BARRETOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2006
The Barre Town Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 7:01 p.m. at the Municipal Offices, Websterville, Vermont.
Members Present:
Mark Nicholson, Chair
Therese Ackerman
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft
Charlie Thygesen, Sr.
Cedric Sanborn
Others Present:
Kathy Rouleau Norman Booth
Brent Curtis Craig Chase
Sam Adams Derek Wilson
Tom Otterman Cary & Jan Smith
Jim Hepsley, Jr. Andrew Speirs
Doug Fuller Paul White
Bill Day Pam Pratt
Randy Gonyaw Brian Zecchinell
Lyle Gauthier Richard Bell
Nelson Lyford Henry Lague
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. Thygesen, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the January 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
C. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: Day
Request by Ewing & Leona Day for final 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: February 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
Have yet to see new plans for this proposal but plans were close to final last month when this request was approved as preliminary. So, I do not expect that new plans will look much different.
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. Both municipal water and sewer will serve the proposed lot. 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 scale and contours (for entire parcel) has been requested.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this subdivision as submitted for final plan approval and have no problems with the proposed two-lot subdivision as proposed.
This proposal seeks to create a separate smaller homestead lot by creating the new 0.51 acre parcel (Lot #2) while reducing the size of Day’s current homestead parcel (Lot # 1) from 2.69 acres to 2.18 acres. The previous requests for additional information have been addressed.
As a condition of approval, a waiver of scale for the 1” = 30’ will be needed, if not already applied for.
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 statute within 90-days of approval.
2. One - 24" x 36" mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 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 the 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. The elevations need to be converted to USGS. DONE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Ewing & Leona Day for final approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located at 10 Skylark Terrace; Tax Map 035, lot 031.00; Zoned: RES A. Approval subject to conditions 1 – 4. (p-05000052)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Smith
Request by Cary & Janice Smith for final approval of a 7-lot subdivision on property located on Lower Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lot 095.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. (P-05000053)
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: February 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
We have not seen revised plans for this proposed 7-lot subdivision as of this writing. The basic concept of the request has been looked at twice now by the commission so I am sure nothing much different than previously looked at will be forthcoming. However, issues related to access and the water line that traverses across this land to an adjacent farm was discussed at length last month. New plans were to show a new water line being installed.
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. The common curb-cut idea seems to be acceptable to the Planning Commission. I have provided a copy of the Bashaw agreement to Chase & Chase. I also believe as a result of the traffic safety committees review one of the curb-cut is being relocated.
This is about all I can give you at this point.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have received no new information on this subdivision for septic system design review or other lot improvements.
The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee did review and make comments on this subdivision at its meeting of January 18, 2006. The recommendation from TSAC was to relocate the shared driveway apron / curb cut for the driveways of Lots 5 & 4 to the south. This would mean sliding it more into the southerly lot #4 to provide adequate sight distance. The other options reviewed were to reduce the grade of the embankment across the road from Lot 6 & 7. Cary was present at that the meeting and informed the TSAC that there was ledge involved on that embankment. He was not sure that much earth could be scraped off that area to improve sight distance.
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 statute within 90-days of approval.
2. One - 24" x 36" mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 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 the 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. The name of the brook should be checked (Scott vs. Scott’s).
6. Driveway agreement must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval by the next meeting date of March 8, 2006.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Chris Violette – the waterline will be at a depth of 5’ and insulated where need be.
Harry Hinrichsen – Site distance between lots 4 & 5 was better suited if the driveway was centered on lot #4; giving 5 an access easement. Lot 4 & 5 will have a common landing. There are some field tiles in the field and part of the information provided is that where the curtain drain will intercept the field tiles those field tiles will be outletted through the curtain drain.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Cary & Janice Smith for final approval of a 7-lot subdivision on property located on Lower Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lot 095.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 6. (P-05000053)
DISCUSSION:
Chris Violette – Just want to go over the conditions, having 1 – 4, 5 being the name of the brook and 6 being the driveway agreement.
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Smith
Request by Cary & Janice Smith for final approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located on Upper Usle; Tax Map 005, lots 097.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. (P-05000054)
Consultant: Chase & Chase
Date: February 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
Again, I do not have new plans for this request but it is a simple deferral subdivision request. This request for a 2-lot subdivision is before the Commission this month as a final public hearing being approved last month as preliminary. No development is planned at this time for the one new lot being created. A deferral of permit will be placed on it. The actual deferral letter has been received and will be recorded upon approval.
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 cannot take place until 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
I have received no new information on this Final Plan for a 2-lot subdivision for septic system design review or other lot improvements.
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 statute within 90-days of approval.
2. One - 24" x 36" mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 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 the 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. The Planning Officer and Town Engineer are to review submitted plans and request new plans as needed from Chase & Chase.
6. No development is allowed on this lot until such time as a site plan showing the development of this lot are submitted and approved by the Planning Commission.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Cary & Janice Smith for a 2-lot subdivision with deferral on property located on Upper Usle Road; Tax Map 005, lot 097.00; Zoned: RES C/AG. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 5. (P-05000054)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Couture
Request by Pierre Couture for final 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: February 2, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is for final approval (approved last month as preliminary) of a 2-lot subdivision for the purpose of creating one new developable lot proposed to be a single-family dwelling. The subject lot is proposed to be 1.6 acres with 174’ of road frontage (changed from 150’). The subject lot is actually located in two different zones (res A & res C).
Preliminary approval focused on a couple of main issues and several small items missing from the plans. It appears as though all the issues discussed last month have been addressed. The main issues were the existing drainage way that crosses the proposed lot. Mr. Otterman has now shown with drainage arrows this course water currently follows coming from behind this proposed lot. A 24” culvert is also shown were the proposed driveway crosses. I believe these two things will satisfy our desire to ensure proper drainage is maintained. It may be worth discussing whether deed language should also be included to prevent the alteration of this drainage way without making other acceptable arrangements.
The second issue was easily taken care of with a slight alteration in the Easterly property line. The right property line was angled and not perpendicular to the road. We requested it be straightened out and that has been done by decreasing the rear property line to 175’ and increasing the front property line to just shy of 175’.
Other issues such as proposed property bounds, road culverts, and utility poles all being shown and identified have been done. In addition, LaFleur Street is on the map, sight distances are shown, sewer and water lateral are shown as requested, clean outs are indicated and the zone line is shown. Waiver of on-site testing, contours of the entire parcel, and scale has been requested.
The only other thing new to this submittal that was not on the plan last month is a 30’ wide utility easement. It appears, as though Mr. Couture is reserving this right for land, he will retain ownership of behind this proposed lot.
It appears to me that this plan is ready for approval as presented.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this subdivision as submitted for Final Plan Approval and have no problems with the proposed two-lot subdivision as proposed.
There will need to be a waiver of scale for Sheet 1 to account for the scale of 1” = 80’.
The other comments that were made at the last meeting have been addressed. Both the sewer and water will need to be bored under the Websterville Road in order to serve this lot. The sewer is shown tying into the sewer manhole directly across from the proposed utility easement.
I am concerned that there be no changes to the existing drainage across this lot that would redirect or in any way otherwise change the impact to the abutting lot of Dion. This should be a condition of 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 statute within 90-days of approval.
2. One - 24" x 36" mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 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 the 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 American Consulting, shall be created when the need arises in order to fulfill the development as proposed and approved.
6. No alterations are to take place in regards to the swale without staff approval. Must be stated in deed to be filed in the Town of Barre Clerk’s office.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen – Talked with Tom about drainage and utility services. They have increased the size of the sewer for this lot; there is the potential for Pierre, if allowed, there will be some sort of camping activity behind this lot. Pierre has reserved on this lot an easement to get to the sewer; he is tying this line right into a manhole and won’t be disturbing the street. There will be a noticeable culvert back into this lot. They can change the alignment of the drainage way, but the impact of the abutters needs to be taken into consideration, so I recommend that any changes to the drainage come back for Planning Commission review.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Pierre Couture for final approval of a 2-lot subdivision on property located on Websterville Road; Tax Map 006, lot 052.00; Zoned: RES A & C. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 6. (P-05000056)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Hepsley
Request by James & Barbara Hepsley for allowed use determination in accordance with Article IV, section 4.4 whereas the applicant is seeking to operate a hair salon from a building located on property owned by James Kay at 894 South Barre Road; Tax Map 021 lot 052.00; Zoned IND. (P-06000002)
Consultant:
Date: February 2, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
Mr. Hepsley was before the commission last month to suggest a plan to create a hair salon in a building located in an industrial zone. The reason he is before you is that zoning does not specifically allow that type of use in an industrial zone. Article IV, section 4.4 of our zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission to review light industrial and commercial uses and decide whether they are compatible with surrounding uses and should be allowed.
The subject property currently houses a truck repair facility. The structure being proposed for the hair salon is a mobile home that was formerly used as an office for a previous business. Most recently the Planning Commission approved it to be used as a craft store. Parking is ample and access is good. Other surrounding uses are either residential or some form of commercial/industrial uses. I do not believe this request if approved will be out of character with the neighborhood.
It appears as though the mobile home that is proposed to be used for the new business is currently being assessed a sewer unit so no additional units appear necessary.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this proposal for a change of use to allow a small hair salon to replace the antique shop that was located in the mobile home formally also used by Dubois Trucking as an office.
There is currently water and sewer available to the structure and the property is being assessed two sewer units so they would not need an additional unit.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Applicant will need to verify that the building is connected to the town sewer system.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by James & Barbara Hepsley for allowed use determination in accordance with Article IV, § 4.4 whereas the applicant is seeking to operate a hair salon from a building located on property owned by James Kay at 894 South Barre Road; Tax Map 021, lot 052.00; Zoned: IND. Approval is subject to condition 1. (P-06000002)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
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: February 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
The long awaited submission of preliminary plans for this subdivision have finally arrived and are substantially better than what the commission has seen so far. However, having said that there are still some issues to work out. This request will create three lots. The parcel as it exists today is 3.74 acres (as is shown on the map, tax records indicate the lot as 3.3 acres) with an existing single-family dwelling served by municipal sewer and on-site water.
The latest submission clarifies key points but raises additional questions. The proposal calls for an upgrade to Gauthier Drive. Commission members may remember during past discussion it was pointed out that Gauthier Drive as it exist today is a town road but is no where near town standards. Prior discussion focused on the road and whether it should be discontinued, turned into a private road, or upgraded to a regulation town road. As proposed, the road will be upgraded to something more than what it is but not to regulation. This may be ok given its use but ultimately is probably a question for the Selectboard.
A new town owned sewer line of 235’ is being proposed with one manhole. The new sewer line would pick up all three houses. This appears to be a good plan requiring only one connection to the existing main.
The water service to the three houses is something I am not sure is a good idea or at least not something we have been supportive of in the past. The proposal calls for all three houses to share an existing well. I am not certain why this is being proposed this way but as I said it is not something we have supported in the past. If the Planning Commission elects to allow it, easements for the water line would have to be shown.
Turning back to the road, as I understand it Gauthier Drive is currently constructed inside of a 50’ right-of-way belonging to the town. Harry and I have discussed this and question whether, based on current practice, the land consisting of the right-of-way and the road should be deeded to the town along with the new sewer line. If this were desired, we would have to discuss how much of the existing right-of-way should be turned over. The Selectboard would more than likely have to be brought into this discussion.
Having brought up the question about the town owned land or right-of-way, I also question the road frontage for lot 2. Lot 1 is fine because it has frontage on two roads and lot 3 is ok because it will have an easement, but lot 2 is questionable. What is now the town road and what it will be if this proposal goes through has the actual road stop well short of what the town has a right-of-way for. While lot 2 would most definitely have enough right-of-way frontage I am not sure that is what our regulations calls for. The requirement is for road frontage. I think though we can discuss this topic. The lot is configured appropriately whether it has road frontage the entire length or not.
Along with a reconfigured lot for the existing residence, two new lots proposed for development with single-family dwellings.
Lot 1 – 1.12 acres; w/frontage on both East Montpelier Road (Rt. 14) and on Gauthier Drive; access from Gauthier Drive; municipal sewer; shared well off-site.
Lot 2 – 1.31 acres; w/frontage on Gauthier Drive (questionable if adequate); access from Gauthier Drive; municipal sewer; shared well on-site.
Lot 3 – 1.31 acres; no frontage has easement from Gauthier Drive; municipal sewer; shared well off-site.
Access to lots 2 & 3 appears to be shared. More information and clarification on the plans is desired.
Plans submitted are incomplete with regard to missing components. A new page one, making what has been submitted page 2 & 3, with the plat information such as metes and bounds would be helpful. Right now, no metes and bounds are not provided. The plans are also lacking a location map, more information as to the owner and subdivider of the land, abutters (including opposite sides of the roads),
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have just received new information on this proposed preliminary plan for a 3-lot subdivision. The plans show the improvements for sewer system design review or other lot improvements such as road widening and the road turn around.
There is a total of 235’ +/- of sewer line extension that will be subject to the Town’s acceptance and takeover ($5 per foot). This needs to be approved by the Selectboard before final plan approval.
The proposed sewer services will need extra clean-outs since the maximum spacing should be at 95’ intervals.
There is a request to consider the well to be shared by all 3 lots. This needs PC approval.
The abutters need to be shown on the plat plan.
The zoning information is shown on the site plan and needs to be shown on the Plot Plan as well.
The proposed driveway for lot # 3 is shared with Lot # 2 with a right-of way for the access since the Class 4 roadway has a steep bank along the remaining frontage of Lot # 3.
The easement across Lot # 2 needs to be provided metes and bounds information.
The recording plat should show just the property line metes and bounds information. The other information needed would be the zoning info, the owner of record information with Deed Book and page and Assessor’s Map and Lot. All existing and proposed pin and bound information should also be included.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1.
Missing items asked for included on final plans.
2.
Clarification about the road.
3.
Approval by the Selectboard for the upgrade to Gauthier Drive and the sewer line extension before final approval is considered.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Chris Violette – My biggest concern is the road frontage for lot 2.
Harry Hinrichsen – One of the things we have to deal with in a situation like this is that this road has two different classifications. The front part of the road for about 270’ if a class 3 road and the remainder of the right-of-way is class 4. The entire width of right-of-way and the entire length of both classes traverse this particular parcel, the Town doesn’t own the right-of-way in fee, it is by easement. When you are doing something like with a subdivision, the first issue when doing lot calculations, the piece of property has so many acres and when calculating the lot size, do you calculate the right-of-way in your acreage? If I had to give you an answer from my perspective, I’d like to see the lots calculated at least sizes for future sale without the right-of-way in the calculation. We have a 3-lot subdivision that isn’t likely to cause a change in the scheme of things the right-of-way would actually quit-claimed to the Town for the area that road itself lays in. My feeling is that the Town has a right-of-way from the edge of RT 14 to the back of the lot. Although some of it being a class 4 right-of-way the entire length of the right-of-way is in fact a Town road regardless of its classification so the entire length of it can be considered frontage on a Town road, not just a class 3 road. If you don’t consider it in that light, you have one lot that clearly has frontage; another lot that could in fact have an extension of the class 3 projection. Lot 3 would have an easement where the turn around is proposed. Mrs. Gauthier recently had a new artesian well installed with high yield content and there wouldn’t be a problem sharing the well. Waterline rights would need to be granted to the other lots if the new owners choose to share the well.
Mark Nicholson – My thought was that if I bought the lot and decided I didn’t want to share a well, I’d drill my own.
Chris Violette – Just thinking back, there have been other cases where we have discouraged shared wells.
Skip Bancroft – You are going to encumber a lot with easements and people disturbing driveways.
Cedric Sanborn – It is a lot cleaner if everybody has their own well, then each lot stands alone. When you start doing easements over the parent lot, there becomes a lot of the lot that you can’t use. It limits the owner on what they can do with their property.
Skip Bancroft – The Town right-of-way touches or goes into lot 3? So what we want to do for lot 2 is consider the right-of-way road frontage but then for lot 3 consider it not a road so they can have a right-of-way from lot 2.
Harry Hinrichsen – It is a classification issue more so then it is a road development issue. From my perspective the right-of-way is what it is, but as far as a class 3 road, the frontage needs to be on a Town road, it needs to not a class 4.
Cedric Sanborn – It says it has be on a class 3 or better road. A class 4 is not a road.
Chris Violette – A right-of-way that doesn’t have a roadon it isn’t a road either. The rules say frontage on a class 3 road, not a class 3 right-of-way, that is where I’m thinking it comes up short. If we use the right-of-way they have plenty, if we use the road, they are short. Having said that, the lot isn’t going to change configuration at all whether it has frontage or not.
Skip Bancroft – There’s no possibility that this town right-of-way can ever access any other property?
Harry Hinrichsen – Just on the rear corner it access someone land but to my knowledge there is no real good reason to believe that they would want to develop the back land; they have access from RT 14.
Skip Bancroft – Can we make it a left hand turn around?
Harry Hinrichsen – It is a pretty significant corner, probably less then a 45°angle between the existing driveway and the curve where the road forks and the right-of-way where the class 4 road goes to right of a big maple tree on the bank. They are showing the tree because it is fairly significant, probably 4’ in diameter. My thought is I’d like to save the tree if you possibly could and create the turn around so that you were working on either side of that tree. Snow plowing could be pushed over the bank. Chris and I were trying to take a look to see if we needed to have that class 3 road developed or created all the way property line between 2 and 3.
Chris Violette – Yes we were and on the other hand it is additional expenses for them and more Town road to be taken care of. I’m torn either way because one of the reasons for frontage is configuration of the lot and absolutely nothing is going to change with this lot by picking up 200’; but be that as it may we need to discuss it.
Cedric Sanborn – Somewhere deep down in the regulations it stats that class 4 roads are for recreation use and not for access to lots.
Chris Violette – I agree; lot 3 will not have frontage but a class 4 right-of-way. If it wasn’t a right-of-way issue the class 4 road wouldn’t be counted.
Mark Nicholson – I think we can all agree that they have 3 nice lots, bring it back so that it conforms with the current regulations.
Chris Violette – Because the road is going to be upgraded, I’m going to recommend they go to the Selectboard meeting between preliminary and final.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to continue the request by Lyle Gauthier until March 8, 2006 for preliminary approval 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 ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Berg Living Trust
Request by Berg Living Trust (Peter & Charlene Robert and J.L. & L. J. Mulligan) for preliminary approval of a 3-lot subdivision on property located on Sierra Lavin & Pierce Road; Tax Map 006, lot 110.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000001)
Consultant: Wayne Lawrence
Date: February 2, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This is a preliminary subdivision request to take 43-acres of mostly open land and subdivide into three lots. The subject parcel is located in a Residential C zone. There is no development on the lot.
This parcel has frontage on two town roads (Sierra-Lavin & Pierce Road). The proposal is to create three lots for development with single-family dwellings. Two of the lots would front on Sierra-Lavin (both with well over the minimum road frontage requirement) and the other lot would have frontage on both Sierra-Lavin and Pierce road. Access to the third lot will be from Pierce Road.
Lot 1 – 21.5 acres; 701’ of frontage of Sierra-Lavin Road; independent access; forced main municipal sewer; onsite water.
Lot 2 – 15.5 acres; approximately 650’ of frontage on Sierra-Lavin Road (plan says 1072’ but I believe that must be an error); independent access; forced main municipal sewer; onsite water.
Lot 3 – 6.0 acres; approximately 640’ of frontage on Pierce Road & 430’ of frontage on Sierra-Lavin Road (although the plan does not show either); forced main municipal sewer; onsite water.
The lots conform to zoning as proposed. As noted, all the lots are proposed to have municipal sewer service. The municipal sewer line in on Sierra-Lavin road but only goes about as far as the start of this property. The proposal is to provide each one of these lots with individual sewer lines pumped from the home site to the manhole on Sierra-Lavin Road. Both lots 1 and 2 are subject to easements along their frontage to facilitate the sewer lines.
Land disturbance is minimal so drainage should not be a problem. The only somewhat unique thing with this request are the long forced main providing the municipal sewer connections but to my knowledge (and Harry can elaborate) I do not think this is a problem.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this proposed 3-lot subdivision and have several comments regarding the Preliminary Plan as submitted. It is my understanding that the only lot intended for immediate development is Lot # 2.
There will need to be sight distance and stopping distances for each proposed driveway.
A waiver of scale will be needed to address the cover sheet scale of 1’ = 100’.
The Selectboard will need to approve the off-site wastewater development by granting sewer access to these lots in lieu of on-site systems. The property is generally with in the sewer service territory but is not requiring the developer to extend the sewer main itself. The proposal is to serve the lots by individual pumps and force main lines.
The driveway on Lot # 2 should have a sleeve under it to allow for future force main placement in favor of lot # 3.
The Sewer Board my elect to place some sort of density restriction on these lots to prevent extensive development by restricting the number of additional force main connections.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Property line for lot #2 needs to be a straight line.
2. There needs to be a separate man-hole for all 3 lots.
3. Final approval is subject to the sewer commission’s decision.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Skip Bancroft – Is it wise to have a property line follow the water course? Chris Violette – It happens often. Harry Hinrichsen – It keeps an interest in the Brook.
Sam Adams – Would like to keep access to the brook from lot #2.
Chris Violette – I would suggest an easement to the brook if they want/need access.
Harry Hinrichsen – Straight property line would be cleaner for lot #2.
Paul White, Sierra Lavin Road – Will the forced main run parallel to Sierra Lavin Road but off to the side? Harry Hinrichsen – Correct
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Berg Living Trust (Peter & Charlene Robert and J.L. & L.J. Mulligan) for preliminary approval of a 3-lot subdivision on property located on Sierra Lavin & Pierce Road; Tax Map 006, lot 110.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000001)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller ABSENT Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
E. CONCEPTUAL PLANS:
Nelson Lyford would like to create a new lot on his subdivision on RT 110. He would be moving one septic to another lot, using the old septic area for the new lot. This configuration would not put the septic systems on their lots, easements would be granted. The Board stated that they would not be willing to approve a design that didn’t have septics on their own parcel.
F. OTHER:
Randy Gonyaw presented a new plan with two lots. Mr. Gonyaw stated that he has been through a lot with the State. The Board asked why the septic is on lot 2 and not 1, Mr. Gonyaw stated that Mr. Wernecke didn’t come out when the test pits where dug, there was a 19 day gap from when the test pits were dug to when Mr. Wernecke came out to inspect. The septic design that are shown on the drawing are approved by the State. Mr. Gonyaw feels that his hands are tied because the State is saying one thing and the Town is saying something else. Mr. Gonyaw is going to work with Rick Bell (Dufrense) to set the pins. The Board isn’t comfortable with the sharing leachfields.
Henry Lague would like to change his cul-de-sac on Rudd Farm Road to a hammerhead. The Board decided that it would be best if Mr. Lague approached the Selectboard for approval, the Planning Commission members were all in agreement that changing from the cul-de-sac to a hammerhead is what the Town wants. Mr. Bancroft made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thygesen to send Henry Lague to the Town Selectboard for approval on changing his cul-de-sac to a hammerhead on Rudd Farm Road. All in favor.
G. FOLLOW-UPS:
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
I. ROUND TABLE:
J. ADJOURN:
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2006 at 9:25 p.m.