SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

10/20/10 PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M.

 

Present:

Jim Hubbard

Kathy Lavoie

Ron Case

Ed Daniel

Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

Yaasha Wheeler, Secretary

 

Applicants and Interested Persons Present:

Joseph Fitzsimmons (#437)

Carlyle Fitzsimmons (#437)

John A. Smith (#437)

Patricia A. Rainville (#437)

Jon Anderson (#441)

Howard Seaver (#441)

Jeff Oleskey (#441)

Sean Crumb (#441)

Gerald Bovat (#441)

Tim Vallee (#441)

Robert Manning

Ron Underwood

Stephen Tetreault (#439), TDH Surveying

Richard & Linda Matheiu (#442)

David Hamlen (#444)

           

 

Chairman Jim Hubbard opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. He explained the proceedings, swore in the applicants and interested persons, and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

 

I.                   #437    FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST OF JOSEPH FITZSIMMONS

Fitzsimmons came forward to discuss his request to create a two (2) lot subdivision on a 10 acre parcel located at 1942 Sheldon Rd. in order to create a single family house lot of one (1) acre. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Mylar which Fitzsimmons presented. Fitzsimmons explained that the house would be in the front of his property, at a distance of 150 feet from Route 105 and 50 feet from both side boundaries. Fitzsimmons stated that his house and the proposed house will be serviced by a single 1000-foot private drive. Hubbard noted that the bylaws stated that if a road serves more than one house, the road has to built to A76 standards. He added that he understood that the case concerns a pre-existing driveway and that this would be taken into consideration in making the determination about what length or portion of the driveway will need to be brought up to A76 standards. When questioned about the current width of his driveway, Fitzsimmons replied that the width varied from about 18 feet near Route 105 to about 13 feet nearer his house. He added that there is an existing cul-de-sac near the house that tractor-trailers have been able to safely navigate.

 

Daniel read Section 10.2, which indicates that A76 standard calls for a 16 foot wide road, and Lavoie stated that the question was what to do about the existing driveway. Case asked if Fitzsimmons had made an easement in case he ever sold the house and still wanted to access his own house. Fitzsimmons stated that he will definitely always have a right-of-way to use the driveway to his house. Fitzsimmons confirmed for Daniel that the road was in the “dead center” of the lot and there was some discussion about possible relocation of the driveway if Fitzsimmons ever wanted to have more usable space on the lot.

 

Lavoie asked Fitzsimmons about the possibility of his driveway base every meeting A76 standards and Fitzsimmons replied that he already have $40,000 in the driveway, so it was pretty solid.

 

Interested parties John Smith and Patricia Rainville came forward to view the Mylar. Rainville stated her satisfaction with the plan.

 

 

II.                #439    CONTINUATION OF  RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF  ULRIC & SHERRY SAWYER

Stephen Tetreault of TDH Surveying, representing Ulric & Sherry Sawyer, came forward to discuss the Sawyers’ request to create a four (4) lot Major Subdivision on a 8.3 acre parcel with 100 ft. frontage on US Route #7 – St. Albans Rd. and a 30 ft. access easement from Penell Rd. R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

Note:  The PC had conducted a SITE VISIT at 5:30 PM regarding this application, prior to the scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 20, at a location on the Penell Rd., near the Railroad overpass.  All interested persons were invited to attend.

 

Present: Kathy Lavoie, Planning Commission

Ron Case, Planning Commission

Ed Daniel, Planning Commission

Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

            Ulrich & Sherry Sawyer, applicants

Rick Sawyer and his 3 kids, applicants

            Stephen Tetreault, TDH Surveying & Design, on behalf of the applicants

            Ron Rogers, interested person

Paulette Rocheleau, representative of Ron Rogers

            Ronald Boudreau, abutter

 

Lavoie stated that she had noticed that one of the driveways had been changed from a location approved on the Mylar of Ron Rogers to a new location not yet approved. The following discussion determined that since the relocation had not been approved, the Mylar must be updated with the change.

 

Tetreault gave a brief review of the plan, explaining that the whole parcel is over 8 acres, that the Sawyers propose to subdivide it into 4 lots total and retain a 1.7 acre lot, that their access will remain the same, and that the three new lots will be accessed by a right-of-way from Penell Road. An A76 road with a cul-de-sac will be built, there will be on-site waste water and septic disposal for each individual lot, and preliminary hand holes had been done in the field for a future mound system. He mentioned that a neighbor at the site visit had stated that there was a shallow spring in one of the parcels, so that would be taken into consideration in determining the setbacks.

 

In answer to a question from Lavoie, Tetreault stated that he had considered the regulations for a PUD. Lavoie mentioned that the only other requirement was open land. Hubbard said that he did not remember approving the right-of-way on the plan and Tetreault explained that the right-of-way had been in the deeds for years and presented two of the pertinent deeds. Rogers, who entered at 7:23 p.m., clarified that it had been a cow path and had a culvert since he was a kid and that its original intent was to allow access to work the undeveloped portion of the land. Lavoie brought up the matter of the relocated driveway and Rogers explained that he had changed the location to make it more safe and accessible. Hubbard asked if the current right-of-way was outside of the right-of-way for the railroad and Rogers said yes. Hubbard stated that the road for the development would have to be built to A76 standards, and needs such as hammerheads or cul-de-sacs would have to be discussed.

 

Hubbard summed up the situation by noting that two landowners could each have 3 lots off of an A76 road. The PUD was utilizing 100 feet of road frontage and planned to leave alone the original parcel along Route 7, which was separate but part of the PUD. As the plan sets now, it is all one lot.

 

Hubbard stated that the Selectboard was wondering why the Planning Commission was not enforcing 18 or 21-foot wide roads. Daniel read aloud the definition of A76 standards from Section 10.2. The Planning Commission discussed whether the right-of-way under consideration was a roadway or a driveway. Hubbard stated that, because it is a PUD, he does not see the road as a private drive, and added that the Planning Commission had homework to do on the matter.

Lavoie mentioned that one of the issues discussed at the site visit was the problem of visibility off of Lime Kiln Road. Tetreault added that one solution that had been discussed was that they might widen the road right-of-way on the western side in order for a car to have more visibility past the overpass abutment without having to nose out. The Planning Commission discussed the lighting system of the blind hill on Woods Hill Road as another possible solution.

 

Hubbard noted that the request was still at the sketch plan stage and if the Planning Commission felt the request met the criteria for a subdivision, then they could discus the issue of whether or not it was felt that there are sufficient distances involved to allow for more traffic at that intersection. He asked for copies of the easement deeds and right-of-way deeds and Tetreault stated that he could give copies or the Planning Commission could refer to the page numbers included on the sketch plan.

 

Hubbard asked Rogers if he was satisfied with the plan that Tetreault presented and Rogers replied that he was. The Planning Commission reminded Rogers that he would need to change his project to reflect the actual driveway cut that he had made and he agreed to take care of that.

 

 

III.             #441    SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST OF R.L.VALLEE, INC. 

Jeffrey Olesky (with Civil Engineer Associates), Tim Vallee, Gerald Bovat, and John Anderson (attorney) came forward to discuss the request of R. L. Vallee, Inc., for the relocation and expansion of the existing Mobil Service Station/Convenience Store, the inclusion of an additional three (3) standard fuel pumps, the removal of one diesel fuel pump, as well as the associated site improvements  located at 165 First St. TSA Travel Service Area District.

 

Olesky presented a plan of the site and explained the proposal. The proposed project would involve the relocation and expansion of the existing service station, the inclusion of an additional three standard fuel pumps, the remove of one diesel fuel pump, as well as the associated sit improvements. The access between the subject parcel and the plaza to the west (the Hannaford plaza) would be formalized. He noted that there were 2 curb cuts along Route 78, the property was served by municipal water and sewer, the project involved the removal of the building and reconstruction and expansion of the facility slightly further north, as well as the expansion of the existing canopy and pumps within the setback limits of the front yard.

 

Hubbard mentioned that the abutting landowners in the plaza wanted to close the access that the plan proposed to formalize. Olesky informed the Planning Commission that the access was owned by R. L. Vallee, Inc., so no one else had the jurisdiction to close it. Bovat added that the access had been there for 30 years and made traffic flow easier. Lavoie mentioned that Bovat will need a formal agreement with Pomerleau. Hubbard added that Pomerleau owned all three sites in the plaza and that he had had disagreements with Bovat for years.

 

Olesky added that the proposed project would have lights in the front and canopy lights, as well as some additional wallpacks for lighting around the building and some exterior lights around the perimeter. All lights would meet requirements about height and downcast nature. The high point of the lot would be in the center and shed stormwater to the sides of the property and into the front drainage ditch along Route 78. Lavoie asked if the curb cuts would be a little wider and Tim Vallee said they were. Hubbard asked if the footprint of the building would be larger than it was now and Olesky replied that whereas the current building was about 1800 to 1900 square feet, the proposed building would be 3300 square feet. The store would be pushed back about 20-25 feet or so. Olesky added that there would be a bit of expansion to the north and west, that the existing pavement line would be expanded to create a wide enough circular pattern for the diesel trucks, and that the widening would facilitate parking along the westerly side of the building. Trash would be in the northeast corner, and noted that currently the property to the north and east of the lot was undeveloped due to wetlands. He added that employee parking would be along the southeastern paved section.

 

Lavoie asked how many additional parking spaces would be needed for additional future employees. Olesky and Vallee estimated that the number of employees might increase by one per shift and showed that there was sufficient parking.

 

Hubbard noted that the abutting property owners were Jolley Associates to the north and Pomerleau to the west. Lavoie asked to know the estimated increase in retail operations. Olesky said that the proposed building was almost twice the size of the existing building and would serve as a gas station, convenience store, and deli, similar to local Maplefields sites. Vallee added that the extra space would allow for better storage and large coolers. In answer to a question from Hubbard, Vallee stated that it would continue to be a 24-hour operation and there would be between 2 to 5 employees working depending on the day.

 

John Anderson noted that, although the operation would be bigger, R. L. Vallee, Inc., was starting with a big lot and met all legal requirements. Lavoie asked how the addition of three pumps would change the traffic flow, both for customers and deliveries. Olesky stated that the underground storage would not change and that deliveries would be processed the same way. Bovat estimated that the traffic flow would be less congested because cars would not have to wait for fuel. Olesky mentioned that the proposed improvements would also clarify some ambiguity about parking and travel space between the building and pumps.

 

Hubbard asked how the flow would be impacted if there were only one entrance and one exit so that the traffic flow would be rotation and added that he had seen some “near misses” at the station. Bovat expressed some concern about the suggestion because of traffic coming from many different directions and felt that the current flow pattern was smooth. Olesky added that he was afraid such a move would cut the capacity in half and noted that diesel traffic needed to maintain wide curb cuts to maneuver within the entrance and exit. Lavoie suggested that directional arrows could be used to clarify any confusion in the traffic flow. It was determined that the frequency of accidents was minimal, about 4 or 5 in 30 years. Daniel asked to know the width of the entry and exit, and Olesky stated that they were about 30 to 35 feet in width. Case summed up that the forward pumps and the size of the underground tanks would not be changed and Olesky confirmed this. Lavoie mentioned that the tanks would drain faster due to more potential customers, resulting in increased deliveries.

 

Hubbard called up the interested parties. Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates, the abutting property owner to the east, stated that he had written a letter to the Planning Commission about some concerns with the proposed project. He read the letter, dated 10/15/10 into the record. It read as follows:

 

Dear Board Members,

 

Jolley Associates is the legal owner of the abutting parcel of land to the east of the Bovat parcel and has numerous concerns with the application as proposed. Of major concern to Jolley Associates is the proposed placements of employee parking and the proposed placement of lighting upon Jolley property.

 

The Bovat property is located within the Travel Service Area District (TSA) and though the by-laws clearly state that a service station is a permitted use the bylaws also state the following:

 

Section 4.5, paragraph C Automobile Service Stations: “Automobile or motor vehicle service stations which include the retail sale of a gasoline and other motor vehicle products, may be allowed within designated districts subject to site plan review in accordance with section 5.3, conditional use review in according with section 5.4, and the following standards:

 

1. Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unrestricted width of not less than 20 feet and not greater than 25 feet; shall not be located less than 15 feet from property boundary.

 

The proposed westerly drive is located 10 feet from the edge of westerly property line.

 

2. Performance standards shall be met in accordance with section 3.11

Purpose: “No land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create any dangerous, injurious, obnoxious, or otherwise objectionable fire, explosive or other hazard; noise or vibration; smoke, dust, odor, or other form of air or water pollution; heat, cold, or dampness, electromagnetic interference, or other substance, condition, or element in such a manner or amount that it would adversely affect public health and safety, public facilities and infrastructure, or the reasonable use of neighboring properties or the surrounding area.”

 

These performance standards have not been met as the plan clearly shows that the applicant has not made any effort to control the storm-water runoff from the lands. The proposed plans indicate that all water will runoff the applicant’s property onto the abutting lands of Jolley Associates, Pomerleau and VT Route 78 with not notable means of controlling any hazardous materials that may be present with the operation of a service station. No attention has been given to a lighting plan and the affects of the proposed lighting upon abutting properties and the surrounding area.

 

The regulations go on to read; “Performance standards contained heroin shall apply to all new development, including the alteration, conversion, expansion, or relocation of existing uses, structures, and/or associated operations on a parcel. Pre-existing uses shall be considered exempt until such time as they are discontinued or altered. In determining compliance, the burden of proof shall fall upon the applicant, property owner, and/or all successors and assigns”.

 

It is clear that the applicant has disregarded the required performance standards with this application.

 

3. “No vehicle may be parked or stored within the setback areas for the district in which the service station is located; parking requirements shall be met in accordance with section 3.10.”

 

Section 3.10 states that “Parking areas shall not be located in any front yard, within 10 feet of any property line. Parking areas shall be landscaped and screened by a wall, fence or thick hedge subject to the approval of the Planning Board. Generally screening shall not be less than 3 feet or more than 8 feet.

 

The applicants proposed employee parking area is locate dint eh front yard of the establishment and within 10 feet of the easterly property line. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed construction of the employee parking area upon Jolley property. The plan clearly shows the area of encroachment which is not agreeable to Jolley Associates.

 

6. “Service stations which include retail sales unrelated to motor vehicle service, maintenance or repair (e.g. food service, convenience items, etc.) shall be reviewed as a mixed use, and as such are required to meet all zoning provisions pertaining to the retail use for the district in which they are located, including but not limited to additional sign, lot size and/or parking requirements.”

 

The plans clearly indicate that the applicant proposes additional convenience uses within the proposed building and therefore the Site Plan application as proposed is incomplete as the applicant has not received Conditional Use approval. Conditional use approval must come prior to Site Plan approval.

 

Building coverage – Applicant’s building coverage exceeds the allowable 30%. The site plan notes building coverage of 8.3%, no allowances have been made for the gasoline and diesel canopies. Building coverage for all structures proposed is 37.9%.

 

The location of the proposed easterly diesel canopy is positioned within the required 15 foot setback area with the edge of the proposed canopy being located 11 feet from the easterly property line, in direct violation of the zoning bylaws.

 

Landscaping – The Travel Service Area District also contains specific landscaping standards that have not been met. The bylaws state; “For development within this district, the entire lot shall be suitably landscaped, except for those areas which are covered by buildings or surfaced as parking or service areas. All landscaping shall be properly maintained throughout the life of any use on the lot.”

 

The landscaping as proposed is minimal at best as the applicant proposed to remove the existing trees on-site and replace with a total of five (5) trees which are all located towards the rear half of the property. The applicant has not proposed any additional landscaping to the front of the property and with the excessive amount of asphalt proposed has left little room for suitable landscaping of the site.

 

Traffic Circulation

1. The location of the proposed diesel island allows for only 12 feet of drive-land between the edge of the island pad and the edge of the pavement. The measurement from the edge of the easterly diesel island to the property line is 14 feet which meets setback; no provision has been made to accommodate the required landscaping. Furthermore, no allowances have been made to deter drivers from continuing to encroach upon Jolley property, specifically no curbing is proposed to keep all traffic upon the applicant’s property.

 

2. Location of the westerly diesel island allows for only 17 feet of travel space between the edge of the building sidewalk and the edge of the diesel island. The position of the diesel islands do not allow for acceptable two-way travel upon the site.

 

3. Area between the rear of building and edge of rear most pavement (north) is only 36 feet wide. This area needs to accommodate delivery vehicles, truck movements to and from the proposed diesel islands and the traveling public that will have a need to safely circulate in both directions behind the store. The area is inadequate for safe loading/unloading and vehicle travel.

 

Snow storage – The applicant has left no notable area for proper snow storage. Does the applicant expect to store snow upon the abutting properties?

 

Access approval – Has the applicant applied to the Vermont Agency of Transportation for access approval and approval of additional storm-water runoff onto VT Route 78?

 

As an abutting property owner it is our hope that the Swanton planning Board will give full consideration to the concerns outlined in this letter. We feel strongly that the project as proposed is an over-burden to the existing property and has effects to the neighboring properties.

 

Jolley Associates respectfully requests to be copied on any updated information or correspondence related to this matter as we are an abutting property owner and interested party.

 

Respectfully,

 

Sean Crumb

Real Estate Development Manager

 

Stephen D. Smith

Vice President/General Manager

 

Howard Seaver, the attorney representing Jolley Associates, clarified that the mention made in the letter concerning the “westerly diesel aisle” referred to the west island of the existing diesel pump. Seaver enlarged on the encroachment issue, stating that the applicant had already introduced a plan, designated as #3, which shows the location of the two properties and the area of encroachment. He presented a survey map from 2006 (dated from the time that Jolley Associates acquired the property) and noted that all deeds and survey maps show that the disputed area belongs to Jolley. He pointed out that part of the property that belongs to Jolley is shown on the Vallee plans as part of the parking area. Seaver stated that when Jolley acquired the property in 2006, he was asked to write to Mr. Bovat, to whom he gave permission to use the space for the time being. However, recently a written letter was sent to Bovat withdrawing the permission to use the area, indicating that the area was the property of Jolley Associates and that Jolley did not want the land to be part of Vallee’s plan.

 

Kilburn clarified that the survey referenced was not submitted by the applicant but by Kilburn himself for clarification to the Planning Commission regarding possible trespass and other possibly pertinent issues. Hubbard noted that the Planning Commission had homework to do regarding the concerns but that he wanted to give both sides a change to rebut each other’s statements.

 

Anderson, Vallee’s attorney, said that R. L. Vallee, Inc., had nothing to hide. He stated that he believed Jolley was a competing gas station/convenience store operation and worried that they may be trying to “muddy the waters”. Concerning the property dispute, he referenced a case from environmental court, which he read as applying to the Vallee case as saying that if R. L. Vallee, Inc.,  has the good faith and belief that it owns the property it says it does, that is all that is needed. If it turns out that Vallee does not own the land, then that’s Vallee’s issue. Vallee is required to be in compliance with its permits, and therefore the issue is not to look at land ownership. He stated that it is not the first time that neighboring property owners have tried to interfere with a project based on claims of property interests. He added that the environmental court had stated that it is not an issue for the Planning Commission to be concerned with, so long as Vallee shows that it has a good basis for owning property. In Vermont, if someone occupies some land openly for more than 15 years, that person owns the land (“squatter’s rights”). The purpose of the statute of limitations was to prevent going back to “ancient history”. Bovat added that the disputed property has been in use by Vallee for 34 years and presented an aerial photo from the 1970s that clearly showed that the land had been used for the operation since that time. Anderson stated that if Jolley wanted to pursue the matter further, more aerial photos could be presented asserting that Vallee has a good faith basis in asserting ownership of the land. The one amenity that Vallee shows on the land that Jolley owns is a light pole, which Vallee would be happy to move. There are also some parking spaces on the disputed land and if Vallee is required to pull off the land, Vallee can still locate three parking spaces in the area nearby and maintain an excess of parking area requirements. The back area has been used since the 1970s for snow storage, but if the snow must be removed from the site, Vallee was willing to comply.

 

Anderson addressed the issue regarding the requirements for automobile service stations and stated that he would like to discuss the matter with Ron Kilburn, but that at present his reading of the ordinance was that in Swanton an operation is either a gas station or a convenience store. A convenience store sells convenience items in addition to gas and automobile items. Under that definition, Vallee is a convenience store in the mixed-use category, which is an allowed use in that zone. He noted that in Crumb’s letter, the requirements regarding a gas station had been quoted, but only items one through five. Item 6, however, which applies to convenience stores, was not cited.

 

Anderson added that Vallee is not seeking to expand any entrances, but to use the pre-existing structure, which is defined as “any assembly of materials for use, including pavement and curb cuts”. Anderson stated that if the Planning Commission felt the structure was too big, then it would be a case of a pre-existing non-complying structure, but that would be okay so long as the structure was not changed to increase the degree of non-compliance. In any case, Vallee did not propose to alter the entrances. Anderson stated that he felt that the information in Crumb’s letter was irrelevant and a “smoke screen”.

 

Olesky stated that some of the standards put forth in the letter are related to Conditional Use review, and added that Vallee was under the assumption that the case was a permitted use review. Anderson also pointed out that Jolley had highlighted the stormwater issue and reminded that Vallee can’t interfere with reasonable use of surrounding properties (“unreasonable” meaning substantial impact). He stated that stormwater is affected by the amount of imp

 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

10/6/10 PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at the Swanton Municipal Complex-Auditorium at 120 First  St., at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following request:

 

Present:

Jim Hubbard

Kathy Lavoie

            Tim Clippinger

            Ed Daniel

            Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

            Yaasha Wheeler, Secretary

 

Also present:

            Richard Hudak (applicant)

            Joshua Kelly (Highfields Center for Composting)

            Tyler Buswell (Highfields)

            James McSweeney (Highfields)

            Dennis Fekert (Agency of Natural Resources)

            Larry Larocque (abutting landowner)

Steve & Paulette Rocheleau (abutting landowner)

Kyrstin Racine (President of BFA Composting Society)

            Molly Godin (BFA)

            Jeff Rouleau

            John Leddy

            Mike Ewell

            Brian Jerose

Harold Garret, Selectman

            Dan Billado, Selectman

            Neal Speer, Trustee

            Chris Leech, Trustee

            Richard Thompson, Town Administrator

           

Jim Hubbard opened up at 7:13 p.m. He introduced the board members, explained the agenda and proceedings, and swore in those who planned to give testimony.

 

1.         #440    Site Plan Approval Request of  Richard Hudak/Hudak Farm  for expansion of  an on-farm composting operation on the West side of the St. Albans Rd. (US Route #7),  North of the Swanton/St. Albans Town line, at 599 St. Albans Rd.  R3  Moderate Density Residential District. This project has received a Categorical Composting Certificate (Cat. Cert.) from the Agency of Natural Resources, DEC Solid Waste Division, on February 9, 2010, after public hearing thereon.

 

Joshua Kelly introduced himself and explained that he represented Highfields Center for Composting (hereafter referred to simply as “Highfields”). He stated that Highfields is working with Richard Hudak concerning the proposed composting project.

 

Richard Hudak explained that Hudak’s Farm had been in operation since 1952. It was operated as a dairy farm until 1970, and in 1975, Hudak’s started raising vegetables and running a farm stand. He added that for most of the time since Hudak’s began farming, it had a composting operation of some scale or other. In the beginning, the composting mostly involved farm waste, then later, materials such as leaves and manure from the Swanton slaughterhouse. Two years ago, Highfields approached him with the possibility of taking in food scraps generated within the locale of Swanton and St. Albans and including those scraps in his composting program. He stated that he has been working with Highfields toward this goal.

 

Kelly stated that the executive director of the program, Tom Gilbert, was en route and would arrive shortly to help present the project. He introduced James McSweeney, a specialist in composting who helped with the technical details. Then he proceeded with the Powerpoint presentation.

 

Kelly explained that the project is called Closed the Loop St. Albans and is part of a Highfield program that has been developed over the last two to three years. The program is based on community composting programs elsewhere in the state and involves organic waste stream that will be recycled back into the soil. The program has partnered with Highfields, Hudaks, Northwest Waste Management, Bellows Free Academy, and others.

 

Kelly gave a brief history of Highfields, which was started in 1995. The center now provides technical assistance and training for composting programs such as Close the Loop St. Albans. He explained the benefits of converting food scraps and added that if all of the 120,000 tons/year of food scraps generated by Vermont were able to be captured, it would be the same as not burning 12 million gallons of gas per year.

 

The Close the Loop Vermont program has a vision of starting composting operations across the state of Vermont. Some of the outcomes of the program have been to reduce solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions, provide reusable material to offset chemical fertilizer use, reduce toxic leachate from landfills, create jobs, increase farm viability and food security, and mitigate agricultural runoff and nutrient loading in local lakes and streams. The program also provides a revenue stream for farmers and a great source of fertilizer. Kelly explained meaning of organic materials and the way the program is run. The program focuses on the biggest producers of food scraps—schools, restaurants, institutions, businesses—and asks them to pay for collection of food scraps. The scraps are delivered to the farm in large containers which are afterward washed out and returned for further use. The farm then composts the scraps, thus creating fertilizer for the farm to use and/or to sell. All participants in the program are trained to ensure that the scraps are of the necessary quality.

 

Kelly enumerated some of the benefits of composting, such as reduction of pollution and erosion, production of organic matter, improvement of soils, and other such benefits. He stated that the composting process involves anything that is food—dairy, meat, or vegetables—as well as other materials such as wood chips, animal manures and bedding, leaf and yard residuals, plant debris, and mulch hay. This involves nitrogen and carbon materials, which must be combined and blended according to a specific recipe, with enough moisture, bulk density, and aeration to produce the necessary heat. That heat can possibly be captured, remains high even throughout the winter, and is monitored with large thermometers twice weekly to ensure that the process is achieving thermophilic pile conditions. The heat deters pests and mitigates the pathogen issue. Once materials are blended, they are brought out to the compost pad, piled into windrows, and periodically turned or rolled as they mature. Covers are placed over new piles to speed the process and help manage moisture. Piles are usually allowed to process for about 9 months before being ready for sale.

 

He showed several maps and computer generated images of Hudak’s proposed site area for the composting operation and explained the location of the various parts of operation. He noted that the shed was necessary for the storage of dry leaves, woodchips, and hay that would be mixed with the food scraps to control moisture.

 

He stated three main reasons to compost at Hudak Farm:

  1. Hudak’s is close to the source of food scraps in the region, making transportation more efficient and economically viable for the hauler and resulting in less emissions.
  2. Hudak’s is the ideal composter, because of the 30 years of composting experience and the existing successful direct-to-farmer farmstand business.
  3. As a vegetable farm, Hudak’s requires significant fertilizer and organic matter input, which will be provided by the composting operation.

 

There would be regular site maintenance to ensure cleanliness and compliance with state regulations. Hudak’s has already been approved for a categorical certificate from the Agency of Natural Resources.

 

Kelly added that composting has not been defined in zones and that Act 250 does not have much on it. He informed the Planning Commission that a study group had been put together involving several agencies to craft a bill regarding composting. This bill was passed as Bill 614 and basically explained the various exemptions from Act 250.

 

Dennis Fekter, of the Solid Waste Program within the Agency of Natural Resources, spoke next. He said that ANR had issued categorical certification to Hudaks to compost. He noted that in the state of Vermont, all municipalities must have a solid waste implementation plan and could either write their own plan or join a district plan. Hudaks had written a letter and explained the facility and ANR had determined that Hudaks met all the criteria and issues the certification. The certification contains conditions about how much feed stock can be taken in and of what kind and outlines nuisance conditions that might arise. ANR will visit the site twice a year to enforce the conditions and make sure Hudaks is in compliance.

 

Tom Gilbert entered the hearing at 7:40 p.m. He added that an awareness of a conflict in regulation in the state between different agencies had resulted in potential oversight in the realm of composting. Legislature had recognized the issue, put together a study committee involving the state, environmental organizations, and composting programs, which worked to simplify the process and deal with the contradictions. The main issue was how Act 250 regulates the industry and how there is a boundary between farm practice and commercial practice. After two years of work, the study committee was able to craft a bill that basically carved out a place for composting from Act 250, listing the composting activities that are considered non-development, or agricultural. These exemptions fit into the agricultural definition of composting. In trying to minimize the overlap of different regulatory bodies, ANR was the body to which other agencies would defer in this issue.

 

Kelley outlined the request of the Hudak application, which involves a 380x90 ft. facility. The facility would include a commodity shed 60x25 ft. and 16 feet tall, a push wall 25x35 ft. and 6 feet high, and a pad made of crushed stone. The Planning Commission was asked to waive the requirement a plan from an engineer, and instead agree to accept a computer image produced by the Northwest Planning Commission. The reason for the request for the waiver is because of the limited budget for the project.

 

Gilbert noted that a number of exemptions under which Hudak’s operation falls under would not, from Act 250’s perspective, require a commercial development permit. He noted especially Items 3 and 6 in Bill 614, which state respectively that “The compost is principally used on the farm where it was produced”  and “The compost is produced on a farm primarily used for the cultivation or growing of food, fiber, horticultural, or orchard crops, that complies with the agency of natural resources’ solid waste management rules, only from up to 5,000 cubic yards per year of total organic inputs allowed under the agency of natural resources’ acceptable management practices, including up to 2,000 cubic yards per year of food residuals.”

 

Lavoie asked whether the allowance of materials listed in the certificate were equal to the proposed size of the project. Gilbert explained that the pad is sized for about 10 tons a week and the permit allows up to 12 tons per week. The amount of material could be changed on the given footprint, but a larger volume would change the strategy. In answer to a question from Hubbard, Gilbert stated that those 10 tons would include all related materials that would have to be brought in for the processing of food scraps.

 

Lavoie noted that Hudak would be responsible for the record-keeping regarding the incoming material, and asked whether there was a correlation between the material being brought in and how much would be sold. Fekter replied that the ANR does not ask to know the information of what is going in.

 

Lavoie asked to know how many facilities with which Highfields is associated. Gilbert replied that Highfields worked with a wide variety of facilities, involving over 40 operators in the state. Lavoie asked what the most common complaint was from the general public or agencies regarding operations similar to that proposed by Hudak. Fekter stated that odors was the most common complaint, although there are few complaints at all. Hudak asked what distances were involved when complaints were made and Fekter assured Hudak that his proposed facility would exceed those distances. Gilbert added that Highfields had worked with only one facility over 10 years which had a complaint regarding odor. He noted that part of the ANR certification process included taking a proactive approach to ensure operator competency, which required annual testing and inspection to ensure that the facilities are well prepared, designed, and equipped.

 

Lavoie asked whether Hudaks had gone through this certification program and Fekter replied that it had. Lavoie asked what Highfields’ role would be in the operations once the project is underway. Gilbert stated that Highfields would remain involved in a variety of ways, such as providing technical services to Hudaks and educating participants who work with Hudaks. Lavoie asked whether Highfields had an association with the participants who provide the food scraps. Gilbert answered that Highfields services stand “from the kitchen to the compost site” and that people such as Josh Kelly go out into the community and bring organizations and businesses into the program. Then all staff goes through a training program. For example, BFA has participated in over 60 trainings.

 

Lavoie asked at what point would Hudak fill up his capacity from the resources and Gilbert answered that Hudak had a limited capacity, but because he is a vegetable grower, he does not have aspirations for the composting operation to become his primary business. The area of Swanton and St. Albans only has so much material and the request put in for the permit was based upon ambitious goals for what Highfields felt could be captured locally.

 

Daniel asked how often the food scraps would be delivered and whether they would be covered. Gilbert explained that the food scraps would be delivered once a week at a consistent time and that Hudak would incorporate those scraps into the composting process according to the necessary recipe. New materials would have fleece compost covers. Fekter added that, according to the conditions of the certification, Hudaks would have 4 hours to process material once it has been deposited at the site.

 

Daniel asked if individuals would ever be considered as customers. Kelly replied that the program focuses on commercial businesses and institutions in order to get the best economies of scale and that so far, seven such commercial customers have been found. Individual residents of the area may be included at some point, but they would all be educated in how to participate in the program.

 

Daniel noted that on the second page of Kelly’s letter to the Planning Commission (dated 9/10/10), Kelly had stated that “some moderate site grading may be necessary”. Daniel asked for the definition of “moderate”. Gilbert replied that the site was already quite level but that a 1-2% grade of the site would effectively move stormwater off the site toward the wooded area in the west. Hudak added that the site was already pitched toward the west, so grading would mostly just flatten it out a bit.

 

Clippinger asked if earth would be added. Hudak replied that lime would be used of the base and then just earth would be added. Hubbard asked if any berm or leach field would be put in the area to absorb nutrient run-off, or whether they were relying on the forested land to serve in that way. Gilbert described the forest as a “biological sink” for some nutrients and that the site was perfectly situated as far as setbacks from surface water.

 

Clippinger expressed some concern that there might be wetlands in forested area. Brian Jerose, assistant at Hudaks, explained that in certain applications they used state wetland maps but that, as far as Hudaks knew, the site was well in excess of wetland setbacks. Clippinger asked if the wetlands in the area of the proposed site had been delineated. Jerose replied that they had been taken off the National Wetland Inventory Mapping (NWI) and never site visited. Gilbert noted that the state had required the program to use the NWI Mapping and that the area met the three criteria for a wetland. James McSweeney added that it was 750 feet from the site to the nearest surface water and Jerose stated that the working surface that would generate runoff would be less than an acre. Clippinger asked what type of soil the pad would be on and Hudak answered that the soil was gravelly, loam soil, and that the subsoil has large rocks. Clippinger noted that Highfield’s proposal packet indicated that Prime Agriculture Soil was within the project area but not shown on the details presented.

 

Lavoie asked to know what factors were considered in determining the location of the pad. Hudak replied that the site is in an area that has been used for the entire history of composting on the farm. It was practical because it was close to the highway and because its closeness to the shaded zone along the wooded boundary represented a minimally viable location to plant vegetables. Furthermore, the area minimizes impact to surrounding water sources and was one of the most well-drained areas on the farm. Lavoie asked if any other areas were looked at and whether there was any discussion over the ideal area. Gilbert answered that there is a basic protocol used to identify the site. The site has to meet state standards and USDA standards and this site is 6 feet from bedrock and 36 inches from the seasonal high water table. The process would include a soil scientist as well as an excavator to dig pits. The operation would involve a long-term strategy for building soil over time, with a net gain of soil productivity. Hudak agreed that soil that has been composted for years has a greater capacity than other soil to buffer excessive rainfalls, which minimizes the runoff of nutrients and sediment into waterways. Obviously, compaction of the site would affect run-off, but the operation would have a large positive influence on the rest of the farm.

 

Jerose noted that the soil type is slaty loam and sandy loam and that the site was the ideal location on the farm because it is on somewhat of a ridge situation. There is another site that was approved in compost categorical certification which was not included in the plan because the project idea (a greenhouse heated by compost) was not considered economically viable. Therefore, the currently proposed site seems to be best of available options.

 

Lavoie asked how the operation would change the overall operations of Hudak farm, whether it would increase in vegetable production or retail business. Hudak stated that he did not plan to increase the vegetable operation. Because of the limited market, production of wholesale crops was not viable and he intended to use the additional compost to supplant other imported fertilizers. Jerose added that the projected scenario might result in $12,000 savings of fertilizer for Hudaks. Hudak agreed that the primary value is economic, since tipping fees are minimal.

 

Lavoie asked about the possibility of more traffic to the site and Gilbert replied that one to two 10-wheelers on average would arrive weekly. Lavoie asked if that estimate was based on the total capacity of the site. Hudak explained that a lot of traffic already exists because of the existing compost operation and that he might need a few trucks per month of horse manure. Gilbert summed up that the maximum amount of traffic would be 4 to 6 10-wheelers per week.

 

Hubbard noted that each truck would also have an established collection route and stated that he was still concerned with the run-off plan. Hudak pointed out that compost, when it is finished, is very stable and will have few volatile materials (such as horse manure) that are inclined to leach. Kelly pointed out that composted material, because of its ability to absorb, was often used in stormwater management now. Gilbert added that the first two piles which would include volatile forms of manure would be covered with synthetic fleece to shed moisture so that water would not purculate through the pile.

 

Daniel stated that on the 3rd page of Kelly’s letter (dated 9/10/10) there would be storage of some materials that would be within the commodity shed or nearby and asked for a definition of “nearby”. Kelly replied that he had written that in the interest of a high volume of leaves that might not fit in the shed. Hudak estimated that “nearby” would mean about 60 feet of the commodity shed and that the materials might also include manure. Gilbert added that although there are no regulations about stockpiling small amounts of manure, but it would be in the best interests of the operation to have some degree of flexibility and to have the materials immediately available. Hudak pointed out that manure could not be stockpiled beyond a certain timeframe anyway without losing some of its usefulness.

 

Lavoie asked if ANR issued the certification based on the current plan design. Fekert said yes and that a site visit had also been done. Lavoie stated that it seemed that the biggest concern of Statute 614 was that the compost be principally produced and used on the farm and asked if the requirements are met by the plan. Gilbert reminded that the requirement were that the plan meet only one of the six criteria, and Hudaks met the requirement. Jerose added that some material was not solely site-generation and that over 50% of material used on the farm qualified for the act.

 

A discussion followed about whether this operation was considered an agricultural practice. Jerose pointed out that for an ANR category of composting certificate, no approval was required from the agency of agriculture. Gilbert stated that ANR had based its approval on a line drawing of the proposed plan. Daniel asked if Highfields foresaw a time in the future when it could afford a plan by a licensed engineer. Gilbert said that such a plan was not budgeted for, but if it was absolutely necessary, they would find a way to provide the plan. Jerose pointed out that other agricultural structures don’t require an engineered drawing. Clippinger answered that that was why the Planning Commission was trying to establish whether the operation was agricultural or not. Jerose noted that the last agency, when asked whether this operation was considered “agricultural” had stated that such a determination was the town’s decision. Lavoie stated that the Agency of Agriculture had determined that it was not agricultural, but Gilbert responded that Jim Leland who issued that opinion had stated specifically that it was not a determination but rather a formal opinion. Leland had felt that such a determination was outside of his jurisdiction and is best left up to the community. Gilbert admitted that the matter was a “gray area”. Lavoie asked if this was the first project that Highfields was asking the community to view as agricultural and Gilbert replied that it was the first project in which the farm was using material principally for its own use. Hudak pointed out the disparity between the proposed project and dairy farming and that dairy farms could have any amount of materials from outside sources. Clippinger answered that a site plan review was not required for such dairy operations.

 

Hubbard then turned the hearing over to public comment. Dan Billado, Public Health Officer and member of the Selectboard, stated that he was concerned about the amount of fertilizer being produced, especially since Hudaks had to match all incoming material with a greater amount of material generated by the farm, and about the possibility of an odor issue. Gilbert stated that the project did fit the criteria since it was principally produced and used by the farm (principally meaning “greater than 50%) and added that most of the materials have a high moisture content, which dries off and thus reduces the tonnage.

 

Steve Rocheleau introduced himself as the owner of the property to the north of Hudaks and stated that he was seriously concerned with insects, pests, and odor. He cited the definitions of “agriculture” from the zoning regulations and stated that the described operation did not meet the definition. He further cited the definition of “manufacturing” and stated that the composting project was a manufacturing operation under that definition because outside material would be brought onto the site and a product would be manufactured. Manufacturing is not allowed in the district.

 

Kyle Buswell, who works with Highfields, stated that he felt the operation could be extremely positive for the area, could regenerate the soil in the area, and would be a victory for Swanton to reverse negative environmental trends.

 

Larry LaRocque, a resident of Mountain View Drive, echoed Mr. Rocheleau’s concerns. He was concerned about the absence of a berm and the affect of run-off on his water. He asked if it was a requirement of the state to look into the possible impact of a proposed project on neighboring water sources. Fekert stated that Hudak had met all distance requirements and that berms or retention ponds were not required. All that is required is for an area of equal size to the pad be used for retention of the run-off. LaRocque asked if the state studied what affect the operation might have on nearby water sources and Fekert replied that there were site requirements that had been met. LaRocque asked to whom he should direct a complaint if the Hudak operation results in problems for him. Fekert noted that the state would make two unannounced visits per year. LaRocque expressed concern about odor and added that the food would be collected once a week, which meant scraps would be stored for six days. Gilbert explained that, at the point of generation, the scraps would be stored in a 30 gallon container with a lid. LaRocque noted that, once the scraps were dumped at Hudaks, there would be a four-hour timeframe in which to process it, during which time he would have odor in his backyard, since the wind generally blows from south to north. Gilbert said he would be surprised if the odor reached LaRocque’s property at that distance.

 

Gilbert addressed the matter of the agricultural nature of the practice, noting that the definition does not reference other practices of a farm, such as importing material or building a structure. Those are all parts of running a farm and that this fits into the cultivation of crops. If Hudaks were applying chemical fertilizer, there would not even be a discussion, but this operation is proposed for the good of the community.

 

Harold Garrett, Swanton’s Chair of the Selectboard, mentioned that complaints of odors are frequent in the town and asked if ANR would pay for a visit due to complaint. Fekert replied that all complaints are checked out and steps are taken to remedy the problem, even (if necessary) to the issuance of a “cease and desist” letter.

 

Hudak asked if there are ever complaints about dairy farm odor. Billado stated that there were, but that such cases were exempted under Act 250. Hudak replied that a dairy farmer could therefore produce an odor with impunity. Billado emphasized that he was concerned with looking out for the quality of life of the citizens that the Selectboard represents.

 

Sandy Skeels-Kilburn stated that she trusted Hudak to do the right thing. She noted that the Hudaks live right across the road from their business, so they would be the first to suffer from odor. She added that the farm does a great service to the community and that, since farming is important to Franklin County, anything the community can do to keep farmers in business is important.

 

A discussion followed about whether or not the operation was agricultural in nature, with Steven Rocheleau reiterating that the operation did not meet the definition of agricultural. Kirsten Racine of BFA asked if the Planning Commission knew whether there was a difference between the likelihood of compost material and artificial fertilizer making it into a nearby well. Hubbard said that the government allows farmers to use a certain amount of artificial fertilizer for their crops but that is not an issue over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction. LaRocque stated that, as of yet, tests on his well has shown no fertilizer in it.

 

Paulette Rocheleau commented on the layout of the plan expressed concern that the operation would mushroom over the years and change the nature of the area. She asked how many of the 40 sites that Highfields had worked with over the years were in as close a proximity to housing and development as Hudaks. Gilbert stated that some were closer than in the Hudaks project and felt that the property values were unaffected. He added that the scale of the project was limited by the permit. Paulette Rocheleau showed concern that the food scraps would sit for six days out of the week and Gilbert replied that the food would be generated anyway and that the composting would be better than a dumpster situation as far as odor at the site of generation.

 

John Leddy of the Northwest Vermont Solid Waste Management District stated that the district was in favor of the project and added that his experience with BFA’s part in the composting process has been very positive because of the well-trained staff. Molly Godin from BFA added that she had helped to start the program with Highfields and that because of the education, odor is minimal. Jeff Rouleau stated that there had only ever been one problem at BFA with odor because of a new member of the custodial staff who was not fully educated, but that the problem was quickly rectified and the staff member is now educated on the proper procedure for treatment of food scraps.

 

Daniel summed up that any complaints would be directed to ANR, which would check it out and has authority to do whatever necessary to remedy the situation. Hubbard asked if ANR fully accepted the wooded area as a run-off site and Fekert said it was better than what ANR would require.

 

MOTION: Hubbard made a motion to go into deliberative session. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The hearing entered deliberative session at 9:34 p.m.

 

Other Necessary Business was dealt with during deliberative session.

 

MOTION: Tim made a motion to come out of deliberative session. Lavoie seconded. The hearing exited deliberative session at 10:35 p.m.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to RECESS #440 Site Plan Approval Request of  Richard Hudak/Hudak Farm  for expansion of  an on-farm composting operation on the West side of the St. Albans Rd. (US Route #7),  North of the Swanton/St. Albans Town line, at 599 St. Albans Rd.  R3 Moderate Density Residential District, until such time as PC receives a site plan prepared by a licensed engineer or surveyor. The plan would be subject to Conditional Use review as an agri-business. Lavoie seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to adjourn the hearing. Lavoie seconded. The hearing adjourned at 10:37 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

____________________________                            __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                               Kathy Lavoie

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                          __________________________________

Ed Daniel                                                                    Tim Clippinger



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

9/15/10 PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

            The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, September 15,  2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M.

 

Present:

Kathie Lavoie

            Ed Daniel

            Ron Case

            Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

            Yaasha Wheeler, Secretary

 

Applicants: Pierre Boudreau (#429)

            Travis Belisle (#436)

Joe Fitzsimmons (#437)

            Richard Cummings (#438)

Stephen Tetreault of TDH Surveying, representing #439 Ulric & Sherry Sawyer

 

Interested Persons:

            Kathy Middlemiss (#436)

            Dustin & Christine Long (#436)

Sam Ruggiano (#436)

            Patricia Rainville (#437)

Ronald Rogers (#439)

            Paulette Rocheleau (#439)

 

Under Other Business:

“Buvy” Gamache

Denis Bourbeau

 

 

Acting Chairman Kathie Lavoie opened up at 7:02 p.m. She swore in the applicants and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

 

I. #429 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST OF PIERRE BOUDREAU  

 

Pierre Boudreau came forward to discuss his request to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street, Lot #1- 3.3 acres, Lot #2 - 2.8 acres, Lot #3 – 3.5 acres, Lot #4 –5.1 acres and Lot #5- 22.9 acres.  Awaiting submission of  Final Plat, Mylar and CD.  R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Boudreau presented a final Mylar and a CD to the Planning Commission. It was confirmed that all information from the state had been received and incorporated into the plan. Also the final Mylar showed the inclusion of two hammerheads, as per the conditions of the approval of his preliminary plat request.

 

II. # 436          CONTINUATION OF  RECESSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF  TRAVIS BELISLE & GERALD BELISLE

 

Sam Ruggiano and Travis Belisle came forward to discuss the request to adjust the lot lines on Lots #8 and #9 of a Planned Unit Development at Rocky Ridge, off  Sheldon Rd., Route #105  and to also reconfigure the cul-de-sac on Lots #8 and #9 as well as the location of the  right of way known as “Rocky Ridge”,  leading from Lot #3 to Lot #9. The foregoing changes will require amendments to Map #193A in the Swanton Land Records.   R1 Agricultural/Residential District.       

 

Ruggiano and Belisle explained that the issue had been precipitated by water issues and wetlands encroachment, making it necessary to relocate the planned cul-de-sac. Ruggiano stated that he had gotten a Conditional Use permit approval from the wetlands department, a copy of which was given to Kilburn. Lavoie asked if the wording of the homeowner’s association documents had been updated because of the changes. Belisle said that he had had an attorney write up a new declaration with accurate easement information.

 

Rugiano explained that the cul-de-sac had been designed so that a tractor trailer could get around it and presented a radius of a truck with a 40 ft. trailer. He stated that he had met on site with the road foreman Ed Lamothe and had incorporated Lamothe’s recommendations concerning the road. He stated that Lamothe had expressed satisfaction with the plans. Kilburn added that Lamothe had communicated to him that he preferred that the road not have guard rails in the event that the town takes over the road.

 

Ruggiano then discussed the water drainage issues, stating that the area now has a controlling outlet structure with an area for stormwater treatment. As part of the Conditional Use, the structure was constructed within the buffer zone. He stated that the pond might have water in it temporarily (about 24 hours) after large storm events, but would usually be dry. Kilburn reminded that a final Mylar and CD would be needed if approval was given and Belisle stated that he would have it within a few days.

 

 

III. #437          SKETCH PLAN AND POSSIBLE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST OF JOSEPH FITZSIMMONS

 

Fitzsimmons came forward to discuss his request to create a two (2) lot subdivision on a 10 acre parcel located at 1942 Sheldon Rd. in order to create a single family house lot of one (1) acre. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Fitzsimmons presented a plan done by Roy Hango and explained that he lived in a house at the end of a 1000 ft. driveway and that the proposed house would be on a 1 acre lot at a distance of 150 ft. from Route 105 and 50 ft. from the side boundary.

 

Daniel asked if the buildings would all be on one side of the driveway, Fitzsimmons replied yes. Kilburn noted the contours on the map that showed that the area was fairly steep. Lavoie asked if the new lot would have its own septic and well. Fitzsimmons said yes. Kilburn noted that the two lots would share the same private drive and asked if the wastewater disposal plan had been printed and recorded. Fitzsimmons replied that it had. Lavoie noted that under Section 3.2A, with the shared private drive, development was limited to only three adjoining lots. Fitzsimmons stated that was fine.

 

Patricia Rainville, Fitzsimmon’s northern neighbor, came forward to view the plans and she and Fitzsimmons discussed the location of the planned house in relation to her house. She stated that she was fine with the plan.

 

 

IV. #438          LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF  RICHARD CUMMINGS 

 

Cummings came forward to discuss his request to adjust    the lot line between Lot #1 & lot #2 (Map Slide #180) and to revise  Jerrymill Lane R.O.W. leading from Bushey Rd. and Lots 4-7 thereon.  R1  Agricultural/Residential  District and SG Southern Growth Core Overlay District.

 

Cummings explained that his request was a “housekeeping” issue. He stated that the Planning Commission had granted approval for the subdivision in Decemeber of 2007 and since then, Cummings had done some surveying and found that the previous survey was in error. Presenting maps, he explained that the new survey could align the lot line better with the natural features of the land and line it up with other lines further down on Bushey Road. This adjustment would benefit his neighbor, Jim Hubbard, at a cost to himself. He added that he had also “cleaned up” an area on the proposed cul-de-sac which was difficult to build due to sharp corners; his proposed plan smoothed things out but necessitated minor adjustments in lot lines.

 

Kilburn presented a map of the previously approved development and then showed the differences in the proposed plan. Cummings stated that he wanted to make sure that Lot 6 was correct before it was deeded over. Lavoie noted that the lots still meet the required sizes and that the frontage is only slightly longer than before. She asked whether the acreage of Lot 2 would be changed and Cummings replied that it would be slightly reduced. It was noted that the lots most affected would be 6 and 7.

 

Case questioned why, when the development was originally approved, the lot line was not moved back a little bit. Cummings replied that there was no access to the land, which was heavily wooded and would be good for purposes of wooding and logging.

 

Interested person “Buvy” Gamache was present but declined to comment at that time.

 

 

V. #439           SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF  ULRIC & SHERRY SAWYER

 

Stephen Tetreault of TDH Surveying came forward as a representative of the Sawyers to discuss the request to create a four (4) lot Major Subdivision on a 8.3 acre parcel with 100 ft. frontage on US Route #7 – St. Albans Rd. and a 30 ft. access easement from Penell Rd. R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

 

Tetreault showed a map of the site and its situation between the railroad and Route 7. He stated that the existing Sawyer house has a driveway off of Route 7, near Lime Kiln Road, and that the Sawyers were hoping to divide into two (2) 1.25-acre lots, a 4.1 acre lot, and the Sawyers will retain a 1.7 acre lot. Three (3) of the lots would access off Penell Road through the existing 30 ft. right-of-way. They proposed to upgrade the 14 ft. wide driveway to 16 ft. wide driveway to meet requirements for serving three or more lots. He explained about the placement of the proposed culvert, the 60 ft. shared access easement parallel to train tracks, and the proposed cul-de-sac with a radius of 50 ft.

 

Case stated that he would need to research whether a lot without frontage on Penell Road could have an access from Penell Road. Daniel asked if Tetreault had met with the highway commissioner (Tetreault said he had not) and added that the Selectboard had adopted new highway regulations that the Planning Commission would have to look into before making a final decision. Lavoie asked if all lots would have their own water and septic and Tetreault stated that the preliminary pits had shown good soil and that mound systems were planned, but they would not know for sure until full test pits had been done. It was determined that the setbacks were all met, including the setbacks from the railroad.

 

Interested person Ron Rogers came forward with his representative Paulette Rocheleau. Rogers stated that he had not gotten an invitation to the hearing, even though he was an abutting landowner. He mentioned that the proposed culvert would divert water into a ditch which was very deep and often got flooded out during storm events. He was concerned about water pooling in the road as a result. He added that his second concern was in regard to the safety of the access on Penell Road. He stated the access was on a double-blind corner and that visibility around the corner was extremely poor in that area. Rocheleau presented pictures of the area of ingress and egress. Tetreault suggested that perhaps a pole with a fish-eye mirror could be installed across the road from the access for better visibility. Rocheleau expressed some concern that a mirror might not be fully adequate.

 

The Planning Commission agreed that a site visit would be the best course of action and discussed possible dates and times with Tetreault, Rogers, and Rocheleau.

 

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT—There was no public comment.

 

VII. OTHER NECESSARY BUSINESS

 

1.         REQUEST OF  RICHARD “BUVY” GAMACHE AND DENNIS BOURBEAU

Gamache and Bourbeau came forward to discuss the request to modify  previously Approved Plat #196A, December 2007, to allow for a change in driveway location from Lot #5 on Gamache Lane (shared with lot #6) to a location on  Jacob Lane on the East.

 

Gamache explained that he had talked to TDH Surveying about the change and that, in accordance with the buyers’ wishes, he had changed the driveway location from Gamache Lane to Jacob Lane. No septic, well, or house foundation had been changed. He added that he knew he should have come before the Planning Commission before making the change, but that he felt the change was necessary in order to secure the sale of the lot. Kilburn mentioned that the change became an issue because the contractor had asked for a new 911 address. Gamache stated he was happy leaving the address the way it was, because he had installed commercial mailboxes with numbered units.

 

Lavoie summed up that a new Mylar would incorporate the following changes: the removal of a bus turnaround, the change of a driveway shared by lots 5 and 6 so that it came onto Lot 6 property, and the change of the driveway coming off of Jacob Lane.

 

Kilburn asked if Gamache was happy with the shared driveways opposing each other. Bourbeau also mentioned that shared driveways sometimes deterred buyers and Gamache noted that although he wanted to keep costs down, he would look at the issue before changing the Mylar. Daniel confirmed with Gamache that the drainage was all going to a retention lot. Kilburn reminded Gamache that a Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued until a final Mylar was approved.

 

 

2.         HUDAK  FARM COMPOSTING OPERATION

The matter is schedule for in-depth discussion on October 6 at the Village Complex.  Kilburn explained that Highfields Center for Composting, the Hudak’s Consultant, is requesting that the Planning Commission waive the requirement for an Engineer or Surveyor’s Site Plan.  Josh Kelly with Highfields had prepared a computer-generated graphic presentation of the proposed site which details the location of structures  and  the distances from neighbors, highway, and other pertinent features.  Kilburn presented color copies of the computer generated graphics.

 

Kilburn reminded the Planning Commission of the communications with the Department of Agriculture over whether the Planning Commission had jurisdiction to approve this operation and it was confirmed that it did have that authority. Lavoie stated that, although reluctant to accept the proposal, she wanted to speak with the Regional Planning Commission to see if this type of thing was accepted in other parts of the state for similar operations. Kilburn added that Section 5.1 (page 75) gave the Planning Commission the authority to approve something other than an engineer- or surveyor-prepared plan. He read a portion of a letter from Kelly in which it was stated that the “objective is to improve upon information we’ve already provided and to clearly make a request in writing for a waiver from the Planning Commission for the requirement for a plan done by a licensed engineer, surveyor, or land planner, since we have no funding to hire someone and given the modest scope of this proposal.”

 

Lavoie said that she would place a call on the following day to Catherine Dimitruk of the Regional Planning Commission to discuss the matter further and added that the members of the board who were not present at the hearing should be informed of the matter before a decision is made. The Planning Commission members stated that they would also review the matter at the October 6th meeting at the Village Complex.

 

 

3.         ROBISON-MACKECHNIE MATTER

Kilburn stated that the MacKechnie matter had been regarding a septic pump that was inaccessible and that, at the last meeting, the Planning Commission had determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, since the road Dr. Robison was required to build was supposed to be for accessing the lots, not the septic system. Since the hearing, Dr. Robison has come to the Town Office and stated that he knows he needs to put in some access to the septic, but that it cannot be done as submitted on the latest Mylar. Therefore, a new plan would have to be drawn up and presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Lavoie clarified that Robison’s action about the septic is a voluntary act, since the Planning Commission had no ability to enforce the building of the road for septic purposes. Daniels noted that he had met MacKechnie at the polls and MacKechnie had expressed disappointment with the Planning Commission’s response at the last hearing.

 

 

4.         EMAIL FROM CERES CIRCLE RESIDENT TO ED DANIEL, DICK THOMPSON AND RON KILBURN

Kilburn explained that the matter involves a Ceres Circle resident who is concerned about the Developer’s performance or lack of performance regarding certain Declarations of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements. Daniel noted that concerned resident had shown up at the present hearing but gone home soon thereafter. Kilburn mentioned that Dick Thompson, Town Administrator, had told the resident how to get the declarations that he needed but had reminded the resident that they were available only for a fee. It appears that the resident is frustrated that his efforts to set up a homeowner’s association involves more money and significantly more research than he anticipated and that he desires more assistance from the town in his efforts. Lavoie reminded that the Planning Commission did not specifically ask him to do it; he was simply told of his responsibility and he willingly took on that responsibility.

 

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to go into deliberative session. Daniels seconded. Motion carried. The hearing entered deliberative session at 8:53 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to exit deliberative session. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The hearing exited deliberative session at 9:19 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to APPROVE # 429           Final Plat Approval Request Of Pierre Boudreau to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street. Daniel seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to APPROVE # 436           Continuation Of  Recessed Lot Line Adjustment Request Of  Travis Belisle & Gerald Belisle to adjust the lot lines on Lots #8 and #9 of a Planned Unit Development at Rocky Ridge, off  Sheldon Rd., Route #105  and to also reconfigure the cul-de-sac on Lots #8 and #9 as well as the location of the  right of way known as “Rocky Ridge”, leading from Lot #3 to Lot #9, with the requirement that they submit a final Mylar and CD. Daniel seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to APPROVE #437 Sketch Plan Request Of Joseph Fitzsimmons to create a two (2) lot subdivision on a 10 acre parcel located at 1942 Sheldon Rd. in order to create a single family house lot of one (1) acre. Further investigation and discussion regarding driveway is also needed. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to APPROVE #438 Lot Line Adjustment Request Of  Richard Cummings to adjust the lot line between Lot #1 & lot #2 (Map Slide #180) and to revise  Jerrymill Lane R.O.W. leading from Bushey Rd. and Lots 4-7 thereon, upon submission of proper CD and Mylar, with corrected measurements. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to RECESS #439 Sketch Plan Request Of  Ulric & Sherry Sawyer to create a four (4) lot Major Subdivision on a 8.3 acre parcel with 100 ft. frontage on US Route #7 – St. Albans Rd. and a 30 ft. access easement from Penell Rd., pending a site visit before the next public hearing (date and time yet to be determined). Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to adjourn. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The hearing adjourned at 9:24 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

____________________________                            __________________________________

Kathy Lavoie                                                              Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________             

Ed Daniel                                                                   

 

 



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

8/18/10 PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

            The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present:

Jim Hubbard

Ed Daniel

Ron Case

Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

Yaasha Wheeler, Secretary

 

Applicants:

Allen & Doreen Pigeon (#432)

Pierre Boudreau (#429)

            Travis Belisle (#436)

           

Interested Persons:

            Mike & Pat Weaver (#432)

            Judi McFadden (#432)

            Leonard & Kristine Stell (#432)

 

Technical Support:

            Michael Gervais, land surveyor & septic designer (#432)

            Harvey Chaffee, in place of Roy Hango (#429)

            Mark Day, TDH surveying (#436)

 

Also present:

            Doug & Nancy MacKechnie

            Haiying Zhang

           

Chairman Jim Hubbard opened at 7:09 p.m. He swore in the applicants and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

I. #432             PRELIMINARY AND POSSIBLE FINAL  PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST OF  ALLEN & DOREEN PIGEON  

 

Allen & Doreen Pigeon, accompanied by Michael Gervais, came forward to discuss their request to create an eight (8) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd.  Access from Campbell Bay Road to the individual lots  would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter and  proceeding into the interior of the subject property.  .SR Shoreland Recreation District.

 

Gervais presented new maps of the planned development. He explained that the new sketch plan includes the wetlands, and that there are two areas that the proposed development will be impacting. One area is right near the ditch on the northerly border and a proposed road will be crossing through that area, and the second area is down in the cul-de-sac area in which most of the area will be right-of-way but some wetland permitting will be required. Gervais stated that Brian Trembrac did the wetlands delineation and explained to Gervais that the army corps is in charge of determining under which class the wetlands fall. Class 2 would need more permitting, but Class 3 would be minor issue. Gervais planned the road to go in between the two major wetland areas, thereby not impacting either area. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the maps.

 

Hubbard noted that a simple solution regarding the western cul-de-sac would be to relocate it. Gervais replied that he was trying to keep the cul-de-sac away from the Class 2 wetland. He added that all boundaries on the map had been finalized and mentioned that the plan includes a 20 foot right of way easement for a pedestrian path parallel to Yandow Drive and along Sunset Harbor Road that would pass through Lot 7 and which motor vehicles would not be able to use.

 

Hubbard asked when the Pigeons planned to perk and show their proposed mound systems or septic areas. Gervais mentioned that Allen Pigeon was looking at the possibility of selling lots as vacant parcels without building permits or wastewater permits. Hubbard reminded the applicants that they cannot subdivide building lots without a wastewater plan, in order to prevent future buyers from finding out that their lot does not perk or that they need to provide an easement for another lot. Gervais agreed, and it was confirmed that, at the bare minimum, the Pigeons would need test pits and site certification. Allen Pigeon asked if a septic design would be needed for each plot and Hubbard replied that the sites for all the plots would have to be tested, designed, and certified and that the Planning Commission would have to know the locations and types of septic systems before the request could be moved forward.

 

Gervais asked when the Planning Commission would need the engineered road design. Case answered that the planned road would have to be delineated before final plat approval. Hubbard added that temporary approved roads or cul-de-sacs can be accepted and the infrastructure of the road must be built to the standards outlined in the by-laws as development progresses. Kilburn asked if the representation of the location of Sunset Harbor Road was based upon the research that Gervais had done and whether that research established to Gervais’s satisfaction the location of the road in relation to the lots. Gervais replied that he was satisfied with the information, which was based on surveys, deeds, and records.

 

Hubbard then invited the interested persons to come forward. Mike Weaver and Judi McFadden came forward and reviewed the sketch plan. Weaver asked if the people who owned camps along Sunset Harbor Road would be responsible to maintain all parts of the road that the Pigeons did not improve. Hubbard said yes. Weaver reviewed the pedestrian path and Hubbard clarified for him that the Pigeons would have to state on their deed that Lots 1 through 8 would have pedestrian access through Lot 7 to the lake.

 

Weaver asked about the wetland areas and Gervais explained that most wetland areas north of Yandow Drive will most likely be Class 3 wetland. Hubbard asked if there would be 50 foot buffers for those areas and Gervais replied that Class 3 would not have buffer zones but Class 2 would. Hubbard stated that it was now important to determine where houses could be built on the properties.

 

Daniel asked if the pedestrian lane should have some provision for boat access for the future. Weaver reminded that there are other boat launch areas nearby and Hubbard added that the quickest way to gain approval would be to proceed as planned. If friendly neighbors were willing to allow buyers of the Pigeon lots to access the two nearby boat launches, then that would be neighborly, but because of the issues with the floodplain and wetland, it would be best to keep the right-of-way as a pedestrian path rather than a road. Pigeon expressed a wish to proceed with the plan as it was currently presented and asked if there would be a problem if the buyer of Lot 7 was opposed to everyone walking on the property. Hubbard replied that the owner of Lot 7 would have to understand that there is an easement on the property to provide for that access to the lake.

 

 

II. #429           PRELIMINARY AND POSSIBLE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST OF PIERRE BOUDREAU  

 

Pierre Boudreau came forward to discuss his request to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street, Lot #1- 3.3 acres, Lot #2 - 2.8 acres, Lot #3 – 3.5 acres, Lot #4 –5.1 acres and Lot #5- 22.9 acres. Wetland  impact  review is pending. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Boudreau was accompanied by Harvey Chaffee, in the place of Roy Hango. Chaffee said that he had taken Hango’s information and transferred it to a new map. The Planning Commission reviewed the map and Kilburn also presented a few past maps and surveys for the commission’s information. Chaffee noted that the new map did not show wetlands. Daniel noted that Julie Foley, District Wetlands Ecologist, had sent Boudreau two e-mails dated 7/21/10 and 7/23/10 with certain suggestions and stipulations about the wetlands and he asked if those things had been incorporated into the current plan. Boudreau said that they had.

 

Hubbard noted that the plan should include some sort of turn-around for emergency vehicles, especially on the lengthy driveways of some of the back lots, and expressed some concern over whether there was enough space from the wetlands in order to add a hammerhead. It was determined that there was enough space. Hubbard said that if all state requirements were met, the Planning Commission was happy with the plan as presented, with the exception that emergency vehicle turn-arounds would have to be added to the long driveways.

 

III. # 436         LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF  TRAVIS BELISLE & GERALD BELISLE

 

Travis Belisle, accompanied by Mark Day of TDH Surveying, came forward to discuss his request to adjust the lot lines on Lots #8 and #9 of a Planned Unit Development at Rocky Ridge, off Sheldon Rd., Route #105  and to also reconfigure the cul-de-sac on Lots #8 and #9 as well as the location of the  right of way known as “Rocky Ridge”,  leading from Lot #3 to Lot #9. The foregoing changes will require amendments to Map #193A in the Swanton Land Records.   R1 Agricultural/Residential District.        

 

Day explained that Travis Belisle had hired TDH Surveying to reconfigure the boundaries and correct some of the other issues with the subdivision. Day stated he explained that construction had been done earlier but the wetland buffers were shown incorrectly on the original survey. The new plan proposed to increase the sizes of Lots 8 and 9 for the purpose of creating better building envelopes for the lots. Hubbard asked if that increase would require reducing the common land and Day replied yes.

 

Hubbard stated that originally the Planning Commission had asked if there would be any wetlands impact and that the Belisles had replied that, to their knowledge, there was not. At the time, the Planning Commission had taken the Belisles’ word but had later found out that there were indeed wetland issues. Now the Planning Commission has made it a policy to require a state wetlands delineation.

 

Kilburn mentioned that he had not been able to issue certificates of occupancy for two buildings in the same area as the Belisle development because of obvious wetland issues. He added that he suspected that those issues were what brought the current problem to a head. Belisle stated that he realizes now that he is out of compliance and wants to correct the issue.

 

It was determined that all lots are still owned by the Belisles. Belisle stated that he has a CUD permit from the State of Vermont for the wetlands, issued late 2008 or early 2009. Kilburn noted that he had received a letter dated 6/4/08 that provided notice of the state’s decision but he said that he needed a copy of the official approval letter from Belisle. Belisle agreed to provide it.

 

Hubbard noted that the original cul-de-sac was planned to go along the boundaries of the lots but that the state had said that a buffer was needed and the road is no longer located where it was originally approved. Belisle mentioned that Rugiano had designed the road and there is a concrete structure that goes into the “pond” and that Jay Mullin had never picked up the footing drains that were coming out of the houses. The design was essentially based on raising the ditch line on one side of the road and putting culvert in from Lot 7’s ditch under the road, which does not allow the footing drains to drain. Day added that Rugiano is revising the stormwater design to manage the issue.

 

Hubbard stated that it was fortunate that this issue is being corrected prior to the sale of any of the lots and said that if the wetlands issues are addressed and the road, which was relocated, is built to A76 standards, then there is no more issue. He said he was fine with doing the lot line adjustment to create building lots with adequate setbacks. He further stated that the cul-de-sac was required to have 100% of travelable space and should be a 100 foot cul-de-sac built to A76 standards. He added that documentation from the state regarding the road’s location would be needed.

 

Kilburn explained that the request would need to be recessed until the presentation of necessary information such as the CUD document, the plan for the re-engineered cul-de-sac built to A76 standards, and the plan for the proposed boundary line adjustment. Kilburn mentioned that the wording of the homeowners’ association agreement might have to be adjusted because of changes to the Lot 9 acreage. Day promised to look into that.

 

Kilburn asked if the development had ever had any names other than Rocky Ridge. Belisle replied it had at one time been called Black Hole, LLC.

 

Belisle stated that before Amy Norris, of ANR, finished communicating with the Agency of Natural Resources about the project, the cul-de-sac looked like it would require too much time and money for Belisle to relocate. Norris said she would not issue a CUD permit until the cul-de-sac was re-located and Belisle responded that he could “rough it in”. He stated that Norris expressed satisfaction with that compromise. Hubbard reminded Belisle that after the proper documents were in place, Belisle needed to complete the infrastructure of the cul-de-sac.

 

Belisle asked if he was correct in assuming that no property could be conveyed until the current matter has been resolved and Hubbard replied that he was correct. Hubbard stated that the request would have to be recessed until the needed documents had been provided.

 

 

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT. There was no public comment.

 

 

V. ANY OTHER NECESSARY BUSINESS

Hubbard stated that he had received a certified letter from the MacKechnies, homeowners on Donaldson Road, regarding the accessibility of the community septic system pump. He reminded the MacKechnies that future communication of similar nature should be directed to Ron Kilburn. He stated that when he received the letter, he contacted Kilburn himself and they both agreed to hear the MacKechnie concerns at the current hearing.

 

The MacKechnies, accompanied by Haiying Zhang, who also owns property in the Donaldson Road subdivision, came forward to present their concern. Kilburn explained that the MacKechnies were worried that the community septic system of the Donaldson Road subdivision was in an inaccessible location and could not be easily reached for emergency repair. Kilburn explained that they do not contest the fact that they are responsible through the homeowners’ agreement to maintain and correct the community septic system, but their question was “How do you get to it?” He stated that he had visited the site and taken pictures and added that the project, as proposed by Steve Brooks and Dr. Robison, was finalized by the current commission in October 2005 and that a Mylar had been presented for that subdivision.

 

Hubbard asked whether the commission had approved an A76 standard cul-de-sac but fail to document any changes made by Brooks and Robison. Kilburn referenced a decision letter dated 9/1/05 that approved the final subdivision with the condition that “the road must be constructed to A76 Standards and must have a cul-de-sac at the end of the driveway easement between Lot #8 and Lot #9”. Kilburn felt that the decision should have read that the cul-de-sac would go between Lots 6 and 7.

 

Hubbard noted that Dr. Robison had originally agreed to build an A76 standard road through the property all the way to the leach field. It appeared to all concerned that Robison had not done so because the lots had not been sold, so the road was not yet needed.

 

MacKechnie explained that Drummac said that the pump station was inaccessible by hose because there was a wetland, a stream, and a hill between the main development and the station. He expressed strong concern that the station could not be accessed for regular cleaning and maintenance or for emergency repair. He mentioned that all the houses have their own 1000-gallon tank.

 

Hubbard explained that the road was required prior to any building of houses and occupancy of those houses, but was not a requirement for the purpose of accessing the community septic pump station. He added that this was an issue that was outside of the Planning Commission’s hands, but that they can enforce the conditions originally placed on Robison.

 

MacKechnie stated that he had mentioned the problem to Robison himself but felt that Robison was not as concerned about the issue. In answer to a question from Case, he said that only Lots 3, 4, and 5 had been sold so far, so Lots 6 and 7 were still undeveloped. Case clarified that the Planning Commission could not require Robison to make a road access to the septic, since the road requirement was for access to Lots 8 and 9. Hubbard added that access to the septic was definitely an issue that had been overlooked and would be something to remember for the future. He stated that until Robison applies for building permits for Lots 8 and 9, the Planning Commission could not enforce the building of the A76 road. MacKechnie stated that he had tried to get access to the pump through Neil Speer’s neighboring property near Lot 9, but Speer refused to give access.

 

MacKechnie mentioned that the pump could be accessed from Woods Hill Road. If Robison could guarantee the right-of-way from Woods Hill Road to the homeowners’ association, that could be one possible solution to the current problem. Hubbard said again that the Planning Commission would pay closer attention to things of such nature in the future and that, although they had no control over the current situation, they could mention to Robison that the issue was a great concern. MacKechnie stated that he would take up the matter with whomever necessary in order to resolve the situation and added for the record that Ron Kilburn had been extremely helpful regarding the issue.

 

MOTION: Hubbard made a motion to go into deliberative session. Case seconded. Motion carried. The hearing entered deliberative session at 8:48 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The hearing exited deliberative session at 9:16 p.m.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to RECESS #432 Preliminary Plat Approval Request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create an eight (8) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Road, awaiting the wastewater disposal capacity plan on all lots. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to APPROVE #429 Preliminary Approval Request of Pierre Boudreau to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street, with the provision that final approval would be dependent on the inclusion of hammerheads at the end of the driveways for lots 3 and 4. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to RECESS # 436            Lot Line Adjustment Request of Travis Belisle & Gerald Belisle to adjust the lot lines of lots 8 and 9 of the planned unit development of “Rocky Ridge”. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

OTHER NECESSARY BUSINESS: Hubbard stated that the Planning Commission had entertained a discussion with concerned parties who are members of the West Ridge development on Donaldson Road regarding their septic systems and so-called access easements. He stated that, hopefully, the Planning Commission satisfactorily addressed their concerns.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to adjourn. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The hearing adjourned at 9:21 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

____________________________                            __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                               Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________             

Ed Daniel                                                                   

 



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

7/21/10 PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

            The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present:          Jim Hubbard

Ed Daniel

Tim Clippinger

Kathy Lavoie

Ron Case

Ron Kilburn, Zoning Administrator

Yaasha Wheeler, Secretary

 

Applicants Present:   Allen & Doreen Pigeon (#432)

                                    Pierre Boudreau (#429)

 

Interested Persons:    Mike Menard (#432)

                                    Leon Freimour (#432)

                                    Judi McFadden (#432)

                                    Kristine Stell (#432)

Ronald J. Machia (#429)

Lucy Parah (#429)

David Bressette (#429)

                                   

Technical Support:   Mike Gervais, septic designer, land surveyor (#432)

Roy Hango, engineer (#429)

 

Hubbard called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. He swore in the applicants and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

I.       #432 CONTINUATION OF RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF  ALLEN & DOREEN PIGEON  

The Pigeons and Gervais came forward to discuss their request to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd.  Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots 2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5, 6 & 7 would be provided  either by the Yandow Road or portions thereof or some other alternative currently under discussion before the Planning Commission. SR Shoreland Recreation District.

 

Gervais said a few changes have been made—cul-de-sacs have been added, the road has been shortened, and there is now 200 ft. minimum road frontage for each lot. He added that Lot 8 had been divided into two lots, resulting in a total of 9 lots. He added that, according to FEMA floodmap, the wetland crosses a little bit into Lots 7 and 6, but leaves sufficient space to build. In answer to the last meeting’s question about who would have access to the 50-foot strip on Lot 7 that accesses the lake, the plan had been adjusted to show that a 20-foot right-of-way would come off the western end of the cul-de-sac and follow the Lot 7 property line to the 50-foot strip, giving all lots some access to the lake.

 

Hubbard mentioned that turning Lot 8 into two lots would trigger Act 250 because the lot containing the double-wide had been subdivided in 2006 by Pigeon. Gervais replied that he had been under the impression that the lot had been subdivided by Allen Pigeon’s sister, but now that he knew it was not so, lot 8 could be returned to a single lot.

 

Hubbard asked if the 20-foot ROW that accessed the lake through Lot 7 would be a new road or Sunset Harbor Road. Gervais replied that if Sunset Harbor Road is outside of the Pigeon property lines, the right-of-way would have to be a new access but that, if it is on the property, the road would be utilized. He mentioned that property lines on the old Brooks plan are hazy.

 

Hubbard asked what the use or value of the 50-foot strip of lake access would be. Allen Pigeon answered that the strip is marshy and overgrown and that work would have to be done to make the strip usable, but that the strip could certainly be useful. Gervais stated that the lake access had been incorporated in the plan because of the concern of the campers on Sunset Harbor Road that people from the Pigeon lots would cross the campers’ properties in order to access the lake. Hubbard asked if the strip, being in the floodplain and possibly considered a wetland, could be altered. Gervais replied that floodplain and wetland have different restrictions, that floodplain has fewer restrictions, and that alterations could still be made within those restrictions.

 

Hubbard asked whether there had been a wetland delineation and elevation. Gervais replied that doing the full area would be expensive and asked what areas the Planning Commission wanted to have done. Hubbard expressed some concern about Lots 2 and 3 on the northern side of the property and whether a road could be built through that area. Gervais presented a map from ANR that indicated Lot 7 as being the area for the most concern, although he added that a wetland scientist had not visited the site to delineate the wetland areas. He said that he had contacted wetland specialist Brian Trembrack about the possibility of doing a delineation, and Gervais just needed to know what areas should be delineated. Hubbard noted that the people who visit the site and view the property would have some idea of what particular areas would need or not need a closer examination.

 

Pigeon asked if the wetland delineation was needed in order to move forward and Hubbard replied that the Planning Commission could approve the sketch, but might do so with requirements that the Pigeons present a wetlands delineation.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the issue about the usage of the roads in the area and reminded Pigeon that there was no good way to keep people on either side from violating the uses of the roads. Gervais added that because the road in the development would be 16-18 feet wide as opposed to Yandow Drive, which is 8-9 feet wide, then most big traffic would tend to stay on the larger road.

 

The interested parties were invited to view and discuss the plans. In response to a concern from Freimour, the Planning Commission assured the interested parties that the Pigeons would be responsible for maintaining and plowing any right-of-ways to which they have the rights. Menard added that not everyone will take up that responsibility when they buy property in the development, and Lavoie agreed that it would be difficult but it needed to be dealt with as property owners within that development.

 

Hubbard summarized the situation by saying that the Planning Commission was hoping to move this forward beyond the sketch phase, and was willing to take all ideas and concerns into effect. There had been significant changes to the plan each hearing, although this time the road infrastructure and lots appeared to be the same, except for the lot that had to be taken out unless the Pigeons wanted to go through Act 250. The 50-foot strip at the lake was owned by the Pigeons and if they chose to allow the lots to access that, there was no problem with that.

 

Menard mentioned that it was too bad that the site plan included having 2 roads in the development, instead of having one continuous road (such a move could only be considered if Cleo & Trudy Yandow allowed the Pigeons to have access to their right-of-way). Hubbard added that if the road were built to A76 standards, costs of maintenance could easily be shared or the Selectboard could take it over, although it was noted that the Selectboard was not offering to take over any other roads at the present. Lavoie added that a homeowner’s association could be formed in the area in order to have a voting body concerning decisions and that people could also come to individual agreements with the Piegons about allowance for use and other matters. The important question at the moment, aside from the wetlands delineation, was whether the 20-foot right-of-way was going to encompass the existing road or go to the left of it. Gervais noted that he had already started field work on that, although the project was pretty in-depth because each camp was cut out in a different way and they had to be pieced together to determine the boundary of the Pigeon parcel.

 

In reply to a question from Menard, Hubbard noted that anytime the abutting landowners wanted to put a gate on their right-of-ways and give the Pigeons a key, they had every right to do so. Kilburn also clarified for Freimour that the definition of seasonal use was 180 days of occupation in a single year.

 

The Planning Commission clarified for Pigeon the stipulations of Act 250 and how it affected his property, especially concerning the recent purchase of Lot 1 and the possible division of Lot 8. Hubbard said that the Planning Commission would review the case and let the Pigeons know of the decision within the next 4-5 days.

 

 

II. #429  CONTINUATION OF RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF PIERRE BOUDREAU  

Pierre Boudreau and Roy Hango came forward to discuss the request to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street,  consisting of  three lots - 1.7 acres each, one lot 2.0 acres and the remaining parcel of 30.6 acres.  Wetland delineation and review is pending. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Hango presented new maps and stated that the biggest change involved a site visit. Julie Foley, District Wetlands Ecologist, had found additional wetland of minor significance, although it was still Class 2. As a result, Hango had plotted the new wetland on the plans, and reconfigured a lot so no road infrastructure or development would cross the wetland. He presented copies of Foley’s e-mail to him and pointed out that, so far, he had met all her requirements. He added that the lots have increased in size because he used up all the “leftover” land to square them off. This resulted in four (4) lots in the area, with two (2) driveways. He said that he could apply for CUDs if he wanted to be more aggressive, but this way was a “clean approach” that did not require any wetland permits.

 

A discussion followed about how to interpret the maps and Clippinger felt that the ledger was somewhat inadequate, although all agreed that the maps were much clearer than they had been at the last meeting.

 

Hango added that the perimeter had been surveyed some time ago, so the only added part was the interior subdivision. A smaller mound was on one lot because Boudreau was using pre-treatment in order to fit it inside the buffer zones. Other sewer mounds were conventional. He added that plans for houses had been moved away from the buffer zones to allow mowing to be done comfortably.

 

Hubbard asked how Hango proposed to not impact the very tight boundary lines during construction, as Foley had stipulated in her e-mail, and intrusion into the wetland could be costly and problematic for both Boudreau and the Planning Commission. It was determined that flags were insufficient, so Hango agreed to use a silt fence to outline the buffer zones.

 

Interested party Ron Machia voiced his concern that if he were involved in agricultural work such as haying late at night, a person who bought one of Boudreau’s lots might call the cops or become upset. He added that he had recently had to deal with a similar scenario. He asked if any restrictions could be made to prevent such an issue. Hubbard replied that he did not know how to stop such a situation from occurring and Lavoie added that homeowners could be informed up front that they are buying knowing that agricultural practices are underway. Machia also asked if anything could be done to prevent 4-wheelers from accessing his property and driving in his field. Boudreau suggested that he could just post his property, and Hubbard further suggested that a barbed wire fence could be put in place as well and that Machia certainly had the right to call the authorities if any trespassing occurred.

 

Hubbard noted that the driveways on the map were shared driveways and did not come against the requirement that only one right-of-way was allowed per continuous parcel. He said that the Planning Commission would review the plan and would determine if it could be moved out of the sketch plan phase, adding that there might be some requirements, but he hoped that everything could be finalized within another month or two.

 

III. PUBLIC COMMENT—No public was present to comment.

 

IV. ANY OTHER NECESSARY BUSINESS

SWANTON SUNOCO MEDIATION DECISION—Daniel and Lavoie noted that they had attended the Selectboard meeting on the previous night concerning the Swanton Sunoco mediation agreement. They said that they had thanked the Selectboard for respecting the decision of the Planning Commission and which the Planning Commission felt was substantiated by the by-laws. They expressed regret that the issue had to come to mediation at all, especially since the issue appeared to have been resolved so quickly and easily at the mediation and the resulting plan was exactly what the Planning Commission had been looking for anyway. They explained that they were glad they now had a site plan to which to refer in the future. Hubbard noted that any changes of use would require a site plan review.

 

MUNICIPAL PLAN—Daniel stated that he had also attended the 7/19/10 Joint Legislative Body meeting concerning the new Town municipal plan. He noted that Leach had felt that the electric plant and electric operations information was old and that Daniel had informed him of the steps that could be taken to correct the information. The Planning Commission discussed ways in which the next rewrite of the plan could be more in-depth and up-to-date. It was agreed that meeting with schools and municipalities might be a good way to get that updated information and also a good time to ask them to share their long-term plans as well as the information they use to support those plans.

 

BOULDERS OFF ROUTE 207—Hubbard stated that he had gotten a call from Linda Callan about her 50-foot right-of-way off of Route 207. Apparently, the neighboring landowner who mows the right-of-way and might share it has now put a row of boulders along the right-of-way, outside of the 20-foot easement for Route 207. Callan does not want the boulders along the right-of-way. Kilburn pointed out that the issue was a civil matter concerning the parties who entered the agreement about how to access the lots from Route 207; therefore, it does not concern the Planning Commission.

 

BUS PULL-OFF ON GAMACHE LANE—Hubbard said that the site visit to Gamache Lane on 6/19/10 with the Planning Commission, Selectboard, and “Buvy” Gamache had gone very well and that the Planning Commission had decided to remove the proposed bus turn-around because of concerns about the bus shelter and safety. It was decided that it was safest to keep the bus on the road. Kilburn noted that the issue should be treated as a formal request to amend the final Mylar.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to go into deliberative session. Clippinger seconded. The Planning Commission entered deliberative session at 8:44 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session. Daniel seconded. The Planning Commission exited deliberative session at 9:13 p.m.

 

MOTION: Lavoie made a motion to APPROVE the sketch plan request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd, with the CONDITION that the Pigeons provide the following three things:

  1. A boundary survey on Lot 7 that abuts camp lots to determine the position of Sunset Harbor Road
  2. A complete wetland delineation
  3. A complete flood plain delineation

Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to APPROVE the sketch plan of Pierre Boudreau to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street. Lavoie seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to request “Buvy” Gamache to submit a new Mylar that reflects the removal of the bus pull-off, because after further review and a site visit, the Planning Commission had decided that the pull-off was not necessary. By submitting the new Mylar, Gamache would be amending two (2) previous Mylars, one that was approved by the Planning Commission and one that was not. Gamache was also requested to relocate the three mailboxes off of the town highway onto Gamache Lane. Clippinger seconded. Discussion: Kilburn noted that this was a decision made in the context of the meeting on 6/16/10 in which Gamache requested either to move or eliminate the bus pull-off. Hubbard added that the request for an amended Mylar was made as a follow-up of the motion made at the 6/16/10 meeting to recess Gamache’s case. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/17/10 as printed. Clippinger seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to approve the 4/21/10 minutes as printed. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Lavoie made a motion to approve the 5/19/10 minutes as printed. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to adjourn the hearing. Clippinger seconded. The hearing adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

____________________________                            __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                               Kathy Lavoie

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                          __________________________________   

Ed Daniel                                                                    Ron Case

 

 

_____________________________

Tim Clippinger



 

TOWN OF SWANTON

MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

 

TUESDAY JUNE 8, 2010

7:00 PM

SWANTON TOWN HALL

 

Present: Dick Thompson (Town Administrator), Jim Hubbard (Chairman), Kathy Lavoie, Ed Daniel, Timothy Clippinger, Ron Kilburn (Zoning Administrator), and Yaasha Wheeler (Planning Commission Secretary)

Also Present: Cristina Mastrangelo (NRPC)

 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a hearing on June 8, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Swanton Town Hall to consider for adoption the following proposed Swanton Municipal Plan (Draft March 2010, v2) pursuant to Chapter 117 of Title 24, Section 4384, Vermont Statutes Annotated.

 

The proposed Swanton Municipal Plan (Draft March 2010, v2) includes 7 chapters:  Introduction; The Vision; Background; Swanton in the Future; Implementation; Swanton Today, Summary of Existing Conditions; and Compatibility.  A full text of the draft plan is on file in the Swanton Town Clerk’s Office.  The plan proposes goals and policies that impact the Town and Village of Swanton.  This plan is intended to be consistent with the goals established in Title 24, Section 4302.

 

According to Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, municipal plans must be readopted every five years or they will expire.  The most recent Swanton Municipal Plan will expire July 19, 2010.  The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment on the updated, draft plan (Draft March 2010, v2)) and to discuss any comments provided by the public.

 

Note: None of the public was present.

 

Acting Chairman Kathy Lavoie opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m., then turned over the proceedings to Chairman Jim Hubbard upon his arrival immediately thereafter.

 

Hubbard stated that the new plan differed very little from the old plan, and the changes that had been made were intended to correct outdated material or to reflect minor changes in community. Lavoie confirmed that there had been no changes of any substance and that the most recent plan will expire on 7/19/10.

 

Hubbard presented a letter from Debra Perry, land use planner of NRPC. He noted that the Swanton Planning Commission had received an excellent rating with the help of Greta Brunswick (NRPC) and that the reviewer of the plan was Cristina Mastrangelo (present at the meeting). He announced that a meeting had been scheduled on 6/17/10 at 7 p.m. for the purpose of approving the Town Plan. He stressed the importance of representation at that meeting.

 

Daniel then brought up the following items concerning the proposed plan that he felt needed to be corrected, reviewed, or clarified.

  1. Pages 28-29: Daniel asked for clarification of the statement that Missisquoi Valley Rescue is no longer staffed by unpaid volunteers. Hubbard and Thompson confirmed that the entire staff is now paid.
  2. Page 41: Daniel referenced the statement that “there are other mechanisms and tools available to pay for new development that do not place undue burden on residents”. He felt that the impact fees did indeed place undue burden on residents. Hubbard clarified that the statement spoke of municipal and commercial development, not residential areas.
  3. Page 59: Daniel expressed some concern that the chart regarding Swanton town organization appeared to indicate that the cemetery commission and library commission answers to the selectboard, despite consisting of independently elected officers. Lavoie mentioned that, in the event of an issue or dispute, the selectboard would be called upon for a resolution. Kilburn added that the cemetery commission and library commission were responsible to present their budgets to the selectboard for review and that, if the selectboard does not approve, a petition would have to be made.
  4. Page 72: Daniel clarified that the Greyhound bus lines and transit no longer come through Swanton.
  5. Page 26: Daniel noted that a reference to Grand Union on Missisquoi Street was incorrect, since Grand Union had been replaced by Hannafords. Thompson suggested referring to the place by location rather than by ownership.

 

Mastrangelo presented the Preliminary Regional Review. She suggested that the revised plan should be presented in a more organized format and a more user-friendly presentation. She recommended that the chapter regarding current conditions should precede the chapter regarding Swanton in the future and that the plan might include more graphics for interest. She stated that, overall, the plan met all criteria of the state statues and was consistent with the regional plan, with no necessary content missing. She confirmed for Hubbard that she had shared her evaluation with Greta Brunswick of NRPC.

 

Lavoie suggested that the structure diagram depicting the government flow on page 59 could be clarified by including notes beside each board and commission indicating whether the positions were appointed or elected.

The planning commission then discussed possible dates to meet with the selectboard, since Thompson reminded the commission that the issue called for two meetings with the legislative body because the population of Swanton was over 2500 people. In accordance with stipulations that the meetings should be scheduled no less than 30 days and no more than 120 days from the current date, the commission suggested meeting on July 20th and August 23rd.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to adjourn meeting. Lavoie seconded. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

____________________________                            __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                               Kathy Lavoie

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                          __________________________________   

Ed Daniel                                                                    Timothy Clippinger

 

 

 

 



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

One Academy St., P.O. Box 711

Swanton, Vermont 05488-0711

Tel.  (802) 868-3325, Fax. (802) 868-4957

Email: swanza@swantonvermont.org

 

MINUTES OF PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present: Jim Hubbard (Chairman), Kathy Lavoie, Ron Case, Ed Daniel, Ron Kilburn (Zoning Board Administrator), and Yaasha Wheeler (Recording Secretary)

 

Applicants:     Allen & Doreen Pigeon (#432)

                        Pierre Boudreau (#429)

                        Wesley & Elvey Kidder (#433)

                        Douglas & Nancy MacKechnie (#434)

                        Milton Robison (#435)

Versant Enterprises, Inc. (#435)

                        Versant Enterprises, Inc. (#435)

 

Interested Parties:     Michael W. Menard (#432)

                                    Leon Freimour (#432)

                                    Judi McFadden (#432)

                                    Betty Hagedorn (#432)

                                    Leonard (#432)

                                    William J. & Josephine Smolivski (#432)

                                    Kristine Stell (#432)

                                    John Edwards (#433)

 

Technical Support:   Michael Gervais, land surveyor and septic designer (#432, #433, #434,

#435)

                                    Roy Hango, engineer (#429)

 

 

I.       CALL TO ORDER

 

Hubbard called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. He swore in the applicants and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

II.    #432 CONTINUATION OF RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF  ALLEN & DOREEN PIGEON  

 

Allen & Doreen Pigeon, with Michael Gervais, came forward to discuss their request to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots  2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5,6 & 7 would be provided by the Yandow Road or some other alternative under discussion.SR Shoreland Recreation District.

 

Gervais presented a new revision of the plan, which included changes to lots 5, 6, and 7 in order to adhere to the 70% rule and which also got rid of a road that went along common line of lot 4 and Yandow property. Having been asked at the last meeting to provide information about the use of Yandow Drive as a ROW, Gervais explained that land records verified that Yandow Drive is a private ROW but does not have documentation delineating the rights. He added that there are no restrictions stating that the road cannot be used or upgraded, so long as access to the camp lots is not hindered. Allen Pigeon explained that he was in the understanding that there was the possibility of using Yandow Drive for farm access but not for developing access, adding that in the last Mylar there was small typo stating that development would have to come thru the ROW.

 

Ron Case asked if the case had come before the wetlands authorities. Gervais said it had not.

 

Hubbard asked why the location of an existing septic was shown on the plan as being merely approximate. Allen Pigeon explained that some sites had been tested some years ago, when he had been considering building his home there. Gervais added that the replacement area had come from Summit Engineering’s plans. Hubbard confirmed that the plan included an easement in the area for Lot 1. Case asked whether the easement had to stay because of the new easement laws. Gervais explained that the Pigeons did not need a replacement area for a new mound system. If, however, the existing septic was not up to state standards with a pressurized pump station, then a replacement area would be needed. Case clarified that none of other lots would need a replacement area, and Gervais responded that they were fine as long as they’re mound systems.

 

The planning commission and Gervais then discussed the use of Yandow Drive as a ROW. Gervais described Yandow Drive as a private ROW that was deeded to certain camps. The road was referred to in the deeds as “the old road” or “camp” access, but was never specified as a ROW with certain dimensions. Although the Pigeons do not have the rights over the ROW, Gervais stated that he believed there may be implied (though not documented) rights for the use of Yandow Drive for farm purposes. He emphasized the lack of documentation about the rights involving Yandow Drive as a ROW. Daniel requested copies of the deeds which Gervais had reviewed. Gervais explained that, as far as he understood, the Pigeons only had rights to widen what was on their property, so long as no one else’s access was limited.

 

He then presented Book 66 of the land records, page 529, in which a few of the camps reference Yandow Drive as their access. Hubbard noted that the ROW was meant to provide access from the road (Campbell Bay Road) to the camps. He mentioned that the planning commission had worked with the Pigeons to create a ROW on their property for access and subdivision, and that the current presentation followed what had been set up three or four years ago, in not requesting use of Yandow Drive to access any lots.

 

Hubbard asked what would stop any homeowners or people from the lots from using Yandow Drive. Gervais felt that having a gate might be a viable solution in preventing people without rights to the road from using it. Daniel added that a sign could further identify the road as a private road.

 

Hubbard then asked for comments from any interested parties, who came forward at that time to review the sketches. Betty Hagedorn asked if the road could be widened. Hubbard replied that any portions that were widened would be only in those areas to which the Pigeons had rights. Leon Freimour wanted to make sure that road near his property would not be widened and was assured that the Pigeons had no rights over the portion of the road near his property. Hagedorn asked if the Pigeons had the responsibility of the care and maintenance of the new development road. Hubbard replied that the Pigeons would need to construct a new road to A76 standards and that the Pigeons or a homeowners’ association would be responsible for the maintenance. If the current presentation were implemented, abutting landowners would only need to care for the portion of the road not maintained by the Pigeons.

 

Hagedorn expressed a concern that the plowing of the road in the winter would dump large amounts of gravel and snow in her yard and Freimour expressed a concern that large snowbanks would make access difficult for emergency vehicles. Hubbard stressed that the road would have to be maintained like a town highway and Lavoie added that debris would probably be less of an issue anyway when the road was built and maintained according to A76 standards. Gervais clarified that no had any right to block the ROW in any way and that the Pigeons were not asking for that right. Hubbard stated that a request could be made that snow be removed onto Lot 7 or Lot 5 so that it would not potentially block access into the camp road area; this could be delineated on a Mylar. Case added that having a hammerhead or cul-de-sac could eliminate the snow problem and that having either one was required anyway for emergency vehicles. Gervais agreed that he could revise the plans. To wrap up the matter of winter access and maintenance of the road, Kilburn stressed that all the summer camps were seasonal and that, although people should have access to the camps throughout the year, the seasonal nature of the camps should not be ignored.

 

Menard asked about the possibility of having a covenant or homeowners’ association and how such a thing would be implemented. Hubbard replied that the Pigeons will have to present a copy of the covenant to the town and that it would be up to them to police, enforce, and agree on any covenant. So while the planning commission was in charge of ensuring that the road construction met standards, that everything was approved by a licensed engineer, and that septic standards were met, the homeowners themselves would govern all other aspects of the development. Menard asked if it would be incorporated in the deeds that campers will not be maintaining the section of the road used for the development. Hubbard agreed that this could be included on the Mylar and deeds. Menard requested signage or restrictions to keep children from the developments from accessing the lake from the camps and added that perhaps the there should be two gates on each end of the A76 standard road.

 

Lavoie asked Gervais to explain where the Pigeons’ rights to road end. Gervais explained that the property rights were based off of Steve Brooks’ plan, in which some camps referenced their property as being up to the westerly side of road and others did not reference the road at all, choosing instead to start at the low water mark and come up so many feet. In other words, it was impossible to tell exactly where property lines are. He said that he would resolve the issue before the preliminary, but could not fully answer before a survey had been done.

 

Hubbard felt that such information was irrelevant, because lot 7 was the only lot that would own any part of that road. If the plan went through as presented, then once lot 7 were subdivided, no one would own any part of that road other than lot 7.

 

Case stated that the current plan included more than the legal requirement of 200 feet of road frontage and Pigeon explained that it was done to meet the 70% rule. Hubbard suggested that 200 feet of road frontage with a cul-de-sac would work just as well. Gervais noted that the regulations had stated that a lot could not be smaller than 70% from front to back, but asked whether the lot could get wider instead. He suggested shortening the road so that after a hammerhead or cul-de-sac were incorporated, the total road frontage would be 200 feet. Hubbard agreed that a cul-de-sac or hammerhead could be part of the 200 feet and that signs could be put up at each side to identify the road at one end as being for private use only and at the other end as being for campers only. He stated that if anyone abused the rights to the road, a call to the authorities and the identification of a license plate number should be enough to correct the issue.

 

Kilburn asked Gervais whether, if the plan should go forward that stage, he would be doing contours and elevation for each lot to determine if any have to go through flood hazard review. Gervais agreed that he could do so. Kilburn stressed that actual elevations would be needed. Gervais asked if he should do a wetland delineation of the whole parcel or only the areas that would be impacted. Hubbard replied that the planning commission would discuss that and let Gervais know of their decision.

 

Hearing no more comments from the interested parties, Hubbard stated that the planning commission would review the information, make any requests, and have the Pigeons back next month for a new presentation, at which time the request would hopefully move out of the sketch phase. He reminded the Pigeons that they still faced a minimum of two meetings, a preliminary and a final.

 

III. #429 CONTINUATION OF RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF PIERRE BOUDREAU  

 

Pierre Boudreau, with Roy Hango, came forward to discuss his request to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street,  consisting of  three lots - 1.7 acres each, one lot 2.0 acres and the remaining parcel of 30.6 acres. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Kilburn presented a new drawing showing the delineation of the wetlands. Hango explained that he had hired a professional to map the areas and that, in order to deal with reduced road frontage, one lot had a separate driveway and the rest of the lots were serviced by a cul-de-sac.

 

A discussion followed between Hango and the planning commission in order to interpret the plans. Hango noted that the actual area that would be developed would be only 4-5 acres. Hubbard asked if the rest were wetland, but Hango clarified that although the state originally called the whole parcel wetland, a few acres were not. Hubbard stated that dense development in an area so close to wetland concerned him. Hango assured him that all buffer zones were dry and that the cluster development was meant to preserve the nature of the surrounding land.

 

Kilburn asked if the remaining land was common land or future development. Hango stated that the area would not be common land. Hubbard stated that he would have to review the PUD regulations concerning the matter of common land. Hubbard added that because of the detail of the plan, the planning commission would need time to review it.

 

IV. #433 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF  WESLEY & ELVEY KIDDER

 

John Edwards, at the request of the Kidders (not present), came forward to discuss the Kidders’ request to adjust a common boundary between their land located at 75 Spring St. and their neighbors John & Deanna Edwards  at  #1 John Drive, R5 Residential District.

 

Edwards stated that he had seen the Mylar and that the diagram looked accurate. Daniel noted that the two lines would be dissolved and that a new line would be created. Kilburn said that he had the Mylar and the deed created by Gervais and that he had no issues, but added that the Kidders and the Edwards would have to swap deeds or do a boundary line adjustment agreement. Hubbard agreed to review Gervais’ work.

 

V.    #434 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF DOUGLAS & NANCY MACKECHNIE and #435 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF VERSANT ENTERPRISES, INC.  

 

The MacKechnies came forward to discus their request to adjust the Northerly lot line of their 1.87 acre parcel (Lot #3, on a Subdivision Plat of Dr. Milton Robison, Map Slide #158).  The purpose of the adjustment is to permit the acquisition of the Southerly half of adjacent  Lot #4 now owned by Dr. Milton Robison, situated at 11 Donaldson Rd, R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

 

The Robisons also came forward to discuss his request to adjust the Southerly Lot line of a 1.27 acre parcel (Lot #5, on a Subdivision Plat of Dr. Milton Robison, Map Slide #158).  The purpose of the adjustment is to permit the acquisition of the Northerly half of adjacent Lot #4, now owned by Dr. Milton Robison, situated at 11 Donaldson Rd., R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

 

Michael Gervais also came forward.

 

Kilburn stated that the two requests should be considered together. Hubbard summarized the request by noting that the applicants planned to take a parcel of property between the two landowners, eliminating it, and then creating a new lot line from that space. Doug MacKechnie asked whether the issue would be resolved by July and Hubbard replied that the issue would have to be decided in deliberative session, but did not anticipate any delays. Kilburn asked how the deed from Robison would be accomplished: Would the deed be to all four as tenants, or half to Versant and half to the MacKechnies? Hubbard replied that, with Dr. Robison’s signature, the middle lot would have to be removed as a lot of record, creating two lots instead of three. Robison would then have to deed over some of the land to the MacKechnies, as planned according to the lot line adjustment.

 

Kilburn reminded that an attorney would have to be involved in the proceedings and it was stated that Bill Brooks would be that attorney.

 

VI.       PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Hubbard opened up for public comment. Hearing none, he proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

 

VII.    OTHER NECESSARY BUSINESS

 

A.    Richard “Buvy” Gamache came forward to discuss his request  to relocate or eliminate the bus pull-off at “Sunrise Estates” Bushey Road,   MAP #196A (Reviewed and approved by PC in August, 2007) and Map #223 (Filed April, 2010, not reviewed or approved by PC)

 

Hubbard reviewed Gamache’s case, stating that Gamache had come in for building permits and at the time had expressed discontent with the present bus pull-off. After meeting briefly and reviewing the 22 lots, the planning commission had agreed to allow construction on them and Kilburn had issued 6 building permits. Gamache was now in to see if the issue of the bus pull-off could be resolved so that he could continue to get building permits and develop his properties.

 

The planning commission reviewed the Mylar, map, and pictures presented by Gamache to determine where the proposed bus pull-off would be. Gamache explained that he planned to have the bus pull-off further down the road where there was more road frontage, so that the pull-off did not encroach on a smaller lot.

 

In answer to a question from Lavoie, Gamache explained that the plan would involve the bus being boarded at one point on the road, then going up the road a short distance and using the pull-off.

 

Case asked how far off the traveled portion of the road was the town highway ROW. Garrett replied that it was 25 ft. from center line and that the road will be paved and widened to 12-ft. travel lanes, meaning that there would be a 13 ft. edge remaining. Case suggested incorporating the bus pull-off into that 13 ft. edge.

 

Hubbard explained that buses were required to stay on the town highway while loading children. Selectman Garrett confirmed that, in accordance with these rules, the turn-around would belong to the town.

 

Garrett expressed concern whether Act 250 might be triggered again by changing plans and moving the pull-off off the Mylar. Kilburn stated that such a move would require an administrative amendment, but would still have to go back to the district environmental commission.

 

Garrett added that the bus pull-off would require the deep ditch on the property to be filled and that no more than 40 feet of culvert could be installed.

 

Discussion followed about the possibility of future development of the commercial lot and the possible impact of development done by neighboring landowner Cummings, which could result in traffic concerns, especially regarding tractor trailers. Gamache stated that he intended to do more of a “residential type of thing”, such as a nursing home or mini storage unit. Gamache reminded the planning commission that he hoped to pave the road in his development at some point in the future.

 

Garrett raised the question of a 10 x 10 ft. shelter near the bus pull-off, and Kilburn stated that Gamache would only need a building permit for that.

 

All present agreed that a site visit was needed, at which the selectboard should be present, and discussed possible dates for the visit.

 

B.     Brian Sullivan, of Murphy, Sullivan, and Kronk, came forward to discuss the “Verizon Wireless” request to Co-Locate on the Swanton Village Antenna Tower at the Municipal Complex, without Conditional Use or Site Plan Review (Request involves an additional 10 ft. in height on the Tower) 

 

Kilburn said that he had the authority under the regulations to grant the request, but wanted to share the information with the planning commission. He stated that Verizon Wireless did need to raise the elevation on the tower for mounting purposes an additional 10 feet and that the additional height would not pose any risk of the tower falling on anything but village property in any direction. He handed out a request that asked for the issue to be handled administratively and to which was attached the portion of the regulations that applied to that request, stating that the zoning administrator does indeed have the authority to grant the request without a further site plan or conditional use review.

 

Daniel felt that homeowners should be alerted about the issue. Lavoie disagreed, stating that reopening the issue was unnecessary, adding that nothing would change the current effect of the tower and that the issue was an administrative one. Hubbard mentioned that he agreed with both sides and reminded the planning commission that the tower had been originally put in place for public safety. Alerting homeowners would require two to three public hearings and may give neighbors false hope that the tower would be removed.

 

Kilburn noted that there was nothing in the by-laws to prevent the request from going forward and that when the zoning board issued the conditional use request, it was determined that if anyone requested to co-locate, they should be able to do so. Hubbard mentioned that initially, that type of tower was not allowed in that type of district, but that some changes had been made out of concern for public safety.

 

Sullivan noted that every zoning board decision was on record and publically available, so even administrative decisions could be appealed if people are strongly interested or concerned. Kilburn added that the action would require a use permit and a building permit and that Act 250 had already been applied.

 

Hubbard requested a vote. Case and Lavoie voted to let Kilburn handle the situation administratively; Daniel voted against doing so. Hubbard abstained.

 

VIII.       OTHER MISCELLANEOUS

 

Kilburn reminded the planning commission about the Development Review Volunteers' Summer Retreat at Ohana Camp, on Lake Fairlee, 6/18/10 to 6/19/10. All expenses would be paid for one representative of either the planning commission or zoning board to attend.

 

Kilburn also wanted to circulate information about the possible creation of a development review board. Lavoie said that her understanding was that a joint meeting discussion would be scheduled to review the matter. Hubbard stated that he had reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of creating board and added that the PC also needed to make a couple amendments to by-laws.

 

 

IX. MOTIONS

 

Hubbard noted that the planning commission prepared to take action on requests 2, 3, 4 and 5 at this time.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to CONTINUE #429 recessed sketch plan of Pierre Boudreau to create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street, consisting of  three lots - 1.7 acres each, one lot 2.0 acres and the remaining parcel of 30.6 acres. R1 Agricultural/Residential District., until the planning commission has conducted a site visit at 4:30 p.m., on 6/29/10. Lavoie and Daniel seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Lavoie made a motion to APPROVE #433 Lot Line Adjustment Request of Wesley and Elvey Kidder to adjust a common boundary between their land located at 75 Spring St. and their neighbors John & Deanna Edwards at #1 John Drive, R5 Residential District. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Lavoie made a motion to APPROVE #434 Lot Line Adjustment Request of  Douglas & Nancy Mackechnie to adjust the Northerly lot line of their 1.87 acre parcel ( Lot #3,  on a Subdivision Plat of Dr. Milton Robison, Map Slide #158) to permit the acquisition of  the Southerly half of  adjacent  Lot #4 now owned by Dr. Milton Robison, situated at 11 Donaldson Rd, R3  Moderate Density Residential District. and #435 Lot Line Adjustment Request of  Versant Enterprises, Inc., to adjust the Southerly Lot line of a 1.27 acre parcel (Lot #5, on a Subdivision Plat of Dr. Milton Robison, Map Slide #158), to permit the acquisition of the Northerly half of  adjacent Lot#4, now owned by Dr. Milton Robison, situated at 11 Donaldson Rd., R3 Moderate Density Residential District. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to go into deliberative session for discussion regarding #432 Continuation of Recessed Sketch Plan Request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The planning commission entered deliberative session at 9:25 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session. Daniel seconded. Motion carried. The planning commission came out of deliberative session at 9:48 p.m.

 

MOTION: Lavoie made a motion to CONTINUE #432 recessed sketch plan request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. in anticipation of further road infrastructure on the sketch plan. She noted that the planning commission also requested a flood plain review as well as wetland determination by state. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

In regard to the #429 Continuation of Recessed Sketch Plan Request of Pierre Boudreau create a five (5) lot Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street,  consisting of  three lots - 1.7 acres each, one lot 2.0 acres and the remaining parcel of 30.6 acres, the planning commission decided to conduct a site visit at 4:30 p.m. on 6/29/10.

 

In regard to the request of Richard “Buvy” Gamache to relocate or eliminate the bus pull-off at “Sunrise Estates” Bushey Road,   MAP #196A (Reviewed and approved by PC in August, 2007) and Map #223 (Filed April, 2010, not reviewed or approved by PC), the planning commission decided to conduct a site visit at 6:00 p.m. on 6/29/10. This site visit would be attended by representatives of the selectboard.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to adjourn. Lavoie seconded. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

PUBLIC  HEARING

Meeting Minutes May 19, 2010

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present were: Kathie Lavoie, Ed Daniel, and Ron Case. Also present were Ronald Kilburn, Zoning Administrator, Heidi Britch-Valenta, Board Secretary, and Yaasha Wheeler, Board Secretary.

Unless otherwise noted, all motions carried unanimously.

 

Applicants Present:    Allen and Doreen Pigeon (#431, #432)

Interested parties:     Pat and Mike Weaver  (#432)

                                    Leon Freimour  (#432)

                                    Kristine Stell  (#432)

                                    Michael W. Menard  (#432)

Judi McFadden (#432)

Cheryl and Max Pellerin (#432)

Technical support:     Michael Gervais—Septic designer and land surveyor, speaking on behalf of the Pigeons

                                   

I.                   CALL TO ORDER

Kathy Lavoie (acting as chairman) called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. She swore in the applicants and explained to all present the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure rights as interested persons. Interested party status would allow for participation in the hearing and the ability to file an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission.

 

Kilburn asked if any present felt they were entitled to be recognized as interested parties but were not present for last meeting. Mike Weaver of 16 Sunset Harbor Road and Max Pellerin of 24 Fadden Road responded, stating that they were notified of the last meeting but had not been able to attend.

 

II.                #431  CONTINUATION OF  RECESSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST OF ALLEN & DOREEN PIGEON  

Allen and Doreen Pigeon, accompanied by Michael Gervais, came forward to discuss the request to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd., SR Shoreland Recreation District.

 

Gervais explained that the lot line adjustment had been made to correct a discrepancy concerning the 30-foot setback in the last plan. He said that the new plan slid the lot line over, resulting in an isolation easement. Aside from that matter, no changes had been made to the plan. Case confirmed the locations of existing buildings (a house and a barn) and the commission expressed satisfaction with the plan.

 

III.             #432 CONTINUATION OF RECESSED  SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF  ALLEN & DOREEN PIGEON  

 

Note: The Planning Commission performed a site visit at the intersection of Yandow Road and Sunset Harbor Road on 5/8/10 at 9:30 a.m. Present were: Jim Hubbard (Chair), Ed Daniel (member), and Ronald Kilburn (Zoning Administrator). Also present were applicants Allen and Doreen Pigeon with their representative Kristine Stell (realtor), and interested parties Brian Devaney, Michael Menard, Cleo Yandow, Peter Teeson, Pat Weaver, Charles Mackin, Judy McFadden, and Leon Freimour.

Allen and Doreen Pigeon, with Michael Gervais, then discussed their plan to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd., SR Shoreland Recreation District, with access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots 2, 3 & 4 provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property and access to Lots 5, 6 & 7 provided by Yandow Road.

 

Gervais presented revised plans, apologizing that they did not include the very latest updates but stating that he would explain those updates. He stated that the original plan had contained seven (7) lots but that the new plan contained eight (8) lots instead in an attempt to serve all the lots off of a private road that extends over to Yandow Drive. He noted that one of the revisions not included on the plans call for the replacement of a road with a cul-de-sac near lots 6 and 7.

 

Allen Pigeon asked if he could upgrade to the other side of Yandow Drive in a way to line up with Lot 6 (which would be coming off of their own private road) and whether that could then serve as a driveway for Lots 5 and 7. Case noted that he would have to do research and mentioned that the right-of-way as accessed from Yandow Drive does not originate on the property even though it goes through the property. Case informed the Pigeons that the deeds for the ROW would have to be reviewed to clarify concerning its delineated use. The Pigeons were informed that, as the applicants, the burden lay on them to present the research.

 

Kilburn asked why the ROW on Yandow Drive, as presented on the plan, had grown from the previous dimensions of 20 feet wide to 50 feet wide on the new plan. Allen Pigeon replied that in the original plan, Yandow Drive had not been used as an access, but were coming down his own ROW as planned in 2006. Case noted that the ROW was 20 feet across, but the other 30 feet seemed to be extra space. Gervais asked if there was any reason why the ROW could not be widened to 50 feet since the extra 30 feet technically belonged to the Pigeon property. The selectboard agreed that that was fine, since the Pigeons owned property on both sides of the road. Allen Pigeon clarified that if the cul-de-sac accessed Lot 6 directly, then the ROW would only be used to access Lots 5 and 7 as a driveway. He suggested that if the access was T-ed, then he would be responsible to upgrade according to A76 standards across Yandow Drive.

 

Case noted that the boundary line between Lots 6 and 7 placed Lot 7 in noncompliance with the 70-percent Rule as explained in the General Standards of Section 7.2, and suggested that moving the boundary line accordingly would result in both lots being in conformance and allow the cul-de-sac to access Lot 6. Gervais asked in Yandow Drive could be used as frontage if such a change was made. Case agreed that Yandow Drive could be used if it were upgraded. Case reminded the Pigeons that they needed to look into the matter of the ROW to find out how to treat a ROW that goes through Pigeon property but which was not deeded to them as a ROW. Case said he would look into himself, but placed the burden of research on the applicants. Both Allen Pigeon and Gervais agreed to do the necessary research.

 

Kilburn mentioned that the current plan seemed to be significantly different than the last one. Lavoie clarified for all present that the current plan was just a continuation of a recessed sketch plan.

 

Interested parties Freimour and Menard came forward to comment on this matter. Freimour expressed concern that the road would have to be built up due to wetland concerns, to which Gervais replied that such a project would be undertaken by a licensed engineer.

 

Menard added that Yandow Drive had always been maintained by the twelve campers of Sunset Harbor Road, but would not be interested in maintaining the road according to A76 standards if the project belongs to the Pigeons. He also mentioned that the road was 9 feet wide. Allen Pigeon stated a willingness to maintain the portion of the road servicing the lots. Lavoie stressed the need to review the deeds to the ROW first.

 

Freimour asked why the Pigeons could not make a separate road parallel to Yandow Drive to service their lots, but Lavoie replied that there is still land on both sides of the road.

 

Interested party Max Pellerin then came forward and indicated that his property directly bordered the Pigeon property and would be most strongly impacted by the proposed development. He expressed strong concern that the development plan would result in a general conversion of quiet, spacious farmland into “suburbia”, noting that his biggest concern was that there will be more traffic bordering his property line that would result in his horse farm being “pinched out”. Lavoie acknowledged his concerns but pointed out that, so long as the plan lay within the necessary guidelines within the bylaws, the plan could not be stopped from going forward.

 

Pellerin noted that some of the land for the proposed development is under water part of the year due to seasonal flooding along the lakefront and voiced his concern that the area could be considered wetlands. Case replied that a wetlands expert could delineate if there are any wetlands in the mentioned area and, if so, whether the wetlands belong to a certain class which would necessitate the blocking of the construction of a road. Gervais confirmed that if any engineer attempted to construct a road through known wetland, he would be liable, to which Lavoie agreed.

 

Pellerin stated an understanding that the area could be sold only as 10-acre subdivisions. Case clarified that there was a time when the state did not require landowners to get an engineered septic system if they had 10 acres of land, so at that point in time, people broke their land into 10-acre chunks and put in a septic system. Then the state tightened up on regulations and indicated that landowners needed engineered septic systems. Every septic system now has to be engineered, so people are not breaking their land into 10-acre lots anymore but are breaking them into more profitable pieces. Thus, if an area allows a house on a lot with small acreage, that is what the planning commission has to go by.

 

After Gervais explained the plan to the interested parties, Lavoie asked about the location of the common land discussed at the site visit. Allan Pigeon replied that the common land would be on Lots 5, 6, and 7. Menard asked if the Pigeons planned to do septic tank perk tests on the lots, which Gervais and Lavoie agreed was an important issue and would be taken care of before any development could be done. Allen Pigeon replied that, at the time that his sister sold him the land, several areas on the proposed lots had been found that perked.

 

Lavoie said that most likely this will be continued recessed sketch plan because there are too many unanswered questions. Kilburn asked whether he should review the schedule in four weeks or wait for another submission, because costs are incurred with each hearing. Lavoie left the decision with the applicants, who would let Kilburn know of their decision by the following week. She instructed Gervais to look into the following issues:

1.      The matter of the deeded access for the ROW on Yandow Drive.

2.      The matter of a lot line adjustment so that Lots 6 and 7 will be in conformance.

 

IV.              OTHER BUSINESS

MAPLE GROVE ESTATES—MYLAR

Kilburn presented a “leftover” item from May 17th concerning the process of resolving the Mylar request file for the site on Maple Grove Estates. Kilburn noted that the conditions imposed by the planning commission during the March hearing before approval the Mylar had been met; the applicant had followed provided a plan that created a place where emergency vehicles could turn around and also created a pull-off area. Regarding the state documentation of the wetland determination, Kilburn referenced an e-mail of 5/3/10 from District Wetlands Ecologist Julie Foley in which she wrote that “the project as proposed is not expected to violate the Vermont Wetland Rules” and recommends that an undisturbed 50-foot buffer zone should be left around the wetland so that any changes to the mapping or Rules affecting this wetland will not disrupt plans. Lavoie stated that she felt that the conditions that the commission had formerly opposed on the subdivision had now been met. Lavoie, Case, and Daniel signed the approved Mylar.

 

HUDAK COMPOSTING OPERATION

Kilburn presented a second “leftover” item from May 17th concerning the Hudak composting operation and whether the commission had the authority to confirm a site plan approval. He referenced a letter of 5/10/10 from Roger N. Albee of the Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets, to James McSweeney of Highfields Center for Composting, a letter which was written in response to the HCC written request for an official ruling from the Commissioner of Agriculture about whether the planning commission had the authority to approve the site plan for the proposed Hudak composting operation. The letter confirmed that the decision did indeed rest with each town. Kilburn added that it was now up to the Operation to submit an application for site plan review.

 

MOTION: There be no other business at hand, Daniels made a motion to enter into deliberative session, Case seconded, motion carried. The planning commission entered into deliberative session at 8:11 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to exit deliberative session, Daniel seconded, motion carried. The planning commission exited deliberative session at 8:42 p.m.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to APPROVE #431 Continuation of  Recessed Lot Line Adjustment Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd..  SR Shoreland Recreation District. Daniel seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to CONTINUE #432 Continuation of Recessed Sketch Plan Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Case seconded. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to adjourn. Daniel and Lavoie seconded. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Yaasha Wheeler

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

____________________________                                        __________________________________

Kathie Lavoie                                                                           Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                                     

Ed Daniel                                                                     

 

 

 

 

 



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

PUBLIC  HEARING

Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 and 4/29 deliberative session 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present were:  Jim Hubbard, Tim Clippinger, Ed Daniel, and Ron Case. Also present were Ronald Kilburn, Zoning Administrator, and Heidi Britch-Valenta, Board Secretary.  

 

Applicants Present:   Allen and Doreen Pigeon

Interested parties:     Ken and Betty Hagendorn  (#432)

                                    Cleo Yandow  (#432)

                                    Leon Freimour  (#432)

                                    Kristine Stell  (#432)

                                    Michael Menard  (#432)

Judi McFadden (#432)

                                   

Hubbard called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. He swore in the applicant and explained the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure their rights as interested persons.

 

Hubbard opened the discussion with comments on the Swanton Town and Village Municipal Plan. He explained that the Town Plan was not received in time to warn it properly for a public meeting.  The topic was recessed until the May meeting.

 

  1. #431 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF ALLEN AND DOREEN PIGEON

#431    Lot Line Adjustment Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd..  SR Shoreland  Recreation District.

 

Allen and Doreen Pigeon were present to discuss their plan. Allen explained that they previously lived in the double-wide mobile home on the lot and his sister lived in the home. He has since purchased the home and would like to remove the line that previously separated the barn and tool shed. They want to move the line to include the home, barn and tool shed on one lot. The tool shed was not depicted on the plan but Allen said it was located 10 feet away from the barn.  It was not certain that the barn would be a sufficient distance from the lot line but Allen believed his surveyor had considered the setbacks when preparing the plan. Required setbacks are 50 ft on back, 30 on both sides and 50 in front.

 

Last changes to this property were approved in 2006.

 

Cleo Yandow asked about the water supply.  A well location at the back of the new 1.7 acre parcel was depicted on the plan.

 

  1. #432 SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF ALLEN AND DOREEN PIGEON

#432    Sketch Plan Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots  2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5, 6 & 7 would be provided by the Yandow Road.

 

On remaining 38 acres, three lots are proposed on right and three lots on left side of Yandow Road.  Lots on the right will access on previously existing driveway which was created with previously approved subdivision.   Balance of lots will have access from right of way. Lots range in size from 8 acres to 2.5 acres.  

 

Lot #6 does not meet 70% rule (Section 7.2 (3)b and would need to be redesigned.   Allen agreed with this requirement.

 

Allen Pigeon said he and Cleo and Trudie Yandow own the road.  The camp owners maintain the road.  The road is only used seasonally.  Mike Menard said that the Pigeons have not contributed to the upkeep of the road. Case clarified that any new road to serve three camps must be constructed to A76 standards and certified by an engineer.

 

Pigeon asked if he would be able to sell lot #5 with the existing road to allow him to generate the cash to complete the balance of the road. The Board was not prepared to respond to the questions but agreed to review the situation in deliberative session.

 

Cleo Yandow asked about the ability to meet A76 road width.  The board clarified that they only require 16 ft A76.  Menard said that Cleo Yandow and Brian Devaney owns on both sides so the road can’t be widened without land purchase.   Hubbard explained that there are other ways the Pigeons can access these lots.  He still maintains a 50 ft right of way behind the Fournier’s property.

 

Leon Freimour said he is concerned that if Pigeon begins building on these new lots it could send water to their sites. Menard agreed that the area is very wet.  Hubbard noted that the lot of concern is a 6 acre lot so the wet area may be clear from the building envelopes.

 

A site visit was scheduled for May 8th  at 9:30am. The group will meet at the intersection of Yandow Road and Sunset Harbor.

 

Betty Hagendorn referenced back to the previous subdivision meetings when it was stated that this could not be further developed.  Case explained that this restriction was discussed but because Pigeon had retained 50 ‘ to access the lots he is now able to use that access to these lots for further development.  Hubbard reminded everyone that this is sketch plan review and it is very early in the process and the conversation can continue at the next public hearing.

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 Hubbard shared his concern that the Village had issued water hook up permits on a application by Pierre Boudreau that is still pending before the board.  This issue will be discussed at the next Village Trustees meeting.

 

SGD- Buvy Gamache has asked to move the location of the school bus pull-off in his development on Bushey Road. After discussion it was determined that Hubbard will inform him that he can reapply for a change or keep the school bus pull-off where it was approved to be.

 

Hubbard suggested that all commissioners read section 8 PUD developments to brush up on the details.

 

Regional Planning Training-Daniel shared information from a recent training regarding upcoming changes to chapter 115.

 

Animal Composting- Daniel shared information from a news article about animal composting in Fairfax.

 

Town Plan: Ed Daniel had comments for revisions to the Town Plan. He will present these at the next hearing. 

He also suggested the establishment of commission on various topics such as parks committee.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to go into deliberative session.  Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried. The group chose to recess and reconvene on Thursday 29th at 9:00am for deliberative session and working session for bylaw changes. The Board meet again on April 29th at 9:00am. Present were Jim Hubbard, Ron Case, Kathy Lavoie, Ed Daniel, Timothy Clippinger, Ron Kilburn and Heidi Britch-Valenta.

 

DELIBERATIVE SESSION:

MOTION: Ron Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session at 11:55am on Thursday, April 29, 2010. Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to CONTINUE #431Lot Line Adjustment Request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd..  SR Shoreland Recreation District. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried. A site visit will occur on May 8th at 9:30am.

 

MOTION:      Case made a motion to CONTINUE #432 Sketch Plan Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots  2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5,6 & 7 would be provided by the  Yandow Road. Clippinger seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to have Kilburn send a letter to Richard Buvy Gamache because he has inquired about the relocation of the bus pull-off instructing him to get on the agenda for June 16 to request an amendment to his previously approved  Major Subdivision #382 on north side of Bushey Road.  R1 Agricultural/Residential District.   Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Clippinger made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 17th public hearing as amended to include Ed Daniel as present for the site visit to Ed Hemond’s property on March 6th  and to clarify that Louise Chase was not present during the meeting and she is not an interested person. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 17th public hearing and Feb 23 deliberative session. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Unless otherwise noted all motions pass unanimously. 

 

Tuesday May 18th is the public hearing for Town Plan Revision.

 

Bylaw revisions were suggested for the issue of lot coverage vs. building coverage, and waivers. Structure for triggering approval of small building structures- sheds, shanties, temporary garages,

 

MOTION:  Case made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 pm.   Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Heidi Britch-Valenta

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

____________________________                                        __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                                            Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                                      __________________________________

Timothy Clippinger                                                                  Ed Daniel

 

 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

PUBLIC  HEARING

Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 and 4/29 deliberative session 

The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present were:  Jim Hubbard, Tim Clippinger, Ed Daniel, and Ron Case. Also present were Ronald Kilburn, Zoning Administrator, and Heidi Britch-Valenta, Board Secretary.  

 

Applicants Present:   Allen and Doreen Pigeon

Interested parties:     Ken and Betty Hagendorn  (#432)

                                    Cleo Yandow  (#432)

                                    Leon Freimour  (#432)

                                    Kristine Stell  (#432)

                                    Michael Menard  (#432)

Judi McFadden (#432)

                                   

Hubbard called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. He swore in the applicant and explained the need to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure their rights as interested persons.

 

Hubbard opened the discussion with comments on the Swanton Town and Village Municipal Plan. He explained that the Town Plan was not received in time to warn it properly for a public meeting.  The topic was recessed until the May meeting.

 

  1. #431 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF ALLEN AND DOREEN PIGEON

#431    Lot Line Adjustment Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd..  SR Shoreland  Recreation District.

 

Allen and Doreen Pigeon were present to discuss their plan. Allen explained that they previously lived in the double-wide mobile home on the lot and his sister lived in the home. He has since purchased the home and would like to remove the line that previously separated the barn and tool shed. They want to move the line to include the home, barn and tool shed on one lot. The tool shed was not depicted on the plan but Allen said it was located 10 feet away from the barn.  It was not certain that the barn would be a sufficient distance from the lot line but Allen believed his surveyor had considered the setbacks when preparing the plan. Required setbacks are 50 ft on back, 30 on both sides and 50 in front.

 

Last changes to this property were approved in 2006.

 

Cleo Yandow asked about the water supply.  A well location at the back of the new 1.7 acre parcel was depicted on the plan.

 

  1. #432 SKETCH PLAN REQUEST OF ALLEN AND DOREEN PIGEON

#432    Sketch Plan Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots  2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5, 6 & 7 would be provided by the Yandow Road.

 

On remaining 38 acres, three lots are proposed on right and three lots on left side of Yandow Road.  Lots on the right will access on previously existing driveway which was created with previously approved subdivision.   Balance of lots will have access from right of way. Lots range in size from 8 acres to 2.5 acres.  

 

Lot #6 does not meet 70% rule (Section 7.2 (3)b and would need to be redesigned.   Allen agreed with this requirement.

 

Allen Pigeon said he and Cleo and Trudie Yandow own the road.  The camp owners maintain the road.  The road is only used seasonally.  Mike Menard said that the Pigeons have not contributed to the upkeep of the road. Case clarified that any new road to serve three camps must be constructed to A76 standards and certified by an engineer.

 

Pigeon asked if he would be able to sell lot #5 with the existing road to allow him to generate the cash to complete the balance of the road. The Board was not prepared to respond to the questions but agreed to review the situation in deliberative session.

 

Cleo Yandow asked about the ability to meet A76 road width.  The board clarified that they only require 16 ft A76.  Menard said that Cleo Yandow and Brian Devaney owns on both sides so the road can’t be widened without land purchase.   Hubbard explained that there are other ways the Pigeons can access these lots.  He still maintains a 50 ft right of way behind the Fournier’s property.

 

Leon Freimour said he is concerned that if Pigeon begins building on these new lots it could send water to their sites. Menard agreed that the area is very wet.  Hubbard noted that the lot of concern is a 6 acre lot so the wet area may be clear from the building envelopes.

 

A site visit was scheduled for May 8th  at 9:30am. The group will meet at the intersection of Yandow Road and Sunset Harbor.

 

Betty Hagendorn referenced back to the previous subdivision meetings when it was stated that this could not be further developed.  Case explained that this restriction was discussed but because Pigeon had retained 50 ‘ to access the lots he is now able to use that access to these lots for further development.  Hubbard reminded everyone that this is sketch plan review and it is very early in the process and the conversation can continue at the next public hearing.

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 Hubbard shared his concern that the Village had issued water hook up permits on a application by Pierre Boudreau that is still pending before the board.  This issue will be discussed at the next Village Trustees meeting.

 

SGD- Buvy Gamache has asked to move the location of the school bus pull-off in his development on Bushey Road. After discussion it was determined that Hubbard will inform him that he can reapply for a change or keep the school bus pull-off where it was approved to be.

 

Hubbard suggested that all commissioners read section 8 PUD developments to brush up on the details.

 

Regional Planning Training-Daniel shared information from a recent training regarding upcoming changes to chapter 115.

 

Animal Composting- Daniel shared information from a news article about animal composting in Fairfax.

 

Town Plan: Ed Daniel had comments for revisions to the Town Plan. He will present these at the next hearing. 

He also suggested the establishment of commission on various topics such as parks committee.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to go into deliberative session.  Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried. The group chose to recess and reconvene on Thursday 29th at 9:00am for deliberative session and working session for bylaw changes. The Board meet again on April 29th at 9:00am. Present were Jim Hubbard, Ron Case, Kathy Lavoie, Ed Daniel, Timothy Clippinger, Ron Kilburn and Heidi Britch-Valenta.

 

DELIBERATIVE SESSION:

MOTION: Ron Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session at 11:55am on Thursday, April 29, 2010. Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Daniel made a motion to CONTINUE #431Lot Line Adjustment Request of Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to adjust an internal lot line within their property designated as Lot #1 on a Subdivision Map #168A in the Swanton Land Records  so as to exclude an existing barn from the house lot on the 2.31 acre parcel, resulting in the creation of a 1.70 acre parcel with an existing Double-Wide at #93 Campbell Bay Rd..  SR Shoreland Recreation District. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried. A site visit will occur on May 8th at 9:30am.

 

MOTION:      Case made a motion to CONTINUE #432 Sketch Plan Request of  Allen & Doreen Pigeon  to create a seven (7) lot Major Subdivision on a 38 acre parcel located at #91 Campbell Bay Rd. SR Shoreland Recreation District. Access from Campbell Bay Road to Lots  2, 3 & 4 would be provided by a 50 ft. easement along the Northerly perimeter of the subject property.  Access to Lots 5,6 & 7 would be provided by the  Yandow Road. Clippinger seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to have Kilburn send a letter to Richard Buvy Gamache because he has inquired about the relocation of the bus pull-off instructing him to get on the agenda for June 16 to request an amendment to his previously approved  Major Subdivision #382 on north side of Bushey Road.  R1 Agricultural/Residential District.   Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Clippinger made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 17th public hearing as amended to include Ed Daniel as present for the site visit to Ed Hemond’s property on March 6th  and to clarify that Louise Chase was not present during the meeting and she is not an interested person. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Clippinger made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 17th public hearing and Feb 23 deliberative session. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

Unless otherwise noted all motions pass unanimously. 

 

Tuesday May 18th is the public hearing for Town Plan Revision.

 

Bylaw revisions were suggested for the issue of lot coverage vs. building coverage, and waivers. Structure for triggering approval of small building structures- sheds, shanties, temporary garages,

 

MOTION:  Case made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 pm.   Daniel seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Heidi Britch-Valenta

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

____________________________                                        __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                                            Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                                      __________________________________

Timothy Clippinger                                                                  Ed Daniel

 

PUBLIC  HEARING

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

 

 

            The Swanton Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

            1.         #429    Sketch Plan Request of  Pierre Boudreau  to create a five (5) lot  Major Subdivision on a 37.7 acre parcel located at 162 Lake Street, consisting of  three lots, 1.7 acres each, one lot 2.0 acres and the remaining parcel of  30.6 acres. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

            2.         #430    Sketch Plan and possible Final Plat Approval Request of   Edward Hemond  to create a  two (2) lot subdivision by subdividing a 1.53 acre parcel from a 64.79 acre parcel with a private drive from Bachand Road  to access the subject property located at 100 Maple Grove Estates.  R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

 

           

            3.         #431    Sketch Plan and possible Final Plat Approval Request of  Wynn & Pauline Paradee for a proposed two (2) lot subdivision of their property on the East side of  Vt. Route 105 at 2286 Sheldon Rd. R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

4.         Any other necessary business.

 

Posted this 28th day of  January, 2010

 

 

 

___________________________                  Attest:_____________________

Ronald F. Kilburn                                                         Doris H. Raleigh

Zoning Administrative Officer                            Town Clerk

 

 

PLEASE NOTE:        Attendance at and participation in this public hearing is required in order to appeal any decision related to this hearing.  All Applicants must be present to present their applications for review.



 

SWANTON  PLANNING  COMMISSION

PUBLIC  HEARING

Meeting Minutes January 20, 2010

            The Swanton Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at the Swanton Town Offices, 1 Academy Street, at 7:00 P.M. to hear the following requests:

 

Present were:  Jim Hubbard, Tim Clippinger, Ed Daniel, Kathy Lavoie, and Ron Case. Also present were Ronald Kilburn, Zoning Administrator, and Heidi Britch-Valenta, Board Secretary.  

 

Applicants Present:    Ronald and Cheryl Rogers

Interested Parties:     Mark Fleming (#428)

                                    Richard Mathieu, (#428)

                                    Ron Underwood (#428)

Technical Support:     Mark Day, TDH Survey and Design           (#427 & 428)

 

Hubbard called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He swore in all that would give testimony and explained the need for all to sign in on the appropriate papers to secure their rights as interested persons.

 

1.         #427    Sketch Plan and possible Final Plat Approval Request of Ronald & Cheryl Rogers to create a two (2) lot subdivision by subdividing a 2.48 acre parcel at 42 St. Albans Rd. into Lot #1 consisting of 1.03 acres and  Lot #3 consisting of 1.44 acres, both lots having access on Penell Road  R3 Moderate Density Residential District.

 

Ronald and Cheryl Rogers were present with Mark Day of TDH Survey and Design. Day reminded the board that the Rogers had come before the board in November for a boundary line adjustment on this property. The remaining land is identified as lot 1.  Septic for lot 1 is a shared mound located on lot 3. Lot 2 has replacement system easement to lot one. The septic permit has been approved through the state.The board had few questions for the application.  There were no interested persons in attendance.

 

            2.         #428    Sketch Plan and possible Final Plat Approval Request of   Madeleine Kornetzke  to create a  two (2) lot subdivision from a 74.97 acre parcel  (formerly property of Brian Ebel),   Lot 9C to consist of 1.08 acres with existing dwelling house and Lot 9 to consist of the remaining 73.89 acres at  9 Ceres Circle  R1 Agricultural/Residential District.

 

Mark Day, represented Madeline Kornetzke who was unavailable to attend. He presented a letter of authorization from Kornetsky. The amendment to the subdivision would create a new lot identified as 9c which has an existing dwelling on it.  Hubbard gave a brief history of the entire project which was first presented by Brian Ebel as a 7 lot PUD with the balance remaining open land. The property transferred ownership to Kornetzke and had an amendment to create lots 8 & 9, 9a, and 9b. The board expressed confidently that they had been clear at the time of the last amendment that no further development could be allowed from this private right-of-way.  They also noted an obligation to seek approval from current property owners who share the road maintenance prior to approving changes that may impact them financially. Lavoie mentioned that at the previous review it was required that any amendments to covenants be approved by other land owners.

 

Richard Mathieu, land owner of 4 lots in Ceres Circle, was present. He said he was not aware of the previous amendments as he was not notified of the hearings. He expressed concern over the legitimacy of the capacity of the septic following the additional houses that have already been added to it. He questioned the future location of septic system.  The print depicted an additional mound system to handle the additional houses.   Mathieu said he did not believe that a homeowners association has been created for this PUD.

 

Hubbard raised the issue of a limitation of 3 lots off a right of way.  Day questioned if this rule applied to PUDs.  A complex conversation regarding private vs. town roads, amendments to PUDs, and association rights and regulations resulted from the question. The Board will do ‘homework’ on the issue to clarify these points.  The Board expressed a desire to make the existing land owners aware of the changes and have their approval of the project before reviewing the plan. Mathieu said he was not previously notified of the three other changes despite the fact that he owns four lots. The board was unable to locate the amendment to the covenants for the addition of lot 9, 9a, 9b.

  

DELIBERATIVE SESSION:

MOTION: Hubbard a made a motion to go into deliberative session at 8:35pm. Clippinger seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION: Case made a motion to come out of deliberative session at 8:50pm.  Seconded by Daniel. Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Case made a motion to APPROVE #427 Sketch Plan and Final Plat Approval Request of Ronald & Cheryl Rogers to create a two (2) lot subdivision by subdividing a 2.48 acre parcel at 42 St. Albans Rd. into Lot #1 consisting of 1.03 acres and  Lot #3 consisting of 1.44 acres, both lots having access on Penell Road  R3 Moderate Density Residential District. Lavoie seconded.  Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Lavoie made a motion to Deny #428        Sketch Plan and possible Final Plat Approval Request of   Madeleine Kornetzke  to create a  two (2) lot subdivision from a 74.97 acre parcel,   Lot 9C to consist of 1.08 acres with existing dwelling house and Lot 9 to consist of the remaining 73.89 acres at  9 Ceres Circle  R1 Agricultural/Residential District. Reason for Denial is in Section 3.2 Access Requirements (A)(1), which prohibits more than 3 lots off of a right-of-way. Case seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Kathy Lavoie made a motion to approve the minutes from November 18, 2009. Clippinger seconded the motion. Motion carried.

 

MOTION:  Case made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Clippinger seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Unless otherwise noted all motions pass unanimously. 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Heidi Britch-Valenta

Planning Commission Secretary

 

 

____________________________                                        __________________________________

Jim Hubbard                                                                             Ron Case

 

                                                                       

_____________________________                                      __________________________________

Timothy Clippinger                                                                    Kathy Lavoie

 

 

_____________________________

Ed Daniel