Laserfiche WebLink
the privacy and quiet of his land. Mr. Kromhout said he has concerns about noise from <br />parties and that he would like the agricultural area preserved. Mr. Kromhout asked if the <br />cottages planned are being treated as single-family units and noted there is potential for <br />more with the 1-10 units allowed in the existing zoning. Mr. Kromhout again expressed <br />that he enjoys his privacy and doesn't want noise from parties or odors nearby. Mr. <br />Kromhout also commented on the high speed of traffic on SR 60 west of 1-95 with there <br />being little patrolling for speed enforcement. <br />Mrs. Malinda Kromhout spoke and said that she can see the proposed site from her barn <br />apartment kitchen window. Mrs. Kromhout said that, like her husband, she was curious <br />to know if there would be any odor emitted from the distillery and also asked about the <br />height of the buildings. Mr. Sweeney responded that the 35 height limitation applies and <br />the architecture of the office component is approximately 25 feet and that the residential <br />units proposed are single story. Mrs. Kromhout asked if the cottages are going to be <br />classified as single-family residences. Mr. DeBraal responded they would be permitted <br />as a single-family residence and noted that IRC does not have a code designation for a <br />cottage, nor any requirement about how many people can live in a single-family house. <br />Mr. Stewart pointed out the cottages planned are ancillary structures to the distillery <br />operation. <br />Ms. Melissa St. Anne Mittag asked about the square footage of the planned distillery and <br />questioned if there should be a one-time restriction on the square footage. Mr. Sweeney <br />responded that the distillery building planned will be 5,625 square feet and that the larger <br />structures are for barrel storage. Mr. Sweeney explained that the site plan itself is <br />controlling, meaning that if they wanted to expand the distillery or barrel storage by more <br />than 10% the applicant would have to go through the entire approval process again <br />including more public hearings. <br />Chairman Day closed the item for public comment. <br />There was discussion among the commissioners expressing concern the project <br />operation will be as described and whether or not there should be some conditions being <br />that it is a special exception application. Mr. DeBraal commented that Code Enforcement <br />would be responsible for any site plan or noise violations. Mr. Polackwich said that he <br />thinks it would be appropriate to put some conditions in place being the special exception <br />use ordinance speaks to that point. Mr. Sweeney noted the agricultural district has <br />existing noise and odor restrictions. Mr. Sweeney also explained that once the site plan <br />and use is set it cannot be arbitrarily altered and that operational characteristics are <br />controlled by existing code. <br />Mr. Gibson commented that in regard to their existing distillery in Vermont, they have not <br />had any code enforcement action or neighbor complaints. In response to a question about <br />number of employees, Mr. Gibson said he anticipates it will scale based upon the success <br />of the business but that it is not initially labor intensive. <br />Attachment 1 <br />PZC Unapproved Draft Minutes 3 April 28, 2022 <br />179 <br />