FAIRFAX DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Members Present: J. Heyer, B. Murphy, C. Rainville, M. Dufresne
Alternates Present: P. Rainville
Public Present: Michael Averill (engineer), Steven Lynch, Janice Lynch, Moise St. Louis, Elaine Kirkpatrick and Sally Sweet (representing the Fairfax CemeteryAssociation), Scott Whiteman, S. Taylor, ZA
Mark and Bonnie Labrie Administrative Review of a 2-lot subdivision located at 24 Fassett Rd.
8:00 PM- J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The warning was read, introductions made, and interested persons sworn in.
Skip presented the administrative review. The proposed subdivision would divide a 3-acre lot from an 88-acre parcel and be located at the end of Beeman Rd. The Labries’ propose to build a duplex with on-site water and septic. The remaining land will be undisturbed. There was discussion regarding the requirements for ‘developable’ land (steep slopes/ditches and easements) and building envelopes. Skip stated that the project meets the requirements of the Fairfax Development Regulations and recommended approval.
B. Murphy asked about access to the rest of the land – from Shepardson Hollow or Fassett? There was discussion regarding the width of the Right-of-Way on Fassett and the ability to upgrade to A76 standards if needed for future development on Lt 1.
Janice Lynch asked if there were going to be any other homes on Beeman Rd. after this. Skip stated that it is not possible under the current regulations.
Moise St. Louis expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed driveway to his well, and that the septic shield from the new lot imposes on his property. He asked if Mr. Labrie could move the septic system so the envelope would be only on his land. Cemetery representatives were concerned about the septic shield and wellhead protection area. J. Heyer explained that the State sets the buffer distances for well head protection and septic shields.
There was additional d iscussion regarding restrictions on private property, increase in traffic, and additional future development off Beeman and Fassett Rds.
Skip explained that the location of septic systems and wells is beyond the scope of the Fairfax Development Regulations. The project meets all the Town’s requirements. The other is State authority. Mr. St. Louis suggested the decision be tabled until the issue is resolved. He had spoken with Mr. Labrie whom, he claimed, was willing to move the septic. He would like to see a plan before continuing with the approval process. Mr. Averill stated that the State permits have been applied for and the affected landowners have been notified. There was additional discussion regarding property owners’ rights.
Mr. Whiteman stated he would like the septic relocated and the shield off the property, suggesting it could be moved onto property still owned by the Labries’. Steve Lynch expressed concerns about additional traffic and dirt on the road.
Sally Sweet, as a representative of the Cemetery Commission, commented that a letter received from Michael Averill of Averill Engineering that notified abutters of the well and septic shields was confusing. Ms. Sweet gave a copy of the letter to Skip for the file.
M. Dufresne asked if the State can be responsible to the neighbors for the impact on their land. There was additional discussion regarding property rights and the impact on neighbors’ land.
9:15 PM- B. Murphy moved to accept the Zoning Administrator’s recommendation; C. Rainville2nd. During additional discussion, M. Dufresne asked if Mr. Labrie would consider his neighbors’ concerns. There was no further discussion. Voting in the affirmative – P. Rainville, B. Murphy, C. Rainville. Voting against – M. Dufresne, J. Heyer. The project is approved. J. Heyer signed the Findings of Fact and Order for the Board.
Martha Varney, Planning and Zoning Assistant
Approved: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________
For the Development Review Board
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………TThese minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting. All motions were unanimously approved unless otherwise indicated.