Chelsea, Vermont, Development Review Board
Meeting Minutes July 8, 2026
Members Present: Johanna Welch (Chair), Charles Peel, Patty Swahn (Clerk), Jen Chase, Carrie Caouette-De Lallo (Alternate and Selectboard Liaison)
Others Present: Kyle Hansen (Zoning Administrator), Sarah Buxton, Jessica Allen, Brett Murphy and Sarah Cloud
Johanna opened the hearing at 6:35 pm. The hearing began with a reading of the notice as posted and published. No conflicts of interest or ex-parte conversations were disclosed. Johanna reviewed the definition of interested parties, explained the hearing process and swore in attendees. The DRB moved directly to the only agenda item.
Application ZP26-06: 331 Vermont Route 110, Chelsea, Vermont for Brookhaven Home for Boys, Inc. Appeals of Notice of Zoning Violation regarding a solid foundation and the floodplain not matching plans approved under ZP24-09.
Zoning administrator Kyle Hansen started by explaining why the Notice of Violation was issued to Brookhaven; specifically, the building foundation which has been constructed does not match the building as described in the permit application on file or the conditional permit issued after the DRB hearing on July 17, 2024. The building described was a 40’ x 80’ building on a foundation consisting of 47 piers which would allow water to flow underneath the structure in the event of a flood. The current building foundation is solid concrete. Additionally, no hydrologic and hydrostatic testing documentation was submitted to confirm the building will not raise base flood elevation for the community. Kyle first reached out to Brookhaven on December 12, 2025 explaining the discrepancy. At that time, Brookhaven planned to submit a new application for the building as constructed, but as of May 1, 2026 not all the necessary documentation had been submitted, the application was deemed administratively incomplete, and the Notice of Violation was issued.
Sarah Buxton, Brookhaven’s attorney, explained Brookhaven had understood the condition for no new fill on the Decision from the July 2024 hearing meant they could not use the pier foundation as the fill was a structural component. Further, after consulting with their contractor, Brookhaven had submitted the updated plans to switch to a solid concrete foundation to the prior Zoning Administrator before the original permit was issued. Emails between the prior Zoning Administrator and Brookhaven administration were provided which confirm this. She also explained that the Notice of Violation issued was statutorily deficient because it was for the newly opened permit application from December 2025 and not the original permit ZP24-09 from November 2024 and failed to cite provisions of the ordinance violated. Also, if the DRB does not overturn the Notice of Violation, Brookhaven plans to appeal to Environmental Court.
Charles Peel explained the permit states that the building constructed must meet the building description on the permit application on file and this building does not. Additionally, a condition of the Decision required a registered professional engineer certify the building design and construction. The certification provided by James Baker only states that the structure is built above the base flood elevation; it does not speak to its hydrologic impact on surrounding flood conditions. This is a non-compliant structure sitting in a designated flood hazard area which jeopardizes the town’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Sarah Buxton stated she understood and agreed, but the permit was issued after Brookhaven submitted the updated plans to the Zoning Administrator so Brookhaven is not responsible for the oversights on the part of the prior Zoning Administrator. Sarah also argues that the original Decision did not require a hydrostatic and hydrologic test. Brookhaven has since looked into having this test done, but it will cost $5500. If the town wants to pay for the testing, they can move forward with it.
Kyle Hansen stated in his experience with DRB boards, a written decision approves the specific plans presented during the hearing. The condition stating no new fill still constituted approval of the open-pier design, just without the gravel infill. Any change to the foundation type automatically requires a return to the DRB for a new hearing. While it might not have been written explicitly as a condition, it is a foundational principle of zoning administration.
Johanna asked for a motion to close the public hearing and enter into private deliberation. Chuck Peel made the motion and Jen Chase seconded. The hearing was closed at 7:55 PM.
Deliberation:
At 7:55 PM the Board held a deliberative session, which ended at 8:15 PM.