Approved November 21, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Owen Clay, Jan Blittersdorf, Richard Palmer, Dick Thibault, Ethan Thibault, Sara Thibault, Dennis Place, Scott Gover.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.

Alex reported on the Select Board budget meeting he attended, at which the DRB’s streetlights recommendation was discussed. Alex suggested the Board do further research into the cost of implementing streetlights.

Minutes of the October 17, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the October 17, 2006 meeting minutes. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0 with Robert abstaining.

Conditional Use Review – Route 116 – Applicant is NRG Systems Inc. and Owen Clay

Owen Clay, Engineering Director at NRG, explained his request to temporarily install wind-measuring tilt-up towers that are up to, but not greater than, 200 ft. tall. He explained his need to test new tower designs during the engineering and development phase. Testing is occasional, temporary and limited to new designs. A tower requires a flat, open area of about 400 x 400 ft. It also needs to be within a reasonable proximity of the main facility. He added that the existing tower has already generated $1M in business.

He spoke to the two issues addressed in the staff report: a) the request for conditional use approval for the temporary raising of the tower and b) the placement of the tower in a Rural Residential area.

He described the process by which a tower was assembled, noting one could be raised in less than an hour, and would remain in place from only a few hours to several days at a time. A tower just under 200 ft. has been erected on the site previously, set back from Rte. 116 about 300-400 ft. Owen finished by stating he understood conditional uses for tower-like structures were permitted in RR1 districts, according to Zoning Regulations, pg. 9, Section 3.2.3, #4 (…windmills, and other similar structures.).

Tom asked about FAA tower height restrictions; Owen responded towers need to be 200 ft. or less. Lisa felt that a wind-measuring tower could be defined as a “similar structure”. Tom said the Board was required to consider approval based on conditions described in Zoning Regulations, pg. 23, Section 4.2.3, and questioned whether anyone had complained about any visual impact. Owen replied he had not heard of any. Tom asked about an NRG estimate regarding the total annual time towers would be in place. Owen replied that NRG did not wish to track the time individual towers are in place, but added that no single tower had been up for more than a week during his employment.

Clint asked if another site on the Blittersdorf or NRG property could be located for tower placement. Jan Blittersdorf responded that other possibilities had been researched and exhausted, mainly due to wet soil conditions. Owen described the anchoring mechanism that held the towers in place and said it needed to be in firm, stable soil. Clint asked about a particular alternative site within the southeast area of the Blittersdorf property; the property map was reviewed; Jan explained that she knew this area to be too wet.

There was further questioning from Board members regarding the logistics of when and for how long towers would be in place. Owen said he waited for appropriate wind conditions to install a tower and that sometimes towers already in the field need to be tested. He stated he would make every effort to only have towers up when they needed to be. Greg asked if NRG would be amenable to conditions regarding the frequency and duration of tower placements; Owen replied that they would.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 1, with Clint opposed.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Richmond Road – Applicants are Richard and Flora Palmer

Dick Palmer introduced the staff report and aerial photos of the property, and described a brief history of the land under his ownership. He is requesting to subdivide the portion of his property on which a garage and grandfathered contractor’s yard are located. Access to this property is gained via a right-of-way (ROW) across a separate, intervening family parcel (owned by Dick’s brother and sister-in-law, Theodore and Patricia Palmer). The yard is still in operation. Dick would retain Lot 1, where his home is located. Dick’s nephew (Theodore Palmer Jr.) would like to purchase the subdivided property, Lot 2, but does not wish to build a residence on it, due to septic and grade difficulties, and the desire to live in his family’s home.

Lisa and Greg addressed the staff report’s finding that a grandfathered contractor’s yard could only be permitted as a home occupation in this zoning district, and that a residence must be constructed in order to continue the operation of the contractor’s yard should it be split off from the existing parcel. Tom suggested that this point might be a fatal flaw in the request. Alex explained the history of grandfathered contractor’s yards and stated the bottom line is that home occupation properties, even those with grandfathered yards, must also have a residence. Tom questioned whether the lot could instead be attached to Theodore Sr.’s property; Alex stated that the family was not interested in that arrangement. Dick said that building a house would be very difficult due to septic and terrain, and re-stated his desire not to do so.

Greg MOVED to close the sketch plan review and go into deliberative session to discuss the matter further. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan/PRD Sketch Plan – Aube Ridge Road – Applicant is Richard Thibault

Dick Thibault introduced his plan to subdivide the existing 6.7-acre lot as part of a PRD subdivision. He felt this would allow for maximum preservation of wooded areas and also allow for a more cost-effective building project. He felt if the lot were divided conventionally into (2) 3-acre lots, it would force lots to be irregular. He described what he felt to be the best house site due to concerns about ledge and driveway length. Ethan Thibault introduced an aerial photo and map of the proposed subdivision. He expressed his desire to designate a larger portion of family land as Lot 2 (5.45-acres as opposed to the conventional 3-acre subdivision), alongside the 1.5-acre open space and felt this proposal was in line with PRD development objectives.

Tom asked about lot frontage. Dick said he had a private ROW onto Aube Ridge Road, as obtained through a variance when his property was developed. Tom and Greg asked for clarity on PRD frontage requirements. Alex stated that access could be allowed at the end of a private ROW and this could be done conventionally. Peter clarified that the lots might be able to be divided conventionally (rather than via a PRD) without much change to the proposed building location for the new home. He said the one concern with a conventional subdivision could be the 20% minimum lot width to lot depth ratio.

Clint questioned whether this was a PRD as compared to other developments such as the Stewart application on North Road. Alex clarified what he felt were the differences between those two applications. He said the Stewart application involved an application for a very problematic new building site on a steep slope that involved erosion control concerns, and that the PRD option was used to help select a more viable lot layout and building site. Greg suggested a site visit.

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the November 21^st meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0. A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, November 18^th at 9:00 a.m.

Home Occupation Conditional Use Review – Place Road – Applicants are Dennis and Jody Place

Dennis introduced his plan to start a pallet-building business inside an existing barn. The shop contained within is approximately 36 x 40 ft., with (2) 20 x 40 ft. bays to store lumber and pallets. He said if there were any reason to do work outside, it would be done behind the barn. Greg asked if he would accept conditions to forbid exterior storage. Dennis replied yes, but that a delivery may be left outside for a few hours until he was able to put items into storage. He explained that delivery hours would be restricted, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Greg asked about the noise that could be expected. Tom questioned whether windows would be open during the summer. Dennis stated windows on the south would be open during the summer. He described the barn’s construction (2 x 6) and insulation (fully insulated including the garage doors). Alex reviewed the Performance Standards outlined on pg. 56, Section 5.12.1 that apply to all uses in all districts. Dennis stated he has never received any complaints regarding noise from his personal workshop. Peter said an order could be written to address noise, similar to the one in the draft approval that addresses truck traffic. Tom suggested the Board could review other recent approvals for woodworking shops in town.

Tom asked where finished pallets would be stored. Dennis replied that pallets would all be stored indoors, and that loading would be done within business hours.

Scott Gover, a neighbor with property bordering on the north, raised objections to the proposal. He stated his house was 300-400 ft. from the barn with no plantings or other physical buffers in between. He stated he can hear current activities and felt noise was a problem. He said the doors are often open, especially in the summer, and also expressed concerns about trucks and their affect on the condition of the road. Tom clarified that all town roads are posted in the spring when truck weights are of concern.

Greg asked Dennis if he would be amenable to conditions requiring that doors remain closed. He advised that this may carry some financial burden, such as the installation of air conditioning. Dennis said he would keep doors closed. He described the building’s insulation (6” of R-30 insulation in the ceiling, with insulated overhead doors). Greg was concerned about noise extending into evening hours. He asked if there were plans to add employees. Dennis stated there were no plans to add employees at this time. Peter clarified performance standards for noise, stating that “unreasonable noise” is defined as occurring outside defined hourly ranges.

Greg MOVED to direct staff to write conditions of approval. Conversation continued regarding noise concerns. Peter offered to do a site visit with a sound meter, to measure equipment noise. Greg WITHDREW THE MOTION.

Scott wanted assurance of a process for individuals to register a complaint if there is a problem later. Members agreed that there was.

Dennis asked if he needed to address the letter submitted by Steve and Kathy Giroux (abutting landowners). Dennis noted that Steve and Kathy’s concern appeared to be the visibility of his existing barn, and he questioned why he should have to screen an existing building when the home occupation will be on the interior. Peter explained he addressed this in his draft approval, under point #6 (“If headlights from employees or delivery trucks impact the neighboring residences…”).

Tom MOVED to continue the Conditional Use Permit hearing at the November 21^st meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0. A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, November 18^th between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m.

Tom MOVED that the Board go into deliberative session to discuss the Palmer proposal. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Greg and Robert then left the meeting.

Other Business:

3-Lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Suki Flash

**continued from October 17^th meeting

George wanted clearer language that prevented lots from being re-subdivided in the future, noting a PRD requirement to keep land agricultural. Peter said he could re-draft the decision. It was his understanding that Suki would like the flexibility to allow various uses of the land, such as for horse pasture, etc. He would include language forbidding further development.

Tom MOVED to table the decision until November 21^st. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4 – 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Sherman and Jacqueline Sprague

George MOVED to approve the decision as drafted. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4 – 0.

Tom extended an invitation from NRG to join them for a luncheon with Bill McKibben on Thursday, November 16^th. Alex discussed training opportunities from various organizations.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary