FAIRFAX
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Wed., September 5, 2012
Jason and
Elizabeth Minor A Planned Unit Development (PUD) with associated Conditional
Use and Site Plan Review on the north side of 117 Highbridge
Road (104A)
Members
Present: J. Heyer;
B. Murphy; M. Dufresne; C. Rainville,
M. Casey
Applicants
Present: Jason and Elizabeth Minor
Public
Present: S. Taylor, ZA; Jay Shedd
8:00 PM- J. Heyer called the hearing to order. The warning was read,
introductions made, and interested persons sworn in.
Jason Minor explained that the proposed project would
be the same as the previously approved PUD on the south side of Highbridge Rd. that had been approved by the DRB on April
18, 2012, plus additional uses (a micro-brewery and a 25-seat restaurant to be
included in the public space in the inn).
He proposes to move the project to the north side of the road onto the
2.5-acre lot that the Inn currently is on.
The multi-use barn will be the same design. Already existing utilities on the north side
of the road will help make the project less expensive. The proposed secondary septic space north of
the Inn has already been approved by the Land Trust. All parking for the project will be on the
north side of the road as recommended by VTRANS.
B. Murphy asked about the previously approved PUD on the south
side of the road. The Minors explained
that they would like to maintain the prior approval for the south side. Any changes to the previously approved
project on the south side will need to come back to the DRB for a revision.
M. Casey asked about the large number of proposed uses that
would include both the barn and the inn.
Mr. Minor explained that they would not necessarily all be utilized at
first but wanted to get approval for any future opportunities. They would not build a commercial kitchen at
first (events will be catered) but would like to get approvals now so they
dont have to come back later. Space for the future kitchen
are included in the barn. The septic system has been designed to include
all approved future uses.
There was extensive discussion regarding what permits
will be needed (Dept. of Public Safety, Dept. of Health, amendment to Act 250,
liquor license, etc.). Mr. Minor told
the Board that he received a variance from the State Fire Marshall for a
sprinkler system due to the size of the barn.
There was discussion on the multiple uses and where
they would be (the barn or the inn?), the location of overflow parking, and the
need to re-apply for an access permit on the north side of the road. B.
Murphy expressed concern that the site plan did not show the proposed
future development on the south side of the road in addition to the north side
and asked that the site plan show both.
Mr. Minor agreed.
There was additional discussion regarding storm water
and erosion control, a separate 400-gallon tank for the sprinkler system,
amending wastewater permits for the proposed 25-seat restaurant, and the
definition of value-added and agricultural products.
Permits issued by the State are out of the Towns
jurisdiction. The Board expressed
concern that they had no control over what permits may be required even though
approval of the project is conditional on the Town receiving copies of all
required permits. Skip asked that the
Minors provide a list of required permits/licenses for the next hearing.
B. Murphy asked for an engineers map rather than the map
provided by Mr. Minor. J. Heyer expressed
the need for a site visit. The Board
agreed to meet at the site September 19,
2012 at 5:30PM. J. Heyer
suggested the Board recess the hearing until October 3, 2012.
Action
Items for Next Hearing
1. List of
needed permits/licenses
2. List of
proposed uses and their locations
3. Engineers
map, including setbacks, lighting, signage
9:03 PM- J. Heyer recessed the hearing until October 3, 2012 at 7:45PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Varney, Zoning and Planning Assistant
Signed:
_________________________________ Date: __________________
For the Development Review Board
These minutes
are unofficial until the next regularly approved meeting. All motions were unanimous unless otherwise
indicated.