TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
September 18,
2007
Approved October 2, 2007
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: none.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator),
Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Greg Bombardier, Adam Beaudry, Deborah Gianelli, Benjamin Hunt, Alan
Norris, Xu Zhou, Thomas Hackett, Norm Smith, Matt Baldwin, Mary Baldwin, Peter
Baldwin, Dan Baldwin, Gerry Newton, Jeff Davis, Tim Downey, Steve Giroux.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Minutes of the September 4, 2007
Meeting:
Ted MOVED to approve the September 4, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0, with Tom and George abstaining.
7-Lot, 6-Unit
Subdivision – Final Plat Approval –
Greg Bombardier and Adam Beaudry of Champlain Consulting Engineers spoke on behalf of the applicant. Greg reviewed details of the final plat. Adam passed out revised versions of the easement deed and the homeowner association document. Both now include language to protect all hedgerows in the subdivision, including the 50-foot easement to the Hunt property. He said these documents were transmitted to Alex and have been incorporated into the draft decision.
Ted asked about the 15-foot portion of the easement that was in the hedgerow. Greg W. said although Order #3 addressed the issue, no clear benchmark existed to define what maintaining the hedgerows “as-is” meant. Ted felt the order was correct but that the findings and conclusion were not so. Lisa thought Order #3 conflicted with Conclusion #6. She preferred the statement about maintaining the existing plantings as “a vibrant mix”, and suggested updating Order #3 to reflect that wording from Conclusion #6. Alex agreed it was difficult to have a benchmark for hedgerow conditions at the time of subdivision, but said the legal language does refer to the map on file. Greg B. said the map with vegetation shown is scalable.
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended with changes Lisa had suggested. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Conditional Use Permit - Addition to a Non-Complying Structure – Shadow
Lane – Applicant: Gerald Newton
Gerald Newton reviewed his application. He made a correction to Finding #2, stating the additional lot coverage equals 96 feet, not 120 feet (the structure will be 4’ x 24’, not 5’ x 24’). He reviewed an elevation of the camp. He said the shed would be used for storage and would be sided with the same material as the camp. The roofing would be shingle now, but changed to metal later. He said the gravel parking area is large enough for 2 cars. Peter confirmed the area is about 400 sq. feet. Peter said the italicized notes in the decision would be removed.
Ted said the camp was a non-complying structure by lot coverage, but that it met all setback requirements. Greg noted the area contains many camps that are coming under scrutiny for non-compliance. Alex said he would relate (the nature and frequency of) camp compliance issues to the Planning Commission. Zoë suggested adding language that siding and roofing material on the addition match the camp.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and accept the draft decision as amended (to include the addition of another order regarding siding/roofing). Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Alex introduced Richard Jordan as the new Development Review Board alternate.
Appeal of a Notice of Violation –
Norman Smith, an attorney in Essex Junction, spoke on behalf of the appellant. He said he has gone over the situation with Tom, and that Tom recognized he needed to remove some of the vehicles. He said they counted 11 cars on the property, and agreed 8 needed to be removed. Greg recognized Peter’s attempts to mediate before taking formal action but noted the issue had now gone on a long time.
Tom Hackett said he understood the camper to be an issue; he said he moved that vehicle to show it was operable. He said he has done nothing more because he felt Peter dropped the ball sometime last year and did not direct him further until this spring. Greg said the notice of violation has been in effect since May (2007). Alex confirmed there was no task force in town to help remove cars. Ted suggested selling the cars for scrap metal. Tom H. asked if the town would consider his cars to be antiques, as some were over 50 years old. He asked about barn storage; Norman Smith said it might be suitable for storage. The lot dimensions and possibility of constructing a shed or pole barn were discussed.
Xu Zhou, co-owner of the property, noted Tom occupied the house before the condos were built and felt it was unfair for condo residents to complain as Tom was there first. She described the cars as antiques not to be considered junk. Tom M. said there was neither a description for antiques, nor special conditions for antiques in the Zoning ordinances. Ted said antique plates could be obtained but only by registering vehicles. Alex clarified that if a vehicle was registered OR operable, it is not considered junk. Peter noted registered cars require inspection each year, effectively requiring them to operable as well.
Ted said the problem is that the lot is small and right in the middle of town, and that unregistered cars have been parked on the front yard. Xu noted Tom built a fence last year. Tom H. said he could not argue that he has eight cars too many, admitted he has not taken action but will do so now. He said he has the vocational skills and most of what he needs to turn moving junk into antiques that run. Tom M. said there are approved salvaged businesses, and possibly also approved storage facilities, in town.
Greg asked
Greg said it sounded as though
the appellant was admitting violation.
Peter said the matter has gone on a long time and that neighbors are frustrated. He recognized that frustration had been expressed that he (Peter) has not moved fast enough on the violation, but said his goal has always been to get compliance. He felt Tom could bring the matter into compliance with a new structure but that property set backs are very limiting.
Alan Norris, the developer of the neighboring condominiums, clarified he has complained, not the condo residents. He said another individual (who had chosen not to come to this evening’s meeting) had complained as well. He said the problem at the site was not only junk cars, but also other kinds of junk, as defined in the zoning ordinances (which Alan read aloud). He said there is more than 200 sq. feet of junk in the yard. He passed out recent pictures of the yard. He said he had offered to buy the vehicles and remove them himself. He says Tom has talked to him for 3-4 years to say he would do something, but he never has.
Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the October 16th meeting, feeling the proposed action/timeline was the best way to get the matter resolved before proceeding with legal action. Alex said the DRB did not have the power to proceed on enforcement action, that the same action/timeline agreement could be worked out with the Select Board and the appellant, pending the DRB decision. Tom withdrew his motion. He then MOVED to uphold the Notice of Violation. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED (denial of appeal) 7-0.
3-Lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan Approval –
Matt Baldwin spoke on behalf of his parents Mary and Peter Baldwin and reviewed a map of the proposed subdivision. He said they wished to subdivide the land behind the existing house into two additional lots. They would build a new house for themselves on one lot and the other lot would be kept in family ownership. Research on soils and topography had been done, with suitable septic and well locations found for each lot. He pointed out a driveway location, stating it would disappear beyond the lawn.
Matt said the 10.5-acre existing lot was divided in 1977, with the existing home built in 1979. He said the location is central to the neighboring family farm. He explained his father had had a stroke a few years ago and his current home was not adequate for his needs. He said the other lot was intended for a home for his younger brother who special needs and disabilities that required him to live nearby the family. Mary and Peter also did not plan on selling their existing home outside the family.
Tom noted the density as a potential issue. Matt said zoning in the area allows for 2-acre lots with the intention that larger farm parcels would not be carved up. He said their 10.5-acre property is the ideal residential location and that none of it contains prime ag land. He reviewed a map of the property, stating none of it is cleared except for the front lawn. He indicated where trees would shield the view of the house(s). He said the 7 acres to the back of the property was never used as pasture.
Ted said that although the district allows for 2 acre zoning, the 10-acre lot is a separate parcel not tied to the larger farm, meaning the proposal is not tied to preserving ag soil. He said if that connection could be made then density would not be an issue. He noted the proposal had good intentions but approving it would be difficult as the main farm was not in the same ownership. Matt explained the main farm was owned jointly between his father and his aunt. Matt has run a farm operation on it for 9 years. He said when the family developing, his father expressed that he did not want a new piece off the main farm. They felt the existing site has ideal conditions for building, with no prime ag soils. He added the main farm was not up for discussion. Ted said from a density standpoint, the board risk setting up a scenario in which 10-acre lots (of which there are many in the area) could be further divided, changing the density expectation for the whole area. Matt felt the density issue does not apply here, that the property was the prime location for additional residences without touching the existing working farm. He said his father owns the 10.5-acre property solely, with an additional 756 acres owned jointly.
Greg agreed density was an issue, but felt regulations should allow for a property to be subdivided among family members. Matt said his family has been farming since 1910 and that this subdivision has been planned for a while. Ted asked if there would be a provision for keeping lots in family ownership. Matt said his father would own all three lots; only one lot will be developed now and the other will be held for the brother.
Alex said regulations require that submittals involve contiguous lands, so that there can be a discussion about the larger landscape. He said a draft decision could take into account the overall landscape, especially the western portion, and find that this parcel is the best location for development. Tom said there could be a finding that it is adjacent to the family farm in the same ownership.
Lisa asked if the parcel needed to be subdivided at all, raising the possibility of multiple homes on one parcel. Peter said only a small apartment could be built on one parcel already containing a main residence. Matt said they felt it was best to subdivide now, giving the board their full intentions of developing a family compound area in the center of their working farm. Greg asked about the farming operation. Matt said they raise crops and sell hay. He said his aunt started a beef cow operation using 80-100 acres on the north, but plans to add heifers and move towards a dairy operation.
Peter asked if a 2-lot subdivision could be considered. Matt feels the application is totally different from other (potential) neighboring applications. He suggested a site visit, noting his family had reservations about opening a site visit to the public. Alex said that although there are other interested parties, he does not think a site visit is an official part of the public hearing and could be limited to DRB members. Greg said he did not like that idea of restricting site visits. Tom said he would take the request into consideration. Alex said he would investigate with the town attorney whether site visits need to be open to the public.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the October 2nd meeting, with a site visit to take place at 6:00 p.m. on the same day. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Conditional Use Permit – Route 116 – Owner: Giroux Properties –
Applicant: Imbrie/Downey
Tim Downey explained he was applying for a permit for a woodworking business. He said the hours of operation, number of employees, etc. was indicated in his proposal. Ted asked any changes would be made to the building except signage and siding; Tim said no and indicated where signs would be located. He described the construction of a spray booth, noting an exhaust fan would face west. A filter system would be employed, following Dept. of Labor and Industry specifications. He added that the D.L.I. would inspect the system once and the business would be required to maintain it. George asked if the Fire Department had any concerns with flammable products. Tim said he spoke with the department and they have no concerns. Peter noted the building is about 100 feet from the back property line and that exhaust would not be aimed directly into a residential area.
Tim said it was not a retail business and there would be no showroom. He said operations would be noisy but that doors would be kept closed, even in summer. He said typical woodworking machinery would be utilized including a dust collector that was loud and in constant operation. Peter asked if that machine was housed indoors; Tim said yes and said an insulated room would be built to house the machine, cutting noise in half. He agreed to construct an insulated room to contain the dust collector as condition of approval, per Greg’s suggestion.
Richard Jordan noted there are residences 20 feet to the south of the building. He questioned whether working hours beginning at 7:00 a.m. were too early. Steve Giroux said he is at his business (next door) by 7:00 a.m. and sometimes at work by then, although official hours are open at 8:00 a.m. Tim said they are not requesting Saturday hours. Alex said the applicant would have to come back to the DRB if Saturday hours were requested in the future.
Tim said he is requesting lighting for both signs, which would be turned off at 5:00 p.m. Richard asked about floor drains or areas if solvents were to leak. Steve Giroux said there are drains but not in mixing areas. He said those drains go to a manhole out back, then daylight to a ditch. Ted said he felt it was a good business for this location. Tim said there are no plans for improving the outside of the building. Ted said they could approve upgrades to the outside right now; Peter clarified the owner doesn’t need approval unless the DRB feels they are necessary.
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Other Business
Giroux Subdivision
Greg MOVED to approve the decision as written (denial). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Lisa abstaining.
The next DRB meeting is October 2nd. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary