SOUTH HERO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES September 9, 2026
Members Present: Doug Patterson (Chair); Jim Brightwell (Vice-Chair); Nate Hayward; Liza Kilcoyne; Tim Mullen (via Zoom); and Justin Myers (Alternate, via Zoom).
Others Present: Devin Hackett; Bonnie and Seth Desrochers ; Michele Gammal; Jay Buermann; Andy Allen; Ray Allen; Ross Brown; Martha Taylor-Varney (ZA).
7:00PM – D. Patterson called the meeting to order and introduced the Board.
Changes to the Agenda
There were no changes.
Public Comment
None.
Conditional Use Review to extend business hours (Seth and Bonnie Desrochers/The Rest Stop – 27-14-SH010)
7:02PM — The warning was read and interested persons sworn in. Bonnie and Seth Desrochers presented to the Board. They told the Board that they wanted an opportunity to be open earlier in the day to be able to serve breakfast in the future. The same calendar dates would continue (April 1st to October 31st, 7 days/wk.) but increase the hours from the current 11AM — 11PM to 6AM — 11PM. They may not be open all hours every day but wanted the option to work within those times. There is no set schedule yet, but they are considering eventually serving breakfast sandwiches Monday-Frida and brunch on the weekends. Seth told the Board that they will have a separate food truck for the breakfast service. The location has a current approval of up to 3 vendors at a time at the site.
There were no further questions.
7:12PM – D. Patterson closed the hearing.
Sketch Plan Review for a 7-Lot Major Subdivision (27-04-SS154 – Estate of Ray W. Allen)
7:14PM – The warning was read and interested persons sworn in. Jay Buermann of Buermann Engineering represented the Applicant.
They are proposing a major subdivision, subdividing a 12.3-ac. parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.5 ac. to 2.3 ac. The parcel is on the east side of South St. on Allenholm Farm, on property that is not in the Land Trust. Each lot will have a single-family home, some with shared driveways. Each lot will have a drilled well and all will share wastewater located across South St. A deep drainage swale runs in a north/south direction through all the lots, with wetlands generally on the east side of the swale. At the final plat review, the Applicant will be requesting a waiver from showing 5-ft. contours on the survey in those areas east of the drainage swale.
Infrastructure will be constructed after the sale of the first lot, allowing subsequent construction of the remaining lots to “plug in” as they are built. Power will be underground from each pole. The blue lines on the residential site plan denote the impervious stormwater areas.
J. Brightwell – Are the locations shown of the wells specific? Yes. If the wells need to be moved the neighbors will be notified since it will affect the location of well shields.
L. Kilcoyne – Is the impervious area locked in? Yes.
N. Hayward – Is the overall goal to keep the disturbed area under 1 acre? It’s to keep the total impervious area under ½ acre.
L. Kilcoyne – Does this plan preclude sidewalks? If there are eventually sidewalks along South St., they would be within the Town right-of-way and would be the Town’s issue.
D. Patterson – Will the entire property [277 acres] be on the survey? The road (South St.) creates a natural subdivision, so the entire farm will not be on the survey.
L. Kilcoyne – Are the house locations – distance to the road — similar to others in the area. There’s no context. Ray Allen – They are all equal distance from the road, at a distance that lines up behind the location of the current apple shed (store).
J. Myers – Will the houses have basements, or will they be on a slab? That will be up to the homeowners.
Questions from the Public
Michele Gammal – The Planning Commission has been proposing sidewalks on South St. If in the future they can be installed in this area, would the Board consider requiring a right-of-way for sidewalks, to prevent having to go to each landowner for permission? The Board will consider this as the review continues.
7:40PM – D. Patterson closed the sketch plan hearing.
Preliminary Plat Review for a 9-Lot Subdivision/PUD Review (26-62-PF009 – Ross Brown)
7:46PM – The warning was read and interested persons sworn in. Jay Buermann of Buermann Engineering represented the Applicant.
Referring to waivers, Jay Buermann told the Board that since the proposed subdivision is a PUD, that the minimum lots size for the Rural Re4sidential zoning district (1 acre minimum) does not apply here. The required setbacks are at the periphery of the development. Requested waivers are for a 20-ft-wide right-of-way for Lots #5-7, and that the right-of-way for Lots #2-9 be served by a 40-ft. ROW (reduced from the required 50’) to accommodate a 24 ft. wide gravel road. There have been no changes or updates to the PUD plan since the initial hearing. Lot 9 will be common land for the PUD.
6.5 acres of Lot 1 will be an agricultural easement. Included within this easement is the existing house and outbuildings. This will be restricted from further development. The ag restrictions will run with the land. Jay Buermann told the Board that the ag restriction will be included on the final survey. They still need the final State permits.
Question from the Board
D. Patterson – What if the farmer wants to put pigs behind Lot 5? Jay—the owner of Lot 5 will have that in their deed and will know that that is a possibility. It will be defined up front.
L. Kilcoyne – Will the ag area be mowed? Ross Brown – it will be part of the stipulation. It is not this Board’s responsibility to be concerned about the owners of the homes.
D. Patterson – This is a PUD, not 1-acre minimum lots. I’m concerned about the homeowners. We’re asking for ideas. Ross – this is an ag entity. It’s part of living next to a farm. Jay—the buyers will have all the information.
L. Kilcoyne – will there be a buffer of some sort between the homes and the ag land, between the two uses? It’s a little too close for comfort in my opinion.
J. Brightwell – A manure pile could be placed close to the homes. Ross—that’s a stretch. You’re making a speculation. This is a nice project. People will understand what will be there.
L. Kilcoyne – what about a fence? I’m concerned about a child going into the ag area. Lots 3, 5, and 6 are very close. Ross – The imaginary 4-year-old- is nonsense.
J. Brightwell — Could there be a buffer in the ag area? Ross – put up a stockade fence. Jay—we could allow the owners of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to put up a fence on the property line. Brightwell continued — I don’t want to see a patchwork of fences, but it’s possible. It is up to the DRB to prevent future problems. I’m concerned about future owners; not worried about now. Ross—the regulations don’t support 30 years from now. Brightwell — We have a potential solution – put in a fence. Ross – the deed will inform about the ag use. Potential buyers won’t be concerned about the future use of the ag property.
L. Kilcoyne – the nature of the ag use could change.
N. Hayward – the building envelopes could allow the houses there to be built a little further from the boundary.
Jay Buermann – I like the fence for the safety issue. On the property line. It makes sense that there is information to the buyers about the ag land/use. Ross – I don’t feel it the government’s responsibility to protect children. Jay – we recommend against fences at first. Let the homeowners decide. Ross – the HOA will be restrictive.
L. Kilcoyne – These are single-family homes. 1040sf. No garages. There are 2 uses that are close to each other. How do we deal with that?
D. Patterson – Stormwater plans? Jay – the high point of the PUD is Lots 5 and 6. There will be sheet flow to catch basins on Lots 2 and 3, draining to a manhole on Lot 9. We have not applied for a stormwater permit yet. Need to keep the impervious surface under the ½-ac. threshold. The driveways for Lots 5, 6, and 7 will be pervious.
D. Patterson – Schedule? Ross – spring. The homes will be prefab – like Huntington Homes – with a farmhouse look. No attached garages. They will be entry level. I’d like to create a neighborhood.
There was additional discussion about whether the PUD review could close. Additional discussion on HOA agreements can continue during the rest of the subdivision review. These will include road maintenance agreements.
**J. Brightwell moved to close the PUD review; T. Mullen second. All in favor.
**N. Hayward moved to recess the subdivision review to January 13, 2027 at 7PM; L. Kilcoyne second. All in favor.
Review of Minutes
L. Kilcoyne moved to approve the minutes of August 12, 2026; J. Brightwell second. All in favor.
Administrator’s Report
Upcoming schedule –
September 23 — 2-lot subdivision administrative review – WS273 (Frost)
October 14 – Site Plan review for retail bait shop – RT509 (Viens)
October 28 – nothing scheduled yet but will need to hold meeting/hearing elsewhere (library?) due to Town Office move to new building. This may affect the November 11 meeting, also.
Adjournment
9:17PM – N. Hayward moved to adjourn; J. Myers second. All in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Taylor-Varney, ZA
Signed: _________________________________________Date: ________________________
For the DRB
These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting. All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.