Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayston review board hears ADU proposal on steep slopes, applicant seeks secondary curb cut
Summary
Applicant Betsy Rutledge asked the Development Review Board for conditional‑use approval to build a 26x40 accessory dwelling unit and a recommendation to the Selectboard for a secondary residential curb cut; the board found the application complete and closed the hearing for deliberation.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Fayston Development Review Board on July 7, 2026 took testimony on Application #4032, a conditional‑use request from applicant Betsy Rutledge to place development on slopes greater than 15% and to seek the board’s recommendation to the Selectboard for a secondary residential curb cut. Daniel Young, chair of the Development Review Board, presided.
Rutledge described the proposal as "The project is a proposed ADU that will be built on the level surface." She told the board the unit would be 26 by 40 feet, would be served by a state‑approved septic pump system, and that power already exists to the sugar house on the site; the sugar house will be removed when the new building is constructed. The application also requests a recommendation to the Selectboard for a second residential curb cut to serve the property.
Board members asked technical questions about utilities, drainage and site access. Ky Koitsch asked what power would be used; Rutledge said existing power to the sugar house would serve the new building. Jim Donkersloot suggested upgrading the existing culvert because the driveway is steep. Zoning Administrator Jason Wilson confirmed that the proposed ADU and primary residence sizes met the town’s ADU rules. Neighbor Dean Zeckland expressed concern about stormwater and asked that drainage not result in water flowing onto his property.
Beth Eisenhower moved to close the hearing; Mike Quenneville seconded. The board voted all in favor and closed the hearing for deliberation. No final development decision was recorded in the public session.
