BARRETOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR APRIL 12, 2006
The Barre Town Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Offices, Websterville, Vermont.
Members Present:
Mark Nicholson, Chair Cedric Sanborn
Harry (Marty) Miller Therese Ackerman
Charlie Thygesen, Sr. – 7:13 Skip Bancroft
Others Present:
Reg Orvis Richard Bell
Doug Farnham Thomas Otterman
Barbara Fantoni Paula Tremblay
Sarah Child Charlie Desmarais
Raoul Martineau Lyle Gauthier
Rob Boulanger Al Monty
Anita Monty Susan Poczobut
Skip Poczobut Kris Jurentkuff
Staff Present:
Chris Violette – Planning Officer
Harry Hinrichsen – Town Engineer – 7:10
Heidi Bennett – Board Clerk
A. Review of Subdivision Plans - 6:30 - 7:00 PM
NONE
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
C. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: Gauthier
Request by Lyle Gauthier for final 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: Dufresne & Associates
Date: April 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This plan was granted preliminary approval last month and is before the Planning Commission this month for final review as a warned public hearing. New plans have been submitted that seem to take care of any outstanding issues from previous meetings. In addition, the applicant has gone before the Selectboard and received their blessing to upgrade Gauthier Drive. 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 located in a residential C zone.
As mentioned and as previously discussed, Gauthier Drive is to be upgraded. As it exists, Gauthier Drive is a substandard town road and the use of it has been a primary topic. If approved the road will be upgraded to a standard much better than what exist today although not up to total town standards. In the end the road will be 18’ wide with a much better turnaround situation. A 50’ strip of land the length of the road will be turned over to the town as opposed to just a right-of-way which exists today.
The three lots being proposed all conform to zoning. The final proposed sizes are:
Lot 1, 1.0 acres with frontage on both East Montpelier Road (Rt. 14) & Gauthier Drive
Lot 2, 1.13 acres with frontage on Gauthier Dive
Lot 3, 1.31 acres no frontage but accessed with a shared driveway and 30’ easement
Along with the road upgrade approximately 235’ of new town sewer is being proposed to serve this subdivision. I assume a developer agreement will be necessary but Harry should be able to answer for sure.
As discussed last month water service will be by shared well of which I am not particularly in favor of but is something the board has given its blessing to.
Short of getting three copies of stamped final plans, I would say this proposal is ready for approval.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have received the new information on the Final Plan submission for a 3-lot subdivision. The plans show the improvements for sewer system design review and other lot improvements such as road widening and the road turn around complete with the extra easement up into the shared driveway for the purposes of the Town completing the turning movement.
There is a total of 235’± of sewer line extension and one (1) new manhole that will be subject to the Town’s acceptance and takeover ($5 per foot). This was reviewed and received favorably by the Select Board. The Final Plan Approval will need to reflect a developer agreement for the purposes of constructing the sewer and roadway improvements.
The proposed sewer services show the requested extra clean-outs since the maximum spacing should be at 95’ intervals. As requested, the service for Lot 2 is now shown downstream of the new manhole. The service for Lot 3 will come out of the manhole by way of a 6” stub reduced to a 4” lateral. The developer will need to coordinate with the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTRANS) regarding the road crossing.
Plans also should include a profile for the sewer and the roadway on the Detail Sheet.
The request to consider the well to be shared by all 3 lots was received favorably by the Selectboard. This still needs final PC approval. The easement language between Lot 2 and the other two lots should be provided. In the event the other two lots have a falling out, Lots 1 & 3 will have to drill their own well. The cost of power to operate the well should be a shared expense and should also be spelled out in the agreement.
The request to consider the driveway to Lot 2 & 3 be shared was received favorably by the Selectboard. This still needs final PC approval. The easement language between Lot 2 and Lot 3 should be provided. In the event the two lots have a falling out, Lot 2 will have to install a separate driveway. The cost of maintaining the driveway should be a shared expense and spelled out in the agreement.
The abutters have been shown on the plan.
The zoning information is shown on the site plan and needs to be shown on the Plot Plan as well.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1.Three copies of the final plans stamped will need to be submitted.
2.A developer agreement and possibly some sort of financial security will have to be negotiated with the Selectboard prior to commencement of construction.
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 Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Lyle Gauthier for a 3-lot subdivision on property located at 379 East Montpelier Road; Tax Map 009, lot 074.00; Zoned: RES C. Approval is subject to conditions 1 – 6 (P-04000052)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Sanborn
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. ABSENT Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
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: April 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request, as you all know has been on the agenda several times but due to complication with an abutting property that is going up for auction the plan has not moved forward. We received a letter from the McGrath’s seeking another extension stating that they are hoping the auction will occur sometime in June and then they will discuss the land issue with the buyer. So at this point I would suggest a continuance to the July 12, 2006 meeting.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Sanborn the Board voted to continue the request by Shane & Alexa McGrath until July 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: 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 YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Couture
Request by Pierre Couture for revised final approval of a previously approved subdivision (P-05000011 8/18/05) for the purpose of requesting additional deviances from dimensional standards in relation to planned residential development Millstone Woods; Tax Map 006, lot 050.02; Zoned: PAR (P-06000005)
Consultant:
Date: April 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
Mr. Couture is before the commission this month to seek an amendment to the Millstone Woods subdivision which you recently approved an alteration to. In this case, Mr. Couture is seeking to clarify and/or establish new deviations from zoning as part of this planned residential development.
I brought this subject up during the recent amendment but little attention was paid to it. Millstone Woods is a PRD and as such is entitled to deviations from zoning requirements in exchange for open land. Based on previous plans submitted it was obvious that Mr. Couture was seeking to alter the residential C minimum lot size and road frontage to be equal to residential A standards. However, no formal request was made with regard to setback requirements.
Mr. Couture with this request would formally like to request that the entire Millstone Woods subdivision be granted residential A dimensional minimums to include, lots size, road frontage, and setback.
Res C minimums: 40,000 sq. ft. lots, 200’ of road frontage, 50’ row setback, 25’ property setback
Res A minimums: 14,400 sq. ft. lots, 110’ of road frontage, 25’ row setback, 12’ property setback.
I think this request is acceptable given the nature of this development and it is the goal of a PRD to cluster development, this request help obtain that.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
Since the issues of setback are primarily zoning in nature, I will not entire into the review on this matter. As I understand it from the Zoning Administrator, the conditions would be consistent with the “A” Residential zone.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. New cover page needed showing proper setback information
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Pierre Couture for revised final approval of a previously approved subdivision (P-05000011 8/18/05) for the purpose of requesting additional deviances from dimensional standards in relation to planned residential development Millstone Woods; Tax Map 006, lot 050.02; Zoned: PAR. Phase 1 of subdivision will use Residential A standards. Approval is subject to condition #1. (P-06000005)
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 YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
D. PRELIMINARY PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: Hollyer
Request by Freda Hollyer for preliminary approval of a 4-lot subdivision on property located at 410 East Cobble Hill Road; Tax Map 025, lot 103.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000004)
Consultant: Tom Otterman
Date: April 4, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This is a preliminary request for a three lot subdivision on land located off East C0bble Hill. The subject parcel is shown in tax records to be 5.4 acres in size (but on the survey shown to be 6.3 acres) located in a rural residential C zone which requires minimum lot sizes of 40,000 sq. ft. when municipal sewer and water are available as they are in this case.
The proposal with this request is to create three new lots one of which will contain an existing house that is currently served by municipal sewer and water. The existing house lot (lot 1) has 352’ of road frontage on East Cobble Hill Road. I believe this lot is proposed to have its own access but at this point that is a little unclear to me and needs to be clarified.
The other lots that are proposed are shown to be residential dwellings both with municipal sewer and water. Both sewer services will require pumping as they are below the grade of the existing 8” sewer main out at the road. The new lots are; Lot 2, 1.1 acres and lot 3, 1.1 acres. As mentioned these lots do not have road frontage but will be served by 25’ rights-of-way. Initial access off East Cobble Hill road along with the access to the existing home is somewhat unclear but should be considered to be shared as has been recently approved in other request.
The plans submitted need a few more details such as pin placement and lot 4 which is remaining land of 3.1 acres needs to be shown as having a deferral placed on it. Wavier of contours will have to be requested as well given they are not shown on the entire parcel.
Generally speaking this request is pretty straightforward and the plans submitted are almost complete for final consideration.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this proposed 4-lot subdivision and have several comments regarding the Preliminary Plan as submitted. It is my understanding that Lots # 2 & 3 are intended for immediate development, while Lot # 4 is under deferral.
There will need to be sight distance and stopping distances for the new proposed driveway.
It appears that the proposal is to serve the property by way of a tapping sleeve onto the 8” water main on the northerly side of the street. The new 6” waterline would then run across to the southerly side of the street with a manifold type arrangement for installing curb-stops and extending individual services.
The off-site wastewater for this development is by way of individual pump station, pumps and 2” force main lines. The force mains are shown connecting to the existing sewer manhole near the existing driveway.
The storage capacity of each holding tank or pumping station should be specified.
Power is available from a utility pole but require an additional pole to be set on the southerly side of the roadway.
Lots 2 & 3 are both proposed to be served by a common curb cut and driveway but will have separate easements. The entrance onto East Cobble Hill Road will require a 15’ deep 20’ wide paved apron.
The driveway on Lot # 3 should have a sleeve under it to allow for waterline replacement in favor of Lot # 2.
The deed information for the Brimblecomb parcel is Deed Book 58 page 315.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. ShowBarreCity waterline
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Tom Otterman – I will typically show forced main sewer until gravity feed can be proven. I don’t anticipate any sight distance issues with this driveway.
Mark Nicholson – How far is the exiting driveway going to be from the shared driveway? Mr. Otterman – 50 – 60’
Doug Farnham - Will the run off go towards lot 4? Mr. Hinrichsen – This lot drains towards the rear of the property towards RT 302. Development needs to be sure to stay clear of the BarreCity waterline. Mr. Otterman – I will be sure to put that on the drawings.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the request by Freda Hollyer for preliminary approval of a 4-lot subdivision on property located at 410 East Cobble Hill Road; Tax Map 025, lot 103.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000004)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes X No____
MOTION BY: Bancroft
SECOND BY: Sanborn
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Monty
Request by Al Monty for preliminary approval of a 6-lot subdivision encompassing two separate parcels of land located off Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lots 013.07 & 013.08; Zoned: Res C & A. (P-06000006 & P-06000007)
Consultant: American Consulting
Date: April 7, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This is a preliminary proposal of which has already been reviewed by the Planning Commission as a conceptual plan. Two different lots are affected by this plan in which a lot of 4.4 acres and 4.2 acres will become a total of six lots all proposed to have residential uses. The subject property is located in two zones, residential C and residential A.
Lot numbering continues in sequential order of other developments by Mr. Monty.
Lots are as follows:
From the 4.2 acre parcel, 008/013.08
Lot 49: 1.4 acres, no road frontage, access by way of a 25’ right-of-way, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
Lot 50: 1.13 acres, no road frontage, access by way of a 25’ right-of-way, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
Lot 51: 1, 27 acres, 110’ of road frontage, access from end of town road, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
From the 4.4 acre parcel, 008/013.07
Lot 52; 1.33 acres, 125’ of road frontage, accessed from end of town road, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
Lot 53; 1.20 acres, no road frontage, accessed by way of a 25’ right-of-way, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
Lot 54; 1.78 acres, no road frontage, accessed by way of a 25’ right-of-way, forced main municipal sewer, on-site water.
Lots 49 & 50 will share a common driveway but have the mandatory separate 25’ right-of-way. Lots 53 & 54 do the same.
Access to all these lots is by way of a proposed new town road. The road will be approximately 460’ and will end in a right hand hammerhead turnaround. All access comes from the end of the road. Mr. Monty will have to go before the Selectboard before final approval to gain their conceptual support for this road.
All lots are severed by municipal sewer. Over 700’ of forced main sewer will be constructed and turned over to the town. I’m not sure of the exact length at this time because I don’t know exactly where the town portion of the line will begin.
Drainage provisions are not a major concern here but I don’t know that the plans provide adequate provisions for it. Drainage arrows at a minimum should be added. Runoff from the new lots and house locations is likely to go the opposite way of were the road will be constructed towards an existing drainage area much of which is a wetland.
The new road is to be constructed in a 50’ right-of-way that traverses over the land of Ron and Paula Tremblay and as most on the commission will remember this strip of land has provided amble controversy in the past. However, it is clear that Mr. Monty has access rights over this land. Abutter Reg Orivis in the past has questioned the use of this access for this many lots but I’ve never really seen that to be the case.
Previous subdivision approvals of the subject land and the use of this right-of-way have provided a condition that some semblance of the three line and rock wall be preserved. Subsequent litigation and compromise reduced previous requirements but some of it will remain. The road is shown to be along the northerly side of the right-of-way to comply with this requirement.
I’m sure Harry will provide more details on the road construction.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed this proposed 6-lot subdivision and have several comments regarding the Preliminary Plans as submitted. It is my understanding that force-main sewer will serve each of the six lots.
There will need to be sight distance and stopping distances for the entrance onto Richardson Road.
A waiver of scale will be needed to address the cover sheet scale of 1’ = 50’.
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 rather an extension by means of the force-main line. The proposal is to serve the lots by individual pumps and force main lines with a section of about 790’. This sewer would then be turned over to the Town of Barre once installed and tested. It would also be subject to the Town of Barre take over fee of $5 per foot.
I would like to review the service at the interface with Richardson with the consultant prior to Final Plan Review. The proposal as submitted calls for an intermediate manhole rather than extending the force-main sewer all the way to the existing manhole on the westerly side of Richardson Road.
The new roadway should have a 30’ sleeve (6” diameter minimum) under it to allow for force main placement in favor of Lot # 52, 53, & 54.
The new roadway should have drainage arrows to depict the run-off from the height of the roadway in each direction. Drainage should also be called for by installing 15” culverts on the northerly side and 18” culvert on the southerly side of the hammerhead turn-around.
A stabilized area for both drainage outlets should be shown at the easterly side of the end of the roadway/hammerhead.
The Highway Superintendent will need to review the proposed turn-around to ensure that it does not create problems for the plow operations.
Power and telephone service should be shown and clarified as to whether underground service is proposed.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Al Monty – Harry mentioned the utility line that will be coming parallel to the sewer line.
Doug Farnham – I disagree with Harry. First the hammerhead, there are 2 driveways coming off the hammerhead which will make it very difficult to plow. Second, the sewer line; 6 houses on a forced, we are not in a condition to take over a forced main. There are a lot of issues of who is responsible for this line, when does the Town’s responsibilities start and when does the homeowners start. Al Monty – The north side of the road is where the Town’s responsibilities begin. Everything will be pumped by a grinder pump.
Rob Boulanger – how can non-owner deed land? Mr. Monty – Yes, we deed our right to that road to the Town. Mr. Boulanger – I guess I’m a little confused, if that land is owned by someone how that land can be conveyed by someone else. Mr. Nicholson – If I understand it right, the developer would convey his deed. Mr. Boulanger – Does that need approval from the landowner? Mr. Hinrichsen – No, the land is already retained in the deed from the property owner when the land was sold. Mr. Violette – He would convey his interest in that right-of-way to the Town of Barre as well as the infrastructure. Mr. Hinrichsen – The right-of-way predated the sale of the lot to the Tremblay’s. Mr. Boulanger – If that is the case, we can go back to further deeds that said that right-of-way will only serve two homes. Mr. Monty – That was on prior lots, before any lots were created and before that lot was sold to Tremblay.
Charles Desmarais – I think I’d like to know if the lots to the right of the road where the hammerhead, is there going to be a provision for further development or subdivision of those lots. A lot of us would like to know what the master plan is here. Mr. Monty – What we are subdividing is lots 17 & 18 and if any further subdivisions are done on that, I don’t see how it would possibly meet town standards. Mr. Violette - It will be my recommendation that there be no further subdivisions on this land due to access.
Paula Tremblay – When I purchased this land 5 years ago, I was told that it would be accessing two homes behind, then those 2 homes became 4 and now 6. I would like to see some good faith here. I believe that none of us would’ve bought this property if we knew this was going to happen. What about screening? This shared driveway is now a public road and I have children that play out there. What kind of protection do I have? A shared driveway has now been turned into a public road. I was told that I couldn’t have my driveway off this right-of-way and now you are allowing it to be turned into a public road.
Sarah Child – Drainage needs to be shown. I live on School Road and want to see what direction drainage is heading and how the drainage will affect the wet lands.
Reg Orvis – Proximity is a factor for 6 houses, there is going to be too much traffic going by the Tremblay’s house. The sewer line on the drawings shows the sewer line closer then 10’ to my property. You are trying to squeeze a development into a place where a development does not belong. You are intruding on the privacy of these homeowners.The State requires a 200’ shield area; each one of those lots put an encumbrance on our properties. None of us has ever seen a master plan; we want to see a master plan.
Rob Boulanger – How far will the Tremblay home be from the center of the roadway? Mr. Violette – Setback is required regardless. If that road was there when that house was built, the house would have to be 50’ from the road right-of-way.
Therese Ackerman – How much of the land is remaining? Mr. Monty – We have 8.5 and we are going to use 8.2. The remaining land is wet. I don’t know how much other land I have left.
Cedric Sanborn – Lot 51 has two right-of-ways on it, how much is usable land without those right-of-ways. Mr. Monty – The land is large and have enough room. Mr. Sanborn – The quality of the lot is gone once the rights-of-ways are development or the road continues. Mr. Monty – If that lot had off-site water, the land would be smaller. Mr. Sanborn – How much of the wall and trees will be preserved? Mr. Violette – The court stated that we over stepped our bounds with the rock wall. We didn’t warn the hearing when we made the ruling about the buffer. In order to have previous conditions added, which had been left off the permit, the Town agreed to eliminate the 10’ buffer. The only reason the 10’ buffer was put in was to try and clarify where the rock wall was. However, that appeal was under a different application.
Rob Boulanger – What is the Town’s stand on shard drives? Mr. Nicholson – We look for each driveway to have its own 25’ parallel right-of-way
Marty Miller - Has it been clarified if power will be underground. Mr. Monty – Yes, by way of easement from the Town’s.
Mark Nicholson - I think we, the Planning Commission, need to shown that a road can be constructed in a right-of-way. We would like to see some language about the rock wall and the tree line. We would like to see a master plan. New plans need to show drainage for the property of Child. How much land will be left on lot 51 if the rights-of-ways are turned into driveways?
Charlie Thygesen – Is this a good time for a site visit? I know I have been up 2 or 3 times and I think it is time to go up and have a site visit.
Board is meeting at 5:30 – May 10, 2006 – Richardson Road for a site visit.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to continue the request by Al Monty until May 10, 2006 for preliminary approval of a 6-lot subdivision encompassing two separate parcels of land located off Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lots 013.07 & 013.08; Zoned: RES C & A. (P-06000006 & P-06000007)
DISCUSSION:
Skip Bancroft - I think we have some possible encumbrances; the biggest issue is the caliber of the road and whether it fits and it seems we are putting, many people through many paces if that cannot be answered. When we go out, we want to know what the road is, so we can see that it will fit.
CONDITIONS Yes____ No____
MOTION BY: Sanborn
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman YES
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
E. CONCEPTUAL PLANS:
McHay Development – Would like to take existing 50’ strip that provides two right-of-ways, configure a hammerhead turn around, and convey the fee simple to the Town. It would require a small portion of one the lots be co-opted for the road. This would give the previously approved lot 2 the required road frontage, as long as the other lots with no road frontage. We would construct diversion drainage, configure lots around that drainage, and actually convey those parcels to be merged with those abutters so the property owners can maintain their own land. The intent is to acquire an easement from Baer to her culvert; we would then put in a drainage structure that would be adequate. We would also extend the sewer line all the way to Perley Briggs in the event he decides to develop.
Montpelier Church of Christ – They have a 4 acre parcel on West Cobble Hill Road, they are exploring options. They would like to subdivide this lot into a possible 4 lots. They have an existing curb-cut and would have access to water and sewer. The board stated that they could have 4 residential lots or 2 residential lots and 1 church lot.
F. OTHER:
G. FOLLOW-UPS:
Next Zoning Bylaw Re-write meeting will be April 26, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
I. ROUND TABLE:
J. ADJOURN: