TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

January 3, 2006

Approved January 17, 2006

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn (chair), George Munson, Clint Emmons, Lisa Godfrey, Ted Bloomhardt, Robert Gauthier.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Greg Waples.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Rad Romeyn, Stan Bissonette, Raymond Ayer, Mark Bissonette, Lyle Bissonette, Dan Baldwin, Matt Baldwin, Bill Schubart, Kate Robinson Schubart, Larry Bissonette, Ralph Budd, Lenore Budd, Sally M. Reiss, Lexi Reiss, Anne Donegan, Howard Russell, Carrie Fenn, David Fenn, James Donegan, George Bedard, Ian Jukes.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 pm

 

Minutes of December 20, 2005 Meeting:

Lisa MOVED to approve the December 20, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Robert and Ted abstaining.

 

Minor 2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Applicants are Howard and Inez French

George Bedard explained that the Frenches are applying for a two lot subdivision on the north side of Drinkwater Road near Charlotte. Howard and Inez wish to create a 10 acre parcel containing the house and farm structure and sell the 110 acre remainder that they own on this side of the road. This northern parcel previously had two 21 acre parcels separated from it in the south west corner. One was a 'free lot' which was subsequently subdivided and now contains three houses and the other, an adjacent 21 acre parcel, which is not yet developed. The now, 71 acre, French parcel across the road to the south has also been subdivided two times on its western side. The review process for the most recently created southern lot (Wainer – 2003) discussed a master plan for the whole farm. The final plat contained a condition #4 'Any development of the remainder lot shall be reviewed under subdivision standards and shall include a 'master plan' for any further subdivision of the farm.' This condition, while it does not technically apply to this application since the southern and northern portions of the farm are actually separate lots, clearly calls for a master plan for this farm. While this application appears as a simple request to separate an already developed lot from a larger parcel, this large holding is still being fragmented once again, with no master plan in sight.

 

George B. clarified that the Frenches wish to sell the larger 110 acre lot as a large farm tract approved for a 4 bedroom residence. He explained that the applicants have submitted their paperwork to receive a state septic permit for the lot. A location where a conventional septic system could be installed was sited toward the front of the lot. George B. said that although a potential building location had been sited towards the front of the lot, he could envision that someone would wish to tuck their home into the back of the lot near the more forested areas. In that case the septic would either need to be pumped to the location at the front of the lot or another septic location would need to be sited and the state septic permit would need to be amended.

 

Clint asked how large the piece of land is in Charlotte. George B. said it is about 8 acres and that it is mostly low wetland with no access point from any other road. He did not foresee that it would become another building lot.

 

Tom asked about the existing spring. George B. explained that the spring is used for the benefit of the residents on the other side of the road. He said that they have since drilled a well, but they still have deeded access to the spring. George B. also said that the location of the proposed access point is near the pond and it will need to be determined if this location is dry enough for the drive. It may need to be moved.

 

Tom asked if the applicants have a master plan for subdividing the remainder of their land. George B. said that the Frenches are not looking to do a lot of subdivisions on their own and that they just wish to sell the large farm tract. Ted asked if the entire lot is able to be developed or if the development rights have been sold. George said that the development rights have not been sold on this lot but that the Frenches don't wish to divide this land any further on their own.

 

Clint thought that a building envelope should be defined. Alex noted that if the buyers wish to build outside the proposed building envelope they will need to come back before the board to amend the subdivision approval. George B. said that in that case he felt the applicants would prefer to identify multiple building envelopes and allow buyers to have the option of choosing one. He did not want to force a buyer to come back before the board if they wish to build in a different location.

 

Ted asked about the soils contained in the land towards the back of the lot. George B. said the soils are shallow to bedrock, ledge and clay. He explained that they had dug 63 test pits being careful not to dig up the fields as requested by the applicants. They found that outside the area  that could be used for conventional septic towards the front of the lot any other location would probably require more advanced treatment options. He also said he would like to dig more test pits in the woods out back as well.

 

George B. said he envisioned one 2000 – 3000 square foot house built on this lot. Ted said he felt the development potential of the lot was an issue. He was concerned about seeing a future buyer back before the board requesting to march houses up the meadow. George B. noted that any future buyer would need to come back before the board in order to do that.

 

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

 

Lisa said that the board is seeing more and more fragmentation of larger lots and that it is hard to explain to future applicants why development is being limited because the best areas have already been developed. Ted agreed with Lisa and added that future buyers should understand that previous subdivisions of land can affect the future possibilities for subdivision in that area. He then asked if there was a reason that the other lot is 10 acres in size. George B. said that the access point was an issue in determining the size of the lot as well as the usability of the road frontage. He said the 10 acres encompasses the home and all of the outbuildings. George M. noted that the applicants still have 73 acres across the road so he could still conceivably operate a small farm on this remaining land holding.

 

Rad Romeyn asked if the soil conditions aren't the primary factor that drive development limitations on tracts of land. He noted that the viability of septic systems and ag soil preservation can have a great affect on whether a tract of land is suitable for development. Ted agreed that this was the case but that more advanced septic treatment systems help to make more land viable for this purpose than has been in the past. George B. noted that it used to be said that 80% of the land in Vermont can't hold a septic system. With the new designs now available about 60% of the land can't hold a septic system.

 

Rad asked about the housing density allowed in this zone. George B. said that lots need to be at least 2 acres in size. Ted also noted that there are numerous criteria that are considered when subdividing land and that other regulations will come into play.

 

Peter explained that he did not feel he was presented with a complete application. He noted that a building envelope had not been designated and the staff was not aware that the 110 acre parcel was being proposed as a building lot. George M. said that it shouldn't have come before the board if all the information had not yet been submitted. Alex said the staff was under the impression that only a state septic permit had been applied for and that the applicant was not requesting a building lot. Tom asked if a site visit would be necessary. Lisa said she didn't think a site visit would be helpful if the board had not been presented with all the applicable information. Ted asked if the items missing were the building envelope and driveway details. He also said he did not realize the application was requesting a second building lot. George B. said he thought a site visit would clarify everything. Lisa asked him to explain how this would happen. George B. said the board would get the lay of the land, walk the farm road and would get a good idea of where viable house locations should go.

 

George M. said he thought the application should be continued to another meeting and discussed once the applicable materials are received.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan to the February 7th meeting with the condition that the applicant provide all requested information to staff. George M. SECONDED the motion.

 

Alex asked if the board would like to schedule a site visit on the weekend prior to the February 7th meeting. Peter said he thought this would be a good idea and that he could provide a revised staff report to the board prior to the site visit.

 

Tom amended his motion to include a site visit of the property on Saturday February 4 at 9:00 am. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Final Plat – East Side of Route 116 – Applicant is Bissonette Family Corporation

George Bedard explained that the applicant is requesting final plat approval of a 3-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 120 acres, and is located on the east side of VT Route 116, on Bissonette Lane, parcel #09-02-49.000. The subject parcel has a very irregular shape, with a large, forested eastern portion connected to a smaller, open (meadow) western portion via a 100' strip in the middle. The forested eastern portion is quite striking from the Route 116 side because it rises quickly to a peak from the meadow. Access to this portion of the parcel is highly constrained by extremely steep slopes. The western portion is just the opposite, being a relatively flat open meadow. No mapped streams exist on the property. The parcel has access to Route 116 via a 50' wide right of way across the abutting Ayer parcel (09-02-42.000). It is essentially undeveloped, with only a hunting camp on the larger and less accessible eastern portion.

 

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 4.46 acres on the north side of the front meadow. This lot is encumbered by a right of way (i.e., Bissonette Lane) on the north and east sides of the lot. Lot 2 is 3.67 acres on the south side of the front meadow. This lot is also encumbered by a right of way (i.e., Bissonette Lane) on the east side of the lot as well as a septic disposal easement area for the camp on lot 3. Both lots would have access to Bissonette Lane (a private road), so that subdivision proposal also constitutes a proposal for development on a private right of way. Individual, on-site septic and drilled wells are planned for lots 1 & 2. Lot 3 constitutes the remaining land (approximately 112 acres) including the 100' strip extending from the meadow's edge to the larger eastern portion of the parcel.

 

George B. explained that the applicants had met with the Select board to get approval for the private drive that would exceed current grade regulations. He said the proposal has septic and erosion control measures, a site plan and boundary survey. The roadway has an H-shaped turn-around and George B. noted that the proposed drive to lot 1 could be removed from the map if this means that the drive location cannot change. Peter suggested that the driveway be kept on the contour of the land or with a slight upslope to ensure that water does not run down the driveway and onto the shared drive.

 

George B. addressed the staff report's concern with the project's impact on ag soils by showing a typical 40' by 80' footprint on the building envelope. He then added a 40' x 48' footprint to represent a large garage. Between the two buildings only 25% of the building envelope would be used.

 

Tom asked George B. to talk more about the grade of the private drive. George B. said that for the first 50' the drive has a 4% grade, for next 75' has an 8% grade, for next 125' has an 18% grade, for next 200' has a 15% grade, for next 50' has a 14% grade and then moves from 5% to 10% back to 5% before leveling off to a 1% grade at the top of the drive. Tom asked if Ridge Consulting has provided a full plan for the drive. George B. said they had and that their measures included extensive erosion control. Ted asked if the road is existing and if it needs width improvement. George B. explained that it was an existing road which was part of the extenuating circumstances taken into account by the select board when approval for the drive was granted. He also said the road would be widened to 18'. Clint asked if the Select board approved the road width as well as the grade. Alex said that yes the board has approved the 18' width. Ted asked why the applicants had to go before the Select board. Alex said because the grade of the road was above the current standards at certain points. Ted asked about the validity of the standards if the Select board would approve roads that do not meet the standards. Alex explained that the standards are intended to be used as guidelines and that they are dependent on specific cases. He added that the Select board has added several conditions and caveats to their approval of the road to accommodate for several different potential circumstances.

 

Tom said he felt it was very important that the board is assured that the erosion control will be implemented by the contractors as outlined by the engineers. Ted thought all the info that the Select board has included in their motion to approve the road should be included in the staff's finding of fact. Clint asked if it would take a lot of work to widen the road. George B. said it would. Ted thought the maintenance of the road should be addressed. He asked if a Homeowners association would be formed. George B. said this issue is currently handled in deed language. Ted noted that several previous applicants have been asked to create a homeowners association to deal with maintenance issues. He thought there was great merit in this setup as it allows the town to deal with one entity and that it should become a standard for dealing with private drives.

 

Tom asked what assurance the board will get that the contractors will implement Ridge Consulting's designed measures for erosion control. Ted said the board should condition the approval on inspections during and after construction by Ridge Consulting.

 

Alex said he was concerned with the southern side of the drive. He asked if blanket sheets will be laid in the areas disturbed beyond the stone ditch. George B said that a sheet would need to be laid over disturbed land to keep the land together and prevent erosion. Alex noted that it makes sense for Ridge Consulting to make these erosion control measures clear to the contractor but that it would also be nice for the board to have the detailed measures to review as well. George B. said that he could identify areas of construction, the extent of the stone ditch as well as the specific erosion control measures. Alex asked if George B. was qualified to do this as a surveyor. George B. said that all of Ridge Consulting's plans were based off of George B's measurements. Alex said he was concerned that the engineer's erosion control measures are generalized and have nothing to do with the specifics of the Bissonette property and that he would have liked to see plans that specifically applied to the topography of this location.

 

Peter asked if the driveway meets the standards at the intersection. George B. said that it does and that it enters in a nice flat location and that this is one of the reasons they wished to preserve this entrance.

 

Ted noted that there seemed to be several conditions to be met prior to final plat that included: erosion control inspections, creation of a Homeowners association, responsibilities of the developer for the first year after construction. Tom added that the driveway should be removed from the final plat and that it should run either along the contour or up-slope to prevent runoff onto the shared drive, and that tie-ins should be added. Lisa also thought a notation should be made that the most suitable areas for development have already been removed so that future owners would be aware of this before purchasing a lot.

 

Tom asked if there was any additional proposed development on lot 3. George B. said no, this is a family camp with steep land that is in the forestry program. He said the family plans to keep this camp for their own enjoyment.

 

Stan Bissonette asked if the mapping of prime ag soils are taken off the same map system that designated wetlands. Alex said that both mappings are done using ariel photography but that they are done by two different agencies. He noted that the maps identify general areas of fertile soil with limited field verification. Ted said that his concern for the ag soils was swayed by the fact that it is a small area of ag soil in a largely fragmented location. George M. thought a condition should be added that all future outbuildings should remain within the designated building envelope.

 

Peter said he was finding it difficult to determine when the homeowners association should be formed. George M. said that from his experience the builder starts the association and then the first buyer becomes the first member, and so on until all lots are sold and then the builder steps out of the association. Ted said he wants the staff to review the legal language to this effect before officially acting on the plat.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the warned public hearing of the final plat to the January 17 meeting and to direct staff to begin drafting conditions of approval. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

George M. recused himself from the board at this time.

 

9-Lot Subdivision PRD Preliminary Plat – Buck Hill Road – Applicants are Vermont Building Resources and Russell Family Trust and Charles Reiss

Ian Jukes, an engineer with Krebs and Lansing explained that the Russell Family Trust/Vermont Building Resources, owners of the property and represented by Chuck Reiss, are requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision, Planned Residential Development in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zoning District. This subdivision, now named 'South Farm' received sketch plan approval on August 4th 2005 and since then the applicants purchased the property from the Munson's. The property is approximately 24 acres on the north side of Buck Hill Road West and the east side of VT Route 116. There is an existing home and farm structures located in the southwest corner near the intersection of Buck Hill Road and Route 116. The remainder of the parcel is predominately open land, which was formerly used as pasture for beef cattle. A stream runs from north to south through the eastern end of the parcel. This stream flows into a small pond on the southern side of the parcel near Buck Hill Road. Much of the parcel is on a gentle open hillside that slopes upward from the road to the northern boundary line. The hill continues on abutting forestry property (Russell) to the north, but rises more steeply to a ridge line. There is a class III wetland in a small 'bowl' behind and uphill from the barn and the 6 lots will surround this on the uphill side.

 

The preliminary plat application differs somewhat from the sketch plan application however not significantly enough to require another sketch plan review. The main difference is that the Route 116 traffic access assessment found it to be safe, and a road is proposed to start at the old intersection of Buck Hill and 116 and then proceeding up hill northward. This route was chosen to avoid disturbances near the barn. It also appears to create an untenable situation for access to the western side of lot #9 and the upper side of the barn. While there are many additional minor details that need attention, this and several other issues are more major and have to be resolved in order for this application to continue.

 

Ian said that the state seems happy with the access point on 116 and that the major concern is keeping the two intersections separated to prevent traffic back-ups. In addition, he explained that the lots will each have individual drilled wells and access to town sewer. Storm water will be diverted through the use of several grassy swails intended to break up the flow of water. He thought this was a good method to follow since the lot has a lot of area and grade to work with.

 

Peter asked if the Russell's are asking for house sites at this point. Ian said they are not. Ted asked what portion of lot 9 will be open space. Alex said 25% of the total development area or 5.89 acres need to be set aside as open space. Chuck Reiss said that they were not sure if this land would be suitable for housing sites for the Russell's at this point. Ted asked if the housing sites on the west side of the Russell property will be designated as a PRD. Chuck said that at this point they are just trying to allow the possible future ability for the Russell's to build in this area and therefore they are trying to allow for a future possible entryway. He said that only 2 additional lots may be added in the future. Peter asked if these two future potential lots will fragment the open space or if they will be smaller lots that provide more open space. Chuck assured the board that whatever area is designated as open space will not be built on whether it is part of a lot or not. Peter said it was important to make sure that the open space achieves the purposes designated for this space. Chuck said that in the future they may wish to change the boundaries of the open land to accommodate a larger area. Howdy Russell added that he could foresee an eventual possible creation of a 3-lot subdivision that encompassed 2 – 1 acre lots and a large open space of approximately 12+ acres.

 

Tom asked if lot 8, which encompasses the existing barn, will be owned by the other lots. Chuck said this lot is a separate entity and will not be owned in common. They have preserved access to the barn lot from Buck Hill Road and it is zoned as RR1. He thought in the future it might be a good community center for the town but there are no specific plans for this lot right now. Ted asked if the proposal is for the barn to be a house lot. Chuck said that it is not being proposed as a house lot; there are no provisions for septic and no plans to put a house here.

 

Tom asked about visibility issues in regards to the houses and potential garages. Chuck said that they have designated potential house sites and are requesting to have latitude for placing the homes in the building envelopes. Their intention is to situate houses so there is no interference in collecting solar energy and the houses are nestled into the hillside. The houses will be no larger than 2400 square feet and will be built into the hillside with walkout basements. Tom asked if it would be possible to create a visual representation of the development that could be laid over a photo taken from further down 116 to get an idea of the visual impact of the houses on the hillside. Chuck said these would be modest homes that would be down off the ridge and hillside. The homes will be visible from the south but not from the west. Ted noted that the elevations provided by the applicant are significantly lower than those allowed by current zoning regulations. He felt this was a good way to reduce visual impact and that perhaps the applicant would be willing to add this as a condition of approval. Tom said he would still like to see the visual representation. Ian said it would involve two days of drafting. Clint asked if the houses would basically be a one story house with a walkout basement. Chuck said yes and that the walkout basement area would be living space.

 

Ted felt the applicants had made several good accommodations to get the homes lower in the view scape. Ian noted that the development can't be moved any farther down the hill without running into wetlands. Peter asked if vegetation behind the homes might help to scale down the visual impact of the development. Chuck said that trees behind the homes might block the sun and possible views of the ridge and that he would rather accommodate the board's wishes with the strategic placement and size of houses. Tom said he thought it would be good for the board to feel comfortable with the house locations and visual impact on the hillside. Lisa noted that the board has often talked about landscaping as a way to lessen visual impact. She thought that a few trees could be planted that would not interrupt the solar but would provide a way to break up the visual landscape. Chuck said as long as the trees are not placed in front of the homes that would work. He explained that the houses will function off from active and passive solar power and that fossil fuel usage for heat might not even be necessary. Solar panels will be built into the homes' roofs. Lisa thought this should be referenced in the staff notes to explain why trees should not be planted in front of the homes.

 

David Fenn suggested that quite a bit can be done with shrubs on the sides of the development and close to the steeper slopes. He thought this could help to lessen the visual impact. Lexi Reiss suggested that trees planted farther down on the development on lot 8 might help to create a barrier between the road and the development without blocking the solar power. Clint thought this would be a good idea as there is a 20' – 30' rise between the homes and the wetland that would allow for tree plantings.

 

Ted thought that in general the proposal looked good. He said he would feel more comfortable if the applicant added the potential addition of the two 1-acre lots and more common land as a part of the proposal to ensure that larger development does not occur on this lot in the future.

 

Howdy Russell said that if they were aware of what the zoning regulations would be in 5 years this would be much easier to determine. He explained that there might be no sewer allocation and the lots would then need to be 3 acres instead of 1 acre. Clint asked if an allocation exists for the proposed 7 house lots. Chuck said yes they did have the allocation. Howdy said they had not asked for 9 lots because it would trigger an Act 250 review. Ted said he would somehow like to see the mention of 2 potential future lots added to the current proposal to limit future development. He said the house lot locations, sizes and boundaries would not need to be determined. Chuck said he thought the concept of no more than 2 additional lots with the remainder to be designated as open space was a condition that would be acceptable.

 

Robert asked if the applicant was requesting any setback waivers. Ian said they are requesting a waiver of the side yard setback and would like a 0' setback. Ted said this seems like it could easily provoke neighbor disputes. Peter said the regulations are for a 20' side yard setback. Alex noted that a 10' setback can be allowed for smaller accessory structures less than 600 square feet in size. Chuck said the idea of shared garages had been discussed but there were too many legal issues to deal with. Any garages will be individual. Ted thought the applicant should come up with a more detailed plan for garages working within the current setback standards. Peter agreed and said he strongly felt the 0' setback would be problematic. Ian thought that a 10' setback might work but that 20' would not work with their design. Ted noted that if the potential garages are less than 600 square feet a 10' setback will work, but if larger than this size it will need to be discussed further. Peter said that the 600 square foot structure also has a height limitation.

 

Robert asked if the applicant is proposing siding or roofing colors. Chuck said the roof would be a grayish blue color similar to the NRG building and that the siding would use an earth tones color palette. Ted thought the applicant should be more specific about their siding color selection and that the term 'earth tones' can be widely interpreted. Chuck said he would bring in a wide range of color selections to show the board.

 

Peter asked if they had found a way to deal with the road width. Ian said the road would be gravel and 18' wide. In addition, the road base will be 24' wide to allow for stability on the shoulders if large moving trucks meet on this road. The shoulders will be reinforced to allow for widening the road in the future if it is needed. Ian noted that the road has a 10% grade for quite a bit of the drive and that the grade and curves should keep the traffic on the road at a slow speed. Lisa asked if the Select board had to give a waiver for this drive as well. Alex said that the previous waiver was issued for a grade that exceeded the 16% maximum standard and that more flexibility is allowed for road widths. Ted thought the 18' width would work well here and that the idea of stabilizing the sides of the road makes a lot of sense. He asked if they will need to cut into the slope to get the grade. Ian said some blasting would probably have to take place. Clint asked if the drive will be paved. Ian said that the first 20 – 30' will be paved as a part of the apron to keep gravel off of the state highway.

 

Ted asked if the development will include a pedestrian pathway. Chuck said yes, a pathway will run north to the Russell property within a 10' right of way. George M. expressed concern with the proposal of grass pathways. He said he felt the paths should be gravel and that the grade was too steep for many residents to use. He referenced that a previous subdivision that he had been involved in was asked to create 4' gravel engineered pathways. Tom asked how the grass area will stay defined as the pathway. Chuck said that the trails will be well-defined and that regular use will help to do this. Howdy Russell said that the easements will guarantee a walking path in this area. He noted that there are a whole series of trails in this area that have a 20% grade and that this trail is intended for use as a hiking path. He intends to work with the trail committee to create walkways but it is primarily a hiking trail and not a walking path. Definition of the path will occur with some fences and it will also be marked by use.

 

George B. noted that on the west side the trail is shown as running along the property line and that a setback from the boundary line could keep hikers from wandering onto neighboring properties. Ted asked if the trail to the north is a benefit of the subdivision. Peter suggested that the easement language seems to indicate that no changes can occur to the trails. He thought that trail usage should dictate maintenance of the trail. Erosion could easily become an issue that will need to be dealt with.

 

Clint asked about the location of the wind powered generator. Chuck said it would be placed on the knoll on the highest part of the meadow and that it will generate approximately 10 – 60 KW. To give some scale value he said that the wind tower at NRG generates approximately 10 KW. Peter said that the generator should not impact the purposes of the open space. Ted asked if their goal is to get the tower behind the tree line. Chuck said that he didn't think they'd place it that high, and that he would like to put it on another property entirely.

 

Clint asked if the applicants will need to blast to get the houses in. Chuck said this may be a possibility. Clint also asked how solar power will be implemented. Chuck said that panels will be built into the roofs of the houses and that no trackers will be used.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the preliminary plat review of South Farm Homes to the February 7th meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

George M. mentioned that the study on the entry way was not accurate as the newest location has moved for the earlier proposed entry. Sally Reiss suggested that the trails should be maintained in a similar manner to the Deprag trails that are brush hogged once per year and designated by use.

 

Peter said that he would begin to draft proposed conditions for the proposed development.

 

George M. returned to the board at this time.

 

Other Business:

Preliminary Plat for 3-lot, 2-unit Subdivision – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Sally Stewart

Ted asked why the applicant wasn't required to drill a well to provide proof of water on the site. He didn't think it was fair to put this burden on the buyer. Tom explained that Sally had a shallow well that would serve this site and that it is fed by a spring. George M. said that Order 3A addresses this issue. Alex said that the board had decided to ask her to provide proof of water by either drilling a well or providing an engineered solution in the case of a dry well. He also suggested that the decision could be altered to add a third option to tap into town water.

 

Tom MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Robert and Ted abstaining.

 

Conditional Use for Alterations to a Non-conforming Use – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are George and Linda LeClair

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Robert and Ted abstaining.

 

Sketch Plan Approval for 2-lot Subdivision – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Paul and Margaret Stanilonis

Ted said he did not think that supply tanks are a good answer to providing an adequate water supply. Peter thought it would be helpful to know if the well at the farmhouse is a proven well. Ted thought that Peter should research this before the board should consider the final plat. Peter noted that a drilled well is not a guarantee of a long-term water supply and that he thought a home would not be granted a state wastewater permit without proof of an adequate water supply. George said a state septic permit would not be issued if the lot had a well with a yield of zero. Ted thought it would be okay to allow the subdivision, but that the land should not be transferred until the well had been drilled. Peter asked the board to put the decision off until the next meeting so that he could research this issue further. Lisa asked if the board would deny a subdivision request if the applicants did not demonstrate that an adequate water supply exists in the area. Ted said yes, they would.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:55 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary