BARRETOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11, 2006
The Barre Town Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Offices, Websterville, Vermont.
Members Present:
Mark Nicholson, Chair
Charles Thygesen, Sr.
Cedric Sanborn
Harry (Marty) Miller
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft
Mary Day
Others Present:
Tom Otterman
Paul & Norma Malone
Jeff Tucker
Bob Nye
Bill Day
Louisa & Dean Patterson
Cary & Jan Smith
Vance Asselin
Rob Townsend
Derek & Loretta Wilson
Craig Chase
Jim Hepsley, Jr.
Al Monty
Doug Farnham
Staff Present:
Chris Violette - Planning Officer
Harry Hinrichsen - Town Engineer
Heidi Bennett - Board Clerk
A. Review of Subdivision Plans - 6:30 - 7:00 PM
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
C. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: McGrath
Request by Shane & Alexa McGrath for final approval of a 4-lot subdivision on two different lots for the purpose of lot-line adjustments on property located on Websterville Road, Ferris Street, and Buick Street; Tax Map 028, lot 026.00 & 035.00; Zoned: RES B (P-05000037 & P-05000038)
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: January 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request was continued last fall to January but while things are moving along with regard to sale of a property, the applicants are requesting a another 3 month continuance.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed no new plans for this project.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Ms. Day, the Board voted to continue the request by Shane & Alexa McGrath until April 12, 2006 for final approval of a 4-lot subdivision on two different lots for the purpose of lot-line adjustments on property located on Websterville Road, Ferris Street, and Buick Street; Tax Map 028, lot 026.00 & 035.00; Zoned: RES B. (P-05000037 & P-05000038)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Day
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: East Hill Associates
Request by East Hill Associates for final approval for a 4-lot subdivision (phase 2) on property located off Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lot 012.01; Zoned: RES C (P-05000049)
Consultant: Jeff Tucker/Rick Bell
Date: January 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is for final approval of phase two of the Goldsbury Woods subdivision (East Hill Associates). This phase will create 4 additional lots to add to the five already approved as part of phase 1.
Lot 6 will be .97 acres and have frontage on the new town road
Lot 7 will be 1.05 acres and will not have frontage but will have a 25’ right-of-way reserved for it over lot 6.
Lot 8 will be 4.01 acres and will not have road frontage but will have a 25’ right-of-way reserved over lot 6 (off the end of town road not the hammerhead as originally proposed) at this point I’m not sure of the exact location of the proposed driveway but the developer has discussed it with Harry and will be shown of subsequent plans.
Lot 9 will be 4.39 acres and also will not have road frontage and will also have a 25’ right-of-way reserved over lot 6.
Last months comments reflected a belief that one shared driveway for lots 6, 7, & 9 would be constructed but in appears as thought lot 6 will have an independent access and lots 7 & 9 will share a common drive. Both 7 & 9 are shown with 25’ easements to them. The only point I’m not sure about is where construction of the driveway is going to take place. It appears as though it is going to be in the middle in which case another driveway couldn’t be constructed if necessary. Clarification is needed.
Water for all lots is on-site (drilled wells)
Sewer will be municipal and is mostly already constructed as part of phase 1. However, approximately 160’ of additional sewer line is needed with phase 2. The sewer line is proposed to be 6” in size as opposed to the normal 8”. The Selectboard has already approved the size change. Lots 8 & 9 will be forced mains to the gravity sewer line. Plans show a 25’ easement but I thought that had been changed to a 20’ easement. I’ll have to check on that.
Lot 6 will have the hammerhead turnaround at the end of the new town road taken out of it and is using the hammerhead for frontage.
Since the last meeting the Selectboard has reaffirmed its earlier acceptance of the road so that is no longer an issue.
The current plans have a few other deficiencies that the developer is already aware of an working on changes.
Final plans must be stamped by a registered survey along with Mr. Tuckers as the PE where appropriate. Upon approval and in the end a total of three stamped paper (24” x 36”) plans, one 24” x 36” mylar copy of the site plan and an 18” x 24” plat must be submitted to the Planning Office.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have comments on several issues that should be addressed prior to Final Plan approval.
1. Sheet 1 needs to have road name of Goldsbury Wood Road on plan. DONE
2.
Hammerhead turnaround needs to have metes & bounds on separate table for Sheet 1.
3. A waiver of scale will be needed for Sheet 1.
4. A property pin needs to be shown on the back line of Lot # 8 & 9 on Sheet 1. DONE
5.A surveyor’s seal is needed on Sheet 1.
6.Sheet 1 should show only lot, line and easement information. Information relating to contours, setbacks, utilities, houses, service laterals and well shields should be on Sheet 2 or later. DONE
7.Utility poles should be numbered.
8.Utilities for Lots # 8 & 9 and accompanying easements should be shown and specified as underground.
9.Sewer information on Sheet 2 should be provided with pipe length, slope, and diameter. DONE
10.The trench detail should be for 6” pipe as reviewed and approved by the selectboard. DONE
11.The significant (Maple?) tree on Lot # 6 should be shown. DONE
12.The driveway access for Lot # 8 needs to be relocated from the end of the road straight-away. DONE
13.Sheets 1, 2, 3, and 4 each need an engineer’s stamp.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. One - 18”x24” recording plat must be submitted to the Planning Office for filing in the Town of Barre land records in accordance with Barre Town subdivision regulation and state statue within 90-days of approval.
2. One - 24” x 36” mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within90-days of approval.
3. No changes to the approved plan can be made unless first reviewed by either the Town Planning Officer, or the Town Engineer for a determination of significance. If it is determined that any proposed change is significant, the plan will be required to before Planning Commission for approval of the proposed change.
4. Failure to comply with any conditions as stated herein, could lead to nullification of this subdivision.
5. All easements and/or rights-of-ways, as shown on the final plans by Rick Bell/Jeff Tucker shall be created when the need arises in order to fulfill the development as proposed and approved.
6. All conditions listed above under Town Engineer’s comments (2, 3, 5, 7, 8, & 13).
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – Hammerhead dimensions need to be shown on a separate sheet so that they are legible when a plat is filed.
Paul Malone – Power will be underground from the nearest pole.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by East Hill Associates for final approval for a 4-lot subdivision (phase 2) on property located off Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lot 012.01; Zoned: RES C. Approval is subject to condition 1 – 6. (P-05000049)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Nye
Request by Robert Nye for final approval of a 2-lot subdivision for the purpose of a lot-line adjustment on property located at 789 South Barre Road; Tax Map 021, lot 006.00; Zoned: RES B. (P-05000050)
Consultant: Wayne Lawrence
Date: January 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is final approval of what is actually doing two different things. The request will not actually create a new lot but will reconfigure two.
The subject parcel is a 2.35 acre parcel which sits between the Stevens Branch and Rt. 14 in South Barre. The parcel is owned by Suzanne Talbot, and William and Robert Nye. Currently the subject parcel has a house located on it. The plan is to create a .39 acre parcel that encompasses the existing house and then covey the remaining 1.05 acres to the abutting property of Robert Nye. The 1.05 acres will be merged with the Robert Nye property creating a parcel of 3.01 acres. No new lots are being created.
Located in a residential B zone, all lots will conform if approved.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have no new comments that should be addressed prior to Final Plan approval.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. One - 18”x24” recording plat must be submitted to the Planning Office for filing in the Town of Barre land records in accordance with Barre Town subdivision regulation and state statue within 90-days of approval. DONE
2. One - 24" x 36" mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90-days of approval. DONE
3. No changes to the approved plan can be made unless first reviewed by either the Town Planning Officer, or the Town Engineer for a determination of significance. If it is determined that any proposed change is significant, the plan will be required to before Planning Commission for approval of the proposed change.
4. Failure to comply with any conditions as stated herein, could lead to nullification of this subdivision.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted approve the request by Robert Nye for final approval of a 2-lot subdivision for the purpose of a lot-line adjustment on property located at 789 South Barre Road; Tax Map 021, lot 006.00; Zoned: RES B. (P-05000050)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Bancroft
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
D. PRELIMINARY PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: Gauthier
Request by Lyle Gauthier for preliminary approval of 3-lot subdivision on property located at 379 East Montpelier Road; Tax Map 009, lot 074.00; Zoned: RES C (P-04000052)
Consultant: Rick Bell – Dufresne & Associates
Date: January 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is close to being ready for review but the applicant has requested another 30-day continuance.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed no new plans for this project.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to continue the request by Lyle Gauthier for preliminary approval until February 8, 2006 of a 3-lot subdivision on property located at 379 East Montpelier Road; Tax Map 009, lot 074.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-04000052)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Day
Request by Ewing & Leona Day for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located at 10 Skylark Terrace; Tax Map 035, lot 031.00; Zoned: RES A. (P-05000052)
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: January 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request for a 2-lot subdivision is before the Planning Commission this month for preliminary review after the Commission briefly looked at it last month as a conceptual plan. This proposed subdivision will create one new lot proposed for development with a single-family dwelling. The subject parcel is located in a residential A zone where minimum lot size is 14,400-sq. ft. and minimum road frontage is 110’. As proposed, this subdivision meets the minimum zoning standards.
Lot 2 is the proposed lot and is shown to be .51 acres with 154’ of road frontage. The proposed lot will be served by both municipal water and sewer. Plans show details for both. The remaining land, lot 1 will be 2.18 acres in size with 197’ of road frontage. Lot 1 will be left with the existing homestead of the applicant. Both lots will have independent access off from Skylark Terrace.
Waiver of showing contours on the entire parcel will be needed. Contours for lot 2 are provided but not for lot 1. Other than that this subdivision is pretty straight forward.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have comments on several issues that should be addressed prior to Final Plan approval.
1.There will need to be a waiver of scale for the scale 1” = 30 ‘. DONE
2.
There will need to be a waiver of contours for the entire property. DONE
3.
There will need to be a waiver of survey for the entire property. DONE
4.
The previous subdivision reference should include mention of slide #190 of the Clerk’s Land Records. DONE
5.
The Town/City Line shown be shown along the back of the Day property. DONE
6.
The elevations need to be converted to USGS.
7.
The sewer manhole rim and invert elevations will need to be furnished. DONE
8.The water line in this area is a 6” ductile iron line not 2” as shown. DONE
9.
The culvert under Skylark Terrace and any watercourse along the McKnight property line should be shown. DONE
10.
The existing utility poles should be identified by number. DONE
11.
There should be a designation of overhead or underground utilities. DONE
12.
The new driveway should be provided with intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances for the main road. DONE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
6. The elevations need to be converted to USGS.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – We have some sewer information that we gave them regarding the sewer line, usually if we can give them the USGS crossed reference it is helpful. I am not worried about the site distance since we are working with side street 25 mph neighborhood.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Thygesen, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Ewing & Leona Day for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located at 10 Skylark Terrace; Tax Map 035, lot 031.00; Zoned: RES A. (P-05000052)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Thygesen, Sr.
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Smith
Request by Cary & Janice Smith for preliminary approval of a 7-lot subdivision (P-05000053) on property located on Lower Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lots 095.00; Zoned: RES C/AG.
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: January 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This subdivision request is for preliminary approval of 7 new lots for proposed development of single-family dwellings. The commission reviewed this proposal briefly last month as conceptual. The subject parcels lies in a residential C zone which requires minimum lot sizes of 2 acres and road frontages of 200’. As proposed all lot conform to current zoning.
The subject parcel is approximately 40 acres in size and will break down as follows:
Lot 1 23.11 acres w/ 488’ of road frontage
Lot 2 2.19 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
Lot 3 2.45 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
Lot 4 2.29 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
Lot 5 2.12 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
Lot 6 2.34 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
Lot 7 3.97 acres w/ 200’ of road frontage
All lots are subject to on-site septic and water. Plans show septic information. All leachfields are located a considerable distance from the house but are all shown to be gravity fed systems going into in-ground leach beds with replacement beds in between the primary beds.
Access to the lots with the exception of lot 1 is shown utilizing common access. Lots 2 & 3 will share a curb-cut, lots 4 & 5 will share one as well as lots 6 & 7. I think the common curb-cut idea is a good one but think we should have the developer do an agreement like was done for Bashaw which will stipulate construction of the shared area by the developer.
Harry has raised several questions that I will not duplicate but one important one is drainage and where does is the water going to flow around some of the proposed development. In addition, abutter Wilson has raised a concern about a water line that they have rights to that traverses a part of this property. In fact, while doing soils exploration, I believe the water pipe was found. They are concerned about this pipe and want reassurance as to its protection. While it is unknown exactly where the water line is something needs to be added to the plans to indicate (like was done on lot 7) that a water line may exist.
Scott or Scott’s we are not sure how it is pronounced is located along the backsides of 6 of these lots. Lot 1 goes around the backside of the brook. While it appears as though the 50’ buffer is being maintained on most of the lots I’m not sure about lot 7. The leachfield is close but it may be fine.
Waivers have been asked for on-site testing, contours, and scale.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have comments on several issues that should be addressed prior to final plan approval.
1.There should be a waiver of scale for the plan on the Plat sheet for 1”=100’ and for sheet SP1 for 1”=60’.
2.
There should be a waiver of contours for the remainder of Lot # 1 on SP1.
3.
There should be definition given to the brook as it enters along the southerly side of Lot # 1 on the Plat Sheet.
4.
The flow arrows for the brook should be enlarged.
5.The name of the brook should be checked (Scott vs. Scott’s).
6.
The slopes of the driveways for Lots 2,3,4,5 should be noted on SP1 if they are shown at greater than 10%.
7.
Driveways should be provided with intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances for the main road.
8.
Each lot should be provided with drainage arrows on SP1 to represent a drainage plan.
9.
Details should be provided for erosion control.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
Town Engineer’s conditions 1 – 9
10.
Install swale on lot 7.
11.
Replace waterline and show on plat map.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – I made a comment about shared driveways, but in this case the road is higher then the lots that are being developed and the shared driveways provide access with minimal number of curb-cuts. The shared driveways are just aprons off the road, similar to what we looked at with Bashaw on Cassie Street. There will be some grade issues on the driveways; property owners will have a little more winter maintenance.
Cary Smith – I am 66 years old and still dairy farming but not at the pace I used too. Part of this is our retirement plan. I am concerned about the waterline; we’ve bumped into it and I’ve connections with it over the years. It is very shallow, 2’ or so in the ground. We need to work out a solution better then just ignoring it. I am a dairy farmer; I recognize the significance of water.
Mark Nicholson - Did you have any thoughts on how to handle the waterline issue?
Harry Hinrichsen – They are showing it on the plans and my thought is that as individual lots come in to apply for building permits, that the line be taken into account and care be given where sewer lines are crossing the waterline. Whatever was out there first has the highest priority and it needs to be protected. If the waterline is going to be crossed with a driveway as with lot #2, the waterline will need to be insulated. A condition for development should be that the waterline is protected. We can make sure it happens with the driveway permit.
Doug Farnham – How many lots are affected by this waterline? (All lots) My thoughts are that anyone purchasing these lots is going to have an awful encumbrance with this waterline. Is it that big of a deal that the Wilson’s need the water from this well, doesn’t it make more sense for the person doing this develop to just drill them a new well. The people buying the lots will have to watch the waterline the whole time.
Cary Smith – It is an excellent high quality spring. Much cleaner water then the water you get from the well. The Wilson’s have 2 drilled wells, however they are what you’d call unsuccessful wells. The yield from these wells is very low so drilling another well isn’t the answer.
Derek Wilson – We use 5000 gallons of water a day, the more water we can get is better. The spring water is free and flows with gravity. We don’t want to give the water up.
Marty Miller – Where is the spring located?
Loretta Wilson – The spring is located on Brown’s property, old school house. The spring has been there since 1909.
Charlie Thygesen – Would it make sense to put a new waterline in between the houses and septics and get it down to the proper depth?
Derek Wilson – The deed states that it has been around since 1903. I just want to get my water and repair the line when it needs to be repaired.
Cary Smith – Nowhere do any of the deeds show or tell precisely where the water pipe is located.
Derek Wilson – My other concern is the drainage, that field drains onto my field and we have an organic farm, I am not going to be able to use some of my land because the drainage from the dwellings will ruin my land.
Craig Chase – My thought is that the Wilson’s choice of being an organic farmer shouldn’t take away the Smith’s right to subdivide. We can create a ditch that diverts on lot 7 and along that property line bring a ditch over the bank towards the brook to catch any surface water.
Mark Nicholson – So create a swale and put it in the deed that it must be maintained.
Doug Farnham – Driveways. I am hearing shared curb-cuts, why is there going to be shared driveways?
Mark Nicholson – I am glad you brought that up. We have some language that we think is pretty good, it is only shared basically from the curb-cut and we require that the apron has to be paved. We are requiring that the apron be paved, 20’ wide x 30’ deep.
Chris Violette – Both parties will have to maintain or neither will be able to get to their driveways. Easements will be in the deed for both lot owners. The developer is required to build the paved aprons.
Charlie Thygesen – What is the design for the apron?
Craig Chase – We are going to follow the A-76 standards
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion b y Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Cary & Janice Smith for preliminary approval of a 7-lot subdivision on property located on Lower Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lots 095.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. (P-05000053)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Bancroft
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Smith
Request by Cary & Janice Smith for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision (P-05000054) on property located on Upper Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lot 097.00; Zoned: RES C/AG.
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: January 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request for a 2-lot subdivision is before the Commission this month as a preliminary request after being reviewed briefly last month for preliminary approval. This proposal is slightly different than last month as the plan is now to create this lot by deferral of permit. With approval of this request one new lot will be created but no development is planned at this time. The subject property is located in a residential C zone where 2.0 acres is required and a minimum road frontage of 200’ is needed. As proposed, this requested meets the minimum requirements of zoning.
This 2.38 acre lot (lot 2) is coming out of an 8.3 acre parcel. Other than a garage nothing else is currently on this parcel. Lot 1, the remaining land will be 5.9 acres with around 1172’ of road frontage. Lot 2 will have 365’ of frontage.
At this point it is my understanding that monitoring of soils conditions is taking place for potential future development but at this point none is proposed. It is important for the developer to know that development can’t take place until such time as the deferral is lifting by brining in more detailed site information.
This request in its present form is simple and I see no reason why not to approve it.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – Lot 1 has a garage and septic system for homestead.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Cary & Janice Smith for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located on Upper Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lot 097.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. (P-05000054)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Couture
Request by Pierre Couture for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located on Websterville Road; Tax Map 006, lot 052.00; Zoned: RES A & C. (P-05000056)
Consultant: Tom Otterman
Date: January 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision for the purpose of creating one new developable lot proposed to be a single-family dwelling (as I understand it). The subject lot is proposed to be 1.6 acres with 150’ of road frontage. The subject lot is actually located in two different zones (res A & res C). The zone line should be noted on the plans.
This is a pretty straightforward request and Harry has made several comments. My only question is why the Westerly property line is not straight front to back. Seems like it could be.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have comments on several issues that should be addressed prior to final plan approval.
1.There will need to be a waiver of scale for Sheet 1 of 2 for the scale 1”= 80’.
2.
There will need to be a waiver of contours for the entire parcel.
3.
The existing and proposed property bounds need to be shown (ie. iron pins, rods, granite posts).
4.
Any existing watercourses and road culverts must be shown.
5.
Existing utility poles must be shown and identified.
6.
The Residential A and C Zone Boundaries must be shown.
7.
The sidelines of the existing road, “LeFleur Street” across Websterville Road must be shown.
8.
The new driveway should be provided with intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances for the main road.
9.
Water and sewer service laterals to the other side of Websterville Road need a note that indicates they will need to be bored under the road surface rather than direct excavation.
10.
The sewer service clean-outs should be shown at intervals closer than 100’ minimum spacing.
11.
Consideration for a vegetated buffer along the Dion property sideline should be discussed.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
Town Engineer’s conditions 1 – 11.
12. Straight property line.
13. Swale location
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – Need to show the gully as a watercourse. (Harry and Tom will meet prior to final approval to determine the location of the swale)
Skip Bancroft – What is the purpose of the stem of land behind this property line?
Tom Otterman – Couture owns that property which will tie into bike path/touring center.
Chris Violette – Why isn’t the property line straight?
Tom Otterman – It is something that they drew up together, staying with the tree line.
Doug Farnham – When Pierre purchased the land across the street, he told everyone that he wasn’t going to develop this side of the road. Why is he developing the other side of the road now when he wasn’t going to?
Vance Asselin – We were told too that he wasn’t going to develop, but to tell you truth because the manure is spread there and had we known that we wouldn’t of bought the lot.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Pierre Couture for preliminary approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located on Websterville Road; Tax Map 006, lot 052.00; Zoned: RES A & C. (P-05000056)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Galperin
Request by Richard & Sharon Galperin to combine two lots created post subdivision regulations on property located at 21 Philbrook Street; Tax Map 034, lots 075.00 & 042.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-05000055)
Consultant: Wayne Lawrence
Date: January 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is a warned final hearing for the purpose of merging two lots one of which was created post subdivision regulation. The merger of these two lots will create one undivided parcel of 1.95 acres. The only problem I see with the plans is that the owners name is spelled differently in two places on the plan.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the plans as submitted and have no comments that should be addressed prior to approval. This proposal includes a homestead lot and an abutting lot from the adjacent PhilbrookHeights subdivision.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Ms. Day, Board voted to approve the request by Richard & Sharon Galperin to combine two lots created post subdivision regulations on property located at 21 Philbrook Street; Tax Map 034, lots 075.00 & 042.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-05000055)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ No X
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Day
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
E. CONCEPTUAL PLANS:
Al Monty was present with Rob Townsend. Al & Rob presented a conceptual drawing showing 6-lots, all just over 1 acre of land. Only 2 lots would have road frontage, while the other 4 would be using shared drives. As shown on the conceptual drawings, all lots would share a forced main sewer line to be maintained by the homeowners. Al Monty and/or Rob Townsend would need to present their plan to the Selectboard. Al and Rob were advised that a Homeowners Association would be required regarding the sewer. It is the intention of Al Monty that the homeowners retain the ownership and maintenance responsibilities on the sewer. Al Monty stated that he would not be ready for preliminary until March or April. Chris stated that he doesn’t want all the pressure put on the Selectboard in regards to the sewer, the decision needs to be made by the Planning Commission, something that the Selectboard will accept. Chris suggest that Al & Rob put together something for preliminary, then go see the Selectboard with a member of the Planning Commission, then come back for final. Doug Farnham suggests that Carl put this on the agenda and Doug will explain what took place this evening wants to start the dialogue now instead of later.
Jim Hepsley came in for conceptual approval, he would like to change the allowed use of an existing building on South Main Street; building is currently zoned Industrial and would like to use the building as Commercial. Building (trailer) had been used as a craft store, now would like to use it as a double chair hair salon. Has plenty of parking and sewer is existing. Mr. Hepsley stated he would be adding some steps and a ramp to be handicapped accessible. The Board agreed the use would be fine. Mr. Hepsley will have to come before the Board has a warned hearing.
F. OTHER:
Chris stated that the Zoning Re-write is trying to be at the February 8 th meeting to hand over the draft. However, it could be the March 8 th meeting.
G. FOLLOW-UPS:
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
I. ROUND TABLE:
J. ADJOURN:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, the Board voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2006 at 9:30 p.m.