Development Review Board
August 12, 2009
Town Hall, New Haven, Vermont
Members Present:George Apgar, Donna Blaise, Tim Bouton, Jim Gallott, Donald Johnston
Members Absent:Kathy Barrett, Mike Sweeney
Alternates Absent:Andy Dykstra
Staff Present:Cris Messerle, Zoning Administrator
Guests:John Madden
Tim Bouton, Chair, called the Development Review Board (DRB) meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Public Hearings
There were no warned public hearings
Visitors Business
There was no visitors business
Minutes
George Apgar made the motion to accept the July 8, 2009 DRB minutes as presented.
Jim Gallott seconded
Discussion – none
Vote:Yes – 4 (Apgar, Bouton, Gallott, Johnston)
No – 0
Abstention – 1 (Blaise)
Motion carried
George Apgar made the motion to accept the July 15, 2009 DRB minutes as presented
Donald Johnston seconded
Discussion – none
Vote:Yes – 5 (Apgar, Blaise, Bouton, Gallott, Johnston)
No – 0
Abstention – 0
Motion carried
Correspondence – none
New Business
Tim Bouton, Chair, distributed example “Findings and Decision” forms that he had drafted and he was looking for thoughts and evaluations of this form from the board. The Chair felt that the use of this type of form would help the board stay on task and decisions would then be based on the regulations and not on a board members’ personal feeling.
Members present felt that these forms were a duplicate of the minutes and the DRB should do one or the other but not both. If there were numerous paper versions then conclusions, discussions or interpretations might become construed or omitted. Also, these forms would be a summary of the conclusions, and would not accurately reflect an individual board members’ thought process, nor their agreement or objections regarding a certain situation, as the minutes now do.
Board members endorsed the idea that the Chair use this form as a template and this would encourage the board to follow a stricter structure to obtain clearer decisions for each application.
The Chair indicated that he would like to bring the procedures of the DRB more into compliance with the State rules and regulations. The Chair emphasized that the first draft of the minutes of the board need to be available to the public within 5 days after the meeting. The tapes, or a copy of the tapes, can be considered the first draft of minutes.
Discussion – Request for building permit when parcel boundaries are not clear.
Cris Messerle (ZA) brought up this issue due to his dealing with an individual that owns a 40+/- parcelthat is divided by a Town owned right-of-way (trail). There are 30+/- acres on one side of the r-of-w and two parcels; one 6 +/- acres and one 1+/- on the other side of the r-of-w. The individual would like to build on 7 acres of this parcel. This prompted a discussion between the ZA and property individual, regarding, does a r-of-w–highway-trail automatically subdivide thistype of property. Somehow, in the past, the two parcels (6+/- acres and 1+/- acre) were incorporated into a larger 130 +/- acre lot. The Town records show all of this as one parcel and there are no clear records on how this merger occurred.
The ZA has asked the Town’s attorney for a review of the documents in relation to this parcel. The attorney has requested that the Town start making some decisions on the mergers of properties and to be more involved in the preliminary discussion and procedures leading up to mergers.
DRB Discussion:
Johnston indicated if there are separate deeds then these are considered separate parcels and the Town cannot merge the parcels into one parcel. ZA indicated yes there are separate deeds.
Bouton indicated that the State 5/6 years ago determined that undersized properties be merged. Thus the 6 acre lot was automatically merged with the 1 acre lot probably at this time.
Bouton was in agreement with Johnston, that separate deeds should equal separate parcels.
Gallott felt the individual should merge the 6 and 1 acre parcels and draw up a new deed reflecting this merger.
The Chair felt that if the property owner provided the ZA with a 7 acre deed and if valid, that deed should be sufficient for the ZA to make a decision on.
The Chair then asked Johnston if he thought the Town should worry about this sort of thing and pay someone to identify independent lots exists. Johnston felt the Town should be more concerned regarding the r-of-w and how to maintain use of the r-of-w.
Gallott indicated that at some point in the future the r-of-w could be upgraded to a road and then the Town needs to look at setbacks from the r-of-w, the main road(s) and boundary lines.
The Chair indicated that the DRB needs to set a policy regarding r-of-w(s) owned by the Townand does a r-of-w create a subdivision (natural property division)?
There was no action taken by the DRB on this situation tonight.
ZA indicated that the August 19th DRB meeting, RL Vallee is scheduled for a public hearing. RL Vallee has asked for a continuation of this hearing to September 9th. As this has already been warned, the Chair indicated that the public testimony will still take place at the August 19th meeting. The Chair requested that ZA contact RL Vallee for their written request asking for a continuation of this hearing to the September 9, 2009 DRB meeting.
The ZA will look for a substitute to take minutes at this meeting, as Karen will be on vacation.
Old Business
Discussion on Rules and Producers was postponed to be addressed at a different time in the future.
Discussion – Action involving the parcels affected by the recent denial of the amendment to review the 200 ft. setback requirement
Due to the recent ruling by the Select Board this leaves two businesses in violation.
Middlebury Fence
CycleWise
The ZA is requesting a - how to proceed from here – from the DRB.
Cycle Wise is in violation for not obtaining a conditional use permit because the DRB was waiting for the Select Board decision before making a ruling. Also the CycleWise public hearing was never closed, the DRB continued the hearing to December 10, 2008, but dropped the ball and never kept continuing the hearing.
The Chair recommended the ZA contact the Town’s attorney for a ruling.
The Chair asked the board for a recommendation on what approach should be taken now. The Board didn’t did not address this. The Chair suggested the ZA talk with Cycle Wise and indicate to them that the DRB never approved a permit to operate the towing business and now the DRB would be willing to look at their application.
Middlebury Fence is in violation because of the lot that they created and the external storage of construction materials, does not allow them to be outside the 200 foot setback requirement on all sides. The DRB indicated that ZA should in writing indicate to Middlebury Fence that they are now in violation of the 200 foot setback regulations.
Donna Blaise made the motion to adjourn
Jim Gallott seconded
Discussion – none
Vote:Yes – 5 (Apgar, Blaise, Bouton, Gallott, Johnston)
No – 0
Abstention – 0
Motion carried
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM
Respectfully Submitted By
Karen Gallott
Tim Bouton, ChairGeorge ApgarDonna Blaise
Jim GallottDonald Johnston
1