MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Dick Elkins, Claude LaPierre, J.D. Landry, Anna Rosenblum Palmer. (Kay Kraushaar was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Cris Peck, Joan Lauber, Nancy Hinsdale, Paul Austin, Jason Grignon, Troy Grignon, Bruce Uvanni, Kurt Gruendling, Tom Anderson, Grant Urie, Hope Johnson, Michael Burke, Butch Truz, AJ Lanpher, David Boucher, Jeff Meisterling, Arthur Droler, Andrew Davis, Brian Sullivan, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Sign, 195 Falls Road, Grangien/Peck (DR10-01)

·        Sketch Plan, Two Lot Subdivision, 144 Air Park Road, MaGee (SUB10-01)

·        Telecommunications Facility, Antenna, 4750 Shelburne Road, Verizon Wireless (TF09-02)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Cris Peck appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Cris Peck owner of The Shelburne Kitchen on Falls Road stated the existing sign is being replaced with a different sign advertising his prepared food market and café (sandwiches, soups, quiche). The existing sign posts will be used. Food service is take-out presently, but seating will be pursued once state permits are secured.

 

Dick Elkins asked about lighting. Mr. Peck said nothing will be changed. The lights are not obstructing traffic.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/3/10. John Adams noted the Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee recommended the lighting be angled toward the sign to avoid shining toward traffic on Falls Road.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dave Stewart, Shelburne resident, asked about wireless lighting. Mr. Peck said there is capacity for this.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mike Burke with Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mike Burke explained the proposal for a two lot subdivision of the existing Shelburne Airport to form a residential lot for Ray and Barbara MaGee and maintain the airport. A boundary survey has not yet been done of the 23.6 acre parcel. The lot proposed for the MaGee residence will be five acres and the remaining land will stay in operation as an airport.  There will be shared access to both parcels via Air Park Road with 25’ of the 50’ right-of-way for the airport and the other 25’ for the MaGee residence. There is an on-site waste water disposal system and a shared drilled well. The airport has been in existence since the 1950s and includes a hanger, storage, and runway. The MaGees have owned the property since the 1960s and continue to have a strong interest in maintaining the property as an airport. The MaGees have a house in Florida for the winter and will retain a residence here for the summer.

 

Dick Elkins commented on the shape of the proposed five acre lot (long strip) and asked if there will be access across the land. Mike Burke said the intent is to have access easements to the runway and to keep the airport in operation. The planes and the hanger on the site are owned by the MaGees. The oddly shaped subdivision is to create a lot that does not burden the operation of the airport. Also, a replacement waste water disposal area is needed.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the runway can be extended to the south. Mike Burke pointed out the topography to the south would make that difficult. Also, the area to the south serves as a buffer to the runway. There was further discussion of the shape of the lot and the possibility of making a smaller lot. Mike Burke reiterated the MaGees want to have a house on the lot. There was mention of sharing the 50’ right-of-way. Mr. Burke stressed the MaGees are trying to impede as least as possible on the runway.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/3/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Tom Anderson, resident on the airport (log cabin), asked if residents who front the airport will have an easement to access the airport. Mike Burke stated the MaGees want the airport to stay in operation with perpetuated easements.

 

Hope Johnson, Air Park Road, suggested a smaller residential lot be formed. Ms. Johnson noted storm water runoff is a concern with future development. There are drainage issues now. Ms. Johnson spoke positively of the MaGees and their efforts in maintaining the road and the airport.

 

Kurt Gruendling, Wild Ginger Lane, stated there are four properties with planes so access is needed to access the airport runway. Mr. Gruendling spoke of the importance of maintaining a local airport.

 

Bruce Uvanni, Air Park Road, spoke in support of the application, but expressed concern about access, questioning if a future owner of the airport will help maintain the shared access road. Mr. Uvanni suggested to avoid an odd shaped lot there should be a two acre lot for the house site and the remaining three acres designated as un-developable (five acres in total).

 

Grant Urie, Air Park Road, asked about the on-site septic system. Mike Burke said it is anticipated the proper soils for a system can be identified. This will be done at the next phase of review.

 

Paul Austin, McDonald Farm Road, mentioned the FAA requirement for runway width, noting the runway doubled in width several years ago to 240’ wide so aircraft can taxi in one direction (east) and land in another (west). Mr. Austin stated drainage of groundwater is to the south onto his property which is a problem especially in springtime. The matter should be addressed.

 

The runway expansion was briefly explained by Bruce Uvanni. The width of the runway doubled from the original width of 100’ to provide for both a runway and taxiway in order to meet the FAA requirement that the airport be capable of handling airplanes taking off and landing. It was noted the runway is 3,500’ long and the land is crowned.

 

Nancy Hinsdale, The Gables, expressed concern about setting a precedent by allowing a five acre lot that is strangely shaped. Ms. Hinsdale urged reconsidering the matter, especially since sale of the property is a possibility in the future. Peter Gibbs assured the DRB is not in the habit of approving odd shaped lots.

 

Dave Stewart, The Gables, observed the applicant is trying to conform to the town requirement of a five acre lot in the zone, but the resulting lot is gerrymandered. Dick Elkins confirmed the regulations require five acres in the zone. A request to change the regulations would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission. John Adams noted the bylaws allow planned unit developments (PUD) which encourage smaller, clustered lots. With the MaGee proposal there would be two uses on one parcel: an airport and a residence. It is likely the application will have to be considered as a residential PUD with the airport as an accessory or passive recreation use and the open space component, but an airport is not a ‘passive recreation’ use.  There was continued discussion of the lot layout. Mike Burke stressed the intent is not to disrupt operation of the airport.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Sullivan, Jeff Meisterling, Arthur Droler, Andrew Davis, and AJ Lanpher appeared on behalf of the application which is for antennas on the town’s water tank.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Sullivan briefed the DRB on the effort to locate an antenna on the existing water tank structure in town. There are two landlords involved (Town of Shelburne and Mr. Snelling) and investigation was necessary to assure the structure can hold the proposed two antennas. Lease negotiations have been ongoing as well as radar frequency testing to be within the FCC maximum exposure limits. Research showed the structure can support the antennas and associated hardware. The antennas will fill coverage gaps and be below the FCC limits. The leases are nearly settled at this point in time (Andrew Davis, attorney representing Mr. Snelling, confirmed this). The structural report, continued Mr. Sullivan, noted if the specified mounting hardware is used the tank will support the antennas. Visibility is a subjective factor. A photo simulation was done with balloons. Pictures from various public viewpoints were taken.

 

Arthur Droler stated ATT has three large antennas on a tripod on the water tower now with the centerline at 76.9’. Verizon Wireless will anchor at the same elevation to the frame proposed to be mounted on the tower and the antennas will be above the frame (centerline at 86.9’). Andrew Davis stated additional load on the tower has been contemplated.

 

Dick Elkins asked about the “ring” around the tank discussed recently by the Shelburne Selectboard. Andrew Davis said he does not have specific information on the band, but the installation considered consolidation of what is on the tower and relocating the town’s whip antenna to the frame. Painting the tank was also taken into consideration. Mr. Davis commented the installation on the water tank is slightly better than the initial site that was proposed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo, dated 1/27/10 for the 2/3/10 meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The consensus of the DRB is in support of the installation.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 8:10 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Dick Elkins, J.D. Landry, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, Kay Kraushaar. (Claude LaPierre was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Kris Engstrom, Michael Burke, Craig Smith, Don Horenstein, Mary Ann Horenstein, Bruce Uvanni, Grant Urie, Joan Lauber, Kathleen Easton, Walt Houghton, Margaret Sayles, Phil & Vicki Carleton, Ashley Hutchinson, Joan Lenes, John Giebink, Diane Snelling, Frank Alexander, Dennis Webster, Dereck Woolridge, Rose Garritano, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review/Conditional Use/Site Plan Amendment, Renovations and Addition for Retail Use, 5657 Shelburne Road, Engstrom (DR10-02/CU10-02/SP95-08R1)

·        Sketch Plan, Two Lot Subdivision, 144 Air Park Road, MaGee (SUB10-01)

·        Preliminary Plan, Property Transfer & PUD-C, Tractor Supply, 2009 Shelburne Road & 3640 Shelburne Road, Primax Properties (SUB09-05)

·        Final Plan Amendment, Modify Building Envelope, Lot 1, Sutton Farms Drive, Snyder (SUB05-08R1)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

Joan Lenes, Shelburne resident, asked for an update on the Shelburne Wood application. Peter Gibbs stated the sketch plan review hearing was closed on 1/6/10 and a decision from the DRB must be rendered within 45 days from the closure date which is 2/19/10. The DRB is still deliberating and wrestling with findings, conclusions, and conditions. Ms. Lenes asked how the decision will be noticed so the public can attend. Mr. Gibbs stated a certified mailing will be sent to the applicant containing the decision. John Adams added as soon as the decision is issued and signed it is available in the Planning & Zoning Office or via email. If a decision is not issued within 45 days of the close of the hearing then the applicant may have the opportunity to have the project deemed approved. Anna Rosenblum Palmer assured the DRB has been diligently working on the application, meeting together for over 16 hours and independently reviewing the application for over 20 hours.

 

Don Horenstein, Wake Robin, asked if the 45 day rule is a local or state regulation. John Adams stated the regulation is state statute.

 

Rev. Craig Smith, Trinity Church, expressed frustration that there is no public meeting for the decision to allow those involved to have a response. Rev. Smith indicated he will communicate the same to the Selectboard.

 

There were no further comments.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Kristine Engstrom, owner of In Full Bloom, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Kris Engstrom explained the production and storage areas in the back of the building are being increased in size. The business has been in operation and serving the community since 1982. The renovations are in response to the needs of clients. The existing space is no longer large enough and the equipment is inadequate (the space is cold and wet). A larger work area is needed.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the changes suggested by Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee (SHP&DRC). Ms. Engstrom confirmed the plan has been modified to incorporate the recommendations from SHP&DRC. John Adams noted the changes were done on 2/17/10 and reviewed by Dorothea Penar (SHP&DRC Chairwoman) who recommended approval of the revised plan.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the roofline and snow accumulation. Ms. Engstrom expressed confidence the plans adequately address snow on the roof. There were questions about parking and lighting. The applicant indicated existing parking is adequate and no changes are proposed for the exterior lighting. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about the setback. John Adams explained in 1984 a variance was granted for setbacks and this is still in effect. The proposed changes are to the back of the building so the front setback is not involved. Lot coverage is within the allowance. The percent of lot coverage is noted on the plans.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/17/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Engstrom submitted a sealed letter from the adjacent neighbor, Steve LeClair. John Adams read the letter from Steve LeClair, 399 Hillside Terrace, in support of the expansion being requested by Kris Engstrom and requesting that the DRB approve and support a growing business the neighbors are grateful to have in the neighborhood.

 

Dennis Webster, neighbor, spoke in support of the business operated by the applicant, adding Ms. Engstrom has done a nice job of managing and upgrading the property that was somewhat neglected previously.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mike Burke with Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs noted the DRB did a site visit to the airport. Anna Rosenblum Palmer conveyed that Kurt Gruendling provided the DRB with information on the privately owned, but publicly used airport. Mr. Gruendling also provided information on the opportunity to apply for special funds through the FAA for purchase of development rights. The town must apply for the special funding. Mr. Gruendling as a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has contacted Sen. Leahy’s Office regarding the airport.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mike Burke reviewed the configuration of existing buildings on the site (existing MaGee house and hanger) with the 50’ access/driveway serving both residences and the airport. The MaGee house is closer to the side yard setback than the regulations allow. The hanger is in the setback. The 50’ right-of-way (access road) will be split between the MaGee residence and the airport. There are small trees and the land drops off at the end of the long strip of land configured as part of the five acre lot. The lot configuration is unusual, but the best fit to conserve the airport operations and allow the MaGee house to be located on a separate lot. The MaGees intend to live in the house and eventually sell the airport because they cannot continue to operate it. Easements can be provided to the abutting neighbors across the long narrow strip of land to allow access to the runway. Peter Gibbs asked about a wider and shorter configuration for the five acres. Mike Burke stated it is unlikely airplanes will taxi so close to the tree line. An easement to allow for turnaround maneuvers can be granted and provisions made for wing tips extending into the strip of land. Adjusting the width and more definition of the easement can be investigated, agreed Mr. Burke, but it is not wise to extend the width of the parcel into the runway of the airport.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about access to the house from the road behind the house. Mike Burke stated a boundary survey has not been done as yet. The MaGees do not have a right to use the road behind the house. Section 2110.5 of the regulations contains a provision saying access at a right angle to lot frontage is not required. Minimum access is 20’ and there is 25’ per side of the mutually shared driveway/access that is 50’ wide. Improvements are not proposed. Dick Elkins asked if the house farther down the road also uses the access. Mr. Burke confirmed this though the arrangement is not known. It is assumed an easement was granted. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer asked about selling the entire parcel as one and leasing the land back to the MaGees. Mike Burke pointed out there is value in having the house on a separate lot.

 

Ms. Rosenblum Palmer expressed concern about the house setback and the precedent of creating an unruly lot while acknowledging the interest by everyone in keeping the airport functioning. It was noted the setback on the west side is fine. The problem is the setback to the east, but the situation is a pre-existing condition. Dick Elkins stated the regulations should not be changed, but rather continued access to the airport by the residents adjacent to the airport should be ensured as long as the airport remains in operation.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo, dated 2/11/10 for the 2/17/10 meeting. John Adams suggested having 50’ of frontage with one lot and granting an easement to the other lot rather than splitting the access road and exacerbating the nonconformity by creating two lots with 25’ of frontage. Mike Burke agreed to review re-balancing the width of the strip of land in the five acre lot as well as the access to the house lot with an easement to the airport.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Bruce Uvanni, Air Park Road, said he thought he had an easement up the driveway (the only access to his property) per his deed. Mr. Uvanni asked if the DRB can require an easement be granted to the airport across the strip of land. John Adams explained the DRB can make recommendations to the applicant for Final Plan review for easements to the neighbors for access to the airport.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dereck Woolridge (Cross Consulting Engineers), Dennis Webster (architect), and Frank Alexander (Tractor Supply) appeared on behalf of the application. J.D. Landry recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dereck Woolridge explained the proposal to subdivide the Kenworth lot (Alosa property) and the Hoechner parcel and add 1.97 acres to the Hoechner property. The boundary survey was reviewed. There will be an increase of lot coverage on the Kenworth lot from 30% to 36%. There is no development on the Hoechner lot. At one time there was a motel on the site. No further development is planned on the Alosa parcel. The Hoechner parcel has curb cut access south of the driveway to the Alosa lot. There are some wetlands in the rear to be filled in and a wooded area that will be cleared. The landscaping by the residential properties behind the lots will be saved as much as possible. The project includes access 350’ south of the Alosa (Kenworth) driveway. There are 73 parking spaces along the front of the building on the south side of the property and parking at the rear of the building. There will be curbed landscaped islands in the parking area. The building is 19,000 s.f. of which 15,575 s.f. is retail space. The regulations require 62 parking spaces. Tractor Supply provides 10’x 20’ parking spaces. There are four handicap parking spaces at the front of the building. Outdoor display areas include a concrete pad with an eight foot high fence enclosure, a trailer display area to the west (for utility type trailers), and an area in front of the store and in front of the fenced area (for seasonal displays) for a total of 20,600 s.f. There is one loading dock with a metal ramp at the back of the building. There are raised islands in the rear of the building to aid in run off into the grassed areas. A pedestrian crosswalk at the main entrance has been added to the plan as have three inverted “u” bike racks by the main entrance area. Lot coverage is 48.5%. Mr. Woolridge reviewed traffic circulation entering and leaving the site, snow storage areas, and how storm water run off will be handled (grass swales and pipes to earthen basins and the retention pond). A storm water permit from the state is anticipated. Mr. Woolridge mentioned the mechanical room is on the northeast corner of the building to Route 7 and the utilities are on the western side except for the gas service which is on the southeast corner. Mr. Woolridge reviewed lighting on the site. There will be pole mounted lights with 250 watt and 150 watt metal halide lights, and building mounted lights. There will be very little change in lighting levels based on the height (25’ high pole lights and up to 18’ high building lights). The final lighting plan will be submitted. The parking area has an average of one footcandle maximum and .25 footcandle minimum. The ration is 10:1. The outdoor display areas have an average of 2.15 footcandles. The security area around the building has 1.36 average footcandles. Screening includes groups of planting with different plants of varying height to break up the building and provide screening. For adjacent residential properties the point of view of the property will be identified and screened so that only 25% of the building is visible. There needs to be a meeting with the neighbors on this matter, said Mr. Woolridge. It is anticipated that more landscaping will be added because there is much deciduous vegetation in the back of the property which is fine in summer, but not in winter. A clear representation of landscaping will be provided at the next review. Mr. Woolridge reviewed sidewalks, crosswalks, and the bus stop by the property.

 

Dennis Webster, architect, stated the building design is mainly a prototype Tractor Supply facility, articulated in front, blank sides, and a single pitched roof. Thirty percent of the building facing the street and parking must be glazed. The east and south sides of the parcel are best for natural light advantage. Horizontal clapboard siding will be used on the building beginning seven foot up on the masonry perimeter. Display and loading will occur around the building perimeter.  Above the masonry is two feet of spandrel glass. The middle bay will have tinted glass. The upper portion of the parapet wall will have two feet of spandrel glass to take advantage of natural light. The back portion of the building houses the warehouse and mechanicals. There is a variety of building height. Galvanized awnings for shade on the south side will be installed. Neutral colors and earth shades will be used on the building with a horizontal red band which is part of Tractor Supply branding. There will be a gable roof at the entrance with windows for daylight. The parapet conceals the rooftop equipment. A screen (fence) can be added to completely hide the equipment though this appears to make the area more visible, stated Mr. Webster.

 

Mark Sammut requested the dumpster enclosure be shown on the plans, observing the dumpster is fairly visible from the south. Mr. Sammut asked if there is a roof structure over the rear storage area. Dereck Woolridge stated there is a concrete apron by the storage area. Frank Alexander said there was a small awning over the storage area which may have been removed in the revised design. Mr. Woolridge stated there will be six to eight foot high white pine trees with an eight foot spread planted for screening. Mark Sammut asked about the loading ramp structure. Frank Alexander said there is a free standing metal ramp at the loading area with a forklift to unload the truck, and this allows the pavement to be maintained at the finished floor elevation so there is less of an industrial look to the area. Mr. Sammut asked about the outdoor display areas. Mr. Alexander explained along the sidewalk in front of the building there will be seasonal displays (log splitters, lawn mowers, and such). The trailer display area is for small utility type trailers.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested a window be added to the northeast corner of the building as this is the first glimpse of the building. Mr. Alexander stated the mechanical room and restrooms are in the northeast corner so opaque glass will have to be installed. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer commented 100 s.f. windows set seven feet off the ground is not really human scale and looks industrial. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer suggested being consistent below the red horizontal line and mixing materials above the line so there is a rhythm to the side instead of a blank face with windows. Dennis Webster stated the windows must be of the size presented to meet the 30% glazing requirement in the town’s regulations. Frank Alexander asked if there could be less window space. John Adams said he will have to investigate the regulations to determine if the DRB has the authority to allow this.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about traffic counts. Mr. Alexander stated four or five different Tractor Supply stores of comparable size and profile to the Shelburne store were used for the Act 250 submittal, including the store in Derby, Vermont.  The store in Barre is approximately 23,000 s.f. in size. The store in St. Albans is 25,000 s.f. Both stores are energy efficient scale and space. Stores in the northern climates have smaller outside display areas.

 

Ms. Rosenblum Palmer mentioned the shared access, and suggested an easement be granted to the south (Tenneybrook Square) in case there is ever a change of use. Mr. Alexander said Tractor Supply would like to reserve an easement to the south up to the property line, and this can be incorporated in the site plan and the deed. Tractor Supply will want to comment if there is a change to the south. Dereck Woolridge reviewed how traffic will enter and exit the property using the Alosa property making a “u” turn and exiting at the intersection with the traffic light. Frank Alexander stated large trucks (18-wheel tractor trailers) will go to the site once a week. Spot loads are by common carrier. UPS delivers on a daily basis.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/17/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Margaret Sayles, 341 Bay Road, testified she can see the applicant’s property and would like to know where the trees will be planted for screening.

 

There were no further comments from the public on the application.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Anna Rosenblum Palmer listed the following information that is needed:

1.      Response from town departments (fire, public works, and such)

2.      Sketch of the easement to the adjoining property and associated language

3.      Comments from the neighbors behind the parcel regarding landscaping/screening

4.      Load on storm water

5.      Final lighting plan

6.      Enclosure of the dumpster

7.      Northeast elevation with false window

8.      Roof line on corner (single pitch)

 

 

There was discussion of the process for getting feedback from abutting property owners and when it is determined attempts to get the information are complete. The DRB suggested the applicant document all attempts to solicit comments in the application. There was discussion of doing a site visit and asking the applicant to stake the four corners of the building as well as the corners of the final display area(s).

 

 

J.D. Landry returned to the DRB.

 

Chris Snyder appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Snyder explained Snyder Custom Homes purchased the Lot 1 home site from the developer. The previously approved subdivision allowed the waste water replacement area for Lot 8 to be located on Lot 1 and a portion of the waste water system for Lot 1 to be on Lot 8. The rules changed and the customer wanted a four bedroom house. The waste water system was designed for a three bedroom house. An amendment to build a four bedroom house and eliminate the easements on lots 1 & 8 was secured so the building envelope could potentially be located to the east. The building permit was issued, but the Snyder Company made a mistake in the measurements and there is now a discrepancy between the proposed building envelope and where the house is actually located (30’ discrepancy). The southeast corner of the house is 233’ from Dorset Street versus 268’. The building envelope did not get changed when the design was changed to a four bedroom house, stated Chris Snyder.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if any easements (for septic) or views are impacted. Mr. Snyder said the house is not on the highest point of the land. In fact, the house is lower than where it would have been with the original plans.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo, dated 2/11/10 for the 2/17/10 meeting. John Adams noted the project was approved prior to his employment with the town. The staff report for the PRD Sketch Plan review, dated 8/10/06, has been provided. The DRB requested copies of the minutes and the set of plans from the subdivision application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Rose Garritano, neighbor, urged the DRB to do a site visit to see the location and size of the house that has been built.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 9:10 p.m.