the June 24th meeting.
- Martha will be working remotely for a week or so at the end of July.
Adjournment
8:40 PM – L. Kilcoyne moved to adjourn; T. Mullen seconded. All in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Brightwell
Signed: ______________________________________ Date: __________________________
For the DRB
These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting. All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.