BARRETOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR MAY 10, 2006
The Barre Town Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Offices, Websterville, Vermont.
Members Present:
Mark Nicholson, Chair
Ernest “Skip” Bancroft
Cedric Sanborn
Harry “Marty” Miller
Charlie Thygesen, Sr.
Others Present:
Randy Treis Susan & Skip Poczobut
Al & Anita Monty Rob Townsend
Reg & Nedra Orvis Paula & Ron Tremblay
Nicole & Michael Lafaille Rob Boulanger
Mike Lajeunesse Thomas Otterman
Perry Hollyer Sarah Child
Staff Present:
Chris Violette – Planning Officer
Heidi Bennett – Board Clerk
A. Review of Subdivision Plans - 6:30 - 7:00 PM
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Sanborn, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the minutes from the May 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
C. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLANS:
SUBDIVISION NAME: Hollyer
Request by Freda Hollyer for final 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: May 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request was given preliminary approval last month and has been moved to final this month as a warned final hearing. This request for a four-lot subdivision on land located off East C0bble Hill. The subject parcel is 6.3 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 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. This lot will maintain its existing access.
The other lots that are proposed are shown to be for residential purposes 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 separate 25’ rights-of-way. A shared curb-cut will be proposed. The applicant will have to have a shared curb-cut agreement drafted. A sample will be sent to the applicant and the applicant should be prepared to show a draft at the meeting.
At this point, we haven’t seen new plans so I’m not sure what issues from last month have been addressed. Essentially, the main issues related to items that need to be added to the plans were pin placement, sight distances, the City of Barre water line shown, a reference to the fact lot 4 (the remaining land) is going to be deferred. In addition, a letter of deferral needs to be submitted as well as a waiver for not showing contours on the entire parcel. While the plans still require information to be considered final, few other issues arose from the preliminary meeting. Harry may have additional items. However, there were few roadblocks discussed.
Assuming the items I have mentioned are easily taken care of and assuming Harry does not have any major issues, I think this plan is probably ready for approval.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have not yet received the revised plans for review for the subdivision plan. I have the same comments as before with regard to water and sewer service for the proposed new lots.
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 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 30’ 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.
The developer has been cooperating to review the road site distance for each driveway location. Mr. Hollyer came in today to discuss the need to relocate the existing driveway to obtain the required sight distance for the speed limit in the area. The current situation does not allow for adequate cornering sight distance looking east toward Hillside Avenue. The majority of the turning movements out of the existing driveway would be to the right and therefore not be affected by this deficiency. Although the distance could be improved by relocating the driveway, I do not think it is necessary for the grandfathered condition. The distances for the other driveways should be sufficient as proposed.
The water line will require a road crossing and the developer is working to provide for a sleeve to be bored under the newly paved road surface.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Three copies of 24”x36” paper plans showing all the information as requested are required before final approval is granted. DONE
2. A letter of deferral must be submitted to the Planning Office for recording in the land records, along with the $7.00 recording fee, that will defer the development of lot 4 until plans that meet the requirements of the Town of Barre subdivision ordinance are submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. The submission of the deferral letter must be received within 30 days of approval.
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.
7. Driveway agreement to be presented at the Planning Commission meeting, June 14, 2006 along with the $14.00 recording fee.
8. Power should be underground from nearest pole.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Freda Hollyer for final approval of a 4-lot subdivision on property located at 410 East Cobble Hill Road; Tax Map 025, lot 103.00; Zoned: RES C. Approval is subject to conditions 2 – 8. (P-06000004)
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 YES Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Treis
Request by Randy & Kyle Tries to remove the deferral placed on a previously approved 2- lot subdivision (approved February 22, 2005, P-04000056) on property located off Skylark Terrace; Tax Map 035, lot 053.02; Zoned RES A. (P-06000008)
Consultant:
Date: May 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This request is for lifting (removing) a deferral that was placed on this lot when it was created back in February of 2005. At this point, I have yet to receive plans showing site plan information so I do not have information as to how the lot will be developed. Municipal sewer and water are nearby. Access should be acceptable off form Skylark Terrace and I believe a residential use will be proposed.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
As I understand it, this is a lifting of a Deferral for a previously approved lot on Skylark Terrace. As such, it requires a plan submittal that shows information that was missing in the last review. This information relates to drainage, power, water and sewer utilities and driveway access off a Town road. Yet I am waiting for this plan to be submitted for review. It will not be a complicated submittal but the plans have not yet been supplied for this application.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Three – 24”x36” paper plans showing all the site-specific information is required before final approval is granted.
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.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to continue the request by Randy & Kyle Treis to remove the deferral placed on a previously approved 2-lot subdivision (approved February 22, 2005, P-04000056) on property located off Skylark Terrace until June 14, 2006; Tax Map 035, lot 053.02; Zoned: RES A. (P-06000008)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ 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 YES Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
D. PRELIMINARY PLANS:
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: May 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This plan was reviewed last month and was continued to this meeting still as a preliminary proposal. There is a site visit scheduled for 5:30PM on site just before the regular meeting. The plan calls for the creation of 6 lots out of two separate previously created lots. A new dead end town road is proposed with a hammerhead turnaround.
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.
Last month preliminary meeting brought up several issues that were discussed at length. Here are a few:
Driveways coming of the end of the road and the hammerhead
Snow plowing and storage of snow
Six houses on one 2” forced main sewer line to be taken over by the town
Where does the responsibility of the town take over with regard to the sewer line?
How does the right-of-way end up controlled by the town?
Potential for additional development.
Screening for the Tremblays.
Setback of the Tremblay’s house to the new road.
Drainage.
Location of the sewer line being too close to the Orvis lot.
Encumbrances on abutting lots do to wellhead protection.
How much usable land is there for lot 51 with all of the encumbrances?
How much of the existing stone wall and tree line will be preserved.
Utilities will be underground.
Will the proposed road actually fit in the 50’ right-0f-way?
Comments from the chair at the end of the meeting:
Mark Nicholson - I think we, the Planning Commission, need to be 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?
To date we have not received new plans but did talk to the consultant and plans are coming forward soon.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have received and reviewed the recently revised drawings for Preliminary Plan review and approval.
The sewer line for the force main section to be taken over by the Town of Barre should be provided. The vertical curve for the intersection apron of Richardson Road and the new road should be provided on sheet #3.
The Profile should also show the culvert locations at either end of the roadway.
There will need to be a detail of the force main check valves at each of the individual services provided on Sheet # 4.
The pump station and pumps for each lot will need to be provided for the Final Plan submittal.
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. This property is generally within 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 it 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 to the existing manhole on the westerly side of Richardson Road.
The new roadway should have a 30’ sleeve (6” diameter minimum) under it near the hammerhead to allow for force main placement in favor of Lot # 52, 53, & 54.
Drainage arrows are still needed particularly along the new roadway as well as along the back shared driveways going north and south of the hammerhead.
As Rob and I discussed in the field, in order to address the concerns of the Orvis’s, I think it is better to show the proposed shared driveway to Lots # 49 & 50 to be in the 25’ easement further from the Orvis lot line rather than the closer easement.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Town Engineer to clarify road design/cross section with Rob Townsend, American Consulting.
2. Landscaping plan be submitted. Include three Spruces on corners for headlight screening. Trees along Tremblay’s property should be every 20’, 3-5’ tall and 15’ from right-of-way; starting from the rear of the house going to the rear of the property.
3. Dwellings for lots 52 and 53 must be setback 50’ from the edge of the right-of-way and noted in the deed.
4. Deed for lot 54 will restrict flow of water where it is presently located and there is to be no developing or planting in the 50’ right-of-way. Draft to be presented to Sarah Child.
5. Applicant to go to the Selectboard for road and sewer approval.
6. Any driveways going behind the property lines should be a minimum distance to circumvent snow from being plowed onto abutter’s property. Driveways are to be constructed in the center of the right- of-way and 7 ½’ from the property line.
7. Town Engineer’s comments need to be addressed.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Chris Violette – Let the record reflect that we conducted a site visit earlier this evening. Nothing that was said regarding this project is on record. Attending this site visit, was the Town Engineer, Rob Townsend (Engineer for Al Monty), Al Monty and interested/abutting landowners. I suggest that if you said something at the site visit, when the time is right, please speak up so that your comments are on record.
Reg Orvis – Submitted self designed cross section and memorandum to the Board dated, May 9, 2006. Mr. Orvis read from each of his items; noted for the record (see attachment).
(Mark Nicholson asked Chris if he could go over what happened in the appeals court)
Chris Violette – The Judge in my opinion agreed with the Town that the Town was in within its rights to not necessarily make a determination on what rights existed for the applicant to lay sewer or anything other then vehicle ingress/egress. The Judge did say that the Planning Commission was in its right to not approve something that the applicant clearly could not show. I don’t believe that this has been put in writing. As far as the deed goes, it does not say he (Monty) has the right to build a road but the deed does give him the right for vehicle ingress/egress.
Al Monty – The third case was about the trees.
(Chris read aloud the judgment order dated April 12, 2006)
Ron Tremblay – I’d like to request a couple of restrictions if this is allowed to proceed: Would like a restriction that the proposed road only serve the 8 acres in question, the Orvis’ and the Tremblay’s and that at no time it be connected to any future developments. I also request that a tree line be established at the 51’ boundary to take place of the current screening that existing with the stonewall. I have concerns with safety for children and the protection of my land. I would like the posted speed limit be 20-25 mph.
Al Monty – I object to those requests. Mr. Tremblay can plant all the trees that he wants on his land and I have no desire to move that street any further but if someone in the future wants to do that, I don’t think it is my job. If Mr. Tremblay wanted to or sold his property, he could add a house lot, same as Mr. Orvis. This is information that Mr. Orvis volunteered.
Charlie Thygesen- The 47’ non-conforming is an issue. Are we creating a non-conforming lot?
Chris Violette – You can look at it two ways – By the virtue of Planning Commission approval it becomes a variance. The fact that the garage sits back 47’ will not make that house or the property unable to develop further or have additions. The only place it becomes a problem is the garage. Any new construction in their (Tremblay) backyard would be subject to the 50’ setback.
Reg Orvis – When you make a person’s property non-conforming, you are taking away a property owners right. I believe the only one that has that right is a condemning authority; a private individual is not a condemning authority. Whenever you take a property right, compensation should be on the table.
Chris Violette – I don’t believe a right is being taken. I don’t believe personally that this makes the house or lot non-conforming because you are approving it as such and as such it is essentially a variance. Even it was considered non-conforming, they (Tremblay) would not be able to add onto their garage but they would be allowed to add-0n to the rear.
Paula Tremblay – I have a problem if I can’t add onto my garage 5 years down the road. Mr. Violette – I don’t believe if approved by the Planning Commission that this makes your house non-conforming, I will put that in writing if you want.
Al Monty – We aren’t sure that there isn’t 50’ there.
Cedric Sanborn – These proposed locations of the new houses, where you have the shared driveways coming through; 25’ rights-of-ways; and the plans show the house that to be relatively close to that, we’d like to see the house pushed back 50’, so you can keep a quality of life there, so that there isn’t a driveway in someone front yard. After walking over there, it seems like there is enough room to do that.
Al Monty – Yes, there is plenty of room. If we went 75’ from the original town lot line, we would put no house within 75’, is that what you are requesting? Mr. Sanborn – If we did a 50’ setback from the driveways to the house, 100’. Mr. Monty – That would be a problem for one house, but for the others it should be fine. Mr. Violette – Cedric how would you like to see that done, a condition or deed restriction? Mr. Sanborn – A deed restriction for the house location. I am thinking 50’ from the edge of the right-of-way (RES C) and 25’ for RES A.
Paula Tremblay – Why do they get a 50’ buffer but we only get 47’ that is not fair. I should get the same treatment.
Cedric Sanborn – Back then we didn’t dictate where your house would go, if we had we would’ve made you move your garage 50’ from the line. Some things that we have done in the past have never been an issue. Nevertheless, if it going to be an issue, we can react and fix it for future generations.
Rob Townsend – The dwelling on lot 51 will be 38’ from the right-of-way (potential road in the future).
Reg Orvis – Will the roadway be paved or gravel? Mr. Thygesen – Probably gravel. Mr. Orvis – If the road is going to be gravel, I would like to see some screening to prevent the dust from rolling over to my property. Mr. Monty – I’ll put your minds at ease, the road will not be gravel. Mr. Nicholson – If there are intentions for Richardson Road to be paved, the Selectboard will require this new road to be paved.
Reg Orvis – Cars turning out onto the road, their lights will shine into my bedroom. I request some screening to prevent the lights at night. Ms. Tremblay – Same for us, the lights will shine into our children’s bedroom.
Mark Nicholson – What is the language now that is being considered with the courts regarding the stonewall and the trees. Mr. Violette – The trees that are marked are intended to stay. Mr. Monty – I can only think of two trees that someone might classify as being a decent tree that is being cut (blue ribbons get cut), one of them is a White Birch and the other is a branch from a Butternut. Mr. Nicholson – Otherwise the tree line is staying where it is along with the stonewall. Mr. Violette – Because the Planning Commission added clarification at Mr. Monty’s request and I put it in front of you at a subsequent meeting that was not warned, the Planning Commission added the 10’ buffer, the agreement was because the stipulation was not a warnedrevised hearing that we didn’t have the right to require the 10’. At the same time, the approval/permit was issued that inadvertently dropped off 3 conditions. The argument was that we could not enforce those conditions because they were not on Mr. Monty’s permit. The agreement that we entered into was that we acknowledged that we would loose in court with the 10’ buffer because it was done improperly. In order to get the 3 conditions that were left off, which included the preservation of the stonewall and tree line, added back in, the agreement was that we would not enforce the 10’ buffer.
Rob Townsend – Some people say there is already an issue fitting this road in the 50’, if you take 10’ way it is only going to make the issue worse. This road does fit in a 50’ right-of-way.
Reg Orvis – This road does not belong in this neighborhood.
Charlie Thygesen – I don’t think we have to make a decision right now, I think we should talk about it there are too many variables to think about.
Skip Bancroft – I think we move it forward, address the conditions, especially screening.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Bancroft, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to approve the 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)
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 ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
SUBDIVISION NAME: Lajeunesse
Request by Michael & Lynn Ann Lajeunesse for a two lot subdivision on property located at 380 East Cobble Hill Road; Tax Map 025, lot 105.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000009)
Consultant: Tom Otterman
Date: May 5, 2006
STAFF REPORT/REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE,
PLANNING OFFICER
This is a preliminary request for a two lot subdivision to create one new lot for the purpose of a single-family dwelling. The subject parcel is located on the East Barre side of East Cobble Hill Road in a RES C zone. The subject parcel is 5.4 acres in size according the survey. Minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ft.
Lot 1 – 1.8 acres in size with an existing single-family residential use. Access is from East Cobble Hill Road and is currently served by both municipal water and sewer.
Lot 2 – 3.6 acres is being proposed for a single-family residential use, does not have any road frontage but will have access to it across lot 1 by way of a 40’ access and utility easement. This lot will utilize municipal sewer by way of a relatively long 6” line that will run towards the back of the lot, through other lands owned by the applicant to an existing municipal sewer line near East Barre Road (Rt. 302). An easement is not shown on the plans for that but should be as the applicant may not always own both parcels. Water is shown to be onsite.
Plans at this point appear to be fairly sufficient. I don’t see a reason why not to grant preliminary approval.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM HARRY HINRICHSEN,
TOWN ENGINEER
I have reviewed the Preliminary Plan submitted and I have comments on the access and sewer service for this property.
The property proposed is to be served by a sewer line to the commercial lot that comes from the Lajuenesse Construction lot. The line is shown with several manholes and the size shown is 8”. This leads me to believe that further development is possible. However, the easement for access from East Cobble Hill Road is not 50’ in width and therefore would preclude further development from that direction.
The Select Board would need to review the sewer if the line has any potential for being turned over to the Town of Barre. The sewer line would at the very least have to be tested prior to being put into use.
The sight distance and cornering sight distance for the existing driveway should be provided.
An Erosion control Plan and stabilization details should be provided for the proposed lot. The previous work on the slope behind the construction building should also be implemented as soon as possible to prevent further erosion.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS:
1. Clarify sewer line.
2. Shard driveway agreement .
3. Erosion control measures.
4. Safety for abutters’ waterline.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Michael Lafaille – I have concerns for the waterline, the trucks that are on the land cutting the trees damaged it earlier. Line has since been repaired, would like to make sure that any damage once construction begins on the new house that they be taken care of by the applicant.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Thygesen, seconded by Mr. Bancroft, the Board voted to approve the request by Michael & Lynn Ann Lajeunesse for preliminary approval a 2-lot subdivision on property located at 380 East Cobble Hill Road; Tax Map 025, Lot 105.00; Zoned: RES C. (P-06000009)
DISCUSSION:
CONDITIONS Yes____ No____
MOTION BY: Thygesen
SECOND BY: Bancroft
ROLL CALL:
Mark Nicholson YES Mary Day ABSENT
Charles Thygesen, Sr. YES Cedric Sanborn YES
Harry (Marty) Miller YES Therese Ackerman ABSENT
Ernest (Skip) Bancroft YES
E. CONCEPTUAL PLANS:
F. OTHER:
G. FOLLOW-UPS:
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
I. ROUND TABLE:
J. ADJOURN:
On a motion by Mr. Nicholson, seconded by Mr. Sanborn, the Board voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2006 at 9:23 p.m.