FAIRFAX DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, June 15, 2011
GENERAL MINUTES
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.