Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferrisburgh ZBA delays decision on Birdseye contractor yard, requests noise, dust and groundwater studies
Summary
The Zoning Board continued Birdseye Building Company’s Application 26-076 for a contractor’s yard and on-site stone cutting at Tupper’s Crossing, citing the need for technical studies—noise, dust/slurry handling, and groundwater protection—before it can evaluate the project’s compliance with zoning performance standards.
The Ferrisburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 1 continued its review of Birdseye Building Company’s Application 26-076, a proposal for a contractor’s yard with an on-site stone-cutting operation on the north side of Tupper’s Crossing. Chair Norm Smith emphasized that “no decision would be made on the application that evening” and that the Board needed a more clearly defined proposal to evaluate compliance with the Zoning Bylaws.
Applicants Brett Combs and Galen Hagen described the plan as a contractor’s yard for “storage of construction materials, equipment, stone, and related supplies,” with about 36,000 square feet of new building area planned in phases. Galen Hagen said the company “had performed approximately 80 hours of stone cutting during the previous year,” that they use wet-cutting methods to control dust, and that slurry would be “collected and disposed of at an approved facility.” Brett Combs said initial activity would focus on material storage and contractor yard functions, with stone cutting occurring periodically rather than daily.
Multiple neighbors urged the Board to require technical studies and more specific design information. Aubrey Choquette, an adjacent property owner, asked whether the proposed stone-cutting operation could meet the Town’s 60-decibel performance standard and said “a professional sound study should be completed before the application proceeds.” Several residents, including Matt Harkin and Andre Emmell, focused on potential impacts to private wells and asked for clear wastewater and slurry management plans in an area without municipal sewer service.
Board members—particularly Dave Mentzer and Diane Nadon—told the applicant that the revised submission must demonstrate how the operation would meet performance standards, with engineered noise mitigation, dust management, and groundwater protections. As Mentzer put it, the application should include “sufficient technical information to demonstrate compliance with the performance standards contained in the Zoning Bylaws.” The Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to the August 5, 2026 meeting to allow the applicant to provide the requested information.
The continued review will require the applicant to supply details on hours of operation, expected truck traffic, storage pile sizes, stormwater and wastewater handling, and any proposed mitigation measures; neighbors requested sound studies, silica dust controls, and long-term enforcement mechanisms. The Board additionally noted interested parties will continue to receive notice as the application advances.
