Development Review Board

9/17/2020 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Kevin Lumpkin, Chair; Matt Bacewicz, Vice-Chair; Harland Miller, Secretary; Aaron Guyette; David Weissberger; Elsie Goodrich City Staff Present: Jessie Baker, John Audy, Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Jeremy Collins, Kate Ford, Jenn Childress, Cara Montague, Richard Joseph, KR Decarreau, Seth Gillim, Pietro Lynn, Diane Lavigne, Amy Houghton, Keith Thompson, David Rugh, John Wakefield, Kristine Foley, Terry Zigmund, Jim Duncan, Larry Williams, Bryn Oakleaf, Jessica Wignall Call to Order by: Kevin Lumpkin Meeting Start Time: 6:33pm Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald Mr. Lumpkin called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the Development Review Board. He also provided an overview of the process for the meeting including the order of testimony and how members of the public could participate. Mr. Lumpkin also swore in those persons planning to provide testimony during the public hearing. II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 5 – 0 Motion by: Mr. Bacewicz Second: Mr. Guyette V. Public Hearing – Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision – 133 Elm Street Notice of Violation At 6:37pm Mr. Lumpkin opened a public hearing on the appeal of a Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Lumpkin indicated that the appellant’s representative would provide testimony followed by questions from the Board, then testimony from the public. Following public comments, the appellant’s representative would have an opportunity to respond. With that, Attorney Lynn, representing VT CBD Labs, LLC. was invited to present the appeal. Attorney Lynn began his presentation by providing an overview of the operations at 133 Elm Street, including their typical process for drying including the times of year. He also provided information regarding the state statutes related to agriculture and the limitations on municipalities to regulate agriculture. Attorney Lynn also provided information on the need for drying capacity.  Attorney Lynn began his presentation by providing an overview of the operations at 133 Elm Street, including their typical process for drying including the times of year. He also provided information regarding the state statutes related to agriculture and the limitations on municipalities to regulate agriculture. Attorney Lynn also provided information on the need for drying capacity. Mr. Lumpkin asked if the contention was that no violation existed based on this being an agricultural operation and not that no violation existed because the operation was not emitting an odor. Attorney Lynn responded that this would factually not qualify since there was no documented health hazard. He also reiterated his contention that this was an agricultural use and therefore exempt from the City’s enforcement actions. Attorney Lynn concluded by stating that VT CBD Labs, LLC. did not want to be a bad neighbor and was operating within the guidelines as an agricultural use. Next, Mr. Bacewicz asked Attorney Lynn about any filtration or other options to reduce the odor. Attorney Lynn provided information on future operations noting that the schedule for drying would be in the winter months, which should reduce the amount of odor experienced since residents would be indoors more. He also indicated a willingness for his client to make efforts to reduce odors. Several questions related to the documentation in the agenda indicating that VT CBD Labs, LLC. has not applied for or received an agricultural designation from the Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets. Members of the DRB stated that it was not their role at tonight’s meeting to make the determination since the process is already in place. Mr. Vorwald was asked about his understanding of the designation, to which he provided information about his conversations with the Agency and that the hemp registration does not grant any agricultural designations. Attorney Lynn commented that the operation was not making anyone sick. Ms. Goodrich inquired about what would constitute a health hazard. It was stated by Attorney Lynn that the City’s regulations would require harm being documented as a health hazard. With no other questions for the appellant, Mr. Lumpkin asked Mr. Vorwald to present the exhibits that will be included in the record for this hearing. Mr. Vorwald read through the exhibit list while Attorney Rugh displayed the exhibits. Following the presentation of exhibits, Mr. Lumpkin invited those in attendance to provide comments for or against the appeal. Multiple residents spoke about this matter. Most of the residents noted they did not take issue with the use, but were concerned about the odors and the impacts on the community. Specific comments included the intensity of the odors impacting the ability to be outside and enjoy their property; issues with sleeping since windows could not be open; concerns about property values being impacted; and similar topics. It was also stated that residents spend the majority of the year outside, therefore the contention that this will be less of an issue in the winter when people are inside was contested. With public comments concluded, Mr. Lumpkin invited Attorney Lynn back to respond to any comments. Additional questions were asked regarding future operations. Attorney Lynn indicated that the drying was concluded for the year and not expected to resume again until 2021. He also stated that technologies have been rapidly changing which may impact the specific process that occurs in the future. With no other comments or questions, Mr. Lumpkin closed the hearing at 7:44pm. VI. City Updates Mr. Vorwald noted that the decision on the detached cottage for 9 George Street issued by the Development Review Board was being appealed the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court.  questions, Mr. Lumpkin closed the hearing at 7:44pm. VI. City Updates Mr. Vorwald noted that the decision on the detached cottage for 9 George Street issued by the Development Review Board was being appealed the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court. VII. Other Business Mr. Vorwald indicated that the next regular meeting was scheduled for October 15th and the deadline for the meeting was September 18th. He also stated that he was not aware of any projects that would require a hearing before the Board, and since there were no administrative items to cover, he would consider cancelling the meeting. VIII. Adjourn Motion by: Mr. Miller Second: Mr. Weissberger Meeting End Time: 7:47pm Following adjournment, the Development Review Board entered deliberative session.