TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

December 19, 2006
Approved January 2, 2007

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, Joe Donegan, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Bob Linck, George Munson, Greg Waples.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Kristin Abbott, Scott Alexander, Curt Alpeter, Mark Ames, Kristen Anderson, Jon Anderson, Rich Armstrong, Matt Baldwin, Charles Bash, John Berino, Kathy Blume, Chris Boerner, Mischul Brownstone, Lenore Budd, Chelsie Bush, Carrie Chlumecky, Kathleen Christman, Stan Christman, Gill Coates, Kim Coates, Annemie Curlin, Raven Davis, Marley Donaldson, Kim Donaldson, Jo Edmundson, Rob Farley, Serrill Flash, Inez French, Bruce French, Merriel Green, Kristin Haas, Chris Haviland, Tom Hengelsberg, Dave Hirth, Martha Illick, Sue Johnson, John Kiedaisch, Elsie "Lisa" Kiley, Isaiah Kiley, Charles Kogge, Robert Kort, Michael Leary, Diane Leary, Steve Letares, Tracy Letares, Ryan Letares, Bill Lippert, Pat Mainer, Mike Mainer, Nina Marcotte, Bill Marks, Gary Mawe, Shane McCormack, Lee McIsaac, Peg Montgomery, Andrea Morgante, Tom  Nostrand, Betsy Orvis, Dorothy Pellett, Jackie Richland, Scott Richland, Jay Robinson, Rad Romeyn, Linda Samter, Bill Schubart, Kate Schubart, Katharine Stockman, Jonathan Trefrey, Larry Telford, Arthur Thompson, John Veilleux, Zoe Wainer, Jeff Wainer, Jeff Washburn, Tod Whitaker, Paul Wieczoreck, Michael Wisniewski, Margaret Woodruff, Larry Young.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

 

Minutes of the December 5, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the December 5, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0, with Clint, Joe and Bob L. abstaining.

 

3-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat Review – Magee Hill Road – Applicants:  Jay and Carol Robinson

**continued from the October 17th meeting.

 

Jay presented a revised plat, confirming that the building envelope on lot B had been narrowed as requested.  Larry Young of Summit Engineering said he looked at the entire driveway starting from Magee Hill Road and will create a new plan that combines his road design with the septic design (from another engineer).  Peter said a super-elevated road could be designed here within town standards.  Larry noted it was steep; the grade will be lessened but will still be slightly more than 10%.  A new culvert and swale will also be added to address stormwater issues on Magee Hill Road.  George noted that Order #6 and #13 of the review draft decision were redundant.  Peter said he would remove #6 as a state septic permit had already been obtained. 

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4 – 0, with Greg, Joe and Bob L. abstaining.

Appeal for a Conditional Use Permit –Placement of a Structure within a Flood Hazard Area – Leavensworth Road – Applicants:  John and Sally Guttler

 

George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants.  He explained that a recent flood mapping shows the entire property and the new home site.  The home is out of the flood plain and the base floor of the home is significantly elevated (19 feet) above the required base flood elevation.  A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) will be submitted to FEMA to have the house removed from the flood plain.  Until then, the only way the applicants can receive a certificate of occupancy is to be given a conditional use approval.  Peter noted the approval is only a technicality, since there are no conditions on this property (the home is not in a flood plain, and will be designated as such when the LOMA process is completed.)

 

Joe MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

21-Lot, 19-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Owner: Inez French; Applicant:  Vermont Land & Cattle Company, LLC

* Meeting to be continued on January 16th, 2007.

* A site visit is planned for Saturday, January 13th, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.  Open to the public.

 

Background Information from the Staff Report

Rad Romeyn is requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 21-lot, 19-unit subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Agricultural Zoning District.  The subject parcel is approximately 116 acres, and is located on the north side of Drinkwater Road; parcel # 11-01-02.100.  The property is 1 of 3 parcels on Drinkwater Road owned by Inez French.  The subject parcel is undeveloped, and is dominated by extensive agricultural fields (presently used for hay) with a smaller forested area running along a north/south ledge near the rear of the parcel.  Natural features include: 1) nearly ubiquitous prime and statewide agricultural soils throughout the existing field area; 2) a significant wetland and associated riparian (stream) area in the northwest corner; 3) 2 smaller streams in the middle of the parcel; 4) a steep forested ledge running north/south through the forested area, culminating at a small, high plateau in the northeast corner of the parcel.  The parcel constitutes lot 2 of a recent 2-lot subdivision approved by the DRB on September 5, 2006.  The subject parcel for the 2006 subdivision was a result of another subdivision approved by the DRB on October 1, 1997, which was done to create the 21 acre parcel to the west, presently owned by Budd. 

 

Lots 1-6 are clustered on the front portion of the parcel.  Lots 7 & 8 are located around a cobble and small copse of trees in the middle of the parcel.  Lots 9-19 are located toward the rear of the parcel – some in a rocky pasture area and some in the adjacent forest land.  These building lots range from 0.6 to 5.1 acres – most at just about 1 acre.  All of these lots would be served by a new development road (approximately 4,000’ long) with access to Drinkwater Road at the southeast corner of the property.  Individual on-site wells are assumed along with a community septic system.  The remaining land (1 lot on Drinkwater Road labeled “open/preserve”; 1 larger lot of everything else) constitutes the bulk of the agricultural fields, and is proposed to be owned and managed in common by the homeowners association.  The Applicant envisions an equestrian community with a stable and arena on the common land, and the rest of the agricultural fields used for pasture and hay to support the equestrian use.  The sizable open area labeled “Open/Preserve” in the northwest corner of the property is proposed to be managed for riparian protection and wildlife habitat, with occasional mowing of the field to keep it open.  See the Applicant’s project description for conceptual details.

 

The Applicant’s original proposal was for a conventional 25-unit subdivision; however, that plan was revised in light of preliminary staff comments.  The new 19-unit plan was received on December 13, and is what is up for review.  Please note that some comments from abutting landowners were submitted prior to the plan revision; however, these should still be reviewed and considered by the Board.  Much of this public feedback addresses general concerns about the surrounding neighborhood, which are still relevant given the revised 19-unit proposal.

 

Tom reviewed meeting rules and procedural points.  Alex stated this hearing would be continued to the January 16th meeting in anticipation of increased public participation, as well as to allow for the scheduling of a site visit.  He also explained this application was considered to be a major subdivision, following a three-step process:

1)      Sketch Plan Review, with a site visit

2)      Preliminary Plat Review

3)      Final Plat Approval

 

Rad Romeyn introduced himself as a managing partner of the Vermont Land & Cattle Company (VLCC).  He then asked Greg Waples, a member of the DRB, to recuse himself from the hearings, stating he felt Greg, as a neighbor with a view towards the proposed development, had a natural conflict with the project.  He also felt Greg had made unfavorable comments in previous meetings towards development in the area.  Greg said that he is not a neighboring landowner because he lives more than a mile from the property.  He also felt he had not made comments in the context to which Rad was referring, nor had he pre-judged this project, and did not wish to recuse himself.

 

Rad gave a history of the French Family farm, operated as a dairy farm for many years.  Bruce French, the son of Inez French, then read a letter in support of the application.  He further detailed the history of the farm, spoke to his father’s plan to sell the land once the dairy operations ceased, and expressed the family’s desire to develop the maximum number of lots as is allowed in the subdivision and zoning regulations.

 

Rad explained that VLCC had previously submitted an application with a plan for (25) homes on 2-acre lots, following subdivision guidelines for the district.  The plan now under review is devised as a Planned Rural Development (PRD), clustering 19 homes on lot sizes varying from .6 to 5.1 acres.  42+ acres would remain as open fields and 43+ acres would be preserved as a wildlife corridor.  George noted that the DRB had never seen the original proposal for purposes of comparison.

 

Rad reviewed a map of the Baldwin corridor area (described as Baldwin Road starting from the intersection of Charlotte Road, going south to the Monkton border).  He said the area has a mixed array of lots, with many 10-acre lots, some small lots and a few large land holdings.  The 116-acre French parcel has frontage on Drinkwater Road, a tributary road of Baldwin.  Rad then reviewed a contour map with the proposed PRD, noting the location of the French homestead as well as describing the natural and farmed areas of the property.  The proposed development would be called “High Point” and is conceived as an “equestrian community”, a place that has exceptional fields for pasture and haying with access to graveled and informal trails.  He described the target homeowners as horse enthusiasts who would benefit from the shared expense of amenities such as stables, an arena and access to hay.  Homeowners would be either young families with active riders, retirees with recreational carriages or non-riders simply interested in the community’s aesthetic.  He discussed how a homeowners association would function within the community; homeowners would own only their immediate lot; the association, which all homeowners have a share in, would own the open land and common buildings.

 

Rad explained that of the 116 acres, 42 acres would be devoted to farm fields, much as they exist today.  43 acres would be managed as natural, preserved areas.  He anticipates that 1 ½ acres would comprise the actual footprints of the homes.

 

Rad then addressed comments made in the DRB Staff Report, described as major issues pertaining to the following areas:

1)      Density & Compatibility with Surroundings (Section 5.1.5, Subdivision Regulations)

2)      Agricultural Land Use Today & Tomorrow (Section 5.1.10, Subdivision Regulations)

3)      Shared Infrastructure & Legal Language

 

Addressing point #2, Rad stated he believed the plan accommodated the goal of favoring an agricultural landscape with a low-density residential development as a secondary component.  He noted the staff report included a note to say the lots were generally well configured.

 

Addressing point #3, Rad described a cohesive, equestrian community in which homeowners will be bound to their responsibilities by way of the homeowners association.  Deeded language will acknowledge and describe legal terms of conditions, and also the realities of running a farm such as the presence of odors, noise, pests, etc. 

 

The subject of density was then discussed.  Alex noted a correction in his calculations for what he described as the highest existing density off Baldwin Road (the area between Charlotte Road and Burritt Road, centered on the Fletcher Farm Road development).  What had been calculated in the staff report as 1 unit per 8.3 acres was now 1 unit per 12 acres, furthering his point that 19 units in this development was too many.  Rad responded that he felt it was a subjective calculation.  He reviewed the Baldwin corridor area map again, and talked about the potential visibility of homes in the proposed development from Baldwin Road.  He counted 14 homes visible from Baldwin Road in the area described by Alex’s calculation, whereas only 3 from the High Point development would be visible from Baldwin Road.  Greg thought more would be visible to drivers traveling north up Baldwin Road from Monkton; Rad agreed that was a possibility.

 

Rad then described other farms as having suffered from fragmentation, using Fletcher Farm as an example, and said High Point would not divide the French farm in that manner.  He said this development was a more appropriate layout with clustered houses and contiguous fields, rather than single homes on 10+acre lots.  He gave statistical information he had compiled regarding lot sizes in the Baldwin corridor area.  He said the town’s agricultural districts were historically set at 2-acre zoning to allow farmers to “peel off” 2-acre lots for family and staff.  He feels this is problematic now, when trying to develop a larger lot.  He stated the DRB is limited to making decisions on statutes that exist at present.  He feels his project is well considered and requests that a 19-home PRD be approved.

 

Bob Linck asked Rad to describe the wildlife corridor and mowing regime.  Rad briefly described the area and said its management was still being investigated.  He pointed out that the building lots on the northwestern side near the wildlife corridor stopped at the ledge so as not to encroach upon it.

 

Tom addressed the public audience, noting that discussion tonight would be continued at a future meeting (set for January 16th).  Alex commented on the need for interested parties to sign in for purposes of having their name recorded in the official meeting minutes. 

 

Raymond Davis, an abutting property owner, stated his concern regarding the future of a separate 73-acre parcel (owned by French) to the south of Drinkwater Road.  Tom responded that although they encourage landowners to give a broad picture of development, it was not required.

 

Paul Wieczoreck noted his concern that a large amount of density was going in at one time in a low-density area.  Sue Johnson, a Fletcher Farm resident, said all land in that development was utilized, not fragmented.  Houses were intentionally put on the road or in the woods, not on agricultural land.  She expressed her concern regarding traffic, speeding and construction vehicles on Baldwin Road.  She said horse riding on Baldwin Road was becoming more dangerous and felt that the idea of carriages on the road was unrealistic.

 

Mike Mainer, an area resident, offered a count of 60 houses on Baldwin Road within town lines, stating that 30% more traffic would be added by adding 20 more houses.  There was some discussion about that calculation; Alex said there were 85 houses on Baldwin Road and its tributaries, using Charlotte Road as a starting point; Mike said he did not include houses on Charlotte Road.

 

Kristen Haas, an area resident and equine veterinarian, felt there was much to be concerned about in terms of how the development would affect wildlife and natural areas, noting light and noise pollution, and traffic.  She said she attended recent town planning meetings and thought this type of development should be reserved for high-density village growth areas.

 

Jon Trefrey, a Baldwin Road resident, read from his letter previously submitted to the DRB.  He discussed tenets of the Town Plan and Subdivision Regulations, specifically preservation of agricultural uses, wildlife habitat, density, and transportation infrastructure.  His general opinion was that the town should reject the High Point plan as it proposes a large-scale development on publicly valuable agricultural soils and wildlife habitat lands.

 

Kathryn Blume, an abutting property owner, questioned how residences would affect a wildlife corridor even if homes were not technically sited in it.  She thought an increase in cars and domestic activities would add noise and light pollution, and felt a suburban community named High Point was not compatible with the area.

 

Lenore Budd, an abutting property owner, noted a boundary discrepancy between the digital property map and actual markers on the ground.  Rad responded that his plan was based on a survey.  Lenore also said covenant language needed to ensure that infrastructure would be maintained even if homeowners did not take advantage of available amenities/facilities.  She also wanted to ensure access to existing trails across French properties, referencing section 4.5.9 of the Zoning Regulations.

 

Michael Wisniewski, an area neighbor, spoke about road placement, stating he felt a large modification (grade changes) to the land would be necessary.  He asked the Board to require more detailed maps of the applicant. 

 

Bill Schubart, an abutting property owner, asked if there was a mechanism for reviewing the credentials of a developer, for example, the ability of the developer to complete a project; he also asked if the town could impose a performance bond.  Tom said a performance bond could be issued, but Alex clarified there was no other mechanism to review prior performance.

 

Mark Ames, an abutting property owner to the 73-acre French parcel, said he felt he knew the land well and did not consider the wildlife area to be a major corridor for animals.  He also felt the land being discussed for building was rocky and fields were composed of good, but not particularly rare or central agricultural soils.  He commented that the French family should be allowed to develop this parcel as they wish.

 

Marley Donaldson, an area neighbor, is a horse rider and felt existing roads and trails will not be as usable with an additional 19 homes in the area.  She used the example of a popular 5-mile loop in the area. 

 

Isaiah Kiley is an abutting landowner in Charlotte (a separate property from the Kiley partnership).  He felt natural features such as wetlands, meadows and slopes should also determine the density of a project, stating the three houses to the west would have an impact on wetlands as would runoff from the road.  He wanted to see more investigation of the ecosystems on the property.

 

Bill Lippert, an area neighbor, described what he felt to be the “intensity” of the project, the negative impact(s) of building 19 homes and other shared structures all at once.  He thought the concept of a homeowner’s association was incompatible with the area, and commented that families buying into such a development needed to embrace all that came with living on dirt roads.  Rad stated his intention to retain all dirt roads.  Jon Anderson, a nearby neighbor off Drinkwater Road, expressed a similar concern about dirt roads, and also spoke of the 5-mile loop, stating the development jutted into the heart of it.

 

John Kiedaisch asked about documents used by the DRB to evaluate sketch plans, noting that the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Bylaws were not technically as current as the Town Plan.  Alex explained the DRB uses both documents, as well as specifics laid out in PRD regulations; the Town Plan, although not a regulatory document, is referenced in those documents and referred to as needed.  Joe used the issue of compatibility of surroundings as an example when the new town plan could set a new precedent relative to the old one.  Alex said guidelines for the agricultural district have not changed substantially between the former and current Town Plans, that regulations used now are reasonably consistent with the new Town Plan.

 

Andrea Morgante clarified that residents will have a chance to speak again at the January 16th meeting and also to submit their comments in writing.

 

Dave Firth, a Conservation Commission member and wildlife biologist, said more research was needed to assess the wildlife corridor on the west side.  He also stated this property was part of a larger area of unfragmented hardwood forest, with a higher biodiversity, nesting birds, etc.  He urged the applicant and Board to keep the houses out of the woods as much as possible.

 

Bill Marks, a Conservation Commission member, thought proposed lot sizes were too big, noting the work the Commission is doing on a rural plan that proposes ¼-acre to ½-acre lots in similar developments.  He said keeping densities low in large parcels such as this one is of great importance for the town.

 

John Berino asked about the 73 acre parcel to the south (not under discussion).  He felt that approving a development such as this one would open the floodgates for another 20 houses on that parcel.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing until January 16th.  Bob L. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 - 0.  A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, January 13th at 9:00 a.m.  Interested parties should meet at the French homestead on Drinkwater Road.

 

17-Lot, 16-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road – Applicants:  George and Jan Bedard

* Meeting to be continued on February 20th, 2007.

* A site visit is planned for Saturday, February 17th, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.  Open to the public.

 

Background Information from the Staff Report

This is an application for the development of the parcel that George and Janis Bedard own to the south of Texas Hill Road approximately one half mile before the junction with Hayden Hill Road East. It is in the Rural Residential II district (RRII) and zoned for three-acre lots.

 

The property lies on an eastern sloping wooded hillside basically between the Montgomery lot and the open fields near Hayden Hill Rd. Texas Brook crosses the northwestern corner of the property and other than that, there are no mapped wetlands, agricultural soils, deer yards, or natural areas. The property does get increasingly steep as it gains elevation, with slopes averaging around 25 % on approximately 1/3 of the property, reaching a maximum of around 30% in the southeast corner of the lot. This project will require act 250 Review, a State stormwater permit and a general construction permit for erosion control.

 

The subdivision is being proposed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) of 16 developed lots and one open space lot. This is the largest subdivision proposed for the RR II District thus far, and while this property is very appropriate for a PRD and this proposal basically meets the objectives for one, the planning standards, Section 5 of the Subdivision regulations must be considered first.

 

George Bedard gave a brief history of the land and its ownership.  He explained his plan for a PRD development, stating his plan had changed from one previously submitted five or six years ago.  He feels this plan does not scatter development; rather it clusters houses closer to Texas Hill Road, tucking them into the woods.  He hopes to keep land prices reasonably affordable by sharing infrastructure costs among houses.  He then reviewed a map of the proposed development.  The 53-acre parcel will contain 38 acres of common land with approximately 2 acres of roadways.  Home lots are sized at ¾-acres and up.  He described the Texas Hill neighborhood, including several clusters of houses found along the road.  He said his plan allows for having the bulk of the houses near the road with adequate screening.  He described language found in abutting property owner’s deeds, some of it addressing buffer zones.  He said a homeowners association would have common ownership and rights to shared land and trails;  a  forest management plan would also be in place.

 

George addressed water concerns, recognizing that the area had many deep, low-flow wells.  He said a dowser visited the property and reported a reasonable amount of water.  He described septic plans, including locations in the property and also those within previous developed properties, and said state rules allow for shared leech fields among properties.  He said a road through the development could be built at less than a 10% grade.

 

George emphasized lots would be in a wooded setting, noting an abundance of mature pines that would be retained as buffers.  He said Mike Anthony of the Town Highway Dept. wished to cut some hemlock trees near the road, and that lots will fill in some of that area.  He noted that zoning in the area is not restricted to single-family homes, but may include other types of housing such as duplexes.  Access to electrical power is reserved on neighboring properties and would be underground.

 

Peg Montgomery, an abutting neighbor, asked about a buffer zone.  George replied that one has not been established yet but would be.  Chelsie Bush, an area neighbor, commented that this property was the last tract left connecting to the town forest.  He said it was a favorite spot for hunting, and felt development there would have an effect on wildlife and the dirt road.

 

Nina Marcotte said she was concerned about the dirt road.  She said at times it was nearly impassable and related that she had been involved in an accident on the one-way bridge.  She noted seven families with horses on the road.  She also said there was an underground stream, and asked that the road be widened and better maintained.

 

Jeff Washburn, an area neighbor, is a beekeeper and concerned about deforestation, wildlife quality and water quality.  He has a dug spring but said drilled wells in the area are sulphur wells.  He asked where the dowser looked for water.  George said the dowser walked straight across the top of the property.  Jeff felt water pulled from the slope would affect his spring, that even though his property was above the proposed development, water would be pulled from the same aquifer.

 

John Berino, an area neighbor, was strongly against the proposal, stating it was contrary to goals laid out in the Town Plan.  He felt Texas Hill was the most rural, rugged road in Hinesburg, and said this development would create a mini-town at the end of it, leaving the town with substantial road issues including those for police and fire access.  He said residents had voted down paving the road, wanting to preserve its rural character.  He questioned why low-priced housing would be created so far from the village (the established growth center according to the Town Plan).  He asked that the Board consider the character, even if previous development had been laid out somewhat haphazardly, and also felt safety should be a top concern.

 

Jo Edmundson, an area neighbor, owns horses on the road and said traffic was bad now.  She does not want sixteen more houses on the road. 

 

Gary Mawe, an abutting property owner, said this ¼-mile stretch is the largest stretch of forested land on both sides of Texas Hill Road, calling it a wildlife funnel where large animals passed through.  He felt this development would destroy that corridor.  He said there was too much water on the surface, in addition to not being enough below for wells.  He said the water table was high in the field, 6”-12” below the surface, and a concern for septic systems.  He was also worried about the rural character of the road, stating that the Hinesburg residences on Texas Hill do not wish to see it paved. 

 

Mike Leary, an area neighbor, expressed concerns about traffic and pollution that would run off into the stream due to the land being wet on the surface.

 

Robert Kort, an area neighbor on the Huntington side, asked if a certain number of units triggered the automatic paving of the road.  He reviewed soil reports that he said rated soils as very limited to septic use.  He is thus concerned about wastewater disposal and feels it will run off into the brook.  He voiced concerns about a homeowner’s association running what he described as a small utility, and asked about guarantees in place to acceptably maintain facilities.  He spoke about stormwater, stating any development created a certain amount of imperviousness.  He asked that stormwater and its effects be investigated during the site planning phase.

 

Rob Farley, an area neighbor and member of the Hinesburg Conservation Committee (HCC), spoke on behalf of the HCC.  (He also stated he was an employee of the Vt. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, but was not representing that entity.)  He felt the proposal created a public water system, as managed by a homeowner’s association, that included management of water supply, waste disposal, stormwater and common land.  He was concerned about the financial management capacity of the association.  He said if stormwater were increased, the beaver pond would be affected, as would the brook, which has already been compromised by Huntington Road.  In turn, the Huntington River would be affected.

 

Bill Marks, a member of the HCC, asked that smaller lot sizes be considered, as well as the footprints of the houses.  He felt lots on the western side of the plan should be removed to preserve wildlife there.  He also felt the eight to ten acres of common land did not preserve open space so much as create an envelope around the property.

 

Steve Letares, an area neighbor, was concerned about the impact in the area and noted an overwhelming lack of support for the project.  He was concerned about what he perceived to be a goal to build low-income housing, feeling that type of housing was not compatible with the area.  Joe felt the plan did not propose low-income housing per say, only that the applicant had described a desire to keep land prices down by sharing infrastructure expenses. 

 

Diane Leary, an area resident, had expressed concerns with water and septic systems as well as increased traffic.  Shane McCormick asked about meeting dates.  Peter explained the sketch review process and told interested parties to check the website for future meeting dates.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing until February 20th.  Robert SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 - 0.  A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, February 17th at 9:00 a.m.  Interested parties should meet at the site on Texas Hill Road.

 

Other Business:

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to review the Carse subdivision, the Place home occupation, the Reid subdivision, the Babbott subdivision and the Dam subdivision/PRD.  Bob L. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

The deliberative session was ended and several votes were taken:

 

Tom MOVED to accept the Carse final draft decision (approval) as written.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 5-0, with Bob L. and Joe abstaining.

 

Tom MOVED to accept the Place conditional use draft decision (denial) as written.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 4-1, with Robert opposed and Bob L. and Joe abstaining.

 

George MOVED to accept the Reid sketch review draft decision (approval) as written.  Robert SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 4-0, with Clint, Bob L. and Joe abstaining.

 

Tom MOVED to reopen the Dam sketch plan review process, to be scheduled at a future date, to allow for new evidence and/or a revised plan.  Joe SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

The Board will continue deliberating on the Babbott subdivision at the January 2nd meeting.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary