TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

May 16, 2006

Approved June 6, 2006

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  Greg Waples.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Larry Winters, Randy Merrier, Dorothy Pellett, Rad Romeyn, Sandra Collins, Wendy Patterson, Dan Sullivan, Glenn Enos, Jeanne Wilson

Erin Martin, Susan Martin, John Kiedaisch, Al Barber, Eric Seivask, Gerry Livingston, Howard Russell, Cliff Collins, Collin Frisbie, Bart Frisbie, Russ Barone, Andy Rowe, Greg Rabideau, Patti Drew, Christopher Murphy, Sarah Murphy, Matt Vincey.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 pm

 

Minutes of the May 2, 2006 Meeting:

Clint MOVED to approve the May 2, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Tom and George abstaining.

 

Voting Note from May 2, 2006 DRB Meeting

Alex told the board that Tom had voted in the affirmative on the following review draft decisions (all written as approvals) presented at the May 2, 2006 DRB meeting:

·          Conditional Use for Expansion to a Non-Complying Structure – Applicant is Andrew Burton

·          Sign Approval for Unit 7 in Firehouse Plaza – Applicant is Grace Amao

·          Preliminary Plat for 6-lot Subdivision and PRD – Applicant is Vineyard Harbor LLC and Abbey Trust

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Richmond Road – Applicants are Eric and Suzanne Martin

**continued from the April 18, 2006 meeting.**

Tom explained that the sketch plan had been continued from the April 18th meeting so that a site visit could be conducted by the DRB prior to this evening's meeting. Tom, George, Clint, Robert, Lisa, Ted, Alex and the applicants attended the site visit. The following observations were noted:

·          Walked along the proposed driveway to lots 1 and 2.

·          Noted the site distance on the road. Alex said that the road foreman has measured the site distance to be 400' with the removal of trees to the east and west which would provide an adequate site distance for the driveway.

·          Observed the driveway split between lots 1 and 2.

·          Walked the proposed driveway to house site 1.

·          Viewed the site for the leechfield which will serve both lots.

·          Walked the proposed driveway location to the house site on lot 2 which crossed a seasonal stream.

·          Noted a mature Maple tree on the proposed location of the main drive.

·          They did not walk on lot 3.

·          Observed a large town culvert to the east of the proposed drive to lots 1 and 2.

·          Viewed a man made swale that should remain open and maintained during any potential construction.

·          Observed the proposed replacement area location for lot 3.

 

Suzanne also noted that the May 2 meeting minutes referenced a shared drilled well. This well is not shared. In addition, the easement on the property is for Champlain Waitsfield Valley Telecom, not Verizon as noted in the minutes.

 

Alex distributed a Review Draft Decision for the proposal.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and discuss the proposed review draft decision at the conclusion of the meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

9-lot Subdivision PRD Final Plat Report – Buck Hill West/Route 116 – Applicants are Vermont Building Resources and Russell Family Trust

**continued from the May 2, 2006 meeting.

George recused himself from the board.

 

Tom explained that the final plat had been continued to allow staff and the applicant to work together on a few outstanding issues. The first issue being the hours of construction that will be allowed on the site. Chuck said that he would like to have the option of working on Saturday and Sunday if it becomes necessary to meet impending deadlines. Alex said that the typical work hours allowed are Monday – Saturday 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. with no work on federally recognized holidays. The board agreed that this allowance would be acceptable.

 

The applicant also requested a waiver from the height requirement to allow residents to place wind turbines on the roofs of their homes. Chuck had some pictures of the turbines which stand approximately ½ meter off the roof with a radius of 2.5 meters. The total height ends up being approximately 8 ½ ' off the top of the roof. The turbines can produce 1.5 kw of energy at low speed with low turbulence that would help the development to reach their goal of achieving net zero energy. Currently the solar panels will not quite achieve this. The turbines Chuck proposed for use have not yet been used in the United States and it would probably be a couple of years before they become available. Chuck explained that the houses will draw 6 kw in energy. 3.6 kw will be generated from the solar panels. The additional 1.5 kw that could potentially be drawn from the wind turbines would get them much closer to net zero energy. He also noted that the entire heating system is run with this energy as well. Chuck said that the turbine would be similar in size to a roof antenna and suggested it should be treated the same way. Alex explained that according to the zoning regulations (Section 2.7) the turbines would still need to meet the 35' height requirement or apply for a conditional use permit.

 

Clint asked where the eight trees will be placed that are referenced in the staff report. Chuck said they would be placed within 20' of the back boundaries of lots 3, 4 and 5. He intends to cluster the trees between the homes to soften the view into the hillside. Clint asked if trees would also be planted in the upland area above the wetland. He thought that trees in this location would also help to soften the visual impact of the development. Alex asked what trees currently exist on the slope. Chuck said they are mostly apple trees and that no evergreen plantings had been proposed because evergreens aren't on this slope at the present time and it didn't seem appropriate to introduce a new species.

 

Ted asked if Peter had all the appropriate dates for the legal language. Peter said he did and had left them out of the review draft decision in case any additional changes took place.

 

Lisa asked if there will be any signage for the development. Alex said this issue would be covered by existing zoning regulations.

 

Peter added that he would move waiver d (in condition #19 of the Review Draft Decision) in regards to accessory structures since it is not a waiver. He will list this item as a separate condition.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the Review Draft Decision up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

George returned to the board.

 

Minor 2-Lot Subdivision Final Plat – 2350 Lincoln Hill Road – Review Draft Decision– Applicants are Sandra Collins and Dustin Jurgenson

**continued from the May 2, 2006 meeting.

Tom explained that the final plat had been continued from the May 2 meeting to allow staff to resolve some issues with the applicant. Ted asked that the review draft decision reflect a timeline in association with the road improvements as well as a condition that the improvements will be completed prior to issuance of a CO for the property.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the review draft decision (approval) as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

7-Lot, 57 Unit Subdivision and PRD Preliminary Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Hillside, LLC

Russ Barone explained that Hinesburg Hillside LLC (Russ Barone & Bart Frisbie) is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of a 7-lot, 57-unit subdivision and planned residential development (PRD) in the Village and Rural Residential 1 Zoning Districts. The subject parcel is located east of Mechanicsville Road and west of Lavigne Hill Road right of way, with the proposed development area clustered in between Mulberry Lane and Thornbush Road on the Mechanicsville Road side of the parcel; parcel number 09-01-01.100. The parcel is currently undeveloped and constitutes the remaining land from the Mulberry Lane 6-lot subdivision/PRD that Russ Barone received approval for on September 3, 2002. Since the Village, Rural Residential 1 district line splits the parcel, the Applicant has requested (pursuant to an allowance in the Zoning Regulations, Section 1.3) an extension of the Village district by an additional 50' into the parcel. With that extension in mind, the parcel contains approximately 8.39 acres in the Village district, 8.69 acres in that portion of the RR1 district served by Town sewer, and 38.57 acres in the portion of the RR1 district that is outside of the Town sewer service area.

 

Lot 1 is 0.5 acres on the Mechanicsville Road frontage, and comprises 1 of 2 stormwater detention ponds. Lot 2 is 2.5 acres with 4 multi-family dwellings, each with 8 units for a total of 32 dwelling units –24 of which will be 2 bedroom and 8 of which will be 1 bedroom. Lot 2 has 2 vehicular accesses to Thornbush Road, one for buildings A & C and one for buildings B & D. Approximately 8 – 10 parking spaces are located under each building (total of 32 – 40 spaces under the buildings) with another 18 parking spaces outside the buildings. Lots 1 & 2 will be owned and managed together by a single homeowner's association. The 32 units on lot 2 will be age-restricted such that 1 resident (not necessarily the owner of the unit) from each unit must be 55 years old or older. Each of the 4 buildings will have a common room for varied purposes/needs (e.g., meeting room, fitness room, health care station, etc.), which will encourage, if not require, the use of all 4 buildings by all the residents. Each building will be fully accessible with elevators. Building B will be the 'central' building at the head of the green/common. It will have a large front porch for gathering, and its common room may be somewhat larger to serve as a central meeting/activity space.

 

Lots 3, 4 and 5 are 1.9, 1.6, and 2.9 acres respectively. These lots contain a total of 25 dwelling units – 21 single-family homes and 2 duplexes (4 dwelling units). These lots will be owned and managed by a single homeowner's association, which will also be responsible for the dedicated open space that compromises lot 6 (14.3 acres). The only reason lots 3, 4 and 5 are separate (i.e. rather than 1 lot) is because the applicant will be requesting that the Town take over the main access roads (Thornbush, Mulberry, and the new 'Hillside Drive'). According to our Zoning Regulations (see 'Lot' definition), public roads separate lots. In any case, these lots will be managed and owned by a single entity. Access to these lots would be via a new road ('Hillside Drive') with 2 private side roads, which would connect both to Thornbush Road and Mulberry Lane. The project also includes a proposed easement on the adjacent Mulberry Lane development's open space (common land) for the purposes of constructing the 2nd stormwater detention pond. The entire development will be served by municipal sewer and water.

 

Lot 7 is approximately 29.6 acres and will constitute the remaining land for this project. Most of the development rights for this lot are being transferred to the developed portion of the project on lots 2, 3, 4, 5; however, the Applicant seeks to reserve rights for 2 future single-family homes on lot 7. Rather than formalize further subdivision or development areas now, the Applicant proposes to return to the DRB prior to any development or subdivision of lot 7.

 

Russ explained that they had met with neighbors about the progress on the project and their comments were favorable and appreciative or their responsiveness to their concerns. Greg Rabideau, the architect for the multi-family dwellings presented a rendering of buildings A, B and C as viewed from west of the courtyard. He explained that the buildings will be designed to resemble larger homes with a uniform muted base color. Each building will have common room areas that can be used for gathering areas, wellness clinics, or just a general place to socialize. They hope to foster an interchange between the buildings' occupants to create a strong sense of community. Each building will be 100% accessible to people with disabilities; limited service elevators will be located in each building. The multi-family dwellings were placed to work with the topography and minimize the amount of land that will need to be moved. Greg R. also presented a viewscape of what someone standing on Mechanicsville Road ( at the Commerce Street intersection) would be able to see of the development. Only 2 levels will be visible from this distance. Tom asked if there is a reason why the end 'wings' don't have shutters. Greg said this was merely a space issue. One of their goals was to have a great deal of windows in each unit to provide natural light to the residents. The windows on this side of the building are closer together and allow less space for shutters on either side. Russ added that there will be two walls of exterior windows in each unit.

 

George asked if the occupants in the single-family units who are 55+ years old would have access to the activities that take place in the multi-unit dwellings. Bart said these spaces are intended for cross-use, but that the two areas will be governed by separate homeowners associations. Lisa asked if they could be allowed to utilize these services for a fee. Bart said that is definitely an option but they have not yet worked out the logistics.

 

Ted asked if they had discussed the concept of the town taking over maintenance of Mulberry Lane, Thornbush Road, and Hillside Drive. Russ said they had not yet discussed this idea with the Selectboard.

 

Tom explained the process for reviewing the application and asked if there were any general questions from the public before the board began to review the staff report. Wendy Patterson said that she liked the landscaping plans and interaction between the different areas. She wanted to know if there was any area dedicated to community garden space. Russ said that their intent is to have many different green spaces that are used for different uses. He hoped that the residents would have some input into the decision making process.

 

John Kiedaisch asked what level of trails development will be the responsibility of the applicants. Russ said that it was his understanding that the trails committee would provide the maintenance and blazing of the trails. The trails will be non-motorized and primitive. Russ and Bart plan to clear brush along where the path runs adjacent to the lower section of the development. John then asked if the trails will be open to the public. Russ said that they would like to open the trails to the public, but there are liability issues that will need to be addressed. Ted asked if a pedestrian easement will help with the indemnification. Russ said that he thought it would.

 

The board then began to discuss the issues raised in the staff report. Ted asked if there were a better way to incorporate building D into the multi-unit buildings. He also asked why the building is placed where it is. Greg R. said that the topography of the land along with the building's relationship with Hillside Drive from within the development both played roles in the building's placement. Greg R. added that they did not want to try to sit 4 buildings around the courtyard as they felt this would make the courtyard space too big and much less intimate. In addition, they felt that the unique location of building D might be more desirable for some residents that don't want to overlook the courtyard or would rather have different views or more space from the social hub. Ted asked if there was some way to incorporate buildings B & D. Bart said that topographically the first level living areas in buildings A & C are at the same level as the lower levels of buildings B & D.

 

Alex asked how the buildings relate to the surrounding grade of the land. Andy Rowe, an engineer working on the project, said that Silver Birch Lane is approximately 6 feet higher than the first floor living area of buildings B & D. The green space between buildings B & D is on level with the first floor living areas. Russ added that they had attended many seminars about constructing this sort of project and had been told to create a variety of green spaces for many different uses. Some residents may want to be away from the green and closer to the trail heads. Russ felt this diversity between buildings could really work to everyone's advantage. 

 

Ted asked if the units will be rented or owned. Russ said it was their intention to put the units up for sale.

 

Alex explained that the staff's concern with Building D had to do with the town's design standards for PRD's in the village (Zoning, section 4.5.7 #5). Design standard #5a requires that, 'buildings front upon and are oriented toward roads or common areas.' Bart said that they are open to adjusting the orientation of the building D, but they want to keep the buildings connected in some way. Russ noted that the other green areas are also common open spaces; they just aren't designed with as much as a focus as the courtyard area. John Kiedaisch said that he agreed with the concept of having diversity in the project and giving the residents some different living options. He thought that having building D open into a less formal open space worked well.

 

Chris Murphy asked about the elevation of the common space on lot 2. Russ said this hillside will not change and that the peak of building A is 33' above the 390' elevation. Jerry Livingston was concerned that there was not enough green space around the multi-unit dwellings to accommodate for young visitors. Russ said that there is a good deal of space around the buildings and that they envision people using the entire space. Bart added that he thought lot 2 would be a prime spot for a children's play area and that this development's location allows access to many town recreation areas as well.

 

Peter suggested that perhaps pedestrian interconnectivity and green space between buildings B, C and D could be used to create a feeling of cohesiveness. Robert asked if there was a reason why they decided to go with four buildings as opposed to three larger buildings. Greg R. explained that this design allows for one center hallway and one elevator. If the buildings were larger they would require more interior hallways which would use up more of the open space areas on the outside of the building. Alex added that the applicants should probably nail down a concrete number of parking spaces for the multi-unit buildings which will take into account any other uses for parking areas. Bart said he felt that was a good idea as items such as trash and rubbish removal will take place under the building and may use up one spot under each building.

 

Peter said he was concerned with the green space area north of Building A and how it may be used. Since this area slopes to the north he did not feel it was a good spot for a garden space. Ted asked how the green space can be accessed – taking into consideration the surrounding topography. Russ said that there are a number of options, but that they would like to get the residents input as to the best way to access this area. Alex noted that there is a 9' drop at the stone wall location between buildings A & B. Lisa said she was worried that this drop will result in lot 2 being wasted open space. Russ said that the open space on lot 2 is not on an extreme slope and that they could flatten it out to any elevation if that is the board's wishes.

 

Lisa asked for clarification regarding how future residents will be able to make decisions about access points and green space usage. Bart said that it was his experience that everyone always has their own ideas about how something would work best and they wished to offer that flexibility to their clients. He felt that being receptive to future owners' ideas is a positive way to accommodate them. However, if the DRB wants Russ and Bart to put in a path for accessibility they would comply. Lisa said she needed more information about how the process would work to get residents' input as well as a consensus on design decisions. Bart said that as the project is being built, clients' wishes can be worked into the plans. After construction is complete any changes would be at the discretion of the Homeowners association. Russ added that these issues could be addressed in the legal documents as well.

 

Howdy Russell said that he felt the applicants should be aware that clients will have conflicting desires and that perhaps some of the bigger issues should be decided ahead of time so that people 'buy into' certain items. He was concerned that the applicants may create issues between residents if too many options are left open. Connectivity should be provided up front. The applicants should look for issues which will pit different owners against each other and seek to rectify these issues before residents become involved.

 

Matt Vincey was concerned that the Mulberry Lane common land is not disturbed by this development. Although the area is wet and mostly unusable for recreational purposes, it does provide a good buffer between the developments. Adam Peterson referenced the location of the 2nd stormwater pond which is supposed to be placed on part of the Mulberry Lane common land (which is outlined within the Mulberry Lane covenants). In return for this land, the Mulberry Lane residents would be granted an equal amount of land to the east of the existing common land. Adam suggested that perhaps part of lot 2 should be granted to the Mulberry Lane residents as common land as this space would be more usable.

 

Lisa asked if a fence will be required around the storm water retention pond on Lot 1. Andy said that there will be a 10' bench at the bottom of the slope towards the detention pond. After the 10' bench the pond will drop into an area with approximately 2 ½' of water. They do not plan to use a fence. Under normal conditions the bench will have approximately 6” of water on it with dense wetland plantings. Andy further explained that the stormwater pond consists of two pieces; a main pond and a fore bay which is separated by a burm. The sediment is removed in the fore bay before it flows into the main pond. George asked how much water the pond can accommodate. Andy said the pond is designed to handle a 25 year storm and that the water flow is relatively constant which will keep the water moving and fresh. If 1” of rain falls, the level in the pond will rise by 5” and lower within 24 hours. If 2” of rain falls the water level will rise by 2' and fall back within 24 hours and if 3 Ό” of rain falls the water will rise 3 ½ ' and will fall back to normal levels within 24 hours. In the second stormwater pond towards the back of the property there will also be a bench followed by a 1' deep pond. There will be no fence. Alex felt the board should consider lot 1 as the location of the storm water retention pond and not open space.

 

Chris Murphy asked if there were plans to make the second stormwater pond resemble the first (extensive landscaping, park-like area). Andy said that the second stormwater pond will be approximately 40% of the size of the first pond. Their plan is to let the pond blend into the topography with the natural wetland surroundings. Sarah Murphy pointed out that the location where the stormwater pond will be installed is in the only section of their open land that is not wet.

 

Tom said that the staff report highlighted three major issues with the landscaping plan. They included: the slope between the front pond and the parking area, the ornamental nature of the trees around the multi-family housing, and the impact of the top of the hill to unit 17 on the Mulberry Lane residents. Andy distributed a listing of the mature heights of the selected trees as prepared by their landscape designer. He explained that the heavily landscaped area in front of the multi-family housing is intended to naturalize after the plantings are given a start. They hope to give perennials and shrubs a good start and then let them take over the slope. They do not plan to keep the slope mulched. Ted asked if trees will be allowed to grow in this area. Andy said this would probably be at the discretion of the homeowners association based on the trees' sizes and locations. Lisa asked why they had decided to plant shrubs as opposed to larger trees which would soften the view of the larger buildings. Bart explained that these buildings do have a good view to the west so there are some merits to having site lines here. However, they are not entrenched in their landscape plan and are open to ideas and suggestions. Russ agreed that some strategically placed trees could be added.

 

Sarah Murphy asked if trees could be added along the northern boundary of lot 2 to provide more shielding for the Mulberry Lane residents. Russ said he thought this was a viable idea. Matt Vincey asked if the trees close to the construction will be impacted by the digging. Russ said they would not be getting near the diameter of the crowns of the trees during construction so the roots will remain untouched.

 

Alex asked why smaller trees were used in the courtyard as opposed to larger street trees which would provide summer shade and help to blend the buildings into the landscape. Andy said that their vision for the courtyard is to be open and light. He felt that larger trees will change the dynamic of the courtyard.

 

Patti Drew said that she would like to see landscaping between her house on Thornbush Road and units 14, 15, and 16 to screen and define the PRD from the rest of the development.

 

Clint asked if a sequence of development had been determined. Russ said that the infrastructure would need to be put in place first and that he thought some single family homes and multi-unit housing would go up at the same time. Clint asked if they had an idea how long it would take to finish the project. Bart said he hoped it would be completed in 3 years but that of course that could be affected by many factors. Sarah Murphy asked if there were any safeguards in place that could serve to protect the surrounding residents if the housing market softens and construction drags on for longer than anticipated. Tom said that the DRB typically does not decide the order of construction unless the infrastructure is impacted. Peter said he thought some pattern of construction should be established at some point to ensure that it creates a livable housing arrangement for all involved. Bart said that they would propose this plan at final and emphasized that no one has more to lose by creating an inhospitable environment than he and Russ if they hope to sell these units.

 

The board then began discussing the waiver request regarding the garage setback limits. Bart explained that the reason for the request revolved around the topography of the land on either side of Hillside Drive. All homes to the south side of Hillside will have very steep driveways or will require deep cutting into the slope if the garages are placed within the regulated location. He anticipates that garages on this side of the road may enter into the garage portion of the home. On the North side of Hillside Drive the garage height will appear quite high as viewed from the North if the garages cannot be moved closer to the road. They hope to also minimize the focal point provided by garage doors. Ted asked if 16' doors or 2 doors will be used on the garages. Russ said that either option will be available to homeowners but that there are 16' garage doors which are designed to appear as if they are two doors. Ted said he was concerned with this request because the board had just denied a similar request by some neighbors in the same area. Peter asked if the applicants could provide a vague rendering of the garages for the board. Bart said they would try but they were leery or providing a design that may not be used as this is somewhat to the discretion of the homeowners. Ted suggested that Bart and Russ could provide pictures of garages meeting their garage design criteria from around Chittenden County.

 

Sarah Murphy said that she was concerned about the styles and resulting heights of the homes that will be built. Bart said that potential designs will be determined by what's in demand and what will fit in with the landscape and development. They want to give their clients ideas while still allowing individual flexibility. Ted asked how big the buildings will be. Bart said the building envelopes will be 45' wide and 55' long. They envision using porches and other architectural touches to add character to the neighborhood. Maureen Leahy asked if the designs will be the applicants' or the buyers. Bart said that they have not decided this yet but that they hope to steer buyers to achieve some degree of variety within the development.

 

Alex asked Al Barber if the fire department has equipment that will allow access to the multi-unit buildings. Al said that the fire department currently has 35' ladders which can reach 27' above a flat grade. They do not currently have an aerial device. Peter asked if this development will require the town to buy new equipment. Al said that it will compound the need for more equipment but that the need already exists. An aerial device would cost in the range of $500,000 and is currently needed to reach areas of NRG, CVU, Lantman's as well as other buildings in town. Al was asked if he would be able to get his equipment into the courtyard. Al said they could and that the applicants should check to make sure that a stretcher will fit into the elevators as designed as this is often overlooked.

 

Tom said that he did not feel the board would be able to complete the Preliminary Plat review in one hearing. He expressed his appreciation for all the input offered by surrounding homeowners and community members and hoped that they would all return for the continuation of the Preliminary Plat Review for Hinesburg Hillside.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the Preliminary Plat discussion of the Hinesburg Hillside LLC development to the June 20th meeting. Ted seconded the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Ted noted that he would be agreeable to allowing the applicant to make changes to their plans based on the input received tonight if they wished to do so. Tom agreed that changes would be accepted at the continuation on June 20th.

 

Other Business:

 

Conditional Use for Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure (Deck) – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is David Trevithick

George MOVED to approve the review draft decision as written (denial). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 1 – 1 with George, Ted, Robert and Lisa voting in the affirmative, Clint voting against and Tom abstaining.

 

Alex noted that procedurally it might be cleaner and less confusing to wait to vote on an application until the draft is prepared. That way the board can eliminate conflicting votes based on different board members in attendance at different meetings.

 

Final Plat for 9-Lot, 6-Unit Subdivision/PRD – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Vermont Building Resources and Russell Family Trust

Robert said he felt uncomfortable allowing the roof-mounted wind turbines without having a warned public hearing on the topic. Ted agreed with Robert and thought the homeowners should be required to request individual conditional use approvals if they wish to mount a turbine on their home. Peter said he would remove this section from the waiver portion of the draft decision.

 

The board decided to alter Order #9 to specify that the mature height of these trees should be a minimum of 40' – 50' in height. In addition they added that 5 trees shall be planted on the upland area on the slope below the development that will serve to break up the viewscape of the hill.

 

The work hours were also adjusted as discussed earlier in the meeting (Mon – Sat 7 a.m. - 6 p.m.) The board made a few other wording and clarification changes to the decision. They then reviewed the color palette as submitted by the applicant and ruled out several colors.

 

Ted MOVED to approve the review draft decision (approval) as amended. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0 with George abstaining.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Eric and Suzanne Martin

The board decided to vote on the review draft decision at their next meeting on June 6 to allow time for the members to thoroughly review the decision.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:10 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary