BFA, MULTI PURPOSE ROOM
PC MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Heyer, M Hunziker, D. Brown, R. Wimble, A. Lemieux
PUBLIC PRESENT: S. Taylor, ZA; G. Brunswick, NRPC; L. Robart; D. King; W. King; M. Ellsworth; J. Ellsworth; J. McGuinness; M. Heyer; L. Pfanstiel; P. King; J.R. Blake; J. Blake; D. Bellows; K Hebert; D. Gardell; L. Tracy; J. Crary; R. Ertl; J. Lapierre; G. Lapierre; D. Lapierre; L. Lapierre; N. Garland; J. Minor; S.J. Minor; M. Minor; R. McNall; B. Horr; M. Chicoine; J. Marriott; M.Wiener; R. Kuehn; R. Kuehn; S. Kuehn; M. O’Day; A. Woodward; D. Woodward; E. Kirkpatrick; J. Bouthillette; J. Hochberg; C. Roberts; P. Lavallee;
T. Helfrich; D. Helfrich; S. Arzen; (and a few others that did not sign in).
7:10 PM Greg Heyer welcomed everyone to the public forum to obtain valuable input from land owners regarding future regulations to manage development. The focus will be on lot sizes and density. Greta Brunswick, representative of Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NRPC), moderated the meeting. She started with a slide presentation focusing on: goals, potential growth, density changes, Planned Unit Developments, Maximum Density Option, and changes in district boundaries. Two hand-outs were available: “Issues and Opportunities” and “Proposed Changes to the Fairfax Zoning Map-June 2009”. During this first portion of the meeting various issues were brought up including: maintenance of open land, septic and water issues, changes to the Growth Center District, and the need to encourage commercial development.
The second phase of the meeting consisted of six break-out groups. Each group discussed two density options for a parcel of land. Each group was given a specific lot size to design a site plan based on two different allowable densities. A member of the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator was the moderator for each group. The small groups encouraged conversation from all of the participants on the important issues of density and the best way to develop land parcels. At the end of the session each group summarized their conclusions with many varied results. Some individuals preferred larger lot sizes while others did not want the density to change.
The final phase of the forum was
for public comments. Many questions and
topics were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. (Comments, not
quotes, from the PC are in regular type, comments,
not quotes, from the public are in italics)
a)
Why re-organize the Bylaws at all and
make changes that are not needed?
The most recent revisions were to comply with changes to State Statute.
To conform to the updated Town Plan.
To better organize the document and make it more user friendly.
To consider keeping the rural feel of the Town through density changes.
There were
requests to allow the current rules to work as is. There are many ways to restrict
development that are already in place such as ACT 250,
Natural Resources, and recommendations of
Design Engineers. Changing rules is confusing
and will create more problems.
b)
Why are the District Boundaries proposed
to change?
To differentiate districts according to their intended uses and to consolidate districts with the
same intended uses.
To expand the growth center to include most areas served by the existing water and sewer lines.
To encourage orderly development in concentrated centers and protect the rural countryside.
There was discussion regarding the water and
sewer infrastructure in the growth center and the
concern that even though the boundaries may be expanded,
the Town does not have the resources to
expand the needed water and sewer capacity. Federal stimulus money
was discussed along with the
need for grants. It will take millions of dollars to expand the
municipal sewer capacity and the
Town water supply, and to place
sidewalks in the Growth Center area.
Page 1 of 2
c) What is the trend for new
development?
New home Building Permits are about half of what they were last year.
The number of projects brought before the DRB are down from last year.
There is a large inventory of homes and lots of land for sale.
Most new developments are in the rural areas.
The
current economy is having a negative effect on new development.
Fairfax is a desirable community due to having a complete K-12 school system.
d) A recommendation was made to have an advisory
committee formed with equal representation of
large parcel, medium parcel and small parcel land owners.
The Planning Commission would consider an advisory committee.
e) Large Land Owners are
concerned about losing their rights to their land.
Agriculture
is suffering, and cows may be gone soon.
Many
farms have been in the family for years.
It
is disturbing when the Town dictates what can be done with your land.
Need
people with good common sense who are not self-serving to be on the Boards.
The
future is frightening.
Land
owners should not be told what to do with their land after they have owned it
for 50 years
or more.
The
land is the only retirement fund many land owners have, and they have worked
hard to keep
the value of the land.
f) Why is
the Village Center not pedestrian accessible?
Lack of parking in the village lead the shopping center and post-office to move out of the
village center.
One purpose of the growth center is to encourage more businesses, but due to the lack of
available sewer and water capacity, new businesses have a difficult time starting up in the
growth center.
G. Brunswick thanked the community for their participation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cathy Raymond, Zoning and Planning Assistant
Approved_____________________________________ Date______________,
2009
(Chair)
These minutes are unofficial
until approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Page 2 of 2