March 13, 2019 DRB Minutes | Town of Town of South Hero

BOARD March 13, 2019

Members Present: Tim Maxham (Chair); Doug Patterson (Vice Chair); Jim Brightwell (alternate); Ross Brown, Nate Hayward; Liza Kilcoyne

Others Present: Martha Taylor-Varney (Zoning Administrator)

Members Absent: S. Corbin

Public Present: Christine Mack; Griffyn Koski; Jeff Sikora

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

Changes to Agenda: None.

Public Input: None.

Hearing: Conditional Use Plan review – Christine Mack: 2-Family Dwelling (19-38- HR025)

Maxham opened the hearing at 7:03 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:

Christine Mack, Griffyn Koski

Hearing Notes

Statement of Christine Mack and Griffyn Koski

Mack said that she was building a smaller, more efficient home for herself in a two-family dwelling. G. Koski said that each unit would be about 1300 square feet, two-bedroom, 2 ½ baths. The building will be two stories, with a bedroom and a bathroom in a small upstairs floor.
Maxham asked if Ms. Mack’s existing house was on the center lot (Lot #2). C. Mack responded yes. T. Maxham asked if there was a residence on the lot fronting Hill Road (Lot #3). G. Koski answered yes.
Maxham asked whether the right-of-way had been changed. C. Mack responded that the right-of-way change had been done. T. Maxham asked if that was done when the subdivision was made. C. Mack responded yes.
Kilcoyne asked how the driveway gets to Lot #2. G. Koski said that the new right-of-way follows the southern property line from Hill Road across Lot #3 and Lot #2 and drew a line on the plot indicating that driveway access to the existing dwelling on Lot #2 was at a sharp right angle to the new right-of-way, immediately south of the Lot #2 residence. L. Kilcoyne asked if parking will be to the south of the residence. G. Koski said yes, and there will be parking for two cars. L. Kilcoyne asked if the previous driveway would be abandoned. G. Koski replied that the previous driveway had already been top-soiled and reseeded.
Kilcoyne asked where driveway access was for the dwelling on Lot #3. G. Koski said that there was a long curb cut on Hill Road. L. Kilcoyne noted the presence of other buildings on Lot #3 and asked if they were abandoned. G. Koski said yes, they were “basically abandoned.” G. Koski said that there was a sale pending for the property.
Kilcoyne asked if bylaws allowed the subdivision of property without frontage on a street. M. Taylor-Varney responded that it was legal as long as the property has a right-of-way to a street. M. Taylor-Varney clarified that the driveway will serve 3 units so according to the bylaws the driveway doesn’t have to be upgraded to road standards. Because of the existing numbering on Hill Road there are no numbers left for the duplex in back so they may need to name the driveway; lot #2 would get a new address and duplexes would get new addresses. The house on Lot #3 (on Hill Road) would become #25. The new road name has to be approved by the Selectboard.
Koski asked how fast the road naming process is. M. Taylor-Varney said that the process was quick. She is the 911 coordinator and she would inform the State; the whole process takes less than a month.
Maxham said in summary, Lot #3 has access to Hill Road directly; Lots #1 and #2 will have access through the new right-of-way.
Hayward asked for clarification of the notes on the site plan regarding the septic, in particular Note 17 which said that the proposed force main was to be installed upon failure of the existing disposal field. After discussion, the Board and the applicant concluded that the Town does not have on file the new application for septic, which is currently under review by the State.
Taylor-Varney said that the site plan presented is from the original subdivision back in 2007. Town bylaws do not require a site plan review for duplexes, just a conditional use application. The engineer used this site plan to show the location of the driveways and house. N. Hayward pointed out that the site plan does have a revision date of 2019.
Hayward asked if the house on Lot #2 would tie into the new septic. G. Koski said that Lot #2 will remain on its existing septic and will tie into the new septic field upon its failure.
Taylor-Varney asked if the applicant wanted to start construction this spring. C. Mack responded yes, as soon as possible.

The hearing was closed by T. Maxham at 7:18 p.m.

Discussion with Jeff Sikora

Sikora said that he was not before the Board representing any clients, but was appearing on his own behalf. He said that he wanted to explain what happened with SeaComm Federal Credit Union on the Lavin property.

The Lavins bought the property in 1987 with the intention to eventually develop to help finance their retirement. In 1998 the Lavins donated 5 acres where Island Racing is now to the Town; the Town never acted on it. In 2004 Island Racing bought their parcel; in 2012 Jeff entered a purchase & sale agreement with Marty and Pat Lavin for the entire property.

2003 the Town was going to buy all of the (then) 121 acres for $310K; the vote was 282 yes 289 no. In 2014 there was a purchase and sale agreement with the Town of South Hero, which got voted down. In 2016 there was a purchase & sale to look at CIDER doing a project which didn’t happen. About a year ago Jeff was contacted by SeaComm to find a property which would work for a branch bank. The bank decided that 275 Route 2 on the Lavin property was the best location. The parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement, did engineering work, worked with VTRANS and received letter of intent for an entrance into the property.

The DRB meeting occurred on January 9^th; Jeff was unable to attend. The bank’s engineer and developer represented the project to the DRB. After the presentation, the bank related to Jeff that they felt it was a hostile meeting, and that the Board and the audience were ganging up on the bank. The developer reported post-meeting to the CEO, who reported the results to the bank’s Board of Directors. Jeff said that there was a long communication channel within the bank which resulted in the bank not cancelling until immediately before the hearing that was scheduled for January 23^rd.

The feedback to the bank resulted in a decision to not pursue application further. The bank felt that they would have to redesign the building for the town in order to get permits, and was upset that they had to change their design. The bank had spent a lot of money on design, and didn’t want to invest further.

Sikora said the bank is building in South Burlington and St. Albans with their original design. There are no design review standards in the South Hero bylaws and he felt they shouldn’t have received as much pressure from the Board regarding design.
Taylor-Varney said that when the bank originally approached her, they wanted a sketch plan review. M. Taylor Varney said she told the bank’s representatives that the Town doesn’t do sketch plans. They represented to her that the bank wanted to sit down with the Board and get the Board’s feedback and ideas. She was a little surprised when what they brought in was a complete site plan, and it was obvious that they had made quite a bit of investment by that point. She was surprised given the prior conversation that what they presented was the only option.
Patterson said their representative made the commitment during the hearing that they were going to come back. J. Sikora said that the representative could not represent their Board; D. Patterson said that they represented the bank at the hearing. J. Sikora said the bank made their decision because they felt they were not going to get their permit unless they made design changes. M. Taylor-Varney said they asked us for feedback; they were given that. They can read development regulations and understand that we don’t have any design standards.
Brown asked if the audience’s feedback had any merit. J. Sikora said yes, of course it had merit. R. Brown asked what Jeff was looking for. J. Sikora said he wasn’t looking for anything; this was just an educational meeting.
Maxham said that we had a hearing on 9^th and left under the assumption that it was part of a process. The Board discussed the building and provided suggestions on changing the looks of it. The bank’s representatives said they’ve had that kind of reaction before, and left saying they would go back and make a recommendation that they might have to suggest changes and come back with an alternate design. T. Maxham said that the Board never told the Bank that the Board would not accept their proposal.

Mr. Sikora said that’s the impression they got.

Maxham said we suggested that they go back and come up with another design and come back to us. The Board recessed the hearing to the 23^rd under the impression they would come back and say whether or not they could change anything. They never gave us the opportunity for further discussion.
Maxham said they may have gotten an adverse impression from public comment. R. Brown said the bank’s representatives really got their hackles up about comments about the signage on the tower, which was their signature feature. J. Sikora said they knew their signage was not compliant with Town sign regulations.
Maxham said we recessed, thinking that we were going to have another opportunity to discuss the proposal with them, either changed or not. He said he didn’t recall that anybody told them that if they came back with that proposal that we would turn it down. M. Taylor-Varney said that the bank’s representatives had said that the meeting was an opportunity to provide feedback. J. Sikora said that he was “really surprised” when they pulled out.
Patterson said that in his opinion the bank was on the knife’s edge as to whether they would come to South Hero or not. He said if the bank really wanted to know how the Board felt they would have come back.
Maxham, addressing J. Sikora, said I listened to you when you came in to the Selectboard. The impression that somebody gets and goes away with we can’t control; we can’t control what the audience thinks or says. If somebody (a developer) really wants to do something they’ll fight tooth and nail. He said the fact that they didn’t come back tells me a lot.
Maxham said that the comments the Selectboard made bothered him. The comments imply that we didn’t do our diligence as a Board and chased a good clean business out of town. T. Maxham said that when an applicant comes in he tries to ensure that the Board listens to them and work with them. The Board has its bylaws, and citizens out there that it has to listen to.
Sikora said we’ve talked about the audience and their comments. The Board has to make a decision based on bylaws and the problem I see is that if you get into a design review discussion you have to have some kind of design review in your bylaws.
Kilcoyne said we’ve all been to DRB meetings. Those guys knew what they were doing – they’ve been in different towns. You get all kinds of reactions. You know that it doesn’t take just one quick presentation and you’re going to make a decision like that after spending all that money. She said I don’t see that they went back to their management and told them to drop the application.
Sikora said I called the CEO – he said it was the Board of Directors that made the decision and they weren’t going to change their mind.
Kilcoyne said it doesn’t feel like a straight story.
Brown said the Selectboard wrote the bank a letter on behalf of an individual – Marty Lavin and you. J. Sikora said I think they did it on behalf of the Town inviting the bank back.
Sikora said I don’t think they’ll be back. I appreciate your time and wanted to explain what I was getting from the other side of the fence. I want to come back and finish the rest of the subdivision and get that ready to go.

Review of Minutes

Kilcoyne moved to accept the minutes of minutes of September 12th, R. Brown seconded. The motion passed by acclamation.

Administrator’s Report

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

Two notices of violation were issued to Zlotoff, for violations on Landon Road and the Apple Island Museum. The violations were appealed to the DRB. M. Taylor-Varney is aiming to schedule the hearing for April 24^th or May 8^th.

The deliberative for Christine Mack will be scheduled for March 27^th.

Mitchell Richardson received Act 250 approval on March 1^st. The DRB needs to hold another hearing April 10th to amend the decision where approval was conditioned on moving the building back 160’ from the road. Act 250 approved the building at a 121’ setback, which the Board previously indicated would be acceptable as a compromise with Act 250’s desire to have the building right on the street.

The DRB is invited to meet with the Planning Commission on May 1^st to discuss meeting with NRPC to discuss grants for feasibility studies for municipal wastewater in the Village Districts. This is a regular PC meeting that DRB is asked to attend.

Adjournment

Brown move to adjourn business meeting; the motion was seconded by N. Hayward and carried by acclamation at 8:12 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.