TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Approved
DRB Members
Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
DRB Members Absent: Richard Jordan, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Final Plat Review - 7-lot/6-unit PRD -
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
** continued from the Jan 20 meeting
George Bedard and
Joe Fallon spoke on behalf of the applicant.
The group discussed information that had been received at the Jan. 20th
meeting as well as new items received (information about deer yards). George Bedard said they are proposing to have
the bulk of
Lisa asked how the
applicant’s plan addressed wetlands and water courses. George said the applicant has proposed a forest
management plan and that areas are also covered under state core rules. Lisa said Condition #4 (of the Preliminary
Plat approval) asked for a detailed plan.
George stated they were addressing that by saying the applicant will
abide by state rules. Ted asked how
harvesting would impact wetlands and water courses. Tom Yager of A. Johnson said the land has few
run-off issues, no swampy areas, only a swale seen when the pasture on the land
was in use. He submitted a copy of the state’s acceptable management practices
handbook to the Board.
George submitted an
aerial photo that indicated a brook that followed east-west then off to the
north. Peter Erb stated although there
have been no ground checks there has always been a mapped wetland on the
parcel. He said throughout the review
process the applicant never disputed the wetland’s existence and he is surprised
that it is now being contested. He said David
Hirth, a member of the Conservation Commission, walked the property and felt a
wetland area did exist, along with vernal pools that require different management
techniques. Peter said he recommended
that these areas be identified on the plan so that loggers could employ the
appropriate management practices where necessary. He noted that the map George submitted shows streams
but not whether there are Class 2 or Class 3 wetlands. Peter said the DRB does not have to enact its
ordinances on only what is protected by the state; they have a right to protect
what they feel is a natural resource.
Tom Yager asked if
it was common for the DRB to extend its reach beyond the area of development. Tom McGlenn said yes, particularly with land
set aside as part of a PRD.
Steve Leffler, a
Building envelopes
and the proposal to add a 75 foot clearing allowance was discussed. George B. read from conditions found in the
recent Ayer proposal, stating they were proposing essentially the same verbiage
as found in that application. He
described the existing vegetation for each of the 5 house lots, noting what
trees, scrub, etc. would remain and which lots would have clearing. Ted asked how trees over 6” in diameter would
be removed. George B. said clearing
would be restricted in the space around the home and that most homeowners would
not clear cut.
Peter said the Ayer
proposal, much larger building envelopes, was worded specifically for their
situation. He said he expected houses to
be absorbed into the landscape as discussed in the sketch process, and that he
did not want clearing language based on what lot owners might do.
The legal language
regarding road maintenance and any potential for road damage by development on
Tom MOVED to close
the public hearing and take the issue up in deliberative session; George
SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED
6-0.
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Conditional Use Review
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
George Bedard spoke
on behalf of the applicant. Tom McGlenn
asked Diane Langevin, an abutting neighbor who had not received written
notification of the hearing, whether she felt the hearing could proceed; she
said yes. George B. described the
original lot, stating a portion of it was restricted (no buildings). He said the current building lot is 13, 284
sq. feet, with an existing built (house, walkway, parking) foot print of 11,056
sq. feet. He said the property was very
close to a ledge and that a new house would require a slab foundation. He said the applicant is requesting an increase
the sq. footage extending to the east and further to the south, which would not
move the new structure any closer to the adjoiner than what is there now. He said the house is proposed to have 1 ½ stories
and would be similar to the houses on both sides.
George B. passed
around an aerial photo of the existing camp.
He discussed the ledge conditions on-site, stating builders have recommended
a raised wall on the structure so that water will not come up against the
foundation. He said that could be
achieved by lifting the floor up one foot or so from where it is, to deal with
grading issues. He said there is about 7
to 8 foot change in elevation between the back corner of existing camp and the
adjacent structure. He said the two options
were climbing up the ledge (an elevation change) or removing part of the ledge
to shape the land (requiring blasting).
Lisa asked if the
lift option would impact the neighbor’s view or trees. George B. said the position of the structure
would not change but the roof would be higher than it currently is; i.e. if
there is not currently a view over the roof of the camp, then no. He said the house’s position should not
impact the view from the corner window past the existing corner of the
camp.
Ted noted neighbor
issues regarding blasting and well impact.
Tom Campbell asked about property lines and noted that Diane Langevin’s
home is mainly block and stucco. George said
the original lot line is a 50 foot width of land and that conditions in the
deeds required it to go on that lot. He
noted that the new structure would be twisted slightly with about 5 feet of
shift.
George said the applicant
would like to keep as much tree growth as possible. The group discussed the current structure’s height
(21 feet) as compared to the height of the proposed structure (24.3) and how
much would be added beyond that by changes in foundation and floor lift. The southwest corner of the structure was discussed
as critical so that water would not be an issue. Peter Erb said he thought the current
structure is lower than 21 feet. Bruce
Cote, an adjacent neighbor, said he thought it was 16 to 17 feet tall. Melissa Harter, an adjacent neighbor, asked
how a further shift to the east would affect her view, stating she preferred the
proposed position. George B. said the
structure could only move an additional 5 feet.
