TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
November 20,
2007
Approved December 4, 2007
DRB Members
Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted
Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, George Munson,
DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples, Lisa Godfrey.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator),
Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Betty Wright, William Bress, Kate Wanner,
Bob Linck, Peter Gibbs, Peg Montgomery, Judy Fritz.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Minutes
of the November 6, 2007 Meeting:
Tom MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0, with George abstaining.
Appeal of Decision by the Zoning Administrator –
Betty Wright is
appealing a decision issued by the ZA regarding the number of lots that
constitute a parcel she owns in common with Pamela and Alan Pratt. The lot is .08 acres, located at the end of
George Bedard spoke
on behalf of the appellant. He displayed
a map of the parcel and presented a history of its ownership through various sales
and transfers. He said the parcel has a single owner but it contains two developed
lots and one vacant lot behind them. He
said a 1955 deed gave the parcel from Gilmore Dickey to Joan Hughes and Betty
Wright, as tenants in common. In 1992 a
quit claim deed was executed, giving Betty full ownership of one structure,
Joan the other structure, but still with common ownership of all land including
the vacant lot. George said each lot is
a separate camp lot with individual owners and dimensioned descriptions; the vacant
lot is and will remain in joint ownership.
George said the houses are treated separately for tax purposes but the
land is treated as one.
Alex said he
supported the ZA decision based on how the Zoning Regulations defines a “lot”
(pg. 73). He thinks the deeds refer to
how lots came to be, but do not officially divide them. Dennis asked about road easements; George
said there is a road association formed to deal with the road, with an easement
in place by use.
George spoke about
zoning related to mergers; Alex confirmed that mergers happen with two
properties that are under the same ownership if they are too small to be
developed on their own. Zoë asked if the
parcel could be subdivided. Alex said the
entire parcel is a non-conforming lot and it could not be subdivided. Betty Wright said the vacant lot has been merged
into the lakefront lots for tax purposes.
Alex noted there is no defined ROW for access; George said the road
association agreement is of record. Alex
said if one of the camps has a septic problem they now have the opportunity to
find a replacement location anywhere, but would not have that right if the lots
were divided.
Tom suggested getting legal counsel. George requested that the town get legal counsel before moving further on the appeal. Tom said legal costs may be incurred by the appellant. Alex clarified the DRB has the option of paying fees or compelling the appellant to pay those fees. Ted said he thought the parcel has been treated as one parcel since 1955 and that the ZA decision should be upheld.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to December 4th meeting and direct staff to consult an experienced real estate lawyer to review the case; he further moved that the appellant pay for that review. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
3-Lot Subdivision Final
Plat Approval –
Kate Wanner reviewed changes to the application since it was last
reviewed by the Board. She said
none of the three lots will be developed at this time. She said farmland will be sold to the same party
that will be buying parcel 4 (of the larger project) but they won’t be building
a house for a few years, most likely on parcel 4. She said the conservation easement on parcel
2A gives the right for four future houses.
She said the future buyer and Wayne Bissonette have mediated re the
erosion issue on parcel 2B by working with NRCS to fix and monitor it. Peter said he would re-word the finding to
say work has been done. Dennis asked why
the cemetery was not being transferred now.
Kate said it was due to timing issues, explaining if they had done a
major subdivision it would have taken longer since the cemetery would have been
a non-conforming lot. Ted said decision
language should be clear that no development is proposed or approved; he recommended
changing Order #4 to state that no building lots are being approved.
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
2-lot
Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review –
Tom noted board
members George, Dick and Zoë have not visited the property. Judy said following the previous application,
she walked the property with a site engineer to review septic possibilities. She said they focused on an edge of the
parcel, dug a test pit and ran into sandy soil (concluding it was acceptable
for septic). She said it still left the
majority of a flat spot for a house and driveway. She said she would like to keep the driveway
away from the stream and also to come in at a higher elevation. She said she has not yet tested for water,
but has a reliable well at her house that has never run out of water. Tom said in a worst case scenario, the well
could be utilized as a shared well by adding storage. Zoë asked if Judy had spoken with the town
highway department. Judy said no but
said Mike Anthony had stated in the previous application that sight distance
was the only issue. The group discussed
speed limit and sight distance. Judy
provided the group with a map marked with topographical lines.
Charles Bush, a
nearby resident, said he went on the previous site visit. He said he has concerns about water and
septic, that stormwater will run off the ledge into the brook. He expressed concerns about the wildlife corridor
in the area, and also about density in the area. Bob Linck, a nearby resident, thought it was
contrary to the town plan to give landowners of 10+ acre lots the right to
subdivide and that it would set a precedent.
He noted wildlife crossings in the area.
George Bedard said Judy will have to get a state water permit with all basic
protections built into that permit. He noted
Bob Linck worked for the Vermont Land Trust and has an interest in
conservation. Ted thought the application
should be treated as a 3-step major subdivision. Peter thought there may be a significant
difference with the curb cut (from this application to the previous one); he
suggested that Mike Anthony review the proposal for sight distance. Judy said there is a lot of flexibility
between where the previous road cut was and the ledge, noting the parcel had a
lot of road frontage. Ted asked if it
was because of where the ledge started.
Judy asked about the process of finding the best location before Mike
came to review it.
Dennis asked about
well yields in the area (as cited in the Bedard application), whether that information
could be used in this matter. Peter
thought water was less an issue in this application. Ted thought that, density aside, a 2-lot
subdivision seemed doable given the amount of road frontage.
Ted MOVED to close
the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0. Ted MOVED to treat the application as a 3-step
major subdivision. Dennis SECONDED the
motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
9-Lot, 8-Unit
Subdivision/PRD – Preliminary Plat Review – Route 116 – Applicant: David
Carse/Hart Hill Design, LLC
Peter Gibbs of Engineering
Ventures spoke about the project, now named “Cottage Hill”. He said the parcel would have eight ½-acre
building lots situated in the northeast corner, with remaining acreage on a
ninth lot designated as common land. A
portion of lot #9 would be used for the main access road, the septic area and a
travel road (ROW) that provided access to common land (for the homeowners) and access
to the barn (for the neighboring Ballard family). Approximately ¾ of the parcel would be open
space, with 6 acres of common land developed with community gardens and the
travel road. David Carse explained that lot
#9 is 36.5 acres but not all of it is designated as “open space”. Alex clarified that PRDs may show a boundary
line on the final plat dividing developed land and undeveloped land, and also defining
usage for those areas. David said the full
36.5 acres will be owned in common. He
asked about the potential to lease back land for agricultural use. Peter Erb said the lot description as
currently written defines only open space and usage, not what area(s) could be
leased out.
Peter G. then presented
three proposed subdivision plans, with varying setback dimensions and lot sizes:
Plan #1 - Front = 60 ft.; Rear = 30 ft.; Side = 20 ft.; .5 acre lots
Plan #2 - Front = 30 ft.; Rear = 30 ft.; Side = 10 ft.; .5 acre lots
Plan #3 - Front = 30 ft.; Rear = 30 ft.; Side = 10 ft.; .6 acre lots
Peter G. reviewed
Plan #1, stating lots were laid out to meet the order language from the sketch
plan decision regarding visibility from 116.
Lots were evenly divided with somewhat uniform building envelopes. He then reviewed Plan #2, with setback
waivers in place. Lots were more
staggered, with larger building envelopes.
David said they found house sites to be too restrictive in Plan #1, and
developed Plan #2 to allow more flexibility to stagger the houses. Dick asked if front yard setbacks could be a
bit more (like 40 feet) to avoid building right on the access road. Ted agreed, stating the plan should make
sense as to where a house would realistically be built. Peter Erb thought the location of the house
on
Peter G. reviewed
Plan #3; David said the slightly larger lot size gave flexibility, and would
make a difference in building and selling houses. He noted three houses would have western views.
Peter G. showed 3 photo diagrams: one with no houses; one based on Plan #2; and
one based on Plan #3 with houses more spread out. David said the houses would not be bigger in
Plan #3, but better quality. That plan
would also add access to a community garden area as a ROW.
Tom asked about
topography and slopes. David said the house
farthest from Route 116 is lower; he described the land and where it drops off from
116 (in the middle of the proposed development). Peter G. said they did septic tests with
uniform results. He is proposing a
shared mound system that will be hidden behind the development but tucked close
to the development. Dennis asked about
mowing; David said the mound could be mowed with light equipment, it could be
grazed and noted the farm road runs between the development and the mound. Dick asked about the development’s main road
being used for farm access. David would
like to include access for the Ballard family on the main road for vehicles and
equipment. He spoke to his vision of the
development as being part of a working farm.
Ted agreed with the Plan #3 configuration of .6 acre lots. Zoë asked if there was any issue with the
George asked about erosion
control. Peter G. described temporary
erosion control measures during construction.
He said they wished to create drainage easements. David pointed out a natural swale on the west
side of
The group discussed
the
There was a
discussion over which cluster was more aesthetically pleasing.
Ted MOVED to
continue the public hearing to December 18th. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Other Business
George Munson left
the meeting at this time (9:55 pm).
Charney Plat Revision
Ted MOVED to approve the decision as written
(approval). Zoë SECONDED. The motion passed 7-0, with Greg and Lisa
voting yes in advance and George abstaining.
O’Brien Subdivision
Alex said Lisa had relayed her concern regarding the location of septic
systems. The group discussed whether the
system should be re-located or re-designed before the plan was approved. Alex noted state septic rules had changed
since the proposal’s septic plans were designed. Dennis MOVED to approve the decision as
written (approval). Tom SECONDED. The motion passed 6-1, with Lisa voting no in
advance, Greg voting yes in advance, and George abstaining.
Zoë MOVED to go into deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Laberge Appeal of a Notice of Violation
No action was taken at this time.
The next DRB meeting is December 4th. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary