GENERAL MINUTES

Members Present: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, J. Beers, C. Rainville, M. Varney

Public Present: S. Taylor, ZA;

 

7:00 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The minutes from February 17, 2010 were reviewed. B. Murphy made a motion to approve the General Minutes and the Benoit Sketch Plan Minutes from February 17, 2010. M. Varney second. All in favor.

 

The paper map and mylar for the Thompson revision project were reviewed. J. Beers made a motion to approve the paper map and Mylar for the Thompson revision project, B. Murphy second. All in favor.

 

The paper map and Mylar for the Fairfax Falls Revision project was reviewed. It was discovered that the town had already filed the Mylar in December prior to the DRB approving it. No one knew the reason for this.

C. Rainville made a motion to approve the paper map and Mylar for the Fairfax Falls Revision project, M. Varney second. All in favor.

 

The paper map and Mylar for the Baillargeon/Marriot boundary adjustment project were reviewed. Skip received a letter and shared it with the DRB stating that the surveyor for the Baillargeon/Marriot project confirms the new boundary pins were placed. The DRB noticed some changes on the Mylar from the original map but they did not affect the boundary adjustment project, they concerned property on the other side of the road. B. Murphy made a motion to approve the paper map and Mylar for the Baillargeon/Marriot boundary adjustment project, C. Rainville second. All in favor.

 

A letter from Deborah Billado was read, asking for a 6 month extension on her project. C. Rainville made a motion to grant the extension of the Billado project, B. Murphy second. All in favor.

 

The board discussed the Dragonfly Valley subdivision project. The owners of Dragonfly Valley would like to create one new lot from the current common land area and add more common land back to the development from a different lot. The board discussed whether it should be treated as a new subdivision or a revision. B. Murphy was concerned about taking advantage of PUD rules. M. Varney wished to know the size of the lots. The board agreed that this would be a revision hearing. S. Taylor, ZA to tell Dragonfly Valley owners they can come back for a revision of the project.

 

7:15 PM - MILLS FINAL PLAT REVIEW 220 SAM WEBB ROAD

8:00 PM FLANDERS SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 50 FLANDERS ROAD

 

The reconvened Flanders hearing was added to the agenda for April 7 at 7:00PM.

 

8:55 PM J. Heyer made a motion to adjourn. M. Varney second. All in favor.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Julie Beers, DRB member

 

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2010

For the Development Review Board

 

 

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

All motions were unanimously approved unless otherwise indicated.

MILLS 4 LOT SUBDIVISION

220 SAM WEBB ROAD

Members Present: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, J. Beers, C. Rainville, M. Varney

Public Present: S. Taylor, ZA; Gary Mills

 

7:15 PM Introductions were made, the Public Notice was read, and attendees signed in. Interested parties were sworn in. Gary Mills, made the presentation.

 

B. Murphy asked G. Mills if he was alright with C. Rainville and M. Varney sitting on the board for the remaining portion of his project. He was in agreement. The road name that had previously been rejected, Alden Road, had been since okayed by town. S. Taylor also showed copies of the warranty, prospective deed, declaration, and bylaws to the board, and entered them into the file. B. Murphy questioned Gary about the building restriction on his property and whether it had been lifted. The League of Cities and Towns had been consulted and it had been cleared. B. Murphy wanted any mention of it on comment #8 on the project map removed. S. Taylor, ZA suggested that a note be placed on the mylar referencing the documentation that proves the removal of the building restriction. B. Murphy questioned where the worksheet of density count was. The density sheet was shared and all lots came out different than just 2+ acres but all did end up above the required 2 acre amount. Discussion surrounding town standards for A76 roads ensued. S. Taylor shared that the State provides needed guidelines. Questions continued as to what materials the shoulder portion could be constructed from. S. Taylor received the State wastewater plan and permit. It was accepted and filed with the town. G. Mills explained the phone and electric lines and poles on the road area of his project had been corrected. There were no public comments.

 

 

 

B. Murphy made a motion to close the hearing to public input and move to deliberative. J. Beers second. All in favor.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Julie Beers, DRB member

 

 

 

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2010

For the Development Review Board

 

 

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

All motions were unanimously approved unless otherwise indicated.

 

 

 

FLANDERS SKETCH PLAN REVIEW

50 FLANDERS ROAD

Members Present: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, J. Beers, C. Rainville, M. Varney

Public Present: S. Taylor, ZA; K. Boutin; J. Thompson; Dorothy Heartson; Roy Heartson; Vinnie Jiwatram; William Bowman

 

8:00 PM The public notice was read and attendees signed in. Interested parties were sworn in. Dorothy Heartson made the presentation.

 

D. Heartson explained that Ernie Jr., a relative, would like to build on the family land. The project shows Lot A for Ernie Jr., Lot B for D. Heartson, and the remaining, Lot C, for her parents. The ages of the current home and converted camp were discussed. It is wondered if a permit for the camp portion was ever obtained. An investigation by the applicants and the Town is underway, concerning how far the town maintains the Town owned portion of Flanders road. It needs to be confirmed that Lot A would have 200 feet of road frontage, regardless if it is on the Town road or private ROW. B. Murphy wanted the applicants to know the road that Lot A has frontage on needs to be built to A76 standards. The need for a survey of the land was disused by all. There is an area of Lot C that is in question as to correct ownership. The arrow shaped portion of Lot C may be owned by the power company but no solid evidence as to ownership was provided. J. Beers discussed the need for accurate density calculations to be done.

 

Discussion was opened to the public. W. Bowman wondered if this project should be a PUD. W. Bowman also wondered if statues of limitations came into play in this situation, considering the age of the structures.

R. Heartson stated that it was of no benefit to the applicants to have 2 acres, or any at all. It was shared that the family would much rather not have to subdivide if it was within the law to continue the family arrangement that they currently have, only subdividing off the new lot for the new home for Ernie Jr. V. Jiwatram left early with the comment that he was there only for moral support for the applicants.

 

Applicants questioned the DRB and S. Taylor as to recommended engineers. The DRB and S. Taylor said it was not up to them to recommend but that the applicant should get one, then a surveyor. The applicant also shared that no other siblings are interested in building in the near future.

 

This project raised some issues that S. Taylor will look into; whether the applicant has to subdivide Lot B and C, or if they can only subdivide Lot A off from the family plot. The DRB looked through their bylaws too and concluded that this was an issue for S. Taylor to look into further.

 

Discussion continued about road frontage and if the existence of an old Class 4 road, Ledge Road, would have an impact on road frontage for Lot A. S. Taylor wondered if only Lot A needs to be divided off, without subdividing the remaining land, whether he would be able to conduct an Administrative Review. It was recommended to the applicants to contact Don Pigeon to review the road length and towns responsibilities in relation to Flanders Road.

 

J. Beers made a motion to recess the Flanders project to April 7, 2010 at 7:00pm, B. Murphy seconded. All in favor. S. Taylor to call applicants with news from his findings.

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 2

 

 

ACTION ITEMS:

 

1. Clarify the length of Flanders Road.

2 Clarify frontage area for Lot A, it is required to have 200 feet of frontage.

3. The property will need to be surveyed.

4. Clarify ownership of all of lot C, including the easement area and area bounded by Route 104.

5. Density calculations must be done for all lots on the property.

6. S. Taylor to make recommendations as to whether the applicant must subdivide lots B and C, or if they

may only subdivide LOT A from the family plot.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Julie Beers, DRB member

 

 

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2010

For the Development Review Board

 

 

These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

All motions were unanimously approved unless otherwise indicated.

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 2