FAIRFAX DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, April 20, 2011

 

 

Pfanstiel Sketch Plan for a 4-Lot Subdivision on 41 acres at 50 King Rd (KI0050).

 

Members Present: J. Heyer, J. Beers, B. Murphy, C. Rainville

Alternates Present: P. Rainville

Public Present: S. Taylor-ZA, L. Pfanstiel, M. Averill - Engineer, J. Aher, I. Johnson, J. Johnson, K. Stockwell, M. Spaulding, T. Poirier, J. Gobeille.

 

7:00 PM J. Heyer called the meeting to order. The warning was read, introductions made, and interested persons sworn in.

 

B. Murphy was asked to recuse herself by J. Aher and I. Johnson. The applicants agreed to continue the hearing with only 4 members present.

 

M. Averill explained the history of the prior development on the property. They propose to create 3 more lots from the existing Lot 1, for a total of 4 lots. One curb cut on King Road will access the 3 new lots. Access will be through a ROW from the existing driveway of Lot 2 (the Spaulding property)*. Leach fields and wells for the proposed lots will be incorporated within each lot.

*Lot 2 is part of a previously approved subdivision.

 

(Answers to direct questions appear in italics)

Questions from the Board

J. Heyer asked about access to existing septic areas on Lot 4 (belonging to Johnson, Poirier and Gobielle). He asked for deed language for access to septic systems. The applicant was asked to create an access easement to the septic systems on Lot 4 along the northern border of Lot 4. There was discussion on types of leach fields in-ground and top-ground. J. Heyer also asked about power access from King Rd. M. Averill there will be 2 poles on Lot 3 and underground lines from there to the houses. Could power be underground from the road? M. Averill - Cost prohibitive; not sure of future development and the costs eventually involved. S. Taylor asked for building envelopes to be shown on the map. J. Heyer asked about covenants will they be only on the roadway? Mr. Averill will bring sample language to the next hearing. P. Rainville asked about easements on Lot 4. J. Beers asked if the house location on Lot 4 could be moved back a bit. Mr. Pfanstiel explained the proposed placement of the house was put behind an existing tree buffer.

 

Public Input

J. Aher claimed Mr. Pfanstiel purchased the land originally to build his own home only. She expressed concern about the location of the access on the King Rd. being close to a hill with a blind spot. Continued development makes for more traffic. She also stated the land on Lot 1 was very wet. M. Averill said he dug test pits and found the area to be fine. She said that Mr. Pfanstiel had claimed there would be no further development to the property and was concerned about the character of the community.

 

J. Gobeille agreed that the area was very wet. Mr. Averill stated that the wetlands have been identified by the State. Mr. Gobeille expressed concern about liability if he has to access Lot 4 to work on his leach field. Mr. Averill offered to add a 25 ft. ROW to allow access to leach field on Lot 4. He asked if the further development triggered Act 250. Mr. Averill - No, this is separate from the earlier development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T. Poirier claimed he was told by Mr. Pfanstiel that there would be no further development. He questioned if there was room to build a house on Lot 4 where there already are 3 leach fields located. He asked about run-off and how development on Lot 4 and 5 will affect this. He was concerned about how this could affect his leach field.

 

J. Johnson expressed concern that he will not be able to access his leach field. He also agreed that the area was wet. Mr. Johnson felt the language on the public notice lead him to believe that a 4-Lot subdivision of 41 acres would be approximately 10 acres each.

 

I. Johnson passed out a letter and photographs to the Board that she had also sent to the applicant. She was concerned about home values if the property is further developed. She was also concerned about the loss of the view of the field behind her house.

 

The Board asked to see any plans for further development at the site.

 

A site visit was scheduled for Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 6:30.

 

8:00 PM - J. Beers moved to adjourn; P. Rainville 2nd. 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.