FAIRFAX DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD            Wednesday, June 15, 2011




Members Present: J. Heyer, M. Casey, B. Murphy, J. Beers

Alternates Present: L. Hayes

Public Present: S. Taylor, ZA


7:00 PM-  J. Heyer called the meeting to order.  Reconvened From May 18, 2011- Elaine Barkyoumb Variance Request at 102 Huntville Rd.


7:10 PM- Hearing closed


Skip discussed a letter from the DRB to the Planning Commission regarding a request to change the language on page 38 of the new Development Regulations (approved 2/14/11) in regards to the “degree of nonconformity” as it relates to variances.  There was discussion on side setbacks and if an adjoining property owner would object to increasing the degree of nonconformity.  B. Murphy felt thatsince variance laws are State mandated the Board needs to be careful.  J. Heyer noted that usually road frontage is the problem. J. Beers added there were accident and public safety issues for setbacks.  The Board tabled the discussion until after the Blakeney hearing.


7:30 PM- James and Marybeth Blakeney Administrative Review of a 2-lot Subdivision at 147 Nichols Rd.


8:00 PM- Hearing closed.


J. Beers moved to accept the General Minutes from May 18, 2011; B. Murphy 2nd.  All in favor.


B. Murphymoved to accept the Barkyoumb variance hearing minutes from May 18, 2011 (with minor changes); M. Casey 2nd.  All in favor.


B. Murphy moved to accept the minutes from the Mountain View Associates Administrative Review from May 18, 2011; J. Beers 2nd.  All in favor.


Billado/Palmer Map and Mylar: The recording information was correct.  The paper map and mylar were identical.  B. Murphy moved to accept the Billado paper map and mylar; J. Beers 2nd.  All in favor.J. Heyersign the mylar.


(Continuation of previous discussion re: the DRB’s request to the Planning Commission):  The Board discussed various scenarios to nonconformity.  Is it reasonable? B. Murphy – Is it necessary?  S. Taylor said that front yard issues are more common than side setbacks in a previously existing nonconformity.  M. Casey noted that “degree of nonconformity” is a local, not State definition. Interpretation of “degree of nonconformity” is the issue.  M. Casey suggested that the definition not be added to Article 9 of the Development Regulations in order to allow the Zoning Administrator to continue to interpret “degree of nonconformity” as he did with the old Development Bylaws.  The Board also recommended that in Figure 5.4 of the Development Regulations (page 38) that B and C are allowed.


The next meeting of the DRB will be Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 7PM.  The meeting will include the deliberative for the Barkyoumb Variance request.



There was additional discussion regarding variances.


8:45- J. Beers moved to adjourn; B.Murphy2nd.  All in favor


Respectfully submitted,

Martha Varney, Zoning and Planning Assistant



Approved: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________2011

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.