BARRE TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR MARCH 8, 2006
The Barre Town Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Offices, Websterville , Vermont .
Members Present :
Mark Nicholson, Chair
Mary Day
Harry (Marty) Miller
Cedric Sanborn
Charlie Thygesen, Sr.
Therese Ackerman
Skip Bancroft – 7:02
Others Present :
Randy Gonyaw
Pam Pratt
Joan Owen
Lee Owen
Richard Bell
Jeff Tucker
Lyle Gauthier
Gordon Booth
Paul Lamberti
Brian Bailey
Henri Dessureau
Brian & Jay Zecchinelli
Gilles Moreau
Barry Stryker
Staff Present :
Chris Violette – Planning Officer
Harry Hinrichsen – Town Engineer – 7:07
Bill Crowther - Clerk
A. Review of Subdivision Plans - 6:30 - 7:00 PM
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES :
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Miller the Board voted to approve the minutes from the February 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
C. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLANS :
SUBDIVISION NAME: Gonyaw/Pratt
Request by Randolph Gonyaw and Pamela Pratt for final approval of a 3-lot subdivision on property located at Peloquin Road ; Tax Map 022, lot 002.01; Zoned: RES C. (P-05000013)
Consultant: Dufrense & Associates
Date: March 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is back on the agenda for final approval after many months of continuances. The applicant has been working with the state to come up with a viable on-site sewer plan. After a status trip before the commission last month to bring things up to speed the applicant has made progress and is before the commission this month with a plan that creates three developable lots (pending state approval after monitoring).
Last month, Mr. Gonyaw discussed this proposal pointing out all the problems he has had in obtaining the states blessing for three independent leachfields. Many issues created the several delays. After pointing out to the commission last month that the best he could, based on what the state was going to allow, were two lots with separate leachfields but the leachfields would be located on the same parcels. The Planning Commission balked at that proposal and while feeling sympathetic, instructed Mr. Gonyaw they would not approve anything that did not provide on lot septic systems.
Mr. Gonyaw has gone back to the state and has apparently convinced them that the soils are likely suitable for three independent on lot systems. Two of the lots will require monitoring of the soils with approval by the state not likely until spring.
So, pending monitoring and approval by the state, Mr. Gonyaw is back this month for final approval (preliminary approval given on June 8, 2005 ). Final plans will show this proposal back to three lots as opposed to what was discussed last month, a reduction down to two lots. Final plans, while they have not been submitted yet, will show three separate lots all more than the required 80,000 sq. ft. and 200’ of road frontage. Three proposed house sites with independent access, on-site septic and water will be shown.
In order to accomplish placing three leachfields on their own lot, lot three will have a bit of a quirky boundary line that splits the leachfields on lot two and three. However, I do not think it is so sever that it isn’t acceptable. I think this plan finally works and pending acceptable drawings, I recommend approving it.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have considered these plans for Final Subdivision Review and Approval. The plans as submitted have some issues that will need to be resolved with regard to drainage, septic system sewer and water systems and their respective construction installation.
Existing drainage along Peloquin Road and along lot lines will need to be shown as well as the proposed new lots. All driveways requiring culverts will need at least 15” culverts.
The test pits have been evaluated for consideration of septic system design and review. In addition, the three disposal fields have been identified and laid out.
These pieces of information will need to be provided details as a condition of Final Plan Approval.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1.Final plans showing all the required site information and septic designs must be submitted for review and comment.
2.
Final approval of lots one and three are pending approval by the state of the on-site septic systems specifically soils that are currently being monitored.
3. 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.
4. One - 24” x 36” mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 days of approval.
5. 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.
6. Failure to comply with any conditions as stated herein, could lead to nullification of this subdivision.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mark Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Thygesen, the Board voted to approve the request by Randolph Gonyaw and Pamela Pratt for final approval of a 3-lot subdivision on property located at Peloquin Road; Tax Map 022, lot 002.01; Zoned: RES C. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 6. (P-05000013)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Thygesen
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
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 final 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: March 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This is a warned final subdivision request to take 43-acres of mostly open land and subdivide it into three separate developable lots. The subject parcel is located in a Residential C zone. There is no development on the lot, as it exist toady. These comments are largely based on the last plan submitted because as of this writing new plans haven’t yet been submitted.
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 is 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.
At last months meeting discussion focused mostly on just two points. First, the division line between lots two and three originally followed Honey Brook. In discussion last month, it was suggested to the applicant that the property line be placed on one side of the brook or the other or at least straight from one point to another even if the brook wanders from one lot to the other. The commission felt it would be better and clearer if the location of the line was improved.
The second point was with regard to the sewer line. It was suggested that a short extension of the municipal sewer system be done by adding approximately 30’ to the existing termination point and adding one manhole. The extension would cross Sierra-Lavin Road making connection to the system easier by the three lots proposed. The developer did not seem opposed to this suggestion and has gone to the Selectboard (sewer commission) and received their blessing as well. I assume the sewer take over fee will apply.
So beyond the fact we don’t have plans yet I think this proposal is pretty straightforward and assuming we see plans soon I recommend approval.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this proposed 3-lot subdivision and have several comments regarding the Final Plan as submitted. It is my understanding that the only lot intended for immediate development is Lot # 2.
A waiver of scale will be needed to address the cover sheet scale of 1’ = 100’.
On Tuesday February 23, the Selectboard approved the off-site sewer by granting main line access to these lots in lieu of on-site septic systems. The property is generally within the sewer service territory and will require the developers to extend the sewer main about 35’ +/- as well as add a new manhole. The proposal is to serve the 3 new proposed lots by individual pumps and force main lines to this new manhole.
The Select Board elected to refrain from placing any sort of density restriction on these lots. They feel that further lot development (more than 3 lots would trigger a need to come back to them for additional sewer service approval.
The driveway on Lot # 2 should have a sleeve under it to allow for future force main placement in favor of Lot # 3. In the event that Lot # 1 is built prior to Lot # 3, that driveway would also be required to have a sleeve in the curb cut permit conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Upon completion of the extension to the municipal sewer line as proposed, a deed shall be generated conveying the sewer extension and all associated components to the Town of Barre . It is likely that the $5.00 a foot take over fee will apply.
2.
Discussion as to whether a developer agreement is necessary for this small project is needed.
3. Waiver of scale need to be requested.
4.
Sewer lines will need sleeves under driveways as noted in the staff comments.
5.
Final plans showing all the required information is needed.
6. 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.
7. One - 24” x 36” mylar copy of the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office within 90 days of approval.
8. 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.
9. Failure to comply with any conditions as stated herein, could lead to nullification of this subdivision.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Harry Hinrichsen confirmed that condition 1 would apply, however condition 2 will not be required.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mark Nicholson, seconded by Marty Miller, the Board voted to approve the request by Berg Living Trust (Peter & Charlene Robert and J.L. & L.J. Mulligan) for final approval of a 3-lot subdivision on property located on Sierra Lavin & Pierce Road; Tax Map 006, lot 110.00; Zoned: RES C. Approval is subject to condition 1, 3 – 9. (P-06000001)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Nicholson
SECOND BY: Miller
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES
Mary Day YES
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES
Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES
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: Dufrense Associates
Date: March 3, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This proposal was reviewed last month as preliminary and after much discussion approval was not granted but the request was continued to the March meeting. New plans have been submitted that make attempts to address issues raised at last months meeting. 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 proposal calls for an upgrade to Gauthier Drive . One of the issues discussed at length last month was the upgrade of this road and the road frontage that it creates. While it appears to be clear that the town right-of-way extends all the way to the rear of this parcel, the actual road and its frontage doesn’t. How much frontage was actually available and how it was used creating conforming lots was questioned. I raised the frontage point because I was not convinced that parcel two had enough actual road frontage. The plans submitted for final review attempt to rectify that and I believe probably now meet the requirement. The new road as proposed will be approximately 240’. It will end in a right hand hammerhead turnaround.
Most of the frontage for lot two was picked up by moving the boundary line between lots one and two. Lot one has plenty of frontage between East Montpelier Road and Gauthier Drive and lot 3 won’t have frontage at all but will be access by a utilizing a 30’ access easement. The plans are calling for a shared driveway between lots two and three. That sharing may warrant further discussion.
A new town owned sewer line of approximately 300’ is being proposed with two manholes. At least I assume it is planned to be a town owned sewer line. I’m not sure that has been clarified. 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 across East Montpelier Road . I assume this connection would be made by directional boring.
The water service to the three houses was discussed last month. The plan is calling for the three lots to share a recently installed drilled well. Commission discussions last month encourage the applicant to propose individual drilled wells but it doesn’t appear that has been done.
If granted preliminary approval the applicant will have to seek conceptual approval from the Selecboard of the proposed infrastructure before final approval is considered. I think this would be a good time to encourage the land containing the road (50’ wide or so) should be conveyed to the town fee simple instead of the current right-of-way situation. It appears as though the plans are contemplating that.
Along with a reconfigured lot for the existing residence, two new lots proposed for development with single-family dwellings. Sizes have changed since the commission last looked at the plans but all lots still conform with regard to size.
Lot 1 – 1.00 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 – 1.13 acres; w/frontage on Gauthier Drive ); 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.
Assuming details of a few of the issues I raise above can be worked out I think this plan is now ready to move forward to final review.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have 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 proposed total of 235’ +/- of 6” 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 existing recently drilled artesian well to be shared by all 3 lots. This requires PC approval. At the last meeting, the PC strongly urged 3 separate wells unless the well yield was provided.
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 access easement metes and bounds information across Lot # 2 needs to be provided.
At the last Planning Board meeting, the Zoning Administrator questioned the length of the roadway in reference to the frontage for Lot # 2. The Surveyors have adjusted the lot lines for both Lot 1 / 2 and Lot 2 / 3 to resolve the issues of frontage as well as acreage. I am currently awaiting an actual copy to review but I have been shown one by the surveyor. The roadway configuration also addresses the hammerhead turn-around and better defines the limits of the Class 3 Roadway.
The Recording Plat should show the property line and easement metes and bounds information. The other plat 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. The applicant must go to the Selectboard with proposed infrastructure upgrade and receive their conceptual approval before final consideration is granted.
2. Final plans need to address issues raised in the staff comments.
3. Show easement necessary for hammerhead turnaround.
4. Other conditions raised in the staff comments by Harry Hinrichsen.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Rick Bell submitted a State’s report regarding the well.
Harry Hinrichsen – The driveway is essentially, where the fork in the road is right now, the turnaround will be to the right. There might need to be an easement outside the road right-of-way so that when the town truck is turning around in the hammerhead, it will be backing up in the town’s right-of-way and not the driveway. They will need to go to the Selectboard for approval on road changes. The well yields 500 gallons per minute and should be capable of supporting 3 dwellings.
Mark Nicholson – the road there is a town road, but Ms. Gauthier has been taking care of it. Harry Hinrichsen – yes, the town plows the road, which is a class 3, 14’ wide.
Cedric Sanborn – As far as the shared well goes, as much as I don’t like sharing things, I think this make a lot of sense to share the well. I think here it works, but this is an exception.
Harry Hinrichsen – The states allows up to 4 dwellings to share on a well.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Lyle Gauthier 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. Final approval subject to condition 1 – 4 being meet. (P-04000052)
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 YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
E. CONCEPTUAL PLANS :
F. OTHER :
MULTIPLE CURB CUT PERMITS : M & M Beverage, Inc.
Request by Gilles Moreau of M & M Beverage (Moreau & Moreau, Inc.) in South Barre for multiple driveway permits as required for the business located on property at 370 South Barre Road; Tax Map 31, Lots 28, 29, & 30; Zoned: Commercial
Consultant: Rick Bell – Dufresne & Associates
Date: March 2, 2006
Gilles Moreau, the owner of the M & M Beverage facility in South Barre is before the Planning Commission to seek permission for multiple curb cut access for the project currently under construction. The previous curb cuts are being reconfigured to allow for smooth traffic flow from Route 14 and Sterling Hill Road though the fuel island and parking area of the new layout.
The previous locations across four lots gave five different driveways including the one for the office building off Sterling Hill Road . The new configuration will eliminate one driveway each 0n Sterling Hill Road and Christie Street while repositioning the two driveway entrances on Route 14 and the remaining driveway entrance on Sterling Hill Road .
Working with Del Thompson and the local District 6 personnel of the State Agency of Transportation (VTRANS), Mr. Moreau has requested Route 14 access. The access must minimize the conflict with the design of the turning lanes created to accompany roadway improvements and the new traffic signal being designed for Bridge Street and Sterling Hill Road intersection.
The State of Vermont is requiring the owners to position the curb cuts in such a manner as to avoid exiting traffic to back up across the northbound lane of Route 14.
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I recommend the proposal be approved as submitted. The condition should be that VTRANS issue a “Letter of Intent” to the affect that they are agreeable with driveway locations on Route 14 as shown on the drawing submitted to the Town Engineer by Mike LaJeunesse of LaJeunesse Contstruction
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS :
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
Harry Hinrichsen – A couple of things are changing on this property; this is in conjunction with a state permit of converting curb-cuts. Applicant needed to come to the Planning Commission to get approval for the multiple curb-cut accesses. The State requires the town’s review and blessing before they will issue a curb-cut permit on a state road. We get make comments, if there are any, on the curb-cuts before a permit will be issued. The person that Gilles needs to satisfy, is Del Thompson from VTRANS, he is the permit coordinator. During initial conversations, Gilles was looking to get one sizable curb-cut roughly in the middle of the road frontage on RT 14. The curb-cut needs to be positioned so that there will no conflict with traffic once the South Barre Road project is completed by the State. What is proposed here is that the intersection at Sterling Hill, the curb-cut will be pulled back from where the curb-cut is currently. With the curb-cut being moved back, the island can be removed. The curb-cut on RT. 14 will be about 50’, Mr. Thompson cam to the conclusion that an exit and entrance would work only. There is currently an old curb-cut on Christie Street that has been moved down slightly, it doesn’t work well for commercial use without blocking the intersection. What you see is (2) 30’ curb-cuts on RT. 14, the State said they can go up to 35’; the Christie Street will be closed. As long as all the minimums have been met, the State will be happy. We would be giving Gilles a permit for Sterling Hill only, the State will issue for RT. 14.
Skip Bancroft – Will the cuts be signed? Gilles Moreau – presently there will be arrows, the State will probably require exit only/entrance only signs, low profile.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION :
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Gilles Moreau of M & M Beverage for multiple curb-cuts; South Barre Road & Sterling Hill; for property located at 370 South Barre Road; Tax Map 031, lots 028.00, 029.00 and 030.00; Zoned: Commercial
DISCUSSION :
Charlie Thygesen – Asked what angle the pumps faced? Gilles Moreau – Not facing Barre. Reviewed the direction of traffic flow to pumps, to store then to exit that is how I came up with the direction of the pumps.
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 YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
G. ZONING RE-WRITE : Presented by Chris Violette
The Zoning Re-write Committee wrapped up their work last week. They approved their plan, which you have in front of you. This was not necessarily unanimous approval, 5 approved – 1 abstained.
The plan is 95% complete a few sections that need some fine-tuning. Mostly minor in nature.
What I’d like to see is that you take the time, a week or two, whatever you need to study the plan. I have a map for you to review and tonight discuss what your next steps are. I know that you are going to need some introduction, some explanations (such as how the committee came up with the zones). My thought is that you will need a meeting or 2, possibly 3, to lay it all out for you. I suggest those be as part of a meeting and need to discuss if you want to have special meetings, and then eventually hold public meetings.
The public meetings would be open to the public of course; they would be able to hear the same thing you hear, I would not recommend that you take a lot of public testimony to move things along and to keep things from getting confused. However, once you have gone through the plan, then open up for public comments and testimony. Then you will have to make your changes and send it to the Selectboard.
I am going to suggest that there is a controversial aspect to this - what is now known as the agriculture zone. The Zoning Re-write Committee did change that from agriculture zone to low density with 2 acre under lying zoning but that the area that was formerly agriculture zoning would now become agriculture overlay. The base zoning would be the low density 2 acre but on top of that it would have the agriculture overlay with its own set of regulations. What would happen is that if someone in this area wanted to subdivide they would be required to work with the Development Review Board (DRB), which is what is bylaw is proposing to go to. The zone is proposing to leave as much agriculture land open as possible. What I suggest, if you feel it is necessary, you have a working session for those that are affected by this.
Ordinance is now known as a Bylaw
The Planning Commission would no longer do subdivision work, only planning. DRB would take over all the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment; they would do subdivisions; site plan review, which will be new.
Charlie Thygesen – is this creating another layer of beaurocracy? Chris – no.
Charlie Thygesen – does it mean your department has to be enlarged? Chris - I do not think so.
Charlie Thygesen – Are there going to be more fees? Chris – I can’t answer that yet.
Charlie Thygesen – Should the traffic committee have been involved with M & M Beverage? Chris – There wasn’t anything for the traffic committee to look at. The new board will have a say in landscaping also.
Cedric Sanborn – As we work through this process I do not see spending a whole lot of time, having someone come in and read it to me, I can read it and figure it out. What I would like to see is 2 or 3 meeting primarily amongst the board members to talk about what we like and don’t like, what we want to see changed as a first cut then have the public come in and then do a final. During the first meeting, although it would be open, we wouldn’t be taking input.
Mary Day – Can we have some of those touchy feely meetings since I do not have the background that others have?
Skip Bancroft – I’m on board with Cedric. Maybe Mary could meet with seasoned members of the Board or meet with Chris
Charlie Thygesen – I think we have to thoroughly understand this as a person before taking public testimony. This can’t be shoved down the town’s people throats. I think we should be able to make our own decisions. Just because the State does it, does not mean it is the only way to do it. I think we take a zone at a time, we have 4 zones then we should have 4 meetings. We should have it down as to what we are going to do before we have public meetings.
Marty Miller – I would like a month or two before we set meetings.
Brian Bailey – Happy board will take time to review and study. Will we be able to ask questions during these meetings? Mark stated that questions can be asked but no testimony will be taken.
Charlie Thygesen – Board should understand what has been proposed before answering public questions. The Planning Commission will present their recommendation to the Selectboard in the end.
Chris Violette – the document that you have before you is the work of the Zoning Re-write Committee, who did this work for you (Planning Commission). So it is important understanding the knowledge of this document and it is important to get the public involved. This is the opportunity for the public to get their hands into it. I do think you need to spend some time with the committee to explain the map and how it came to be. You have to be careful that you are truly understanding it that is why I’m suggesting a couple of opportunities so that the public can hear it as well and maybe a working session or two on the hot topics. Then maybe some public hearings. We don’t need to hurry through this process, we need to make sure that this is a good document when all said and done.
Charlie Thygesen – Need to mark where roads are so people can tell where their property is and what zone they are located within.
First meeting April 5 th, 7 p.m.
H. CORRESPONDENCE :
Chris handed out driveway agreement from Cary & Jan Smith. Skip requested that the language of Indemnify and Hold Harmless be added to the driveway agreement.
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 March 8, 2006 at 8:42 p.m.