FAIRFAX DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                Wednesday, August 15, 2012


Fairfax Falls LLC Sketch Plan Review for a 9-Lot PUD to be located at 1 Arbor Meadow Rd.


Members Present:  J. Heyer, B. Murphy, M. Casey, C. Rainville, M. Dufresne

Public Present: Andy Hoak (Ruggiano Engineering); Darlene Autery (Ruggiano Engineering), Dennis Briggs

Applicant Present: PJ Poquette


8:00 PM- Andy Hoak of Ruggiano Engineering presented the Sketch Plan to the Board.  He explained that the proposed 9-lot PUD will be surrounding the existing Arbor Meadows subdivision on Rt. 104.  Three lots (#’s 9, 10, and 11) will be accessed from a curb cut on Rt.104 west of Arbor Meadow Rd.  These lots will have their own wells and a shared wastewater system.  Lots12, 13, and 14 will be accessed off the end of Arbor Meadow Rd.  These lots will have their own wells and in-ground wastewater systems.  The road will meet A76 standards up to the driveway for Lot 12,thenwill be a shared driveway for Lots 13 and 14.  A turn-around will be located within 200 feet but no closer than 50 feet from the home on Lot 14.  The Driveway is under 800 feet in length and no passing zone is needed. Lots 15, 16, and 17 will be access by a new curb cut east of Arbor Meadow Rd. on Rt. 104.  These lots will have their own wells but will share a community wastewater mound system.

          Proposed open space will total 22.68 acres and is 50% of the total acreage.  A 30-foot-wide corridoron the southern borders of Lots 13 and 14 connect two areas of open space.


Questions from the Board:

          J. Heyerasked about drainage on the property.  Mr. Hoak explained that wetlands bisect the property in two places.  New ponds are planned for the east and west sides of the property but exact locations and design have not been planned yet.Is the development maxed out after this? Yes.  Will ditches be stone lined? Yes, “that would be wise.”  There was additional discussion (with B. Murphy) regarding the shape of the open space lot with its 30-ft wide connector as not being natural.

          M. Caseyquestioned the proposed open space being identified as part of Lot 14.  Mr. Hoak explained that it was intended as recreation for Lots 9 – 17.  Mr. Poquette said that its use by lots 1-8 would have to be addressed by the Lot 1-8 Association.  There was discussion of the classification of wetlands (the area to the west of the cul-de-sac is class 2; the area to the east is not classified on the Town’s maps) and the locations of the flood plains; the total acreage of the open space being 50% of the total acreage; and the length of the driveway to Lot 14 and the need for a turn-around.  Mr. Hoak said they would need to modify the house location and shorten the cul-de-sac to allow for a turn-around more than 50 feet from the house.

          B. Murphy expressed concern that the shape of the open land and asked that the 30-ft corridor be marked by a path and markers.  Mr. Hoak agreed.  He explained that connecting the 2 areas of open space in this way simplified the process rather than having two separate areas.

            C. Rainville asked about access to the open space.  Mr. Hoak explained that the easements have not been shown yet on the site plan.

            M. Dufresne asked about slopes greater than 25%.  Mr. Hoak agreed that the topography of the property led to the PUD concept rather than a straight subdivision.  There was additional discussion regarding the slope of the driveway to lots 13 and 14, erosion control, non-developable land, and options for locations for development.


Public Input

          Mr. Briggs questioned the co-ownership of Lot 14 and the open land.He also asked about ATV access to the open land.  Skip Taylor explained that the common land can be restricted to non-motorized vehicle in the Association’s Covenants.  Mr. Poquette agreed to have Draft Covenants for the next hearing.

          There was no other public input.


There was discussion among the Board members regarding the difference between a Major and Minor subdivision. The Board has discretion in classifying the project.   Mr. Poquette said they had met the criteria for a Minor subdivision. 


9:00 PM- B. Murphy moved to classify the subdivision as a Major subdivision;M. Casey 2nd.  All in favor.


A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday, August 22 at 5:30 PM.



Action Items

1.     Applicant will bring a draft of covenants to the next hearing.

2.     Slope percentages will be included on the final plat.

3.     Changes to the map:

-         Add ‘Town of Westford’ as abutter on south side

-         Change ‘Shirley Baillargeon’ to ‘John and Janet Marriot’ (abutters on west side)

-         Delete ‘PROPOSED LOT#14 +/-28.30 ACRES’ and correct acreage on Lot #14

-         Add ‘ Total Acreage – 45.6’ to Zoning Notes

-         Add ‘Zoning District – Conservation’ to Zoning Notes


9:10 PM- Hearing ended


Respectfully submitted,

Martha Varney, Zoning and Planning Assistant


Approved: ________________________________ Date: __________________

                        For the Development Review Board



These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.  All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.