TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Approved
Also Present:
The meeting began at approx. 7:30 pm. Ted Bloomhardt was not present at this time.
Minutes of the August 4, 2009 meeting:
Greg MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0, with Tom and Amy abstaining and Ted not voting.
Minutes of the September 1, 2009 meeting:
Zoe
MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4–0, with Greg and Amy
abstaining and Ted not voting.
Tim
Dowd & Melissa Harter for Development on a Private ROW / Conditional Use
Review (Camp Conversion) at 162 Wood Run. [Tax Map #14-21-77.000]
Melissa Harter said they have
lived in the house since 1997; they first rented the house, then purchased it
in 1998 and have since made significant improvements. She explained they are only seeking camp
conversion approval from the town but are not planning any improvements or
additions at this time. She said their
water has recently been tested for potability and septic system pumped and
inspected; both systems are in operating order.
She said they are already a member of the Wood Run Road Association,
with all dues/fees currently paid in full.
Tom asked about state wastewater regulation; Melissa said the state
“Clean Slate” legislation enacted in 2007 supersedes town permitting
ordinances, stating if a house (or camp) was in use for a certain amount of
time before January 2007, it does not need a wastewater permit. She referred to a letter written by state
officials indicating that they are considered year-round residences by the
state; they are simply now seeking town approval for a year-round residence.
Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as written (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0, Ted not voting.
Voted: Amy Escott, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis
Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Stephen & Kathryn Gutierrez for Revision to a Subdivision
Approval at
Steve Gutierrez explained his
request to adjust multiple boundaries in order to create more room on their
property to build a garage. The group
discussed the original subdivision that created a cul-de-sac serving only one
house. Steve described the area as a
turnaround point, noting a ditch, gravel area and a hillside slope to the
north. Alex said the original
subdivision decision probably required a cul-de-sac to satisfy frontage
requirements in place at the time. Zoë
suggested adding a conclusion stating the Board agrees with FOF #8 regarding
frontage. Peter noted FOF #7 that states
the applicant may build the garage once boundaries are adjusted (to avoid
having to obtain a second
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0, Ted not voting.
Voted: Amy Escott, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis
Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Nancy
Ruben and Joe Gagnon (Landowners) and Tracey Maurer (Applicant) for Revision to
a Development on a Private ROW Approval at 460 Burritt Road. [Tax Map #08-01-57.100]
Joe Gagnon described the request to create a new driveway / ROW across the west side of the Ruben property to the Maurer home. They now share a driveway on the east side of the property that travels past, then curves around a barn, creating a blind spot in both directions. Joe said both parties expect increased use of the road as their children and their friends start to drive: there is a combination of 6 teenagers between the two houses; a 5th younger child; 4 horses housed in the barn; horse riders crossing the driveway occasionally from neighboring fields; and finally dogs in the area. Joe said he also drives his tractor in and around the barn, creating another potential obstacle on the road. Tracey and Joe agreed that safety was a major concern and the primary reason for the request.
Joe described the area for the proposed new drive – they are asking for a new curb cut west of the existing cut; from there the road would travel along the western side of his property, avoiding a ledge and wetlands to the north, then looping directly into the Maurer residence. The group discussed the placement of the barn built in 2001 and why it had been built outside the proper setbacks. Joe explained that they did not build the barn (a previous owner did) and that it had received approval to be set closer to the road at the time; Tracey said the Ruben lot was undeveloped when she bought her house and that the driveway/ROW was never an issue until now. Alan Belcher, an adjoining landowner gave similar comments (he owned his property before both parties purchased theirs’).
Joe described his conversations with Mike Anthony (Road Foreman) about the location of the proposed new curb cut. He said Mike had indicated at the time that creating the new cut would also help solve a long standing drainage problem at that location (an existing culvert there has been scheduled to be upgraded and improved.) He also described his conversation with Moe Dubois about the applicant’s proposed curb cut (to the far west) and another that staff had suggested (about halfway between the proposed and existing). Moe said the staff’s suggested cut would require 2-3 days of blasting at $2-3K per day.
James Gibbons, an adjacent owner across from the Ruben property, said he would be very concerned about any blasting for a new cut as his well is very close to the road. He described the sight line of his turn out onto Burritt as being somewhat difficult, and said he would prefer a cut that faced his driveway directly (the proposed would do this).
Greg spoke to the idea that subdivisions, whether created recently or in the past (this one was created 18 years ago) have already been carefully reviewed by the Board in place at the time. He thought reconsidering a road cut/driveway created within a previous subdivision should only be done for a very good reason, and he did not think this request qualified as such, particularly due to the potential impact of land features to the west and neighbor concerns. Alan Belcher said when Rita Villa created the subdivision, she had wanted the road to be as far from her property (to the east, now Alan’s home) as possible, but settled on the current location because of the ledge to the west. George Munson read from the 1991 decision/minutes confirming that. Zoë asked Joe and Tracey if they have considered making changes to the existing driveway; Tracey noted a tree line and fencing already in the area and also the fact that there is now no turnaround for anyone coming down her shared driveway mistakenly, i.e. they must go all the way to her house and then turn around. Wendy Stein asked how the parties would prevent traffic from using the old driveway; Joe said they could put up a gate but wanted it to remain as a pedestrian access.
Dennis asked if the new driveway
was staked; Joe said no. James Gibbon
stated that they reserved their right to appeal any decision, particularly if
blasting were part of any decision, as this was their main concern. Alan Belcher said he had no concerns with the
project. Peter Erb, Zoning
Administrator, noted that a review for Development on a Private ROW does not
include the same level of review (for example, of road engineering plans) that
a subdivision has, making it difficult to assess issues such as natural
features, drainage, etc. Joe said they
planned to obtain more formal engineering plans but wanted to wait until they
received
The group discussed what direction to take with the application. Members expressed concerns with revising a prior approval and the engineering of the driveway through natural features. Wendy Stein questioned why the Board should be concerned that this would “open the gate” for other homeowners to come in for a revision of their subdivisions, suggesting that every parcel/homeowner would be judged on their own circumstances. Greg reiterated his thoughts about reconsidering approved subdivisions that it should only be done in extraordinary, unanticipated circumstances. Tracey said their circumstances have changed dramatically since they time she bought her house. She now has 5 children that will all be driving. James Gibbons commented that circumstances can change in either direction (a homeowner can move). Tracey responded that the driveway will always be unsafe; Joe agreed, noting the presence of people, animals, cars and tractors all in the same area of the barn and blind spot in both directions.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0 with Ted not voting.
Voted: Amy Escott, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis
Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Ted Bloomhardt joined the board, and Amy Escott left the board at this time (8:30pm).
Wayne Bissonette (Landowner) / Champlain Oil Co. (Applicant) for Sketch Plan Review of a 2-lot Subdivision of property located on the corner of Route 116 and Shelburne Falls Road. [Tax Map #16-20-56.500]
Alex passed out a letter by Tamara Orlow regarding the project. Greg asked if the fact that the town owned adjoining property (the Library parcel) affected the hearing in any way; Alex said no.
Tony Cairns, owner of Champlain Oil Co. described plans to relocate the Jiffy Mart business into a new 4000 sq. foot building directly across the street, accessed by a new road cut off Shelburne Falls Road opposite Ballards Corner Road. He said he has been speaking with Wayne Bissonette about the project for several years; they are now in a position to move forward as zoning regulations have changed (the parcel is now part of the new Northwest Village District) to allow for commercial uses. Tony said he is looking for a sense from the Board that this project as proposed can be approved. He would otherwise tear down the existing building and rebuild in the present location, although that would not be his first choice in part due to land constraints there.
Tony discussed the inclusion of a new “West Side” road on the recently adopted Official Map, proposed to exit at a location west of where he has proposed (more in line with Pleasant Valley Road). He explained why he felt a connection to Ballards Corner Road (to the east and closer to the Route 116 and SF Road intersection) was a better location, particularly due to a very wet area to the west. He discussed the area that would remain to the north of the West Side road up to Route 116, essentially creating the highly-visible “gateway” corner lot (note that this is only a 2-lot subdivision; that corner lot would still be part of the larger remaining acreage to the south until it was further subdivided). Tony said he could not speak to plans for that lot or remaining acreage, as he did not own those, and as such, he has not submitted a master plan for his project. Alex confirmed that staff has requested such a plan which also takes into consideration plans for any through or access roads, wetlands, stormwater, etc. Tony suggested that Tim Burke with White and Burke, a real estate / development consultant (present at the meeting) may be able to speak to future plans.
Tom asked what would happen to the existing building across the street. Tony said the building could not be renovated; it would be torn down and rebuilt as a commercial rental property. He added that they control the septic system for all the commercial and residential lots at Ballards Corner; whether they connect a new building (at the existing site) to that system or connect to the new line from town is still unknown.
Greg asked how the site would function without the West Side road (as it is unlikely to be built any time soon). Tony said plans would not be different – their access (new paved road) would still be proposed SF Road at the Ballards intersection, with access into their station as proposed; the road would simply not continue south. The group discussed the proposed road, access points and lot use and configuration, noting these issues:
- The Official Map indicates a connection to SF Road at a location lining up with Pleasant Valley Road. Alex said this was done in part to address a “stacking problem” – cars on SF Road waiting to turn onto Route 116 can sometimes line up so far to the west that it makes exiting Pleasant Valley or Ballards Corner Road difficult.
- State and federal officials have had discussions about traffic in the area; those agencies will need to be involved in any proposed changes there.
- A stream is in the western area; Alex said the applicant has indicated a 25’ stream setback on their proposal but that he needed to confirm that was correct.
- Alex said a ROW setback shown to the east of their lot (along the new road access) was drawn too large – it should show only a 10’ setback. He estimated the corner lot would be about 2-2.5 acres in size (if separated from the larger piece).
- The existing building is about the same size as the one proposed. Tony spoke about a new station at New Haven Junction, describing its orientation, access and how it is used, particularly by trucks fueling up with diesel. He said the amount of asphalt at that station was needed not so much for parking but for maneuvering.
- Tamara Orlow, a Pleasant Valley Road resident, asked if the new site needed ACT 250 permitting; Tony said no. She expressed concerns that over half the new site would be impervious. Tony reiterated why they needed that surface area (maneuvering), adding they have no plans to create a “truck stop” location (with showers, etc.). Amy Escott, a Pleasant Valley Road resident, said she was concerned with the environmental implications of diesel pumps as well as with increased truck traffic and noise. Tony said they would add diesel to the existing site if they rebuilt there, noting demand in the area.
- “Stacking” was discussed at length, with references made to the current situation at the Jolley site (the Mobil station). Tom suggested closing the first entrance into the station and using only one further south. Dick asked about future traffic and/or activity at that intersection – would there be room to make necessary changes such as adding turn lanes? Alex noted existing buildings (the Merchants Bank) and the fact that the multi-use path is planned for the area. He said the Official Map was in place to address any development, and would require a conversation with the Select Board.
- Tom said he thought the proposal was a big improvement on the current site/building, but that he wanted to tie the two (projects) together nevertheless.
- Greg suggested requiring the applicant to adapt their site in the future if the West Side road were constructed.
- Peter noted that this is essentially a 3-lot subdivision, as this project defines the other two. He said the town has projected a West Side road to be a very heavily trafficked road that needs to be considered within a properly developed master plan.
Ted agreed that the review of this proposal could not be focused only on the particulars of the gas station lot, i.e. this is a 2-lot subdivision and the remaining undeveloped lot must be considered for infrastructure, traffic, etc. as well.
Fred Haulenbeek, a member of the Planning Commission, described the Commission’s vision for the West Side road, that it would be the access to the entire Northwestern district as accessed directly across from Pleasant view. He said he did not think this plan accommodated future traffic concerns. Alex said the applicants recognize the West Side road access, they are simply proposing to put it in a different location; he said ultimately the SB would have to decide which was better. Tony expressed concerns about the road being placed to the west of his station as it would face a new building backwards (the back to the east or Route 116 corner).
Wendy Stein asked about any tanks that would be installed. Tony described the existing sensor and alarm systems, adding all vehicles must be turned off while they are fueling.
Zoë asked how the current Lyman project and this one would sync up; Alex said the Lyman proposal has been modified to take the West Side road into consideration to ensure that it would line up to the north.
Ted said he had concerns about a new building with more amenities (twice as many pumps, more amenities including diesel, etc.) being a bigger draw and potentially exacerbating any stacking problem from 116. He acknowledged that stacking and other issues such as providing for access to the corner lot would be reviewed within a study beyond the sketch process. Alex noted another Route 116 intersection planned at Riggs Road as well as the existing access at Farmall Road, noting these would also be studied.
The group discussed potential wetland delineations done on the property. Alex said the word “potential” meant a wetland consultant hired by the town has said the area contained wetlands - it has not officially been reviewed by state or federal officials.
Alex asked Tony if he would consider turning the lot, bringing the access into the station further off from the SF Road; Tony said it could be considered. He acknowledged that the Board was expressing concerns regarding stacking, the location of the West Side road curb cut, the amount of impervious area and how the gas station lot was oriented. Wayne Bissonette commented that a prior wetland delineation had indicated a much lower amount of wetlands than the most recent study. He also noted that he did not own the land opposite of Riggs Road and could therefore not grant permission to access it from his property (as a connection to the West Side road).
Alex suggested asking the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization for assistance with a free transportation study that could be used as part of this sketch phase review, cautioning that it was not a final decision by a regulatory body. There was more discussion regarding access points and new zoning regulations that require limited road cuts off Route 116. Alex said he would pursue assistance from the CCMPO.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the November 3rd meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0 with Amy not voting.
Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis
Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
The group moved to go into deliberative session to discuss the McGlenn and Hubbard decisions. (9:40 pm).
Other Business
Ruben/Maurer – The application was discussed with no action taken.
Amy Escott and Greg Waples left the Board at this time (9:50pm).
Hubbard Decision
Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Ted, Amy and Greg not voting.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.
Tom McGlenn and Zoë Wainer left
the Board at this time (
McGlenn Decision
Ted MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Ted, Amy, Greg and Zoë not voting.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis
Place.
The meeting ended at
approximately 10:10 pm. The next
Respectfully Submitted: