MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY, VT
PLANNING BOARD FOR TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
Present: Kevin Bubriski, vice-chair; Andrew Knafel; Mark Young; Bill Pennebaker; Chris Williams; David Mance.
Others Present: Karen Mellinger, Select Board member; Barry Richardson; Andrew Bacchi; Jay Palmer; Emery Forest.
Absent: William “Jake” Jakubowski, Chair.
Call to Order: Mr. Bubriski called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Old Business: #05 69 05S.
Mr. Bubriski called Mr. Endres to the table for a continuation of the preliminary hearing concerning the White property on Old Depot Road. Mr. Mance recused himself from the board at this time.
Mr. Endres then proceeded to pass out copies of various site plans for the proposed development at the White property on the corner of Old Depot Road and Route 7A. He noted all septic systems have distinct designs as of last week, and that the wetlands are all mapped out accurately. Mr. Endres said he kept the 50-foot buffer around the edge of the wetlands. None of the driveways, wells, and septic systems of the site plan encroach on the properties of various owners in the vicinity of the site. Mr. Endres said Mr. Chris Hines had mentioned grades on the roads that had been examined during an earlier site visit. The state department of transportation called for a 25-mph speed limit on the development roads, the same limit that has been in place on Old Depot Road. As for power lines on the property, the policy of CVPS is that they will handle the installation of these power lines as long as the town pays for it, according to Mr. Endres. Mr. Knafel asked if the road was going to remain as a gravel road; Mr. Endres assured him that it would be.
Mr. Bubriski asked if there was going to be a stop sign at the bottom of White Farm Lane and the corner of Old Depot Road. Mr. Mance said that if one were to drive down the bottom of Birch Hill Road, they would see that the grade on Birch Hill would be similar to the one in question and that a stop sign would be needed. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Endres about the grade on the steep slope at the opposite on the end of the road if one is coming towards the cul-de-sac. Mr. Endres said that at the maximum the grade would be 10%. Mr. Williams also asked about the driveway going to lot 6; Mr. Endres said that he didn’t put any grades on the driveway and also added that he was going to have the builders cut them as needed. Mr. Endres said that whoever buys the properties is going to be responsible for adapting them to comply with town requirements.
Mr. Knafel asked who was going to be responsible for the maintenance of the road. Mr. Endres also noted that he took a note of the 50-foot buffer on section S1 and showed a diagram of where the buffer was going to be. Mr. Pennebaker said that the primary purpose of providing the buffer was to preserve the already-existing trees on the lot.
Mr. Mance told the board to refer to page 2 of the planning manual, Section 2.03 C, in response to Mr. Knafel’s question about the maintenance of a buffer on the lots in the planned development. Mr. Pennebaker noted that if a piece of property is 3,000 square feet or over, it must be reviewed by the planning board. Mr. Bubriski said that as the wetlands are part of the Lake Shaftsbury wetlands, the buffer has to be preserved.
Audience comments: Mr. Palmer asked how the septic system is going to be handled by the town. Mr. Endres said that all the lots are in the permit process and that a well site has already been established. Mr. Richardson asked about the septic system as well; Mr. Endres said that the systems have to be at least 100 feet away from the property nearest them. Mr. Richardson said that he did not feel comfortable about the placement of the systems. Mr. Bacchi asked if there are any restrictions/regulations in the development; Mr. Endres said that there will be a deed regulation imposed on the lots, in order to limit the lengths and widths of homes. Mr. Mance said that a developer can do whatever he wishes on the lots; Mr. Endres said that mobile homes will not be put on the lots as part of the restriction.
Mrs. Mellinger commented that the planning commission had to make sure that the rural character of the property would be preserved and not destroyed due to the development of real estate. Mr. Mance commented that the majority of Lot 3 is wetland and that it would not be of any use to try to squeeze a relatively small property onto that particular lot. It appears, according to Mr. Mance, that the board ought to be aware of the fact that the owner of the White house will have the majority of the land on the corner of Old Depot and Route 7A.
Mr. Bacchi said that it was a 7-lot development, and also asked if the board considers the development an impact on town services such as schools, fire departments, and other public services. Mr. Mance referred to 2.06 and 2.08 in the manual, as per the request for town services. Mr. Bubriski asked Mrs. Mellinger if the development would have an impact on the growth rate of the school; she assured him that it would probably not. Mr. Bubriski then proceeded to read section 2.06 from the manual itself. Mr. Palmer asked why the original development was reduced from eight to seven. Mr. Endres said that one of the lots was deleted due to wetlands issues.
Mr. Knafel reiterated his concerns about the maintenance of the buffer on the property. He was also concerned about the encroaching of lots on the wetland; he thought that a vegetative buffer, rather than a lawn, should be maintained on the edges of the property. Mr. Palmer asked who is going to maintain the space between the new road and Old Depot Road. Mr. Knafel said it was the owner(s).
Mr. Pennebaker referred to Section 3.2.8 and said that half of lot 3 is considered wetlands or wetland buffer, and it drops below the required 2 acres. Mr. Endres said that they did not delineate any of the wetland on the side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Bubriski also pointed out that there could also be a potential problem on lot 2. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Mance about having the wetlands certified. Mr. Mance said that the delineation could have been accurately defined on the plan, and when you calculate the buffer after finding red flags you’ll find that the wetlands can be certified. Mr. Knafel said that the issues are: 1) 25-foot landing apron above Old Depot Road and making sure it remained level; 2) talking to the owner about trees along the road; the no-cut buffer and having 50 feet delineated on lot 1; 3) delineating lot 3; a note as to who owns the new road; and 4) tightening up the maintenance agreement. Mr. Endres commented that the road would remain gravel until someone is willing to pay the bill for its pavement.
Mr. Bacchi asked if the future turnover of the road to the town could have any impact on its maintenance; Mr. Mance replied that it would most likely have to be paved. Mr. Endres said that he has not disagreed with anything the board has said at this meeting. He also said that the board probably would not have control of an owner using 30 and 40 feet on the wetland, and that it would most likely not cause a problem in the long-term. Mr. Endres also said letters from various municipal agencies would have to be obtained, and Mr. Ron Daniels would have to sign off on the construction of the road as the road foreman. He has also planned to be in touch with the Arlington Rescue Squad to provide services for that part of the town, as they are allowed to cover the area as far south as the Chocolate Barn.
Mr. Richardson asked Mr. Endres to remove an extra 15 to 20 feet of the septic system that is to go under his property. Mr. Endres said he would.
Mr. Williams moved to close the hearing; Mr. Young seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
Mr. Mance said that Mr. Endres had 45 days to meet the conditions on the property; if he doesn’t meet the deadline, then preliminary approval would be granted because the hearing has been closed. Mr. Pennebaker suggested that the issue be put on the agenda for a meeting that would fall in the 45-day period. Mr. Mance said after the board issues the preliminary approval, then a final hearing will have to be held. Mr. Bubriski said that at the next meeting in August, they would work on the preliminary approval.
Mr. Mance moved to approve the construction of a sidewalk in South Shaftsbury, on a stretch of Cleveland Avenue where there are none existing. Mr. Williams made a point of information; Mrs. Mellinger noted that the existing sidewalks would have to meet ADA standards. $300,000 would be appropriated for the renovation of the sidewalks. Mr. Bubriski asked Mrs. Mellinger to provide copies of the letter to the state asking for the grant to he and Mr. Jakubowski so that they could sign off on it. Mrs. Mellinger also noted that Mr. John Thompson, owner of the auto repair garage on the corner of Route 7A and Church Street, was a little uncomfortable with the sidewalk construction and that she hoped something could be worked out.
Mr. Forest came forward to discuss a new proposed subdivision at the end of Shaftsbury Hollow Road; he noted that he and his wife had purchased 100 acres in the hollow, and that he was concerned about zoning issues. He says he hasn’t hired a surveyor because he was concerned that the project would not be approved. Mr. Forest’s proposal is to build a few buildings on his property for his new spirituality center, and passed out site plans for a proposed dormitory/house site. Mr. Mance noted that the biggest issue he saw in the property concerned the septic system. He also asked Mr. Forest how many rooms the dorm would have, and Mr. Forest replied that there would be a number of single and double rooms to accommodate 30 to 40 people. Mr. Mance said the bigger issue is that the property is on forest and recreation property, and that the idea building a new structure was not likely to be approved.
Mr. Forest said that his dorm could be considered to be a community center. Mr. Young asked if it would be open to the public; Mr. Forest said that the public would be welcome because his center did a lot of spiritual-based activities. Mr. Mance suggested that Mr. Forest pursue a zoning change and also to consider perhaps an overlay on the property. He also noted that Mr. Forest’s permitted uses were outlined in Section 5.1. Mr. Williams advised that the proposed dormitory was going to be classified as public property, and that he should watch for the regulations.
Mr. Mance said that another issue was that Shaftsbury Hollow is a good thirty minutes or so from the hospital, and that medical emergencies were a cause for concern should they happen. He also said that it was bad zoning to start spotting residential lots inside property that is considered to be part of forest and recreation. Mr. Mance also noted that Mr. Forest’s land was based on land that is part of the Green Mountain National Forest.
Mr. Forest asked if he should go to the zoning board; Mr. Williams noted that he would be building a substantial structure to house the likes of 30 or 40 people. Mr. Mance said that it would be feasible to check into safety issues and see if it would be possible to build on the property.
Zoning administrator’s report: None.
Minutes of 7/12/05: Mr. Mance moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Young seconded. After some debate on the minutes, Mr. Mance changed his motion to approve the minutes when they are corrected. The motion passed 5-0-0
Mr. Williams made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Pennebaker. The motion passed 5-0-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paolo S. Rosales
Recording Secretary.