The distance to the
driveway from the structure to the northeast (the
Nancy Wright, an
adjoining neighbor, noted she and Steve Lidle had submitted a letter to the DRB
and also had discussions with the Harts.
She asked George to describe the removal of trees in the area. George displayed a septic plan by McCain Consulting
that indicated a drop in the ledge where the system would be located. He said gravel soils were found on site. He said the septic system is proposed as a mound
filter bed for a two bedroom design, with a pretreatment function requiring a third
party maintenance provision.
The height of the
septic mound, surrounding vegetation and setback requirements were discussed. George noted a provision in state water permits
that prohibits deep rooted trees or brush growing within the mound, adding the
applicant has already obtained a water permit for the project. A site visit and appropriate preparations
(marking building height, septic location, etc.) was discussed.
Tom MOVED to
continue the hearing to March 3rd, with a site visit proposed for
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Final Plat Approval –
2-lot subdivision –
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Maura Kelley
summarized the project to date. She said
she is proposing to build a small log cabin home (32 x 22 feet) on the proposed
three-acre parcel; she said ag soil in the area would not be impacted. She said the existing shallow well would be
abandoned, and a new well dug that would be shared by both lots. She said although town maps indicated wetlands
on the parcel, Anne Foley, a state wetlands official, concluded there were no
wetlands.
Maura said the cabin
would be sited on the highest grades, with mapped wetland areas further to the
east. She noted a stream on the
property. She displayed septic plans and
pointed out the area sited for a secondary system. Maura said the new lot would have a separate
driveway sited on an existing road path and approved by Mike Anthony. Ted asked if the well driller indicated any issues
about finding water. Maura described her
discussion with Spafford and their suggestions for 8” piping and storage. Peter Erb said the proposed easement and deeds
anticipate the possibility of doing storage.
He said a ROW would be included in the deed allowing access to both
parties for well maintenance. The group
discussed the shared well situation and potential water supply further.
Ted MOVED to close
the public hearing and to approve the draft decision as corrected. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Sketch Plan Review –
Development on a
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Russ Barone said this 29.6 acre parcel approved for two
dwellings, is
Previous improvements made to the class IV section of
The group discussed possible impacts of the proposed building envelopes on the location of a future road. Tom said any building on the property would further restrict a road location. Russ said they did not want to establish a ROW at this time and stated he felt his proposal did not restrict the town’s future plans. The size of the building envelope(s) was discussed. Russ submitted a document with revised building envelopes noted. He stated the new proposed areas constituted 20% of the entire parcel equal to the maximum lot coverage of the 29.6 acres. He said he is looking for flexibility for future landowners to establish outbuildings and accessory structures. He described natural features on the property as well as south and west-facing slopes.
Peter thought slopes should not be impacted with clearing and/or a driveway, and expressed concerns about building on steep slopes in general. Alex described a more level area located below those steep slopes, around the 425 contour line. Russ said he extended the building envelope to include that area.
Alek Adamowicz expressed concern with the potential for road damage incurred by the Barone project and also asked who would be responsible for widening the road if two houses were eventually built (one on his parcel and another on the Barone parcel). The group discussed home associations and whether one could apply to a class IV road. Ted thought that it could. Russ said he was not aware of any other permits that have been issued that would use that class 4 section and that he believed the condition of the road currently to be suitable for two houses. Alek A. stated his family had already spent $10K on improvements to the road and wished to have assurances that it would be repaired in the event of damage. Russ said although no cost sharing mechanisms were legally recorded anywhere, he would be willing to state that damage expenses would be incurred by his project. He said his deed would identify them as a sole user responsible for maintaining the road, with a requirement to join any association if a second user would come on.
Ted thought it made sense for this developer (Barone) to improve the road for two houses since the other owner had already improved 800 feet. Alex W. said the road may already be 14 feet wide and had been improved with 19-foot long culverts.
The possibility of a town road through the parcel was discussed. Alex said although two dwellings were approved for development, an owner needed to come back to the DRB for further subdivision. He asked Russ if one building envelope – if two were approved – would go away when a structure was built. Russ said he wished to leave the option open for the buyer to choose one envelope or the other for their primary structure, with noting to restrict accessory structures from being built in the other. The concept of clustering all buildings was discussed. Ted recommended that the building envelope be sensible (not too large). Tom suggested two envelopes, one for the primary building, and another for accessory structures.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Other Business
Norris Subdivision
Sketch Plan extension
Tom MOVED to grant a 6 month extension of the sketch plan approval. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
(Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott,
George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn,
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
The meeting ended at approx.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary