DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

Approved Minutes of November 3, 2005

Board Members present: James Arisman, Tom Daley, Jon Groveman, Martin Johnson, and Gary Wilson. Also attending: Zoning Administrator Bob Light, Michael Schumacher, Thad Gouge, Rich Gouge, Arthur Gilman, Bruce Cook, Vicki Cook, Jason Cook, Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Lawrence Black, and Mike Fritz.

At 7:05 pm the Board and Zoning Administrator Bob Light discussed Bob’s suggestion that the DRB make it clear to interested parties attending permit hearings that, under State Law, they must have “participated” in the hearing in order to be eligible to appeal the DRB’s subsequent decision in the matter. As Jon characterized the requirement, a party would at minimum have to indicate during the proceedings that they have a concern with an aspect of the proposal under review. This allows the Town — via the DRB — to address any such concern prior to having it brought before a State court for appeal.

Bob updated the Board on the status of the current development proposal by the Christ Covenant Church. Following last month’s resolution of the DRB, they submitted a new Zoning Permit application to Bob as a prerequisite for consideration of their new Site Plan application. Bob reported that he had denied the new Zoning Permit application, for the reason that the height of the new church building — as he calculates it from their drawings and his interpretations of the Zoning Regulations — would exceed the 45' limit. He also reported to the Board that he had advised the applicants that, if they intended to appeal this denial to the DRB, they might be better off withdrawing their current Site Plan proposal until this particular matter was decided. Following discussion, the Board decided that Jon would write to the Church and advise them that the DRB would await word from them on how they wanted to proceed before scheduling a hearing on the pending Site Plan application.  

Tom reported to the Board that Dave Rogers had not submitted his new Subdivision application in the week following the Board’s meeting with him on October 6th, and thus there had not been time to warn a public hearing on the proposal for this evening. As he has now submitted the application, the Board will warn a public hearing on the application for Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 7:15 pm.

Tom also reported that Trevor Tait had not been able to file the mylar of the plat for his Subdivision within 90 days of its approval by the DRB. Under a state law in effect at the time the permit was issued, this failure would void his Subdivision approval, requiring him to reapply. However, by the time his 90 days was up, the state statute had changed. Under the new law, subdivision applicants now have 180 days following permit approval to file a mylar of the plat with the town’s land records. The Board decided therefore that it would be proper to consider his subdivision permit valid unless and until current law requires that it be voided. Tom will write to Trevor and co-applicant Ellen Cooke, informing them that they now have until January 23, 2006 — 180 days from the approval of their Subdivision permit — to file the mylar.  

At 7:30 pm the Board opened public hearing on the Subdivision application of Thad Gouge and Michael Schumacher. They wish to subdivide approximately 75 acres on Upper Depot Road into 4 lots. As presented, Lot #1 would be 4.35± acres, consisting of a hayfield bounded by stone walls on the west side of the road. Lot #2 would consist of 1.65± acres on the west side of the road, including an existing house, barn and outbuildings, and .35± acres on the other side of the road, for a total of 2 acres. Lots #3 and #4 would each consist of about 34 acres; the applicants intend each of these two lots for construction of a single family residence.

            Arthur Gilman testified that he had looked over the property, and identified for the Board those areas that consisted of wetlands. In his view, the areas planned for new construction were sufficiently removed from any of the wet areas.

            Questions were raised about the shape of Lot #2. The portion of the lot on the east side of the road is a narrow strip running perpendicular to the road along the northern edge of the source parcel. Board members observed that, in combination with the land on the other side of the road, it makes for a peculiarly shaped lot. Michael stated that it was their intention to sell Lot #2 and its existing home, but that they needed to include some land from the other side of the road in order to meet the two-acre minimum lot size. However, they did not want to include more of the land along the road directly across from the house and barn because that area contains a valuable spring that they wish to retain with Lot #4, along with an existing garage and shed.

            Adjoining landowner Bruce Cook informed the board that his property and that of another adjoiner have rights to the spring in question, and that it is the main water supply for their homes. His family had no objection to the proposal as a whole, so long as the development activity does nothing to compromise their water supply.

            Tom raised the fact that the property the applicants wished to subdivide had already received approval from the Town for a 6 lot subdivision in March of 2000. Michael and Thad said that they did not know this before, and the prior approval had no bearing on their current plans. They sought only to create 4 lots total from the source parcel, and emphasized for the record that they intended to cooperate with whatever the DRB may require of them to gain approval. That being said, they also wished the Board to keep in mind their own property rights as owners and future residents on the property, and to weigh these interests fairly when considering whether to approve the configuration of lots as they proposed them. Jon responded that the Board would certainly give them this consideration as owners of the property, and has done so throughout the process. Hearing closed at 8:45 pm.

The Board then turned their attention to a letter received from Larry Babic, regarding his Conditional Use application that is currently before the Board. He proposes to build a home on his property on Clarence George Road. Conditional Use approval is required for the project because portions of the development area are on a slope that exceeds 15%. The Board has already made a site visit to the property, and opened the public hearing on October 6, 2005. Larry and Patty Joslyn were represented at the hearing by Craig Chase, their septic engineer. Following testimony, the Board had decided to recess the hearing in order to engage their own engineer to provide a second opinion on the suitability of the area for the proposed septic installation. Larry’s letter took strong issue with this action.

            Martin reported that the consulting engineer had arranged to visit the property with Craig, but that Craig had not yet provided the details of his own site work for review. Tom will write to Larry and Patty on behalf of the Board to let them know where things are in the process.

At 9:00 pm the Board took up discussion of a proposal by Martin that the DRB include a reporting requirement in future Conditional Use permits it grants for commercial uses. This would make it a duty of permit holders to file an annual certification with the Town that their use of the property has met their permit conditions. As Martin sees it, the Town has little or no ability otherwise to ensure that the carefully considered conditions and limitations that the Board includes in its permits will be adhered to over time. Concerns were raised that this would add a new oversight obligation, requiring the Town to monitor whether every permit holder has made their report each year, and that the fact that the permitees are certifying themselves would limit the reliability of such reports. Tom also expressed his own concern that new obligations be imposed on landowners only where there is a clear need, lest the accumulating red tape have a corrosive effect on public acceptance of our zoning rules. James responded that there would also be an erosion of the integrity of the zoning rules if permitees felt they were free to ignore conditions that had been imposed to protect the interests of neighboring landowners. The Board will make a decision on this proposal when in concludes its deliberations on the Conditional Use application of Daniel Arguetty and Roger McKeever.

At 9:40 pm Jon moved to accept the minutes of October 6, 2005 as drafted. Seconded by Gary, all approved. Martin then moved to adjourn the DRB meeting. Seconded by Jon, all in favor.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Tom Daley