Development Review Board Meeting

GENERAL MINUTES

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

Alternate Present: S. Jones

Public Present: S. Taylor, ZA

7:00 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The minutes from April 16, 2008 were reviewed. C. Streets made a motion to accept the general minutes from April 16, 2008 with corrections. J. Beers second.

C. Rainville, C. Streets and J. Beers in favor. C. Streets made a motion to accept the White Bloom minutes from April 16, 2008 with corrections. J. Beers second. C. Rainville, J. Beers, and C. Streets in favor.

C. Streets made a motion to accept the Burton Steen minutes. C. Rainville second. J. Heyer, C. Rainville, J. Beers, and C. Streets in favor. One project was scheduled for June 4, 2008: O & R Realty (Ormond Bushey).

The Mylar for the Garland Project was discussed. Only one of two Mylars was ready for review and it was agreed that for consistency, both Mylars should be reviewed at the same time. The Board will review the Map and Mylar for the Covi/Jones Project at a future date.

7:15 PM GILES BOISSONNEAULT – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW

8:25 PM MCNAMA/PEASE STRATTON RECESSED COMBINED HEARING

9:00 PM QUONG – PRELIMINARY/FINAL REVIEW

9:30 PM Discussion centered on setbacks and land locked properties.

9:40 PM J. Beers made a motion to enter deliberative session with S. Taylor, Z.A. included. B. Murphy second. J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville, J. Beers and C. Streets in favor.

10:30 PM C. Rainville made a motion to exit deliberative. C. Streets second. J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville, J. Beers and C. Streets in favor. A Deliberative session was scheduled for Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM. The training session with VLCT was scheduled for Thursday July 17, 2008 at 7:00 PM.. S. Taylor will confirm the date with VLCT.

10:35 PM B. Murphy made a motion to adjourn. C. Rainville second. All in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cathy Raymond, Planning and Zoning Assistant

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2008

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.

GILES BOISSONNEAULT SKETCH PLAN REVIEW

DRB Roll Call: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville, J. Beers, C. Streets

Public Present: S. Taylor, Z.A.; G. Ovitt-Ledoux; R. Parent; D. Ranks; K. Slowinski; D. Warner;

C. Havreluk; G. Boissonneault

7:15 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The public notice was read and attendees signed in. Interested parties were sworn in. G. Boissonneault made the presentation. J. Heyer asked where the access to the lots would be. Lot 2 may be accessed from Buck Hollow Road, the others hopefully will be accessed via the Buckhollow end of Ledge Road. The lack of road frontage for lot 2 was discussed including options along Buckhollow Road and Mansfield Road. Easements would be needed.

Discussion centered on Ledge Road itself. S. Taylor stated the Town Clerk could not find any evidence that Ledge Road was ever a Town Road of any type. The Town considers Ledge Road to be a private road. B. Murphy asked about the width of the ROW for Ledge Road. G. Boissonneault said the width was 3 Rods (approximately 49.5 feet wide.) J. Heyer asked how widening the road portion of Ledge Road would affect the neighbors. D. Ranks said he has a drilled well in his front yard, very close to the road. He said there is ledge in the area. The road would need to be built up. There is very poor visibility from Ledge Road onto Buckhollow Road. G. Ovitt-Ledoux was concerned she would lose part of her front yard. She said that end of Ledge Road is only a path. Ledge Road does not go through to Sam Webb Road. R. Parent asked about the ROW by the cemetery, off Buckhollow. That access would only be for lot 2. J. Beers asked about ledge in the area. Per Mr. Boissonneault the parcel is mostly meadow with some wooded areas and wetlands. These areas will need to be delineated. He did not think ledge was an issue. B. Murphy asked about water for the project. The Engineer will design septic and well areas. C. Rainville asked if they had building plans yet. The current plan is to subdivide the parcel for building lots. Perk tests will need to be done to determine if the lots are suitable for building and residential development. B. Murphy asked about road maintenance. As of now the current residents maintain their portion of Ledge road with no written agreement. There will need to be some agreement on road maintenance, possibly language in the Deeds, mentioning sharing the costs.

B. Murphy brought up the fact that if the applicant decides not to subdivide, he can build one house on the existing property without upgrading any roads, or without any approval from the Development Review Board. He will need a Building Permit from the Zoning Administrator and any and all State Permits. C. Streets stated that accepting a Sketch Plan is not a binding action. The development is a Minor Subdivision. No site visit was planned at this time. C. Streets made a motion to accept the Sketch Plan with the action items noted. C. Rainville second. All in favor.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Road Access Permit or written validation from Road Foreman (due to change of use) for lot 2, off Buckhollow Road.

2. Resolution of lack of road frontage for lot 2: actual frontage, easements, ROW, shared driveway, etc.

3. Show all features on final Plat as listed in Article II, Sections 201 and Article III, Section 302 of the Fairfax Subdivision

Regulations including: wet lands, easements, delineation of natural features, slopes greater than 25 feet et al.

4. Density calculations to be completed according to Article VI, Section 604.G.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

5. Show size and boundaries of all parcels on Plat (Minimum of 2 acres of developable land, after Density Calculations

completed).

6. Show area for trash pick-up, or agreement with private trash hauler to pick-up trash on private road.

7. Upgraded Ledge Road to be shown on the plat (from Buckhollow Road to driveways for lots 1 & 3) built to A76

Standards: 24 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders.

8. Written resolution for Ledge Road access and maintenance.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cathy Raymond, Zoning and Planning Assistant

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2008

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.

MCNAMARA/PEASE-STRATTON RECESSED COMBINED HEARING

DRB Roll Call: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville, J. Beers Alternate Present: S. Jones

Public Present: S. Taylor, Z.A.; C. Streets; D. Gardell; Dave Gardell; D. McNamara

8:25 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The public notice was read and attendees signed in. Interested parties were sworn in. The Boundary Line Adjustment portion of the hearing was completed and a Findings of Fact and Order

approved. This recessed hearing is for the Sketch Plan Review and the request for a Right-of-Way for the lot without frontage. B. Murphy started by stating that the ROW would be an easement - not a road. It is proposed as an alternative to the lack of 200 feet of frontage. J. Heyer also said this easement does not make the lot with the existing house a corner lot. David Gardell read the definition of “corner lot” to include “approved means of access”. S. Taylor read the definition of “yard”. D. McNamara referred to Regulation 604C on corner lots, referencing streets, not easements. The ROW at McNall Road would be inside the property line, not on the perimeter. Mrs. Gardell talked about the shape of the property. S. Jones stated that not all lots are developable. The Board’s duty is to be sure the Bylaws are followed.

Mr. Gardell read from a three page letter stating his objections to the project. These objections included: Bylaw issues,

especially compliance with Article 5, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, regarding creation of lots without frontage, and the applicable definitions in Appendix B; shape of lots; setbacks; negative impact on rural area; steep grades; ditches; and good agricultural soils. Mr. McNamara said that the Gardells chose to place their pond and blueberry patch next to the McNamara’s property. Mr. McNamara submitted a letter to answer the set back requirement issues brought up at the first hearing. In his letter he states “I do not believe that the intention is to apply 60 foot ‘minimum yard setbacks’ to ‘private right of ways’. I believe the intention is to apply ‘front yard setbacks’ to front portions of lots bordering streets/roads”. There was much discussion on various sections of the Bylaws, Subdivision Regulations and Definitions. The neighbors had well documented objections. B. Murphy thanked Mr. Gardell for clarifying the issue of frontage for the Board, specifically Article 5, Section 5.2.A of the Zoning Bylaws. The project was declared a minor subdivision. B. Murphy made a motion to accept the Sketch Plan with all action items noted from the hearings. C. Rainville second. J. Heyer and C. Rainville voted in the affirmative. B. Murphy, S. Jones and J. Beers voted in the negative. The Sketch Plan was not accepted as submitted.

EXHIBITS RECEIVED AT THE HEARING:

1. 3 page “Opposition to McNamara Subdivision” written by David and Debra Gardell, adjoining property

owners, dated May 7, 2008.

2. Copy of ANR Environmental Interest Locator, showing area of the project and Gardell’s property.

3. Letter from Dylan McNamara in regards to “Set Back Requirements” dated May 7, 2008.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cathy Raymond, Zoning and Planning Assistant

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2008

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.

Appeal Rights: An appeal of this decision to the State Environmental Court may be filed with the Clerk of the

Development Review Board or the Town Clerk by June 6, 2008 (within thirty (30) days from the date the Motion was

made and denied). Refer to Title 24, VSA; Section 4471 for appeals to the Environmental Court.

QUONG – PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT REVIEW

DRB Roll Call: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville Alternate Present: S. Jones

Public Present: S. Taylor, Z.A.; C. Streets; J. Beers; Jill Quong, Johnathan Quong

9:00 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The public notice was read and attendees signed in. Interested parties were sworn in. B. Murphy noted the Driveway for lot 2 was not showing on the map. The actual location has not been decided yet. Jill Quong asked about restrictions for the location. B. Murphy also asked about maintenance of Summit View Street. The Quongs own a portion of the street and the Deed specifies they do not have the responsibility of maintaining it. The Summit View Association maintains the street. B. Murphy asked for clarification of the homes.

The existing home will be converted to a single family residence. A duplex will be built on the new lot. B. Murphy made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, close the hearing to public input and move to deliberative. C. Rainville second. All in favor.

ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE PAPER MAP IS APPROVED:

1. Show final location of driveway for lot 2.

2. Deed language showing no responsibility (or any responsibility), for Summit Street maintenance by Lot 2

owners.

3. Seal on Final Paper Map, to be identical to the map dated 02/06/2008, received 03/20/2008, with the

exception of the lot 2 driveway location.

ITEMS TO BE PRESENTED TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED:

1. Verification of water allocations by the Selectboard.

2. Physical connections to municipal water and municipal sewer approved by the Selectboard.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cathy Raymond, Zoning and Planning Assistant

Approved: ________________________________ Date: _________________2008

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.