    |
  |
        |
|
|
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Claude LaPierre, Hilda White, Reg Gignoux., Kay Kraushaar, Peter Gibbs, Tucker Holland. STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Vicki Carleton, Phil Carleton, David Pill, Mike Momaney, Carolyn Radisch, Steve Dates, Bob Macauley, Helen Huyffer, Dennis Webster, Jeff Krupp, Ed Precourt, Al Dunbar, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News). AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (9/14/06 & 9/28/06) September 14, 2006 MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Peter Gibbs, to approve the 9/14/06 minutes with the following correction: Page 3, Spagnoletti Application, Staff Report – change “eastern wall” to “western wall” in reference to the location of the dog run. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. September 28, 2006 MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the 9/28/06 minutes with the following corrections: Page 1, Others Present – add “Mark Naud” to the list of attendees; Page 2, Huyffer, Applicant Comments, 5th line – rewrite to read: “The issues of concern by the Planning Commission seem to be covered.”; Page 3, top line (…presenting the proposal as a PRD…) – insert “the benefits of” before “presenting the proposal as a PRD…”; Page 3, Serisky/Allegrezza Application – correct the spelling of “circle”; Page 5, Discussion of Zoning Changes, 1st sentence – note the discussion of changing the zoning on the westerly side of the railroad tracks by Harbour Industries was held with Mark Naud; in the 2nd sentence – replace the word “petition” with the word “request”; in the 3rd sentence – replace “There is no interest in the property for commercial use (current zoning)…” with “There is no apparent market interest in the property for commercial/industrial use (current zoning)…”; in the 12th sentence – insert “Mark Naud” after “The property owner”; Page 6, 1st sentence – add “with Bob Furrer of the Shelburne Museum” to the end of the sentence. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS FOR SHELBURNEWOOD Mike Momaney, Carolyn Radisch, Vicki and Phil Carleton announced that there will be planned public input sessions for the development of Shelburnewood. Mr. Momaney stated before the design of the development begins, public input at public hearings is being solicited. Parameters of the design include enough units to make the development financially feasible, keeping the Dyer property intact as the entrance to the village, dedicating a large portion of the property to conservation and animal habitat, and saving the mobile home park and community. Carolyn Radisch reviewed a map of the property located behind the Shelburne Inn, noting much research has been done on the resources on the site. Over 50% of the land will remain open space permanently through the Lake Champlain Land Trust. The goal is to develop a neighborhood that reinforces and embraces the village. Existing building patterns in the village of Shelburne are being reviewed with respect to proximity of houses to the street, to each other, to other structures on the property, and as a pedestrian friendly development. The proposed housing will be for families, single people, elderly, couples without children (empty nesters). Different configurations are being considered, including clustered cottages, larger houses, attached housing, melding buildings with the land. The first workshop is scheduled on 10/17/06. All are invited to attend. It is hoped to submit a site plan for Planning Commission review by December, 2006. 4. DESIGN REVIEW, JEFFREY AND CATHERINE KRUPP, 261 HARBOR ROAD (DR06-35) Jeff Krupp appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Krupp explained the need to remove two sets of entry steps on his duplex at 261 Harbor Road which have degraded and moved (frost heaved) over the years. Both sets of steps will be replaced with pressure treated steps of the same dimension. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/12/06. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Replace Entry Steps, 261 Harbor Road, Krupp (DR06-35) MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to grant design review approval to Jeffrey and Catherine Krupp for two sets of wood steps to be constructed at 261 Harbor Road subject to the following condition: 1. Design Review approval does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain any necessary zoning board approvals (e.g. modification to a non-complying structure). VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 5. DESIGN REVIEW, ROBERT AND PAMELA MACAULEY, 75 VILLAGE VALE (DR06-09) Robert Macauley appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Macauley explained his proposal for a new dormer to accommodate an additional bathroom and hallway in space over the attached garage (their third child is expected in February, 2007 and more living space is needed) and a chimney for a wood stove (replacing a non-working gas fireplace). STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/12/06. Dean Pierce noted the Planning Commission recently approved a fence on the applicant’s property. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Dormer and Chimney, 75 Village Vale, Macauley (DR06-09) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant design review approval to Robert C. Macauley, Jr. and Pamela M. Burton-Macauley for a new dormer and chimney extension on property at 75 Village Vale consistent with plans submitted to the Planning Office and approved by the Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission (plans date stamped October 10, 2006). VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 6. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, HARRINGTON’S IN VERMONT, 5597 SHELBURNE ROAD (SP05-01R1) David Pill appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Pill stated he plans to use the space behind Arabesque for his office (architect). The windows will be replaced with energy efficient units. There is adequate parking on the site. The office use is low intensity so there is no traffic impact. The entrance to the office will be on the side of the building. Parking is at the front of the building. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/12/06. There was discussion of the site lighting complying with current standards. Dean Pierce mentioned a previous condition of approval on the property that states compliance to exterior lighting standards must occur within 12 months. Another condition of approval required the propane tanks to be relocated. It was noted the propane tanks have been removed from the property. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan Amendment, Professional Office (in Section C of the building), 5597 Shelburne Road, Harrington’s In Vermont (SP05-01R1) MOTION by Peter Gibbs, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to grant approval to Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc. for amendment of the site plan for 5597 Shelburne Road consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. If not currently in compliance, all exterior site lighting shall comply with the standards contained within the Shelburne zoning bylaws within three (3) months of the date of approval. 2. All other previously approved site plan review conditions not affected by this decision shall remain in effect. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 7. FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT, KELLYVIEW, LLC c/o EDWARD PRECOURT, 2024 SPEAR STREET/20 WESTVIEW DRIVE/37 BARSTOW ROAD (SUB05-07R1) Ed Precourt appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Precourt explained the proposal to modify the building envelope on Lot #3 from a rectangular shape to a square shape per the request of an interested buyer. The building envelope does not move closer to the road as a result of the shape change. The Army Corps. of Engineers has reviewed the impact on the wetlands which changes from .37 acre to .5 acre, and has issued a letter stating the change is not a problem. The amount of wetlands disturbance allowed is one-half acre. Mr. Precourt stated he will submit the letter regarding the wetlands to the Planning Office. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/12/06. Dean Pierce mentioned the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee recommendation that the applicant demonstrate concurrence with the wetlands impact from the Army Corps. of Engineers which is achieved with the letter to be submitted by Mr. Precourt. Chairman Peterson asked about the house structure sketched on Lot #1 that appears to extend into the no-build zone. Mr. Precourt stated the sketch is in error. The building envelope on Lot #1 does not encroach into the no-build zone. It was noted a revised site plan or updated mylar should be recorded. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan Amendment, Building Envelope Modification, 2024 Spear Street/20 Westview Drive/37 Barstow Road, Kellyview, LLC (SUB05-07R1) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to authorize modification of the building envelope on the approved building lot #3 of the Kellyview, LLC Planned Residential Development (PRD) consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. Plan Sheet C-2 shall be corrected to remove the house from the perimeter buffer and a mylar with the corrected building envelope for Lot #3 shall be recorded. 2. All other conditions of approval not affected by the request for modification of the building envelope shall remain in effect. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 8. FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT, BEAVER CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BEAVER CREEK ROAD (SUB06-09) Steve Dates appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Dates explained in June, 1983, the Planning Commission approved the Planned Residential Development (PRD) known as Beaver Creek. The town’s zoning bylaws were approved in 1982 and included the requirement of a 50’ side yard setback and a 75’ front yard setback. Since that time the PRD setbacks have been changed to 15’ side yard setback and 30’ front yard setback. One condition of approval for Beaver Creek was that the development must conform to the existing bylaws at the time of approval so Beaver Creek must adhere to the 50’ side yard and 75’ front yard setback requirements. In the past 20 years, however, residents have been securing building permits from the town which have been based on the 15’ side yard setback and 30’ front yard setback. There are 29 lots in the development. One lot is vacant. One property owner owns two lots. Eight lots conform to current zoning regulations. Twenty lots do not conform, some with infractions for a shed in the setback and others having the house built in the setback. The Beaver Creek Homeowners Association is requesting an amendment to the final plan to allow the current setbacks to apply to all houses in the development. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/12/06. Dean Pierce mentioned some of the houses in the Beaver Creek development were not built per their respective site plans. Also, current PRD setback requirements are not the default setback requirements. The setbacks in the Rural 1 district (Beaver Creek is in this district) are 75’ front yard and side yard and 30’ rear yard. The current setbacks for a PRD are 30’ front yard and 15’ side and rear yard. Granting the requested change will still leave two houses out of compliance. The Shelburne Natural Resources Committee did not have concerns about the proposed change impacting the open space designed around the natural features of the area. There was further discussion of the houses built in the setbacks. It was noted certificates of occupancy were not issued by the town at the time the Beaver Creek development was built so the only way the town would be aware of houses being built within the setback is if a complaint was filed. Reg Gignoux felt the situation is a result of willful naivety of the rules on the part of the developers or homeowners or both. Mr. Gignoux expressed concern for setting a precedent by changing the approval conditions at this point in time, and questioned if the problem is limited to Beaver Creek or exists in other developments in town as well. The setbacks at the time of the approval for Beaver Creek were specified as such for a reason, stressed Mr. Gignoux. . Chairman Peterson mentioned the Planning Commission is in the process of updating the zoning regulations and can discuss the matter further. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan Amendment, Setbacks, Beaver Creek Road, Beaver Creek Homeowners Association (SUB06-09) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to authorize modification of the front, side, and rear yard setback requirements applicable to all residential lots located within the Beaver Creek PRD subject to the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback requirement for lots within the PRD shall be 30’ and the side and rear yard setback requirement for lots within the PRD shall be 15’, however, the PRD perimeter buffer requirement currently applied to the project (75’) shall not be changed by this action. 2. All other conditions of approval not affected by the request for modification of the building setbacks shall remain in effect. 3. Building permit applications pertaining to any structures or portions of structures filed pursuant to this revised approval (those occupying the area between the original setback requirement and the revised setback requirement) shall be accompanied by evidence of approval by the Beaver Creek architectural review committee. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Huyffer Application Chairman Peterson mentioned possible options to Helen Huyffer with regard to their subdivision application, including appealing the Preliminary Plan approval and approval conditions (i.e. the condition pertaining to submitting the plan as a PRD) to the Environmental Board or rejecting the plan and resubmitting a new plan for Planning Commission review. There was brief discussion of subdividing the property versus submitting a plan for a PRD relative to lot frontage. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Schedule (not including work sessions) November meeting date: 11/9/06 December meeting date: 12/14/06 January meeting date: 1/7/07 10. ADJOURNMENT/WORK SESSION: REVIEW OF COMMENTS ON TOWN PLAN MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to adjourn the regular meeting and convene a work session to review comments on the Town Plan. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Claude LaPierre, Hilda White, Reg Gignoux., Kay Kraushaar, Peter Gibbs, Tucker Holland. STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Manny Gurowski, Kit Sayers, Matt Strassberg, Jim Keyes, Dick Elkins, Thomas Bonnetle, Tom Anderson, Doris Sage, James Profet, Andrew Profet, Mark Naud, Bob Furrer, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News). AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER and BIRTHDAY RESOLUTION Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Peter Gibbs, to wish Dean Pierce “Happy Birthday” on 10/27/06, and be it resolved to end the meeting prior to Mr. Pierce’s birthday. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10/12/06) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to approve the 10/12/06 minutes with the following corrections: Page 5, Kellyview, Motion, Condition #1 – insert “on Lot #1” after “remove the house”; Page 6, Beaver Creek, Staff Report, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence – clarify to say it is thought the problem if not limited to Beaver Creek is not widespread. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 3. PRESENTATION: MEDIATION OF LAND USE DISPUTES Matt Strassberg with Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions gave a presentation on the mediation pilot project targeted at resolving land use disputes at the local level early in the process when parties are identified, but the applicant is still flexible. There is a mediation screening system in place. The screening service is free of charge. Mediation services cost between $100-$150 per hour. A half day of mediation typically costs $500. A full day of mediation costs about $1,000. The cost is shared across all parties. Mediation rarely exceeds one day. The pool of cases going to mediation has been small to date. Mr. Strassberg said he is trying to raise awareness of the program, and asked the Planning Commission to alert parties in contested local cases that Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions will be contacting them. 4. DESIGN REVIEW, DORIS SAGE, 270 MARSETT ROAD (DR06-37) Doris Sage appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Sage requested approval of the siding and windows on her house at 270 Marsett Road. For other proposed exterior changes, the Design Review Committee wanted further information (on the support system of the porch and the size of the lumber). STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/26/06. Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee did not have a problem with the shutters, the siding or windows, but the façade across the front of the house is still under consideration. Ms. Sage said there is a good chance she will not do the façade. Peter Gibbs asked about shutters on all windows. Ms. Sage stated there will be shutters on the front and west side of the house. Regarding the windows, the length will be the 53”. There will be three gang windows on the top left and bottom left and two-over-two windows on the right side of the house. The applicant submitted a photograph and sketch showing the shutters and windows. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Exterior Changes, 270 Marsett Road, Sage (DR06-37) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to grant design review approval to Doris Sage for exterior changes to residential property at 270 Marsett Road consistent with the plans submitted including the plans submitted to the Planning Commission on 10/26/06 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Immediate design review approval is extended for the following portions of the application: replacement of vinyl siding, new window shutters, replacement windows as indicated in the application; retroactive approval is provided for the rear sliding door. 2. Approval of the front porch, porch roof, support system and railings, steps and lighting will be granted after the HP&DRC has received and approved detailed plans for these components of the project; additional review of these features by the Planning Commission is not required. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 5. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSPORTATION CO./TREY PECOR & MANNY GUROWSKI, 2997 SHELBURNE ROAD (SP95-6R5) Manny Gurowski appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Gurowski explained the additional small office and small retail uses in the building at 2997 Shelburne Road. Reg Gignoux mentioned the exterior lighting. Mr. Gurowski said there is one street light on the power pole and two outside lights on the building. Mr. Gignoux stated the two outside lights appear to shine directly out and cause glare. The lights do not appear to meet the regulations. Mr. Gurowski said the light underneath the entrance to the building and on the pole were already on the site. The lights on the north side of the building are new. Mr. Gurowski agreed to do whatever is necessary per the regulations. It was noted the only light on at night is the street light. Rick Peterson asked about an increase in traffic. Mr. Gurowski listed the existing office uses in the building. The remaining office spaces are 195 s.f. (small) and the businesses to use the space are not expected to generate lots of traffic. Even with the existing offices in the building there are never more than 15 cars in the parking lot. There are 34 parking spaces on the site. Mr. Gurowski submitted data on traffic at the site, noting he has recently become aware that at times the bagel shop across the street uses the parking spaces when their lot is full. The applicant indicated no new plantings are proposed. There is an existing tree line at the rear of the property. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/26/06. Dean Pierce noted the Zoning Administrative Officer is aware of the approval conditions related to lighting. Rick Peterson asked about temporary sign complaints. Dean Pierce stated there were complaints received about un-permitted temporary signs being placed on the property. An application for a landmark sign for the property is anticipated. The free standing sign will replace the two existing free standing signs, one of which was not properly permitted. Mr. Gurowski confirmed design for a unified sign identifying each business will be submitted for approval. Reg Gignoux urged uniform signage on the site. It was noted a destination sign on the north side of the building is needed. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Anderson, resident, asked about the berm running north to south on the property. Mr. Gurowski stated the berm is to provide screening for neighbors. Trees will be planted on top of the berm. There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing. DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan Amendment, Additional Uses, 2997 Shelburne Road, Lake Champlain Transportation/Pecor & Gurowski (SP95-6R5) MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant approval of the amendment to the site plan consistent wit the plan submitted by Trey Pecor/Manny Gurowski/Lake Champlain Transportation for property at 2997 Shelburne Road subject to the following conditions: 1. For the purpose of sign regulations, the site shall continue to be considered a “Shopping Plaza and Commercial Structure Sharing Entry and Parking Facilities”. 2. If not currently in compliance all exterior site lighting shall comply with the standards contained within the Shelburne zoning bylaws within two (2) months of the date of this approval. 3. All previously approved conditions not affected by this decision shall remain in effect. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. Tucker Holland mentioned requiring a lighting escrow from applicants to ensure lighting is brought into compliance. Dean Pierce suggested the stipulation be included in a re-write of the site plan regulations when this occurs or as a separate ordinance. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: BYLAW AMENDMENT Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing on the zoning bylaw amendment for compliance with statutory requirements. Bob Furrer, Shelburne Museum, urged approval of the request by the Shelburne Museum related to signs. The language as proposed in Section 1680.8 is acceptable. Jim Keyes, Citizen’s Bank, spoke in support of the language related to free standing signs (Page 86). Dean Pierce noted receipt of a letter from Patrick Grangien regarding extending the provision of Section 1680.8 (free standing signs) to Falls Road from Route 7 to Church Street. The Planning Commission discussed also extending the provision onto Harbor Road from Route 7 to the railroad tracks. Mr. Furrer mentioned the potential for visual obstruction caused by signs must be considered when there are school children present as is the case on Harbor Road. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission agreed Falls Road should be included in Section 1680.8. A letter from Mr. Hassan was acknowledged. The Planning Commission will discuss the letter when the more complex issues and zoning amendments are covered. An email was received from the Town Attorney regarding a change to Section 1690.2 to address errors by the Zoning Administrative Officer, and other minor “wordsmithing” (Section 1710.5). The Planning Commission concurred with the attorney’s suggestions. Rick Peterson noted confusing sections and suggested clarifications as follows: Page 92, Existing Small Lots, add “notwithstanding Subsection 1 above” to clarify the reference to a nonconforming lot not being merged; Page 93, add “rendering a lot nonconforming” after “on the effective date of any bylaw”; Section 1710.5 remove “Silva cultural practices”. There were no further comments. MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to close the public hearing. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to forward to the Shelburne Selectboard on or before November 14, 2006 amendments to the Shelburne zoning bylaws warned for public hearing on 10/26/06 as modified to reflect the comments of the Shelburne Town Attorney documented in an email from Will Baker to Dean Pierce, dated 10/26/06 and to reflect comments made at the public hearing, more particularly described as alteration of Section 1680.1.B.5, Free Standing Signs, to provide extension of the free standing sign provision in the village on Route 7 to the end of the pubic right-of-way on Falls Road to the LaPlatte nature park, and alteration to Section 1690.2, Existing Small Lots, to add “notwithstanding Subsection 1 above” before Subsection 3 and add “rendering a lot nonconforming” to Subsection 3.b following the words “on the effective date of any bylaw” VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 7. DISCUSSION OF TOWN PLAN Dean Pierce reviewed revisions as noted to date. Following discussion, the Planning Commission agreed on Page 1 of the document, second bullet from bottom, the words “and sizes” should be deleted from the reference to ‘housing types in town’. On Page 12, the text should be adapted to reflect maps relative to the commercial/industrial area. It was noted Page 14, bottom of page, addresses vehicular connections for future residential developments. On Page 17, item #9, wording is needed to prohibit development and ensure protection. Formatting on Page 18 needs correction (numbering). Page 35, growth and development, language addressing the growth rate in the last five years is needed. Page 39 shows new language on fire and rescue. Mr. Pierce noted some changes to Volume II are not yet done, but will be forwarded when ready. The Planning Commission will review the revisions and forward comments to Dean Pierce for potential action at the next meeting. Comments should be provided to Mr. Pierce by 11/7/06. 8. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Tom Anderson re: Building Envelope on his Property Tom Anderson told the Planning Commission he could not get a permit for a shed on his 38 acre lot because the shed would not be in the building envelop which is 100 s.f. When the lot was subdivided, his son received a 2.5 acre lot and Mr. Anderson retained a 38 acre lot. Mr. Anderson said in hindsight he would have requested a larger building envelope at the time of the subdivision or a secondary building envelope for accessory structures. The Planning Commission discussed the intention at the time of the approval and the appropriateness of a secondary building envelope. There is a sugar house and shed on the property presently. The sense of the Planning Commission is the intention at the time of the approval was a primary structure building envelop. Planning Commission Next Meeting November meeting date: 11/9/06 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
January 2006Planning Commission Minutes February 2006 Planning Commission Minutes March 2006 Planning Commission Minutes April 2006 Planning Commission Minutes May 2006 Planning Commission Minutes June 2006 Planning Commission Minutes July 2006 Planning Commission Minutes August 2006 Planning Commission Minutes September 2006 Planning Commission Minutes October 2006 Planning Commission Minutes November 2006 Planning Commission Minutes December 2006 Planning Commission Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2008 |
