TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Approved
DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy Escott, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey, Richard Jordan.
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Minutes of the
January 20 and
Greg MOVED to approve the Jan. 20 meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6–0 with Amy abstaining.
Tom MOVED to approve the Feb. 17 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0 with Greg and Zoë abstaining.
Greg and Zoë left the board at this time (
Conditional Use Review
Continued Hearing(s):
A site visit took place on Saturday, Feb. 28th with
the following people in attendance: Travis
and Sarah Hart, George Bedard, Diane Langevin, Tom Campbell, Steve and Nancy Lidle,
Tom McGlenn (
- Flags were placed on the south side of the camp at the proposed septic site. A pole was placed against the chimney to indicate the height of the proposed structure.
- The structure’s foundation was discussed in terms of the septic system location and also potential impacts on views and landscaping. Two options for installing the foundation were discussed: building the foundation up from the existing ledge or blasting into the ledge to avoid raising the structure.
- Water drainage was discussed, particularly what might be done to catch the water running around an area at the road.
- Tree removal by the leech field.
Travis Hart said the group also talked about moving the structure away from the lake, tucking it into the trees behind it. Diane Langevin said they talked about screening by the septic system and by her property line. Ted Bloomhardt asked if there had been any observations about neighbor’s views. Tom McGlenn said the roof orientation had been discussed; the ridge was proposed to run east-west, sloping towards the lake. He noted a stand of hemlocks between the applicant’s camp and Diane’s house, stating he felt her best views seemed to look out over the lake, not over to the Hart camp. He noted that the camp was in severe disrepair and felt this building project would improve the overall neighborhood.
The group discussed the process of blasting in the area versus raising the finished floor and/or the exterior foundation. Melissa Harter expressed concern about elevating the foundation. Tom Campbell thought a balance between blasting ledge and raising the camp up should be found. Concern was expressed about making sure the firm contracted to blast was experienced and insured. Travis explained his understanding of current blasting techniques, that the surface rock would implode and crack, rather than explode. He said he preferred not to blast and explained the need to accommodate the basic necessities of the mechanicals (pipes, the septic system, etc.)
George Bedard discussed the roof orientation and finished elevation of the structure. He said the house would be 24’-3” above whatever floor level was established. He said raising the structure without blasting as well as bringing the camp back away from the lake would improve drainage around the house and allow for a concrete wall against which a yard area could be shaped with gravel and topsoil. He described a neighboring house at a 139.7 foot contour line, stating a five-foot lift of the new structure would match this elevation. George said soils at the site need more investigation.
Peter Erb passed around photos of the existing camp. He asked George B. to indicate on the photo approximately where the new floor would be located. George described the elevations and natural features found at the front (facing the lake) of the house. He said the well would be sited at the front of the camp. He suggested that the covered porch proposed for the lakefront could be stepped down towards the lake to bring the elevations down.
Tom Campbell and George B. discussed contours at particular points of the existing camp, noting that Diane Langevin’s house would be at least 10 feet lower than the proposed structure. He expressed concerns about views from the second floor of her house as well as the potential for loss of sunlight. Tom McGlenn thought the hemlocks between the two properties would block light anyway. Diane noted a clearing in the hemlocks back away from the lake. She also expressed concerns about privacy due to the close proximity of the proposed house. Travis said he was willing to plant screening in what he said was already a dark area. Diane said she tried to plant conifers in that area (professionally planted by a landscaping company) that failed due to lack of soil.
Tom Campbell said he wanted assurances that the plantings would happen and that they would be successful. He also suggested that mechanicals can go inside of the slab as part of the slab system. George said they needed to establish the foundation height relative to the septic tank location and how deep in the ground it could be installed. He discussed several septic tank options, their operation and sizes.
Melissa Harter said she liked the current proposed house location as she felt it best avoided blocking her views, rather than shifting the structure to the east. Ted said he thought a 5-foot lift of the floor was too high. George said a foot or less of the exterior foundation would be exposed.
The group discussed how the orientation of the house would affect setbacks (if at all). Peter Erb said a shift would not affect setbacks any more than they are already impacted by both the proposed structure and neighboring house (both are currently non-complying structures).
Melissa Harter asked about elevation and whether land around the structure would be filled in higher than it is now. George showed where fill would be and described which levels would be raised or stay constant. Ted asked if that was to avoid blasting; George said yes, summarizing by stating either the house has to be set down into the ledge, or come up in elevation.
Diane asked about runoff into the lake and also the view of the house from the lakeside. George said the patio could be stepped down to fit the structure onto the land from the lakeside. Peter asked the applicant whether they would accept conditions on the design of the house to ensure it was integrated visually into the land around it. Travis said yes; George said the rock removal would have to be increased to achieve that. Ted thought the house would not blend well if no blasting were done.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to discuss the matter in deliberative session. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy
Escott, George Munson, Tom McGlenn,
Greg and Zoë rejoined the board at this time (
Hart Hill Designs, LLC – Final Plat Review – 9-lot/8-unit
or 8-lot/7-unit PRD/Subdivision - Route 116 –Applicant: David Carse/Hart Hill
Designs, LLC
Continued Hearing(s):
Tom MOVED to continue the Hart Hill final plat hearing to
the
Sketch Plan Review – Multiple
subdivisions: (1) 2-lot, (1) 3-lot, (1) 4-lot –
Matt Baldwin spoke on behalf of his father Peter Baldwin. He described the three parcels included in the proposal:
- Parcel A (2-lot): The parcel is located at the northwest corner of Baldwin and Drinkwater Roads. They are proposing to create (1) 2-acre lot around an existing rental property (the school house) and (1) 133 acre lot currently in agricultural use.
- Parcel B (4-lot): The parcel is located at the NE corner of Baldwin and Catchapaw Roads. They are proposing to create (1) 2-acre lot around an existing house off Baldwin Road, (2) new house lots (a 4-acre lot with access off Baldwin and a 2.5 acre lot with access off Catchapaw), with (1) remaining lot of 113 acres.
-
Parcel C (3-lot):
Greg asked about additional possible development on Parcel C, on the north side. Matt said they had no plans to subdivide it any time soon but could envision 4 - 5 lots there, with most of the fields kept open, as a long-term plan. Greg asked if future planning would be focused on Parcel C and/or on the French property (recently purchased). Matt said their objective now was to maintain their farm’s viability by developing their least profitable land.
Greg noted an additional 4-acre lot at the SE corner of
Baldwin and Catchapaw Roads now for sale.
Greg also asked about the proposed shared drive on Parcel C. Matt said they located a good location for a
driveway, across from the Seneca’s house, with adequate sight views (for
turn-out onto
It was confirmed that the proposal included a total of 9
lots with 4 new dwellings. The
condition of
Tom MOVED to
continue the hearing to the March 17th
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy
Escott, George Munson, Tom McGlenn,
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Other Business
Hart
The matter was discussed with no action was taken.
Barone Development on
a Private ROW
Decision: Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Amy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0, with Greg and Zoë not voting.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy
Escott, George Munson, Tom McGlenn,
Dam
Decision: Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Amy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0, with Greg and Zoë not voting.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Amy
Escott, George Munson, Tom McGlenn,
Next
The meeting ended at approx.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary