TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

June 6, 2006

Approved June 20, 2006

 

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

 

Note: Lisa and Greg joined the meeting after it began. The minutes reflect when each DRB member joined the meeting.

 

DRB Members Absent:  none.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Mike Patten, Val Patten, Margery Sharp, Diane Langevin, Donald Newton, Ken Brown, Tom Campbell, John Brien, Mike Martel, Denis Martel, Al Barber, Sally Stewart, Jeff Davis, Phil Pouech, Joe Donegan, Kevin Worden, Terry Boyle.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

Minutes of the May 16, 2006 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the May 16, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Camp Reconstruction – 145 Wood Run Road – Applicant is Vicki Diane Langevin

**continued from the May 2nd meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing for the Camp Reconstruction had been continued from the May 2nd meeting in order for the DRB members to conduct a site visit of the property. The site visit was completed prior to the June 6th meeting and was attended by Tom Campbell, Diane Langevin, Clint, Robert, Ted and Peter. The following observations were noted:

·          DRB members were shown the proposed addition location and size.

·          Viewed the proposed location of the dormer on the west side of the home.

·          Observed the location of the former deck.

·          Viewed the existing storage shed as well as the location where it will be reconstructed with the same footprint.

·          Observed the new drilled well location.

·          Discussed how storm water perimeter drain will be routed.

·          Viewed the location of the patio and discussed the proposed landscaping plan.

·          Walked along the property lines of the adjoining properties.

 

Tom Campbell added the following information. He noted that the lakeside roof will be replaced to match the charcoal color on the opposite side of the roof and that all of the siding on the camp will be replaced with clear cedar wood siding to help it blend into the surrounding landscape. Tom C. also asked if the percent increase discussed at the previous DRB meeting (33%) was based on the home's footprint or the total living space. Ted said that the approximate percent increase of the total living space would be 23% while the footprint would be approximately 40% based on the measurements provided by Tom C. Peter said he would check the regulations to see what the percent increase regulation is based from.

 

Tom C. said he wanted to address a concern voiced at the May 2nd DRB meeting regarding the camp's visibility from the lake. After viewing properties from the lake viewpoint he noted that the Langevin camp is barely visible in comparison with the surrounding homes. He felt that the color of the house (white) helps to make it stand out more; but that they are addressing this by changing to a earth-toned natural siding. He added that several homes sit as close or closer to the lake and that several are also much taller as well. They will be happy to follow any landscaping requests that the board may have to further blend the camp into the shoreline.

 

**Note: Lisa Godfrey joined the meeting at this point.

 

Peter said that the zoning regulation having to do with the percent of increase is in reference to the ground floor area or the footprint.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the discussion of the Langevin Camp Reconstruction up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 1 with Tom, George, Robert, Ted and Clint voting in the affirmative and Lisa voting against.

 

3-Lot, 2-Unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – 1823 North Road – Applicant is Sally Stewart

Sally explained that she is requesting final plat approval of a 3-lot Subdivision & Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zoning District. The subject parcel is located on the west side of North Road, about ½ mile south of the Richmond Road intersection. Much of this parcel is hilly and forested. The Applicant's home is located on the eastern portion of the parcel. There used to be an accessory structure for storage (actually an old mobile home) even further to the east near the frontage, but this has been removed. The property is served by an existing driveway, but also has the benefit of possible access via a right of way (ROW) across the abutting Hathaway property to the south. To the west of the existing house, the land is forested and climbs fairly quickly to the western boundary of the parcel.

 

This lot and the abutting Hathaway lot to the south (05-01-67.200) were divided as 'free lots' in 1990; however, pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations at that time, this division did not constitute a subdivision. Therefore, no survey/plat was recorded in the Town land records, and the current proposal does not require the revision of any prior subdivision approval.

 

The proposed 3-lot PRD includes a 1-acre lot (0.85 acres excluding ROWs) along the frontage of North Road (lot 1), a 2-acre lot (1.55 acres excluding ROWs) in the middle of the parcel (lot 2), and a 3.7 acre-lot at the back of the parcel (lot 3). Lot 1 constitutes the new building lot and contains its own septic system as well as the septic system for the existing home on lot 2. This lot will have direct access to North Road via a shared driveway with lot 2. Lot 1 will be served by a new drilled well, with a back up water sharing provision for the existing well on lot 1 in case the new well fails. Lot 2 will retain the existing house and existing well mentioned above. This lot will have an easement on lot 1 for the existing septic system. It will have access to North Road via a right of way and shared driveway across lot 1. Lot 3 comprises the open space for the PRD, and is approximately 54% of the parcel. It will remain undeveloped (owned in common by lots 1 & 2) and will be used by both lots for recreation. See the plans and legal language for more details.

 

Sally explained that she had received the state wastewater permit dated April 11th. Trudeau Consulting determined that the existing drilled well, which produces 1.5 gallons per minute, would be adequate to serve the two homes. The 2nd lot will have its own drilled will but there will be a provision for owners of this lot to share the well on lot 2 if an adequate water supply cannot be established with a new drilled well. Tom asked about the depth of the existing well. Sally said it is 500' deep. Ted asked if this water option needs to be included in the Order of the Review Draft Decision. Alex said he did not feel it was required because it will be recorded in the deed language and consequently the land records as well.

 

Tom asked if there were any questions from the public. John Brien, a landowner who lives across the street and downslope from the two proposed lots was concerned that his shallow well may be contaminated due to its proximity to the two septic areas. Saly explained that his shallow well was taken into account when siting the locations of the two septic systems. In fact, they used a higher location to ensure that the contours direct away from the Brien property and that they meet the required 500' distance requirement.

 

Peter noted that there is no mention of any type of forestry management on the land. Sally said that the trees are no more than 30 years old as that section of land used to be used for pasture. She said she would not have a problem with adding a condition that some sort of continuous forest cover is maintained on the property.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing on the Stewart Subdivision/PRD and to take up the discussion further in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Conditional Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure – Shadow Lane – Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

Jeff explained that he and Jean are requesting DRB approval for an expansion to a non-complying camp in the Shoreline Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at the end of Shadow Lane (north side of road); parcel number 14-21-10.000. The applicant is seeking a conditional use approval 'after the fact' for a deck constructed in 2005 (deck A on plans) and for a proposed deck (deck B on plans). Conditional use approval is required because the camp is non-complying with regard to the rear yard setback, and the proposed decks exacerbate this situation. The lot is also non-complying with regard to the maximum lot coverage (10% for this zoning district); therefore, the decks will also exacerbate this situation slightly. Technically, the camp is also non-complying with regard to the front yard setbacks, but the decks have no bearing on this pre-existing issue. The Zoning Administrator noticed the problem and sent the Applicants a letter on January 10, 2006 advising them to either remove deck A or submit a conditional use application.

 

This is a small parcel along Lake Iroquois with a large camp that was renovated and expanded by the Applicant in 2003. The applicant received a conditional use approval in February 2003 for this expansion to the pre-existing, non-complying camp. The applicant recently applied to convert this camp to a year-round dwelling, but was denied. Shadow Lane is an area of mixed year-round homes and camps, several with a similar design and elevation to the Davis camp.

 

According to the plans, the camp is approximately 18'6” from the rear property line. There is also a stairway and small landing to the to the rear entrance, which is closer to the rear property line, but the Zoning Regulations stipulate that stairways and associated landings under 20 square feet don't need to meet setback requirements (see 'Building Face' definition). Deck A (already constructed) brings the structure to within 7'6” of the rear property line – approximately 6' beyond the existing stairway and landing, and 11' closer than what was approved when the camp expansion was approved in 2003. Deck A is approximately 9' x 6'. Deck B (proposed) would be approximately 13'6” from the rear property line – approximately 5' closer than what was approved when the camp expansion was approved in 2003. Deck A will increase the degree of non-compliance by 11', and deck B will increase the degree of non-compliance by 5'.

 

According to information submitted by the Applicant, the current lot coverage is approximately 15.4%. The addition of decks A & B would increase the lot coverage to approximately 17.2%.

 

Jeff explained that prior to building deck A he discussed it with Peter. He misunderstood Peter and thought that if a deck was less than 100 square feet it would not require a permit. They would like to add Deck B to have a place to sit on the deck that faces the lake.

 

Ted asked if Deck B increases the degree of non-compliance. Alex said that that Deck B would need to meet the rear yard setback which would mean that it could not extend beyond the rear edge of the building. Alex also noted that the stairs and landing area on deck A do not need to meet the setback requirements. This is documented in the 'Building Face definition' of the Zoning Regulations. “The side or edge of a structure. Measurements shall be taken from the greatest extension of that structure including support posts for roof overhangs and smaller portions of the structure that extend out from a face, but not including roof overhangs, mobile homes 'tongues' stairs necessary for access to a structure and accompanying landings of no more than 20 square feet.”  There was some discussion that the landing may be more than 20 square feet in size. Robert asked what defined the width of the original width of the steps and landing area. Alex said they should have been built to the same size as the preexisting stairs.

 

**Note: Greg joined the meeting at this point.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing for the Davis Conditional Use application and to take the discussion up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion.

 

Ted said that he felt letting Deck B extend out to the landing width seemed logical. He thought that Deck B should be built as proposed. He did not feel that he would have approved an application for Deck A if it had been submitted prior to construction so he would vote against a conditional use permit for Deck A. He noted that the board had taken similar action with another camp owner who had made a similar request.

 

Jeff said that Gerald Newton had asked for permission to change his deck arrangement which had resulted in an increased degree of non-conformity. The deck was built to reach 6' further towards the road. Jeff said he felt this was a similar situation to his. George said he felt this was under a different set of circumstances. Jeff left copies of Jerry's review draft decision.

 

**Note: Joe Donegan (alternate) was in attendance to observe the discussion of the following two applications in case his input is needed at additional hearings on the project.

 

Conditional Use & Site Plan Review – 110 Riggs Road – Applicant is David Blittersdorf

Bill Maclay explained that Wind NRG Partners, LLC is requesting Site Plan approval for an addition to their existing industrial building in the Industrial V (I-V) Zoning District to house a new company that they have started, Earth Turbines (ET). The addition would be fully integrated into the existing plant with the intention being to house a company that makes small scale wind turbines. Both companies operate the same with similar office, manufacturing, support and transportation needs. The new addition will be for about 60 staff and will be basically a 2/3 scale model of the present NRG building and operations. It will use the existing buildings loading docks on the east end. The lighing will be exactly like what is presently installed. Parking is not over-built and there is a strong push by NRG and ET for carpooling, biking and mass transit. Hours of operation are the same as at NRG. There would be additional solar panels to serve this addition. The business will be served by municipal sewer and water.

 

Phil Pouech, the Director of Manufacturing said that David Blittersdorf would like the application to move fairly quickly in order to meet their production needs. He said that they will need the additional space to keep up with the business and may need to find an alternative space in the meantime if the permitting process does not move quickly. Earth Turbines will be producing residential wind turbines. Phil noted that until May the largest number of towers produced in a month was 112. In May they had orders for 168 towers. This is a field that is growing quite rapidly.

 

Bill Maclay clarified that NRG and ET are separate corporate entities that will be sharing the space of the new building based on each company's individual needs. The addition will be very similar to the existing building only scaled down. The plan includes areas for two courtyards between the buildings as well as several walking paths. Ted asked if the new building will have the same facade, roof treatment and height as the existing NRG building. Bill said they will but the height of the addition will be 4' lower than the existing buildings. He displayed a pictorial representation of how the building with the addition should appear on the hillside. Tom asked how visible the white section of the roof will be from 116. Bill said that the steep rise of the terrain will likely hide the white roof from view. He explained that the roof is reflective and it makes a significant difference in cooling costs during the summer. Tom said he was still concerned about the visibility of the white roof. Bill said that the proposed plantings on the west side of the building will also grow up to to further screen the roof from view.

 

Clint noted that several of the mature maples that had been used for screening purposes when the original building was constructed will be removed based on this new plan. He was concerned that so much significant screening was being removed. Bill agreed that several mature trees will need to be removed. There are a couple of stands that will be retained. Clint said this removal will cause a significant effect on the existing tree canopy. He asked if any thought had been given to replacing the proposed plantings will larger trees. Terry Boyle, the landscape designer for the project, explained that the proposed plantings would be 14' – 16' tall, 2” caliper and would be red maple, oak and white spruce. Terry also noted that the building is cut into the hillside and that once the landscaping is taken into account the northwest corner of the property should not be very noticeable.

 

Clint asked how many more solar collectors will be used. Bill said 12 more will be added to the property in addition to the 15 existing solar collectors.

 

Tom asked what is the maximum caliper tree that can be transplanted. Terry said that 14” - 16” caliper trees can be transplanted at a cost of $7000 - $8000 per tree. Ted asked about the viability of transplanted larger trees. Terry said that larger trees have a higher mortality rate during transplanting and that they take longer to recover. He noted that a 2” and 4” caliper tree would be comparable in size after 7 years.

 

Bill said that there are 62 existing parking spaces and that they are proposing adding 29 more for a total of 91 total spaces. He added that if parking becomes a problem they have also developed a plan to add 23 additional spaces on the eastern side of the property near the loading area for trucks. They would also wish to put in this parking area if the residential development gets approved as the drive would pass by this location. Kevin Worden added that this area will afford an opportunity for trucks to back into the loading area more easily. Alex asked if some of the parking spaces would be in the way of trucks backing around. Kevin said the spaces would be on the preferred side (left of the truck backing in) and that there is plenty of space for both uses. Clint asked if the increased business will increase truck traffic or if more loading docks will be required. Phil said they would probably be loading the trucks more fully to fulfill orders. In addition he noted that any trucks that need to stay overnight, typically stay inside the building. He said that the loading/unloading process is a fairly quick operation.

 

Phil said that entering and leaving the property is typically not a big issue as employees have flexible hours and are consequently entering and exiting the property at different times. Al said that the second drive on the map would not be needed for emergency vehicle access. He thought the second drive would be more visible and could pose some significant water shed issues. Clint asked Al if the fire department would be able to access the building if the lot is full of cars. Al said they could. Bill said the building is sprinklered. Al said that the new building would further compound the height issues in town. Currently the town is over the threshold for pump capacity. He noted that if the town falls below the rated water pump capacity, insurance rates will rise. He added that insurance rates are based on the largest 10 buildings in town. Bill briefly discussed the different heights of buildings and how they may be accessed using the town's existing rescue equipment.

 

Clint asked if the pond size will be increased. Bill said it would not.

 

Ted asked if the building has any current parking issues. Kevin said they only have problems during tours when people drive themselves to the building. Bill said that NRG and ET will employ a maximum of 150 employees. Greg asked if access into and out of NRG has become an issue. Phil said it was not a problem at this time. He noted that NRG promotes carpooling and/or biking to work.

 

Kevin said that a small swale will be added at the toe of the parking area and that they will need to apply for a state storm water permit to build the addition.

 

Alex asked how employees would get from the parking area at the loading dock area, into the building. Bill said there is an access door on that side of the building with keyless entry that would provide easy access to employees. Kevin said they would probably employ a policy to get employees to park in the area that is closest to their workspace.

 

The board discussed performing a site visit of the property. Alex suggested that the board conduct a site visit on Tuesday June 13th so that the application could be continued to the June 20th meeting (a site visit had already been scheduled prior to the 6/20 meeting). Clint said he would like to see where the new solar panels will be located and how they will affect the view from 116.

 

Peter noted that the location where the company is testing wind towers is not acceptable and that they could roll that issue into the conditional use and site plan app if the towers could be constructed on this site. Phil said that there is no room to test the towers on the current site so they would have to find another solution. Peter said they will need to secure a conditional use permit to continue to test the towers in the same location. He added this may be in conflict due to the residential zoning of the lot.

 

Joe Donegan said that as a member of the planning commission he had heard a lot of public interest in having increased job opportunities in Hinesburg. He felt that there was no other location that would have less visual impact on the surrounding landscape.

 

Bill asked if there was any feedback from the board to keep the application moving in a timely manner. Tom said some of the concerns he had heard voiced included: losing mature trees and replacing them with much smaller ones, the visibility of the white roof, and the visual impact of the new tracking solar collectors.

 

Terry said that perhaps they could create a cross section view from 116 in regards to the roof issue. Peter said he thought the board should also provide some guidance regarding the proposed additional side road. Ted did not see a need for the additional side road. Lisa agreed and said its construction would create a negative impact on Patrick Brook. Clint said he would like to see another entrance. Peter suggested that the second entrance be deferred. He thought that possible further development on the other side of the hill might dovetail nicely with this project. Ted did not think the second entrance flowed well into the parking area.

 

Tom asked if the bridge over the pond is going to be built as it would provide a much more direct access to Commerce Park. Bill said that work on the bridge has not yet begun. Lisa asked about the path to CVU road. Alex said that there is a 20' wide floating pedestrian easement on the Riggs property. The town just needs to nail down the exact location of the path.

 

Ted said that the reason the existing building was easier to approve involved the stand of trees on the west side of the building that screened it from view. He felt by removing these trees, NRG would need to find another way to soften its view into the landscape.

 

Bill explained that they will be drilling injection wells for heating purposes and that the addition will also house an additional wood pellet boiler. There will be a 6” vent pipe from the boiler venting through the roof.

 

Clint asked if they were turning the addition to keep the building in the building envelope. Bill said this was one reason as well as to follow the slope of the land and minimize the disturbance of the earth and trees behind the building.

 

Tom MOVED to continue Wind NRG's Conditional Use and Site Plan review to the June 20th meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

3-Lot, 3 Unit Subdivision Sketch Plan – East of Route 116 – Applicants are Jan and David Blittersdorf

**Note: The Blittersdorfs originally applied for a 7-lot, 9-Unit Subdivision/Sketch Plan, but presented a simplified 3-lot, 3-unit subdivision design at the sketch plan hearing in the interest of moving the application along in a timely manner. The initial text below describes the original submission.

 

Bill Maclay explained that Jan and David are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 7-lot, 9-unit subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 46 acres, and is located on the east side of VT Route 116, north of Commerce Street and adjacent to NRG Systems; parcel #16-20-56-900. The parcel essentially wraps around the NRG Systems lot and the Industrial 5 zoning district. It is currently undeveloped, and has extremely varied terrain from extensive wetlands and floodplain near Patrick Brook on the south side to steep slopes and a forested hilltop on the northern side. Much of this parcel is hilly and forested with the exception of a large lowland meadow in the southeast corner and an open meadow and hillside along Route 116 in the northwest corner. Significant natural features include: Patrick Brook, extensive wetlands and floodplain, steep wooded slopes, remnants of a mature sugar bush, hilltop with high visibility from multiple public roads.

 

This parcel is the result of 2 previous subdivision approvals: Riggs 1991 subdivision approval, Riggs 2003 subdivision approval. These approvals contain no provisions that conflict with the proposal. Bolstering pedestrian access and limiting vehicular access were the 2 major issues from these previous subdivisions, and the Applicant is addressing these.

 

Nine units of housing are proposed at this time; however, the applicant has included some master plan information relating to possible multi-family units that could be part of a future application. As proposed lots 1 – 3 comprise single-family lots near the the top of the hillside ranging from 1.1 to 5.4 acres. Lot 4 is quite a bit down slope from these lots, and will consist of three 2-family dwellings (duplex style) for a total of 6 units of housing, with an associated parking area. All of these lots will have access to Route 116 via a proposed extension to Riggs Road that would go beyond the NRG loading area and climb the hill with 1 switchback to account for the steep terrain. All of the units will be served by Town water and sewer. Sewer service to the Town's system will be via NRG's private pump station and line. The Blittersdorfs have an existing sewer allocation for 9 units (a holdover from before allocations were tied to DRB approvals).

 

Lot 5 is approximately 20 acres with a highly irregular shape that encompasses a large portion of both the remaining hillside, the wetlands, and lowland meadow. This lot contains some of the required open space (minimum of 11.6 acres – i.e. 25% of 46.49 acre parcel). No development is proposed at this time, but it is being reserved for the future residential development discussed above. Lot 6 represents another 'reserved' lot of approximately 8.5 acres, which also contains some of the required open space for this PRD. I believe they wish to create this lot in anticipation of possible village re-zoning that might make additional commercial development possible in this area. Lot 7 represents a third 'reserved' lot of approximately 8.1 acres. As with lot 6, this lot is being created for future use in anticipation of possible re-zoning in this area.

 

Clint said that adjoining landowners Caroline Quennville and Mathew Dennis did not receive notification of this hearing.

 

Bill displayed a map that showed 38 theoretical potential lots on the property. This plan kept house sites out of the flood plain and wetlands areas. He explained that their long-term plan is to keep lower density housing up on the hillside and higher density housing lower on the hillside. In the hopes of moving the process along more quickly, the Blittersdorfs had decided to change their application to apply for a 3-lot subdivision with two 1+ acres lots and one 44.5 acre lot. They would like to utilize three units of their 9 unit sewer allocation.

 

Greg asked if the soils will be an issue for the expansion of the NRG building. Bill said they would probably encounter similar situations as they had with the previous building which would involve excavation and the use of crushed stone below the building.

 

Bill displayed some elevations and proposed viewscapes looking towards the proposed house sites. Kevin reviewed the proposed drive location and noted that 50' – 100' of land will be preserved on the east side of the drive to the property line. The grade on the drive ranges from 3% - 15%. Alex noted that 10% is the standard grade and that anything above 10% will require road engineering plans. Ted asked if the drive will be paved or gravel. Bill said it would be gravel. Kevin added that the curve radius at the top of the drive is 60'. Greg asked what the visual impact would be of the drive cutting through the softwoods. Kevin said at the widest section the drive area would be 60' – 70' wide. Clint asked if a lot of cutting would need to be done to reach the 16% grade. Kevin said it would be a combination of cutting and filling and that it would have a wider impact than the drive going in to NRG. Tom asked how wide the proposed drive will be. Kevin said it will be 16' wide with 2' shoulders that will allow room for passing vehicles. The contours on the map are generated from the state Lydar system that was flown in 2004 on a 10' grid. Coverage is less accurate in the dense softwoods areas so they would want to survey more accurately if this proposed drive is acceptable.

 

Greg asked how visible the homes will be from the north side of the hill. Bill said homeowners would need to look down over the cliff to see anyone on this side of the hillside. There was some further discussion about the steep grade. Kevin said the grade could be lowered but it would require more cutting and filling which would result in increased visibility and more loss of softwoods.

 

Tom asked if alternative energy sources will be used on these homes. Bill said they will use photovoltaics and possibly wind turbines. Alex said if the turbine is net metered the town does not have control over the construction of a wind turbine. The process would be handled through a state hearing.  He added that the only reason it makes sense to put the homes higher on the hillside is to increase the solar gain and increase their view.

 

Clint asked how much of the road will be visible from Mechanicsville Road. Alex said that a large stand of sugarbush in this location should block the view. Ted said he was more concerned with the slope than the viewscape issues.

 

Joe said he was concerned with the concept of placing higher-end single-family homes high on the hill with smaller duplexes lower on the hill. He felt the different types of homes should be interspersed to create a diverse neighborhood. He added that if the remaining land will not be used for future subdivision he sees no reason why the houses need to be so high on the slope.

 

Bill said their long-term intent is to end up with more housing on the property. The Blittersdorfs want their employees to be able to find housing closer to their place of employment. They did not design the residential housing plan in an effort to segregate different socio-economic classes and Bill added that higher density housing does not mean lower quality. Kevin suggested the DRB members should look at the workspaces in NRG to get an idea of the quality of the building. He added that the residential subdivision was designed to try to be respectful of several topographical concerns. Bill suggested that the existing NRG building may also be used for community gatherings for exercise, movie-viewing, etc.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the 3-lot Subdivision/Sketch Plan to the June 20th DRB meeting with a site visit to take place on Tuesday June 13th at 6:30 p.m. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Peter suggested that the applicants may also wish to consider an entrance to the residential development on the west side of the NRG building to lessen the grades.

 

Other Business:

**Greg left the meeting at this point.

 

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

Clint MOVED to approve the review draft decision as written (approval). Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

3-lot, 2-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Sally Stewart

Ted MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 1 with Tom, George, Robert, Lisa, and Ted voting in the affirmative and Clint voting opposed.

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary