Members Present: Chair Jeff McDonald

Josie Leavitt

Gene Diau

Gordon Troy

Al Moraska

Dave Brown

Members Absent: Jim Donovan

Officials Present: Dean Bloch

The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chair Jeff McDonald after a deliberation regarding the Hinsdale Site Plan Review and an earlier site visit at James and Helen Brown’s residence at 1783 Greenbush Road for Nextel antennas and equipment.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. McDonald asked for any additions to the agenda for this evening’s meeting. Mr. Troy asked if the Planning Commission (PC) should consider whether or not a portion of the Select Board issues and Town Plan issues relating to power poles on Ferry Road should be added. Mr. McDonald said that this issue would be discussed at 9:00 p.m. It was decided that there was not sufficient time to discuss the Village Plan at this meeting. With the exception of these items, the agenda was determined satisfactory.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Brooks asked if the PC had reviewed the matter of broadcasting the PC meeting minutes and planner’s notes as he had brought up at a previous meeting. Mr. McDonald said that this request had been reviewed, but there is a concern that not all of the commissioners have email and therefore, the PC has no position on this matter currently. Mr. Brooks made the comment that the planners notes are not available unless you come into the office and he asked if the same were true for the minutes. Mr. Diau said that unapproved minutes are not public documents until they are approved. Mr. McDonald said that the PC is required to post, within 5 days, the minutes of the meeting, per State standards.

Mr. Hinsdale asked if there were going to be anything more deliberations on his site plan. Mr. McDonald said no and Mr. Hinsdale asked if there was going to be anything on future agendas. Mr McDonald said yes and that the PC would attempt to have notes at the next meeting. Mr. Bloch said that they would be circulated among themselves and probably have them finalized October 3. Mr. Troy asked Mr. Hinsdale if the large farm application was complete with the Agricultural Commission to which Mr. Hinsdale said that they need to do more design work.

MINUTES OF MEETINGS

July 18, 2002. Mr. Troy moved to accept the minutes of the July 18, 2002 meeting with the proposed changes. Ms. Leavitt seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

August 1, 2002. Ms. Leavitt moved to accept the minutes of the August 1, 2002 meeting with the proposed changes. Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

August 8, 2002. Mr. Moraska moved to accept the minutes of the August 8, 2002 meeting with the proposed changes. Mr. Troy seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

DISCUSSION OF LAND USE REGULATIONS, AND REVIEW GRANT APPLICATION TO FUND CONSULTANT TO ASSIST WITH THE REVISION OF TOWN LAND USE REGULATIONS.

Mr. McDonald reported that the PC brought to the Select Board their requests and recommendations regarding proposed changes and to revise the Town Land Use regulations and that the Select Board has granted these requests for funding. Mr. McDonald said he would like a motion to hold a hearing in mid-October to start the process to get amendments to the subdivision zoning regulations by March. Mr. Troy reported that he would not be here two weeks from now and that this matter needs an action list for this amendatory action. He said that if all the PC member are satisfied with this matter, he will put together and circulate before he leaves what the “must” items are that need to be immediately fixed. They will be done before Town Meeting day in March. Mr. McDonald said that the PC would need to warn a mid-October meeting 15 days before the hearing. There was a consensus to proceed with this action and Mr. Troy’s suggestions.

JEAN PECOR (applicant), ANTHONY PERRY (property owner); SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT TO MOVE LOCATION OF BUILDING ENVELOPE AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL. PROPERTY LOCATED ON GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

Jean Pecor addressed the PC. Mr. McDonald acknowledged that Ms. Pecor had previously been before the PC for sketch plan review and, since this matter had to be warned for hearing, he asked her to explain the project. Ms. Pecor explained that this proposed property/project has a 3-bedroom house on it, indoor arena, horse breeding operation for dressage and sport horses. She proposes moving the building envelope and the center of the property for turn out in all directions. The horses will be out during the day and night and she estimates 20-25 horses. There will be a dumpster for manure, which dumpster will be emptied every two weeks. Mr. Diau asked about size, to which Ms. Pecor answered that the arena area will be 170’ x 60’.

Mr. Troy said that he had a few issues as follows: 1) if Ms. Pecor put a driveway between the house and barn, what about circular vehicular access. Ms. Pecor said that that is still getting designed. Mr. Moraska asked Ms. Pecor if she knew the elevation and Ms. Pecor said that the buildings are going to be 16 feet to the peak and will be metal with wood doors. Mr. Brooks asked Ms. Pecor if her barn was “going to be pretty?” Ms. Pecor said that she ”hoped so.” Mr. Brooks asked if the driveways would be surfaced with dirt, to which Ms. Pecor said “yes”. He next asked what the name of the new facility would be and she replied, “Foxwood.” Jan Rowan remarked that she thought the horse facility was great.

Mr. McDonald said that was correct. Mr. Bloch said that the Vermont Land Trust allows two total dwelling units within that building envelope. There is one building lot but two buildings allowed through the Vermont Land Trust. Ms. Pecor said that there is a restriction through the Vermont Land Trust that it cannot be subdivided. Mr. Troy moved to close this hearing and deliberate and give a decision within 45 days. Mr. Diau seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved. Mr. Troy asked about a timeline, to which Ms. Pecor said that she would like to start November 1^st. After a brief discussion, Mr. Troy said that the PC may be able to provide a written decision for their next meeting.

RODNEY AND DONNA STEARNS: FINAL PLAT HEARING FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION CREATING 7 BUILDING LOTS, 1 LOT WITH EXISTING DWELLING, AND 1 LOT WITH OPEN SPACE. PROPERTY LOCATED ON SPEAR STREET EXTENSION IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

Mr. McDonald stated that this is the final hearing on this matter. He read Dean Bloch’s notes to inform everyone present of the background and history of this application. He asked the Stearns if they had had a chance to review these notes and they responded “yes.” Mr. Troy asked if this plan was the one that the PC desired and Mr. Bloch said yes. Mr. McDonald read out loud the changes that had been made since the last hearing. Matt Dawson, a neighbor, commented that he was under the impression that it was going to go from the road to the property. Because it is a protected area, the Stearns want to have a house near the road. For proposed Lot 9, Mr. Dawson is concerned about high density in that area and that these plans may not go along with the Town Plan. Donna Stearns explained that they have worked with Vermont Land Trust a long time ago on this matter.

Vicki Wideman, another neighbor, read the statute that …”when open space is put into a design plan that it will be …an agricultural unit. Is that a large enough piece of property to be a viable agricultural farm and will it be a farm? Does that mean primary source of income?” she inquired. The Stearns replied “we make $20,000 a year from it.” Ms. Wideman asked if 31.5 acres was a viable piece of property for farming. Mr. McDonald said that this is an open question and went on to say that the PC does not have a definition of what “viable” means. Mr. Dawson said it was isolated and asked what happens if further development comes in and what additional open space is needed? Mr. Troy said that on the first site visit, the maximum additional units was 5. Now it is all hypothetical. Ms. Wideman stated that Mr. Bloch’s notes (Section 17.3) states that in Section 4.1 of the draft declarations, it indicated that an additional five units may be added to the common interest of the property and was wondering how this could be done with Act 250 requirements. Mr. Troy said that the PC does not have jurisdiction. Under Act 250, you have to show what it going to be done within five years (cumulative development). The Stearns noted that they wanted to be honest when filling out the town application and they may decide not to have more than five units but at the time, they wanted to disclose all possibilities. Mr. Troy said that the PC is not in Act 250 jurisdiction. Ms. Wideman’s concern was that the open space area remain open and be available for all and be contiguous. Mr. Bloch said that the new covenants correspond to the new lot drawings and if, over a five-year period, the number of lots is 10 or more then Act 250 could be triggered and if that happened, it would be up to Act 250 to determine that. Mr. Diau asked if the entire property (80 acres) were used, how many lots could be subdivided. Mr. Bloch said 15. Mr. Diau said if the Stearns asked for that modification right now they would have to go through Act 250, but since they are asking for 9 lots, Act 250 jurisdiction is not triggered. Mr. Troy said that this 5-year clock begins when the Stearns have substantially completed the project.

Mr. Moraska expressed his concern about the deer corridor and said that it would be in the best interest to put some land within the open space as well to allow it. Donna Stearns said that they could do that. Mr. Troy said that if the hearing dictated an easement, then that section would be a no-building zone. The Stearns said that they can survey that off. Mr. Moraska suggested deleting Section 17.3 of Mr. Bloch’s notes to prevent legal problems later on. It was decided to delete Section 17.3, but keep the last sentence.

Mr. McDonald directed everyone to the items in Mr. Bloch’s notes and proceeded to confirm the status of these items.

Items 1-4. COMPLETED

Item 5 – waiting on feedback from water quality. Mr. Bloch said that The Town does have a letter and he distributed it to the Planning Commission members.

Item 6 – Mr. Troy asked if the PC wanted to establish this with small side/yard setbacks and Mr. McDonald said that they would need to establish that and that Lot 8 should have a setback, also. Ms. Wideman expressed concern that almost all of the trees planned were deciduous and that they had no foliage for 7 months of the year. Her attorney advised her to request six-foot cedars be placed on the property. Mr. Troy noted that this was discussed at the last hearing. Mr. McDonald said that the PC will take Ms. Wideman’s suggestion into consideration. Ms. Wideman said that she is willing to hear proposals from the Stearns as well.

Item 7 – Mr. Hinsdale expressed concern and cautioned the Stearns that if anyone puts a well in the wrong place, then the house might have to be in a different location because of that well. Ms. Wideman asked if someone could have a septic system on designated wetlands. Mr. McDonald said that the applicants have had a consultant do a perk test; the soils at one site are not wetlands; he did not have information for the other site. Ms. Wideman said that it appears that Lot No. 2 and the road is right next to a significant wildlife stretch and showed on the map where it is near White Birch Road. Linda Hamilton from the Conservation Committee said that because wetlands are an important part to the plumbing, it is important to find out where it is and it should be checked out. Ms. Wideman asked how has the recent drought affected it. Mr. Troy asked the Stearns if an expert on field delineation had been there, to which the Stearns responded yes. Mr. McDonald said that this is the third meeting and there has been a site visit, as well as discussion of the pond and wetlands matters already. Steve Brooks asked if there was an answer to Linda’s question. Mr. Bloch said that there is no conclusion until the PC makes a decision. Mr. Brooks thanked the Stearns for their patience and hard work.

Item 8 – Mr. McDonald noted that Spencer Howard was on the site and the PC has a memo from him at which time Mr. Bloch gave Mr. McDonald a copy of this memo. Item 9 – Mr. McDonald asked the Stearns if they ended up owning the roadway under their proposal. The Stearns said yes. The Stearns said that their rationale for creating it that way was to have the necessary access to the land out in back of the proposed houses. Mr. McDonald said that they could keep a right-of-way. Donna Stearns said that they were proposing to do that but their lawyers said not to do it until after all the lots had been sold and the project completed, then deed it as a right-of-way. Mr. Troy said that he is uncomfortable approving this application unless the homeowners bear the cost and the Stearns have access. Mr. Brooks expressed that he thinks “the Stearns are good folks and will maintain the road,” but is concerned about after they are gone and someone new comes in and they don’t maintain the road as well, and the Town will get sued because of poor maintenance. Ms. Wideman said that there are skid marks in front of her driveway and said that it is blind pulling onto the Town road. Mr. McDonald said there is only one access for this subdivision because the Town is opposed to multiple cuts so there is one cut which allows for one car exiting at a time.

Item 10 – COMPLETED.

Item 11 – COMPLETED. Mr. Brooks asked what “tested successfully” meant. Mr. Bloch said that it is language that the fire chief uses. Mr. Diau said that there are standard tests for streams and creeks to be declared a legal suction point for water. Dave Brown said that the main problem is whether the source is going to freeze up and that is their concern, i.e. the amount of water determines where the hydrant is. Mr. McDonald said that the PC defers to the fire chief in this matter.

Item 12 – COMPLETED.

Item 13 – Donna Stearns asked if the roadway should be put in all at once or in sections. After discussion, it was decided that the PC needed to discuss this matter further.

Item 14 – COMPLETED. Mr. Brooks said that there is a problem where the Fire Chief has not been able to sign off on this and suggested changing the language as it had been done on the other item, i.e. “to the written satisfaction of the Fire Chief.”

Item 15 – Mr. Brooks expressed his concern and wondered why the culverts had to be 18” and thought they were big. Mr. McDonald said that the Town’s regulations for driveway culverts are 18” and that this requirement has to do with freezing.

Item 16 – Nancy Sabin expressed concern and asked, “where is it that it says that neighbors don’t have to see what is going on?” Mr. McDonald said that we have tried to satisfy everyone. She thinks that the Stearns are trying to be upfront and honest and are working very hard and she doesn’t think it is right to ask them to put in cedar trees. Mr. McDonald said that it is a compromise and the purpose of the hearing is to listen to neighbors’ concerns and take them under advisement. Ms. Wideman asked how this proposed subdivision corresponds with the Town Plan and the priority of the Town of protecting view sheds and said that it is ranked as one of the most beautiful. Mr. McDonald said that it was not the first hearing and the PC has looked at the scattered condensed housing. Ms. Wideman said that Mr. Bloch told her today that no proposed PRD of this size and effect on town character has been proposed in the last three years and this proposed subdivision seems contradictory to what the Town Plan proposes. Sylvia Sprig said that “it is difficult to try and plan something that is acceptable to all neighbors as well as allowing the land to be an investment to pay back on what we have paid the property taxes on it. The bulk of the land is open. The visual impact from Mt. Philo is that it is few houses and not very much visual impact. These folks are being responsible. The alternative is a huge house on five acres.” Ms. Wideman said that she agrees but there are already houses there. Mr. Brooks asked if the Stearns’ application was filed before last Town Meeting Day in March, 2002 and Mr. Bloch said “yes.”

Item 17 – DONE, except 2(e). Donna Stearns explained that it was the lawyer’s suggestion that they would allow homeowners to build a 2,000 square foot house minus a porch. Discussion centered on the definition of “inside or outside porch”; Mr. Brooks said that the PC needs to define open vs. closed. Sharron Balaban said that a 2,000 square foot home is a nice home and thinks that proposed homeowners should be allowed to build an enclosed porch. She said that she would be careful about being too rigid about square footage and buyers want to have the option of adding on later. Mr. Brooks said that in the PC’s decision, would they please define the trigger whereby a porch goes from open to closed. Mr. McDonald said that the PC needs to deliberate and define this matter.

Item 18 – DONE. Mr. Brooks asked if there was a requirement for this applicant to go to the Select Board to request a curb cut and what is going on with curb cuts and otherwise with the frontage. Mr. McDonald said that the project is as shown on a plan showing a house with one curb cut, so any additional would have to go to the Select Board. Mr. Bloch said that in Item 4, page 6, it should be “per building.” Peter Knowles said that the area between the pond and Spear Street looks like it has been graded and Donna Stearns said that Ronald mowed it and they both agreed that it looked much better. Mr. Moraska moved to close this hearing. Josie Leavitt seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Troy asked how much time the PC had to decide on this application to which Mr. Bloch said 45 days. The motion was unanimously approved..

There was a short break. Josie Leavitt departed the meeting.

Mr. McDonald recovened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

NEXTEL WIP LEASE CORPS (applicant), JAMES AND HELEN BROWN (property-owner); CONTINUATION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 12 TELECOMMUNCATION ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ON A MODIFIED FARM SILO LOCATED AT 1783 GRENBUSH ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

Mr. McDonald reported that the PC had a site visit earlier in the evening at 6:00 p.m. to observe the testing balloon. Steve Elsberee said that he had gotten approval from his company to put the utilities underground, with the exception of one overhead connection to the existing service lines and they would prefer a separate cut as opposed to drilling. Mr. Diau said that there is a pole down the street and instead of cutting the road would it be possible to use the existing pole and then bury the cable from there? Mr. Elsberee said that the new facility will be underground and there will be no new poles. After discussion, it was reiterated that the temporary construction road is the road to the south of the garage and the permanent road will be north of the garage.

Mr. Moraska asked about height of the silo to confirm that it is increasing from 45 feet to 62 feet and that Nextel proposes to raise the cap and Mr. Elsberee did confirm this information. Mr. Brown asked what happens with the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Elsberee stated that Nextel has a conditional use permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a telecommunication facility for which the height limit goes to 200 feet. Mr. Moraska expressed concern with this and that the PC would accept it for agricultural use but not for business. Mr. Bloch asked where the applicant got its Conditional Use Permit that obviates the need for height restriction. Mr. McDonald said that he has a letter from their attorney which describes the decision from the Zoning Board to the Planning Commission. He passed out copies of this letter. Discussion centered around the definition of “tower.” Mr. Elsberee asked what the maximum mount of an apparatus (rooftop antenna) would be to which Mr. Troy responded that usually it would be the height of the antenna and it is the idea to minimize the proliferation of towers. Mr. Moraska asked if it was necessary to add the 15 feet to the silo and Mr. Elsberee said yes. The question was asked if you had a secure building, do you need a fence around it to which Mr. Bloch responded that you do not have to have a fence in that instance. Mr. Elsberee said that Nextel proposes to put in screening since there will be no fence. Mr. Diau opined to convert the definition to “antenna support structure” since this silo is not a working silo. The building will be used for no other purpose, he said. Mr. Elsberee said that the silo does not become unusable as a silo when an antenna is attached to it.

Sharron Balaban asked if the residents were going to reside in the house next to the silo and Mr. Elsberee answered yes. She further asked how far the house was from the silo and Mr. Elsberee said 184 feet. She also asked what is the closest that an antenna had ever been put to a residence and has one been put on top of a house. Mr. Elsberee answered that the silo in Richmond that Nextel has used is nearby to a house and he said there is one on top of an apartment building. Ms. Balaban asked if Nextel had antennas in Europe and Mr. Elsberee said no.

Pete Rosenfeld asked if the letter required under Paragraph G. of Section 9.6.1 has been filed with the Board. Mr. Bloch said that is under the conditional use section and for the Zoning Board. Mr. Rosenfeld said that, assuming that has been submitted and required, you will look at a facility that may contain many more than one antenna in the future. It doesn’t comply with the 150 foot rule and the 300 foot rule. Mr. Diau asked Mr. Elsberee if another company came in would their antenna be higher than Nextel’s to which Mr. Elsberee said that if it is a PCS carrier it could be the same. Otherwise, if it is a different frequency, it needs to be higher or lower level (a 10 foot vertical separation is standard). Ms. Balaban asked if this site could potentially be leased out to other cellular phone companies who wanted space on this site and Mr. Elsberee said it is possible. Ms. Balaban asked if the structure could handle more than this antenna and Mr. Elsberee said no. It is designed that way for this structure for Nextel antennas. Ms. Balaban asked if there were 1 or 3 antennas. Mr. Elsberee said there were 12 antennas. Ms. Balaban asked if Nextel had ever put an antenna on a military base and Mr. Elsberee said that he didn’t’ know. She said that she heard that cell towers were not permitted where air personnel lived; for instance. Mr. Bloch asked if Nextel would be able to provide rationale for raising the silo height rather than leaving it where it is and Mr. Elsberee said that they could. Ms. Balaban asked if there were any restrictions on where the antennas go up and Mr. Elsberee said that there is; the FCC requires that the antenna be 21 feet from any structure/residence. Mr. Troy said that the existing structures are located in areas that we as a community chose not to have these types of structures in and Mr. McDonald said that the PC also have an application that has been submitted to it and the PC has to hear its evidence. Mr. McDonald thanked them for their application.

Nancy Sabin said that the antenna sticking up would be disgusting and would be a joke for “rural Vermont”. She “can’t imagine why they would find a silo down in the bottom of a ravine to stick it.” Mr. Rosenfeld said that “the suitability of silos for antenna towers was originally a good idea, but silos were revered and they were mostly the old wooden ones. When you take that structure and plate it from the outside with antennas it makes it less attractive. Why build silo extensions with non-ferrous material, why can’t you heat the inside?” he inquired. Mr. Elsberee answered that you can’t put inside buildings that are concrete. Ms. Balaban asked about the possibility of using an existing town structure instead of the silo to house this telecommunications project. The existing height does not provide the adequate coverage to the west of the silo. He said that Nextel has an Act 250 permit for the extension for the silo.” He then read the definition of antenna support structure. Ms. Balaban asked where another company would place their antennas and Mr. Elsberee said he could not speculate on that. Mr. Troy asked about the timing of this application and Mr. Bloch responded that the PC has until October 15 to issue a decision. Mr. Brown moved to close this hearing. Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. All were in favor. Ms. Balaban asked about whip antennas and can they be attached to that structure and go up high because somebody wants access. Mr. Elsberee said that whip antennas are not as efficient nor do they provide coverage. Public safety and paging companies are the only ones that use whip antennas, he said. Nancy asked for a picture of the silo and Mr. Elsberee showed it to her. Following this discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

There was a brief discussion on the issue of power poles. Mr. Troy said that, as a Planning Commission, we need to give the Select Board support in this matter. Eleanor Russell said that there is some feeling that the PC would at least determine if an applicant is using more than 10 acres and should therefore come under Act 250. When someone has an easement, there is not much the Select Board can do. Joe will look at it and advise. The Select Board can deny or approve permits but it couldn’t make much difference.

Mr. Troy moved to close the public portion of this meeting and to go into deliberations to discuss the hiring of the minute-taker for the long-term position. Mr. Diau seconded the motion. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kimberly L. Johnson