TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Meeting Minutes - April 6, 2010
Approved 4/20/10
Members Present: Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Zoë Wainer, Dennis Place, Dick Jordan, Ted Bloomhardt, Greg Waples
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Admin), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Debbie Kellogg, Sharyon Sevene, John Lyman, Al Barber, Michael Bissonette, Kale Bissonette, Barbara & David Lyman, Jim Collins, Sam Collins, Valerie Spadaccini, Greg Tomczyk, Margery Sharp, Alyssa Lasher, Nancy Anderson, Patty Whitney, Dale Wernhoff, Kathy Doud Hill, Brian Hunter, Rodman Cory, Bob Linck, Ashley Orgain, Geoff Gevalt, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Michael Fay, Tom Ayer, Carl Bohlen, Kristy McLeod, Kristin Miskavage, Glenn Bomberger, Chuck Ross, Virginia Roberts, Bob & Dot Blanck, Patty Whitney
Tom McGlenn called the meeting to order at 7:32pm
Tom M spoke of having all the Advisory Boards and Committees share information with each other.This would help everyone understand what is going on with the other boards/committees to make their suggestions or concerns heard.
Motion Passed
Lyman/Milot-Kinney Drugs
Ted Bloomhardt stated he didn’t think the Board had a complete packet for review and was asking for clarification as to where exactly this application was in the process.He stated the applicant wanted a nod from the Board to let them know if they are going in the right direction but wasn’t sure if that would be possible right now.
Brett Grabowski said that if it was agreeable with the Board they will move forward with this new plan to final plat approval review. At that time they will have all the necessary engineering.
Tom M reiterated that they were scheduled for that last meeting where you were given your Sketch Plan Approval and asked to be continued to this meeting in order to have some re-work done based on the public and Board comments.
Ted B asked Alex to clarify for everyone present where this application is in the process.
Alex W said that this application is in Preliminary Plat review for a 2-lot subdivision.The applicant had received Sketch Plan Approval for a 2-lot subdivision last year, this is the fourth meeting for reviewing the plans.It has changed a number of times and at this meeting the hearing is still open on the Preliminary Plat and it is up to the Board to decide how much information is needed in order to render a decision.The application in January had all the information, landscaping drawings, all the engineering, photo renderings etc.Because of all the concerns expressed by the Board and the public the applicant has been coming back with new plans but not a whole new engineering plans, landscaping, etc. Alex said he has been encouraging the applicant not to do that as it would be a waste of time and money to have all the plans drawn up each time.They have not done complete reengineering, they don’t have a whole new landscaping plan so when the Board gets to the end of this presentation they need to make a decision to whether they want to see all of that in order to render a preliminary decision or whether the Board wants to agree that the applicant is moving in the right direction and they will delay the review of those engineering details until Final Plat Review. Alex said if the Board felt this new plan has answered the concerns that have been pointed out previously it is not a bad way to go.
George Munson asked Alex if the Board was still looking at a 2-lot subdivision and if so which two lots.Alex said they were the same 2 lots as previously shown.George stated as one Board member looking at this (a copy of the drawing) and going right into Final is a little premature.
An audience member asked if there were any staff reports to accompany the developer’s comments.Alex W explained that the applicant worked on these designs up until the packets to the Board member were sent out so he didn’t have time to prepare a written staff report.He stated that this is the fourth meeting on this and he felt the Board had as much information on the project as he has and he is leaving it up to the Board as to whether they need more information or not.
Tom M turned the floor over to Greg Rabideau, architect for the project.
Greg R said the meeting tonight was focused on six key issues and gave a short explanation for each.The issues he addressed were: Orientation of the Kinney Drug Store, the parking lot removed from the SE corner, office/commercial buildings have been broken up, reduced in size and changed in design, substantial residential component has been added to the project, the curb cut has been removed from Farmall Drive, and the applicant is trying to design some social/green space areas to the project.
Greg R went on to say it is their intention to have a variety of designs with a lot of different size buildings with different shapes, and colors. He showed that the new commercial/ residential building would have openings onto both green spaces. Greg he felt that there was room for improvement in the design but pointed out that they have included items such as porches to the residential buildings, maybe some store front on Farmall Drive and the sidewalks would be continued along 116 and Farmall Drive.
Greg Waples asked if the project was committed to having commercial condos in the four structures on Farmall Dr. Greg R said yes.Greg R said that they were thinking of doctor’s offices, chiropractors, small businesses etc.He showed that the placement of the buildings precludes such things as fast food restaurants.Greg R said the condos will be sold to individual buyers and it would be for the Board to specify what types of uses for the condos.
Alex said that the Conditional Use Review would be in play because of the size of the commercial space involved.The way the Zoning is written commercial uses over 1,000 sq.ft. require Conditional Use Review, so the applicant would be in line for that.As for the site plan review, it depends on the outcome tonight and how the developer wants to phase it in as to whether the Board will be granting a Site Plan Approval for the overall site or only for a certain phase of it.
Greg R stated that the applicant will be building the buildings, probably one at a time, as he can find businesses to occupy them and he doesn’t want the process to be so cumbersome that they could lose potential tenants.An audience member asked if there would be four condos per unit and Greg R said he couldn’t see them selling anything smaller than that.The configuration could be two condos up and two down.
Greg R thanked all who gave feedback and wrapped up by saying that Kinney’s has agreed to give up its preferred location in order to create a better plan.He stated the feeling now is that there is a good “mixed use” to the project and will fit in much better with the village character that they are trying to create.Gregsaid the he would like to get some indication from the Board tonight and if we are to get approval tonight he will come back with all the civil engineering, landscaping, architect drawings etc.If not, he would like to know that they are safe in moving forward those things.
Tom M opened the floor to the Board members for any questions.
Greg Waples asked if Greg R thought most of the parking on 116 would be associated with Kinney Drugs and Greg R stated the farther away from Kinney’s front door those space would relate to the other buildings/businesses.Greg W was asking about parallel parking versus angle parking and asked which the applicant thought worked better.Greg R said the only view that governs is VAOT and they said parallel parking.
Greg W said the only problem he has is with the size of Kinney’s.The new plans show 11,000 sq.ft. and it was that large when it was originally proposed.Greg said he had been to look at the Kinney’s in Burlington and Williston.This proposal is about the same size as the one in Burlington which feels large and empty, the one in So. Burlington feels comfortable and is smaller. He said he feels that 11,000 sq.ft. in Hinesburg is a little over the top.
Greg R said one major reason for the size is that it will be servicing a large area. He went on to point out buildings already in Hinesburg that have a bigger footprint than what is being proposed. As for the height, he said it is tall because they drew the store with a gable roof, it could be rendered shorter.Greg said they would like to keep the gabled roof as they are more consistent with the style of architectural that is already in Hinesburg. He stated going to a flat roof makes the look come closer to the “Box Store” look which wouldn’t fit into the design of the town.
Greg W asked if Greg R knew how many 11,000 sq.ft. Kinney’s there are now.He said he didn’t.
Ted B asked if there was a phasing plan for this development.Greg R said that what they are asking approval on tonight is Phase One; the other phase is the balance of the Lyman parcel.How they see it being developed is the residential building, Kinney Drugs and at least two of the buildings would happen simultaneously. Once Kinney’s is in place it would be another 2-3 years to build up.
Ted B asked if there were 20 apartments, 10 per floor and asked if there was parking underneath the building.Greg R said that 20 was correct and there was no parking underneath.Ted B expressed concern about the lack of parking for the building.Greg R said right now the way the apartments are configured is as one bedroom units so they feel comfortable proposing less than two spaces per unit.Brad G commented that they are basing this on flex parking with the other buildings.
Ted B asked if the flood/water runoff worked the same as the previous plan.Brad G said he anticipated that it does.Greg R stated that they are also exploringpossibilities pursuant to striving for the LEEDs certification to do some things like rain gardening, and using pervious surfaces to help minimize runoff.
Dick Jordan asked about how they saw the placement of the four buildings, one on the corner and then the next three in a row or perhaps two buildings on each corner.Greg R said it was probably in a row.Dick asked how they visualize the back of the lot lookingnow that Kailey’s Way shows as a single road on the drawing.Greg R said the new road would run parallel with Fredric Road, that they consciously eliminated the sweeping curve (because it was associated with high speed traffic) thus making people come to a full stop.This will provide a level of traffic calming.It also eliminated the need to handle large trucks making that maneuver because now they will drive straight into their area for loading and unloading. Dickasked at the next part of the process would they be able to see what that back area will look like and Greg R said they would provide that.
George Munson asked that in the residential building they are showing 20 apartments which would basically need 40 parking spaces and he said it looked like they only provided 27 spaces around the building.George asked if it would be possible to make parking across the street.Brad stated apartment dwellers will usually be at work, away from the building during the day, and then at night when they are home most of the businesses will be closed thus creating enough spaces.
Tom M spoke about the Board getting a letter from the Trails Committee and they wondered how this project was going to interface with the Bissonette/Champlain Oil project north of them. How all the sidewalks and trails are going to line up.Tomsaid he wasn’t sure if Greg R and Brad G had any conversation about that seeing how both projects are coming to the Board at the same time.
Carl Bohlen spoke as a member of the Hinesburg Affordable Housing Committee stating that
there is now a proposal for 20 units of housing and he didn’t know if they were going to be public housing or not.He asked Brad G who he had been talking to and Brad said Housing Vermont and Champlain Housing Trust.Carlsaid he felt it important that the Board have the Affordable Housing Committee be a part of this as there was information related to this that he is not totally in agreement with and that is one area he feels he has some expertise.Saying that there is no way to put units on the second floor he feels is not true.Carl reiterated that he hopes the Board would have the housing committee look at this in terms of feasibility, how it might work the best, how it fits into Creekside, and how it might relate to the other subdivisions.Carl said he would like to have a discussion as the Affordable Housing Committee with Greg R and Brad G to understand just how it might be feasible to bring affordable housing to that, which would be great.He said he felt that before preliminary approval the Board would hear suggestions from the committee.
Tom M opened the meeting to the public for any questions.
Sharyon Severne said that when Greg W was in Williston and Burlington to assess the Kinney Drugs he must not remember that on Shelburne Road there is a Rite-Aid, down the street the is Price Chopper with its pharmacy, and in Williston there is Hannaford’s with a pharmacy and another Rite-Aid.If this is going to be the only pharmacy in Hinesburg the parking doesn’t seem to be a problem.Her suggestion for the parking problem is to rent to senior citizens as they usually don’t have cars and tend to stay home.
Ginny Roberts said she didn’t believe anybody was disputing the fact that we want a pharmacy in Hinesburg, but the size seems to be a problem.She stated that businesses have come and gone from the Estey’s mall and looking at the four buildings she is wondering who and how are they going to fill them.She stated that we are not asking to be a regional pharmacy center.
Geoff Gevalt said the he hadn’t heard the developer identify himself at which point Brett Grabowski introduced himself to the audience.Geoff asked how many parking spaces Kinney’s has asked for.Greg R said they had asked for 20 spaces within 100 feet of the front door.Greg R pointed out with the drive-thru window that will help alleviate some parking.
Richard Watts asked if the developer was applying for a permit for the whole parcel or just this section and Tom M said the whole parcel.Richard asked if the all housing was included in that permit request. Richard said he felt this type of facility will generate a lot of car trips which will produce significant amounts of CO2 problems. Richard also said that a project this size cannot help but change the look of Hinesburg when coming from the north.
Greg R said the applicant did commission a traffic study which was presented to the Board and was reviewed by the VAOT and generally found to be acceptable as far as state standards go.
It was reported the average car per week was 192 cars and yes, when you enter Hinesburg you are going to see this because this is the vision Hinesburg has advanced as to being what they want.It is intended to be the village center commercial district.
Jim Collins commented on the size of Kinney’s saying if it could be made smaller then perhaps in the future we could have 3-4 more stores to get competition and it would cut down on the carbon footprint as people could stay here to get what they need.As for the process, this town has some 10 committees/commissions and he has read all the letters to the Board and he believes that 90% or the comments are not from the public but rather from different Board/commission members and the majority of them do not live in the village.Jim said he thought the process was all these commissions and boards were suppose to report back through planning and regulations and not come in here to tell the DRB how to do their job and hold up the process so that it could go forever.
Carrie Fenn was saying that in the northwest zone it was mixed use not just commercial use and it has a lot of interconnecting trails and roads, residential and commercial.This is what the Planning Commission has envisioned.
Sharyon S asked who was at this meeting representing Kinney Drugs and Tom M said that Greg Rabideau and Brett Grabowski were.Sharyon said they should be allowed to continue with this proposal as we need a pharmacy here.
Patty Whitney asked how big Lantman’s and Estey’s was. Greg R said that Lantman’s is 17,000 sq.ft, and Estey’s is 20,000 sq.ft.
Paul Wieczoreck asked if the development was not going to happen if Kinney Drugs is not the occupant or is there the possibility that another drug store could fit the bill and be smaller.He feels the drug store part is valuable but is not too thrilled about the rest of the inventory they carry.He stated that he would like the developer to have some sensitivity as to what the first thing people will see when heading south on 116 into the town.
John Lyman asked if the traffic study showed how many cars pass through Hinesburg per day.Brad said the study showed 12-14,000 per day.John asked how many of those do they anticipate will be stopping at Kinney’s.Brad said approximately 192.
Dale Wernhoff stated that he has worked in the construction field for quite a while and can say that the architect and the developer don’t really have any control over the plans, because Kinney Drugs probably has “x” amount of floor plans that they use and regardless if it is a Kinney Drugs, a Walgreens or whomever they will have their own vision of what the store should look like.Dale stressed that if the people of Hinesburg want a drug store/pharmacy in the town there are things that they will have to give up. It may not meet what the public wants but if it is a chain store it’s going to be pretty much their plan.He told Greg R and Brad G that they did a nice job on the revisions.
David Lyman commented on the fact that the Board had just approved the Sketch Plans for the gas station/Jiffy Mart a little further north so before long the entrance to Hinesburg will be up at the red light on Shelburne Falls Road and 116 not down at Farmall Dr.He then stated notmany people in Hinesburg realize that a proposal for the Saputo cheese factory is a slaughter house.
Brian Hunter said the what was confusing about the buildings along Farmall Dr. is which is the front and which is the back and suggested that the buildings be pushed back towards the parking lot and this would give more room for the “gathering space” they want.
Greg R said they went out of their way not to have a front or back side.
Brian H said he actually spoke with Kinney’s and was told that this is the size of their prototype store that they use.They are only in Vermont and upstate New York. This building is different from most which are concrete block buildings.
Greg Tomczyk said he didn’t think the scale of Kinney Drugs had changed.One thing he would like to see in this plan is a reduction is size of the footprint.It looks like this can be done, it looks like Kinney’s can move the building from a corner to a side location because they have just done that and he thinks there is an opportunity for some leverage negotiations such that the Town has some better discussions with Kinney’s as to it fitting into the Village Center core concept which he thinks was the part of the original Planning Commission Rezoning plan.
Tom Ayer is a member of the Planning Commission and he would like to applaud the architect because he thinks this plan is tremendously better than the one he saw in February.Tom stated that with all the talk of mixed use that this plan has met that definition.Tom said at one of the last Planning Commission meetings they discussed how they wanted the Town to look using an example from the Good Times café up to the phone company.He said he felt that Kinney Drugs knows what it takes to run a drug store and cutting down the size is not the way to go about it.He reminded everyone that we have been without a drug store for approximately 20 years.He would like to dispute anyone who says this design of Kinney’s does not fit the Town Plan he would like to dispute that.
Mike W said he felt the plan has been greatly improved but it still has some major difficulties with it.One of those problems is that no matter what they do there is going to be a need for a lot of parking.The way he figured to do it was to put the parking lot in the center of the site and develop a strong streetscape around it.This new plan is approaching that direction Mike continued with saying that he feels the way the residential reads now is a strong argument as to why we want residential on top of commercial.It doesn’t have a residential quality, it is not inviting.
Andrea Morgante said she would like to tease out more of the Kinney Corporate requirements, as they wouldn’t accept residential or possibly commercial on the second floor.She wants to understand why no second floor, with the potential for a second floor there and many community uses that could perhaps go on that second floor. In creating the new regulations they were trying to encourage multi-use because they were saying they didn’t want the big boxes and essentially big boxes are single use buildings.She is wondering if there is any way to understand what the corporate thinking is why second floor use couldn’t happen.She is thinking it could be used for community meeting space.She would like Kinney’s to think like a community citizen not a corporate citizen.
Tom M informed the audience that the time is getting late and the hearing is running late due to the interest but there are still more applicants to hear.He said he would take a couple more questions if they were short.
Alyssa Lasher said she agrees with Brian that it should be pushed back in order for a green space on Farmall and take into consideration the privacy factor and plant evergreens all around to keep color and privacy year round.
Valerie Spadaccini asked for an explanation of wanting to make the building lower and yet using the second floor.Wouldn’t a second floor make the building higher? Tom M said yes it would. Valerie said then if you want to make it lower we can’t have a second floor to use.
Jim C said he didn’t think there was enough parking and the Town property along side Farmall Dr. might be used for additional parking.
Sharyon S asked when this was first approached and when is it going to end?Tom M said soon he hoped.
Greg R said he was appreciative of the Towns willingness to keep coming out to these meetings and giving input and whether you oppose the project or you support it you see that we are listening and trying to respond. He agrees with Mike W in the fact that there is a tremendous room for improvement in the architect of the buildings and if they got some sense that the general layout is working he could hand that back to the civil engineer and the landscape architects to get a rendering of what it would take to accomplish those goals. Greg said they were not going to come back with a new proposal for a smaller drug store or a two story drug store as this is not something the applicant wants to present.They are however, willing to improve the plan at this detail level. Greg said he and Brad would like to ask the Board to really consider strongly approving Preliminary Plat but if not then to at least say they are not wasting their time because the next steps involve a much larger team and a bigger commitment of funds.
Tom M said at this point we can close the public meeting or continue it to a specific meeting.
Alex Weinhagen strongly urged the Board to continue it to the 20th of April, or the first meeting in May.Both have available spots.Alex said that the Board needs to come to some consensus which can be done in an open meeting with only the Board doing the discussion.
Tom made a motion to continue the Preliminary Plat review of the Lyman/Milot Kinney drug proposal to the April 20th meeting.Ted B seconded and stated he thought the applicant was looking to the Board for a sign that they were on the right track and from his perspective they are.Ted said compared to the other plans and the concerns that have been raised he thinks this is a workable starting point.He said the Planning Commission rezoned this lot with public hearing and Select board approval knowing full well what the proposal for this lot was.Ted said he didn’t see anything in the new zoning regulations that talks about maximum size and he said he didn’t see it not working.Ted said from one Board member he thinks they are on the right track.
George M said he felt this new plan was a great improvement.He said he didn’t feel that way when he came in because he had only the one diagram but after the presentation he thinks it is in the right direction too.He complimented Greg and Brad for what they have done and said he thinks it should go forward.
Zoë Wainer said she appreciated the amount of work that has gone into all revisions and changes and she does think that they are getting to a place where she is starting to see it in the scale exclusive of Kinney’s but she does agree with Ted in wishing it was smaller but she believes the fact that you’re not going to get the little mom and pop corner drug store.The one thing she said she is still having a hard time with is the whole concept of the open space and community gathering spaces as a central organizing feature.It still feels like the parking lot is the central organizing feature and that is difficult. Does this jive with what our regulations are asking for.She said she didn’t think it wasn’t feasible or doable and they could move forward.
Tom M said he certainly liked these plans better than the first proposal.Tom recognizes that it has come down in scale; breaking up the buildings definitely improved it.
The Motion Passed
Tom M thanked everyone who came to participate in the Kinney Drugs review and then opened the floor to the next application, Wind Partners NRG.
NRG
Owen Clay (Director of Engineering at NRG) introduced himself and Nancy Anderson (Project Engineer Organizer) to the audience.Owen started with a short history of NRG and explained what the company does.He stated that his job was to produce new products for NRG and right now the competition is taking market shares away from them.Owen stated that one of their main products is the tower that their wind measurement equipment goes on.The tower that they came to get approval to erect three years ago is no longer the only tower people want, they need a taller tower to measure wind so NRG is developing one and they need the ability to raise the tower up to test it.Owen stated that was the reason he was here tonight to get permission to raise it up.He said the tower that most people see, between NRG and 116 is 60 meters tall and the tower he is talking about now is 80 meters in height.Owen said they are actually asking for up to 85 meters which in feet equals 282 feet.
If the tower is raised one thing that that is required by the FAA, because it is over 200 feet, NRG must have it lit at night so that is a feature of this tower.Owen said with this being a must NRG understands that this is a feature that is hard to accept as a fine thing to have next door.He said in order to mitigate that they are asking to be able to have the tower up for brief periods of time, maximum of three days at a time and their only intent is to have it up when it needs to be up for the testing.He stated what they will strive not to have it up at night.
Tom M asked if they had to light it during the day and Owen said no and in order not to have it lit during the day it has to be painted alternating stripes of white and orange.
Greg W asked if this tower falls into the same requirements as the one on Spear Street in Charlotte. Ted B said it is not white flashing lights is that was what Greg was asking.Owen said that tower is higher than what he is talking about and has additional requirements.
Nancy A said she wasn’t sure of which tower they were talking about but there are three options for lighting for this height tower and two involve white strobes.NRG thought those would be more evasive so they went with the red light.She said the white strobes are run day and night with it being more intense during the day and the red would be less evasive.
Zoë W asked if it was a constant on red and Owen said no it was flashing.He said the FAA requires a certain frequency of flash which they would have to meet.Tom M asked if they require brightness and Owen said yes.He said they were given a couple of options and the picked what they felt would be the least annoying to the neighborhood.
Dick J asked if the flashing light would be at the very top and a pair of constant on lights lower down on the tower and Owen said correct.Nancy said the lower ones do not flash and the one they looked at was the minimum flashing allowed.Zoë read it was 20 flashes per minute.
Zoë asked if what they were saying is that they will try not to put the tower up at night.Owen said yes that their goal is to put it up, figure out what they need to figure out, test what they need to test and then put it back down before the end of the day.What they won’t know is if every time there are difficulties, if something happens, if it is getting dark do we know enough about this design yet to guarantee that we can always get it down –no, but that is the intent.
Greg W asked if his recollection about the earlier tower was that it took approximately 3 hours to assemble and disassemble is that correct. Owen said that is about right and this new one will take a little longer.
Tom M asked is that 85meters away from any structure or road.Owen said the 85 meters was the maximum height and where it will be located is more than 85 meters from 116 and on the other side of the power lines.It is closer than 85 meters to Riggs Road and the reason for that is that the area to the south is where it starts to get wet and they are trying to stay out of that area.
Dick J stated that the map he received in his packet looks like two parcels, Nancy A said that it all belonged to the Blittersdorf/NRG property.
Denis Place asked if the new tower would be going up in the same place as the earlier one.Owen said it will be near the same place but across Riggs Road.Greg W asked if this would mean that both towers could be up at the same time.Owen said yes they could.
Dick J asked when the tower lays down will it lay down to the south and Owen said it would lay down to the east.
Tom M asked if the tower has ever fallen, stating that they put them up all over the world.Owen said in fact some have fallen and where they tend to fall is in high icing environments, which believe it or not Hinesburg is not in one of those areas.
Ted B asked approximately how many of the three day periods are they expecting to have within the next six months.He asked if this is a development job or do they practice putting them up.Owen said it is a development job they couldn’t put it up tomorrow because they do not have all aspect designed at the moment but he figures that if all goes well the first time they will attempt to put it up will be in June. Owen and Nancy talked about the project and came to the conclusion that a rough guess as to the number of times it would be up for three days would be 5-6 times in six months.Owen said that there will be an ongoing need to put it up after the initial development.
Ted B asked if the Board was modifying a current Conditional Use Review or is this a new one.Owen said it is a new one.Ted made a motion to direct staff to develop conditions for a Conditional Use.
Tom M asked if there were any questions from the public or Advisory Board.
Andrea Morgante asked if it has to happen on NRG ground.Owen said yes because it will be ongoing work and to work on it offsite would be costly.
Geoff G. stated that he found it interesting that we talked about Kinney Drugs for two or so hours and now we are talking about a business in Hinesburg that employees a lot or people and this is a part of their need to do business.He said he found it entertaining to watch the towers go up.Geoff said this application is pretty low impactand it seems what NRG is saying isthat this tower is vital to our business.
Greg W said the sense of Geoff’s statement is not lost on the Board and that they will probably move forward in another ten minutes or so.
Andrea Morgante stated she appreciated the fact they would not be using strobe lights and reiterated that there would be a red light on top that will be flashing 20 flashes per minute and there will be two steady red lights.In a months period they might have it up for three daysand most of their testing will be done in the next six months to a year and then after the year go through more redevelopment and redesign but the tower is not something that will become a permanent fixture.Owen said that was correct.
The Motion Passed
Fournier
Tom M introduced Gary Fournier to the audience.Gary said he was here for Final on a 2-lot subdivision on his property on Pond Road.
Ted B asked Gary what he had done since the Board saw him last and Gary said he had met with the engineers, got the designs done for the septic, met with the wetlands group and had a wetland map drawn.Ted B asked if there were some buffer areas that they needed to stay away from and Gary said there was.Gary said there is a class one wetland area that the sewer main would have to go through and he has met with the State regarding that.They are going to give him Conditional Permits to cross that area.Gary said he didn’t bother with that at this point because of the expense of the permits and he was waiting for the Board’s approval.Gary said the mound system that will be used is already existing and it is large enough for two three bedroom homes.
Dick J asked if that wasn’t an unusually long distance from the house to the mound and Gary said it wasn’t because it was level and when they calculate the head it is the height that is important.Gary said it is a one pump station located on the lot.
Tom M asked if there were any questions from the public.
Kristin Miskavage from Orchard Commons said that only one homeowner in Orchard Commons received notification about this application so the rest of the homeowners have not had time to review any documents or the Sketch Plan.She said the last time anyone from the Commons attended any of these hearing was back in June ’09 and Gary said that was the last meeting held.
Kristin asked if Gary had now switched to a residential use for the lot 2.Gary said it has always been for residential use.She asked if any construction or excavation has started and Gary said none has.Kristin said in reviewing some papers tonight that the construction hours would be Monday thru Saturday and wanted to know if that was normal and was told it was.Kristin asked about the easement and Gary said it came from the north end of the field all the way down, across his driveway and ends at the existing mound system.
Kristin wanted to know if anything went wrong with the system how would it be handled.Gary said if it was something like a leek he would have to dig it up to correct it.Peter said it is the State standards that addresses what happens when systems fail.
Jean Mainer said that Marie Smith, whose property is next to Gary’s did not receive notice either.Peter asked if the Board should keep this application open. Gary asked the Board if they are going to continue his application until the next meeting could he go before Kinney’s.
Alex said continuing this to the 20th wouldn’t hurt, just to be safe and it would be in Gary’s best interest to ensure that there couldn’t be any future challenge to any approval.Gary asked if he should talk to the residents of Orchards Commons prior to the next meeting. Tom M asked what the statutory limit for notice was and Alex said 15 days. Greg W pointed out that continuing it to the 20th would not give the required amount of notice time.
The Motion Passed
Ruben/Mauer
The Motion Passed
Tom M closed the nights’ meeting at 10:05pm
The Motion Passed
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Seemann
Recording Secretary