CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2003

6:00 PM

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Members Present:

Jeff McDonald, Chair

Al Moraska

Robin Pierce

Linda Radimer

Gordon Troy

Jim Donovan

Staff Present:

Dean Bloch

Kimberly Johnson

Others Present:

Clarence Hutchins

Carol Hutchins

Michael Richmond

Peter Demick

Kate Lampton

Tom Clark

David Miskell

Eleanor Russell

Alan Jordan

Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:12 pm

APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA: LETTER TO THE SELECTBOARD RE: GREENWOOD AMERICA TRAIL EASEMENT

Mr. McDonald asked for any changes to the agenda. There were none.

Consent agenda: He asked if the consent agenda met with everyone‘s approval. Mr. Moraska said it was a good letter and includes everything the PC needs, and his only criticism is to condense it a little bit. Otherwise, excellent letter, he commented. It is the same letter sent to the Selectboard regarding the trail easement on the Greenwood America property.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

CLARENCE AND CAROL HUTCHINS AND J. MICHAEL REDMOND: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE CONVEYANCE OF 21.73 ACRES FROM HUTCHINS TO RICHMOND. PROPERTIES LOCATED ON HINESBURG ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

George Bedard, a surveyor from Hinesburg representing the Hutchins and Mr. Richmond addressed the PC and said he did the survey which has been submitted to the PC showing what the project proposal is. He showed on the map the proposed project. It consists of 36.068 acres currently owned by Hutchins. Richmond is 12.36 acres that he owns. There is a 20-foot right of way which connects the two parcels, he said. The Hutchins land goes around the entire parcel; what is being requested is to create a line near the access and divide the property where Hutchins will own a 14.46 acre parcel and to the east Michael Richmond will own 33.78 acres. The land being transferred is 21.42 acres that is coming from Hutchins to Richmond. He showed the new proposed boundary on the map. There is an existing boundary on the side of the junkyard parcel. Linda Radimer asked about the roadway; Mr. Bedard showed on the map that there is an existing roadway. The road will remain in place, he responded. Mr. Moraska asked how much is being used now and he showed on the map what is being used. Mr. Moraska said it cleans up the current configuration of the lots. Mr. Troy asked if it was different than what was proposed in May/June. Clarence Hutchins said that the only thing that has been changed is a line – Mr. Bean has a copy of the map and is satisfied with it. The salvage yard was noted and there has been a survey done to show each parcel and the proposed parcel. A scale was to be shown on the survey; these 3 requirements have been done. All of item 1 from staff notes was done, 2 is normal, 3 is also normal language all survey pins have been set and sentence is still on the plan.

Ms. Radimer moved to close the hearing to this subdivision modification with the maps including the recommendations that the PC had and Items 2, 3 and 5 would be 1, 2 and 3 and strike as amendment by condition 1. Mr. Troy seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

GEORGE AND LYNN REYNOLDS (PROPERTY OWNERS) AND CLARK HINSDALE III (APPLICANT): SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT TO RECONFIGURED BUILDING LOTS IN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUDIVISION. PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF EAST THOMPSON’S POINT ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

Clark Hinsdale made an outline which he distributed to PC members. Jim Ouimette, his attorney and David Miskell who has been helping, addressed the PC at this time along with Mr. Hinsdale. Mr. Hinsdale said it was a previously-approved subdivision with 11 parcels (9 residential) with off-site septic easement and road easement. The proposed modification is to make 11 parcels into 5 parcels, to modify the open space agreement which will result in open space covering 3 lots with building envelopes and an increase in acreage of land. The modification involves relocating the access road and it integrates with the Palmer subdivision (road sharing and fire pond agreements between the two).

Lot No. 3 is the same dimensions as it was on the original 11-lot plan except it has a 7/10 (LISTEN TO TAPE) bldg envelope in the northeast corner.

Lot No. 4 formerly was six lots of 2.25 acres each, and now it is a single lot with reserved density. It also now has a building envelope on it with a request that it be a single family house lot

Lots 3 and 4 are not being requested for approval for development at this point.

Lots 5, 6 and 7 – Lot 5 used to be 2 lots and the brook ran through the second lot (lower lot); it was eliminated and added onto Lot 5 as open space.

Lot 6 is the same as it was in the original subdivision.

Lot 7 – lot line hasn’t changed, but now there is a building envelope on Lot 7 and a driveway easement goes across Lot 5 to access it – 3 building envelopes are for single family houses. At the border of Lots 5 and 6 is where the road ends. Mr. Hinsdale said that they are proposing to improve the right-of-way – there are limits of the shared roadway; there are property pins dividing Lots 5 and 6. The roadway has been relocated to the east of the existing driveway. It had two right angle turns in it Mr. Moraska asked if it is still going west of the hedgerow to which Mr. Hinsdale said it is still going west. There was discussion on how the road went

Jim Donovan arrived at 6:35 p.m.

Mr. Hinsdale went over his checklist:

Issue of Carol (Mr. Hinsdale’s ex-wife) apt – it was decided that it would be a separate application. The original subdivision was going to resolve the issue of Carol’s apartment by transferring a unit of density as part of this application. Dean Bloch pointed out to Mr. Hinsdale that John Crabbe’s signature was not on the application, so that meant without his signature, they could not transfer density to Carol’s lot now, since John’s lot connects Kingsland to Carol’s. Lot 4 used to be 6 lots. Mr. Hinsdale asked the PC for the residual density of the subdivision to remain with Lot 4.

Open space agreement – This item was discussed with the Selectboard (SB) and the SB finding was that the PC has charge of that and they’ll await the PC’s decision on the sub-division amendment. Under the new agreement, there are 39.3 acres of open space and an irrevocable offer of dedication for a trail. There is a 10-acre gain in open space under the new agreement. Open space and residential coexist on lots under this agreement.

There are documents for shared maintenance of the fire pond and road.

Mr. Hinsdale proposes that the hedgerow on the southern part of Lot 4 is a no-cut zone. Mr. Troy asked if there was another one (WHAT DOES “ONE” MEAN—WHAT WAS THE ANSWER—LISTEN TO TAPE that runs along the ditch along Lot 4. Mr. Hinsdale said that the septic system easement which is offsite to the east was originally a 9-lot mound system and this project is going to a 4-lot non-dual alternating mound replacement. There is an easement for Lot 4 to go up to the septic area. Mr. Troy said there is no septic design for Lot 4 yet and Mr. Hinsdale said that that would be on the list of things to do if approved. Lot 3 is the same.

Mr. Hinsdale said Lot 3 isn’t participating in the shared septic system because it has the only good soil for septic and there is no septic design for Lot 3. They would have to come back for that.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Mr. Donovan asked if there was (?) access to which Mr. Hinsdale said that there is an existing right-of-way from Greenbush Road; the first part of the driveway is already built and serves as existing Lots 1 and 2 and the land doesn’t have more than 3% slope anywhere. There is a fence line where the road is going to follow it.

Mr. Troy addressed Point 3 under the proposed conditions:

He asked Mr. Hinsdale if a specific spot was delineated for planting LISTEN TO TAPE. Mr. Hinsdale said that Dean Bloch suggested that it would be better if there were. When the trail easements go to either end of the property, the irrevocable offer of dedication would mean that the Town could get from Point A to Point B. Mr. Troy said then it is like a floating trail easement. Mr. Hinsdale said that for example Cattail Lane is a private road and he owns the first half and then it goes across each individual lot so any of the people’s lots that the trail went across would have to agree to any recreational use of it. Linda Hamilton said there are sensitive areas there so it would make sense to hold off on where the trail would go. Mr. Hinsdale has purchased an easement from Thompsons Point Road to the Kingsland property and the easement would have given him the right to access building lots but doesn’t provide for a recreational trail, so now that he is the owner, he has no right to convey anything to the Town from Thompsons Point Road because he doesn’t own that right. He also has a right-of-way that goes out to Greenbush Road for ingress and egress to a specific parcel but he doesn’t have the right to give the Town a right-of-way to Greenbush Road. He can say that he gives the right to put a trail across the Kingsland parcel.

In the northwest corner of Lot 4 there is a diagonal fence line. Mr. Hinsdale said on the west side there is a meadow and the east side slopes down to the brook so a trail could follow that and not be in wetlands. Then the trail could cross the brook where the 60-ft right-of-way crosses the brook (proposed) coming from Greenbush Road to Lots 3 and 4 (south end of fence line) and you could get to the high end of the meadow which is not wetland, so you could stay out of the woods and wetlands and get from the north to the south sides of the property. Future owners of Lots 3 and 4 might think that the best way to deal with the trail would be to come in front so it wouldn’t access land they were using. Mr. Hinsdale has a problem with a floating trail easement but can do it.

Mr. Moraska asked if the open space was designated on the map. Mr. Ouimette said that the open space is designated as no-build. Mr. Hinsdale said that he had discussed with Mr. Bloch about putting a note in association with the table on the upper corner of the map that says that one of the lines in the table is the open space which is called the no-build areas and is subject to an open space agreement with the Town. Lots 3, 4 and 7 building envelopes are excluded from open space. The Crabbe lot has 18 acres of open space. Mr. Donovan asked about the building envelopes saying that the one on Lot 7 appears to have wetland going through it. Mr. Hinsdale said that it did look like that and they went out and looked at it and realized that the wetland layer and orthophotos are offset. Mr. Donovan wanted to make sure it is marked in the field. Mr. Hinsdale said it was. Mr. McDonald asked for any questions from the public. There were none.

Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Hinsdale to go over the staff notes items.

Mr. Bloch wants to make the envelope on Lot 5 smaller and Mr. Donovan agrees with that. Lot 5 is 4.5 acres. Mr. Hinsdale said that the building envelope is shaped like it is because Lot 5 is currently 2 lots on the unmodified plat and they gave up the western half of Lot 5. The layout of the eastern side of that lot already exists and they didn’t want to change it. Somebody asked about wetlands. Where the brook goes through the western half of Lot 5, the building envelope is completely out of the wetlands. Mr. Hinsdale said he would like to keep the building envelope as presented. Linda Radimer asked Peter Demick if he had any thoughts (animal travel ways or anything that he had noticed) and he replied that there are a lot of animals. Ms. Radimer asked if clearing trees would expose his property more. He said it would be tough to see it clear cut. Tom Clark said that the appeal of the lot are the trees and he has no interest in clear cutting that lot and it would enhance the beauty of it to keep them.

Mr. Troy suggested that 50% of the trees that are greater than 1 foot in diameter be kept. Linda Hamilton said that you have to be careful when doing guidelines because you have to allow for time to pass to allow for any young trees to mature. It is a 2-phase project—what needs to get done to get the house in and what needs to get done to maintain the forest, Mr. Troy commented.

Mr. Bloch noted:

The septic plan was including a lot that is on the Palmer Estate which didn’t include Lot 4 but at this point we are looking at Lots 3,4,5,6, and 7 so he proposed that the septic allocation be kept for Lot 4 until that has been dealt with. Mr. Hinsdale said that he has already made an agreement with them legally (the proposed buyer’s attorney is here); David Connor said that it has been demonstrated that there is adequate area within the Crabbe septic easement zone that a separate system could be designed. Mr. Bloch wanted to make it clear that there was capacity.

Mr. Bloch said that he would like the PC to determine what accessory structures are allowed outside the building envelopes. Mr. Moraska said it depends on lot size. Mr. Hinsdale said that they were comfortable either way.

Mr. Troy asked if we had a draft open space agreement. Mr. Ouimette said that he gave Mr. Hinsdale one to look at, but the PC has not seen it. However, it has been modified from the old boiler plate one. Mr. Hinsdale said the big change was in Item 2B of the agreement – the language invented for the Claflin Farm subdivision because open space would become common land was a concern. With an open space agreement that goes across three different ownerships, you can’t say that it is a single agricultural unit.

Mr. McDonald asked for any other information. Mr. Moraska asked if there had been discussion about a potential TDR. Mr. McDonald said no.

Mr. Troy moved to close this hearing. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

Thomas Esnes and Valerie Gilliam: Final Plat Hearing for a 2-Lot Subdivision. Property located on Spear Street and Uncle Tom’s Lane (Spear Gervia Road) in the Rural and Conservation Districts.

Liam Murphy addressed the PC on behalf of the Swifts and the Esnes. He explained that the Esnes bought the entire property but made an agreement to sell the westerly half to the Swifts. Their intention was to divide the property in two halves along the brook; as the brook meanders, the boundary will stay the same.

Mr. Moraska asked if the owners were interested in establishing a trail. Mr. Troy said they are looking to put in a curb cut. There is no development proposed as part of this application.

Mr. Donovan asked if they could put a condition on it that no building can occur until they come back with an application. Mr. Murphy agreed for both lots.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Trina Bianchi from the Trails Committee asked about the trail condition. Mr. Donovan and Mr. Moraska are not willing to accept a “no trail” condition; maybe a floating easement would be acceptable. Mr. Troy said that coming back for the building envelope, the opportunity will be there to talk about trails. But, in the meantime, half of the property is conserved so having a trail across it should not be an issue. Hazel Prindle asked about access to the west lot. Mr. Murphy said there is Uncle Tom’s Road; they are not intending on developing.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Mr. Troy asked for clarification because they are not providing access to the western lot, does that mean they want to merge the lot to their existing parcel. Mr. Murphy said that the Town Road runs to the westerly portion of the lot. That still exists. Alan Jordan asked if the PC was going to vote to have or not have trails on the eastern portion. Mr. McDonald said no; they are voting on whether or not to close the hearing.

Discussion centered on the legality of the Town requiring people to give up land for a trail as part of a subdivision application. Mr. Murphy said the Town should check with its attorney because there is a possibility that they can get sued in the future. Hazel Prindle said the PC should read Shirley Allen’s letter in the Charlotte News about all the people that don’t own property but want to micromanage your property; she has a problem with that and agrees with her and Alan Jordan. Mr. Jordan said if the PC approves the subdivision with unpalatable conditions, they might have a problem with it. He said he thinks it would not be prudent to have as a prerequisite to passing an application, that you have to have trails on the property.

Mr. Murphy asked if the hearing closes tonight, is the PC going to require that they wait 2 weeks to have the decision signed before the mylar is signed? The answer is yes, unless there are conditions which would affect what’s on the mylar and he said right now there aren’t any such conditions. Mr. Troy recommended to Mr. Murphy to stay in contact with Mr. Bloch on this issue.

Mr. Troy moved to close the hearing. Mr. Donovan seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

David and Susan Miskell: Final Plat Hearing for a 2-Lot Subdivision. Property located on Greenbush Road in the Rural District.

David Miskell gave a quick summary of this project. Originally, it was a 12.7-acre lot; it was part of a subdivision with Vermont Land Trust in 1988. Lots 1 and 2 were subdivided and Lot 3 is permanently preserved and still held by Vermont Land Trust. The Miskells bought Lot 1, other people bought Lot 2. They are proposing to subdivide Lot 1 into Lot 1A (greenhouses are now there) and Lot 1B (some agricultural with Skip Sheldon currently farming it); application has been 2 house lots.

There is a correction to Dean Bloch’s notes: that the proposal would create building for the existing business and one building lot.

He further went on to say that he is awaiting an agreement on the draft septic easement. All agreements have been kept in escrow. The septic application with the State is going in next week.

Mr. Miskell explained that basically none of the land in the building envelope in Lot 1B is active agricultural land, but they plan to do more agricultural on that land. They want to build a house there to try and increase the equity. Ms. Radimer asked about the proposed wastewater easement on this Lot 1B. Mr. Miskell said the existing building envelope goes right to the boundary, so the septic easement is more towards the north of the property.

Dean Bloch’s recommendations are acceptable to Mr. Miskell. Mr. Donovan asked to explain Note 4 on the survey. Mr. Miskell said that when he originally came in for this, they had a neighbor that was asking for a building envelope (agricultural); they were asking for height restrictions that were worse than what the Town was allowing on houses. They let it go through but came back to the PC and had those conditions removed. Mr. Moraska said it was related to a concerns of neighbors on the east side of Greenbush Road. Ms. Radimer asked if the right-of-way on Lot 1A was going into a buffer zone. Mr. Miskell said there is no buffer zone on the pond that he created. She wants to ensure that the road isn’t going to go through the edge of the pond and Mr. Miskell said it would not. They use the pond as a fire pond for the neighborhood. The road comes close to the pond. There is a waste disposal easement proposed on Lot 2 (Notes 9 and 10). Mr. McDonald asked if that was a surveyed line and Mr. Miskell said yes.

Mr. Donovan asked if the septic for Lot 1B was going into the area for Lot 1A (Note 9). Mr. Miskell said Lot 2 has its own septic system.

Mr. Moraska asked where the greenhouse is located on the map. Mr. Miskell showed him and Mr. Moraska asked how far the building envelope was from Ten Stones. Mr. Miskell showed him on the map and said that it is way off.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Alan Jordan asked if there was any provision for trails across it and if not why not? Mr. Miskell said there is a trail from Ten Stones that comes out on Lot 2 and it goes to Orchard Road. There is a farm right-of-way on Lot 2. Mr. Jordan said this is even more imminent now with a trail already and that maybe it should be part of the subdivision application that they should open their lot for a 50-foot trail. Mr. Miskell said Lots 1A and 1B can be sold as soon as available and he can buy it. Ms. Radimer said there is a trail network on the east side of the road that is Tony Perry’s that connects into the Demeter property. Mr. Hinsdale commented that he encourages the PC to consider Mr. Murphy’s comments: it’s very difficult to get financial institutions to approve loans because they don’t want to have homes and businesses mixed in loan packages.

Mr. Donovan moved to close the hearing. Mr. Troy seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

Arnold Koss and Anne Rillero: Subdivision Amendment to move septic field. Property located on Greenbush Road in the Rural District.

Stuart Morrow addressed the PC on behalf of the parties and said that this project was related to the the Miskell’s just heard by the PC. He said that originally the septic easement on the same subdivision that Mr. Miskell just discussed was on Lot 2 to service Lot 1, and now they have located suitable soils on Lot 2 for septic capacity. Mr. Moraska asked why there was a need to change the septic easements. Mr. Troy said they were trying to extinguish the easement because originally there wasn’t septic capacity. Koss had an easement on Miskells’ lot and then they found soils so Koss has both the primary and replacement on his lot plus one of Miskell’s. Mr. Donovan said the only issue is having the building envelope go over the wastewater area. Mr. Morrow said that that can be changed. Mr. McDonald asked for questions and there were none.

Mr. Donovan moved to close the hearing. Mr. Troy seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

Christopher Boffa: Subdivision Amendment to create new access. Property located on Mount Philo Road in the Rural District.

Mr. Boffa addressed the PC and explained that he is back because the access that was previously approved for the subdivision had to be relinquished because of unforeseen Act 250 jurisdiction. He emphasized the hardship associated with this development.

He then went through Mr. Bloch’s comments:

Because of needing to relinquish access, he is presenting today a new shared driveway off of Mt. Philo Road which would provide access to Lots 2 and 3. He has been before the SB and they have issued a conditional approval based on PC approval of this amendment. He has been through it with Junior (road commissioner) and it is adequate (site distance). They have offset it not to impact the hedgerow.

The number of lots served by a single road was what triggered Act 250 for the previous configuration of the subdivision utilizing the neighboring Stearn’s subdivision roadway. Mr. Donovan asked who did the design. Mr. Boffa answered that it was Landlines. Mr. Donovan asked if they did a centerline profile on the driveway. Mr. Boffa said he has a standard centerline profile on the engineer’s plans for the wastewater. Mr. Donovan expressed his concern about the cross-slope on the curve of the driveway. Mr. Boffa said the building envelope placements were based on minimizing use of the existing field. Mr. Troy said the concern is that the road tries to go from house site for Lot 2 to get to Lot 3.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Mr. Donovan asked if he was using Lots 1 and 2 jointly in terms of haying. Mr. Boffa said yes and part of Lot 3 as well.

Mr. Hinsdale expressed concern as an adjoiner of an adjoiner. He said Mr. Rutherford piling on top of the project caused Act 250 to take a look at it. He is sensitive to the predicament Mr. Boffa is in and he is concerned about the development pattern that is being created. He was happier when the hillside was left alone. He asked Mr. Boffa if there was a potential if Rutherford can come back and have the development come off from his road. Mr. Boffa said he has a condition attached to his approval that would not allow that. Mr. Hinsdale said he appreciates that. Ms. Radimer asked if there was a potential access to back lots. Mr. Boffa said no. Mr. Hinsdale asked Mr. Boffa why can’t he bring the driveway off the roadway cut to his house. Mr. Boffa said that was his point originally. The slope is not practical. Mr. Hinsdale said he has a legal precedent where someone got an opposite Act 250 decision. Mr. Boffa said they did present it, but it wasn’t accepted by the Act 250 coordinator. Mr. Hinsdale said he would appeal the decision. Mr. Boffa agrees and thinks the Rutherford piece of it has been a behind-the-scenes component because in all the formal information provided, that doesn’t not come up at all. Mr. Troy asked if Act 250 were not triggered, would you still be able to have the deal with Stearns? Mr. Boffa said yes.

Mr. Donovan wants to go back and look at the current situation and asked Mr. Boffa if the shed and propane tank are movable and how far from the trees they are. Mr. Boffa said they are movable but the hedgerow line that is shown on the map is even more so. They are further into the tress than what’s indicated on the map. Mr. Donovan said he is very sensitive to this but before he is ready to sign off on it, he has to be convinced that there is no other way to make it work and wants to know how the driveway will work in terms of emergency vehicles. So he asked Mr. Boffa for another site visit by this weekend. Mr. McDonald said that was a good idea. The site visit will be at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, December 6^th.

Mr. Boffa reiterated that he is pleading a hardship issue. Mr. Donovan said that the only thing that can be done tonight is to approve using the existing driveway. Ellie Russell said that when the SB looked at it, they felt given the hardship, it was the reasonable thing to do. Mr. McDonald asked for questions.

Mr. Bloch said that every 800 feet a turnout is required for passing of vehicles. He also raised the issue of setbacks; he said that the 60-foot access is not offset by the property line. Mr. Boffa agreed. Mr. Troy asked how many feet along Mt. Philo Road there was (frontage). Mr. Bloch confirmed that there was 296 feet of frontage on Mt. Philo Road.

Mr. McDonald said the issue is whether or not to continue or take under consideration with information available.

Mr. Troy suggested that the PC can close the hearing but if they find themselves in need of reopening it, they can reopen it before rendering a decision.

Mr. McDonald suggested continuing until December 18. It will be an item on the agenda for the December 18^th meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Ms. Radimer moved to continue this hearing to December 18, 6:30pm. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

Charles Stearns: Review of revised Sketch Plan. Property located on Spear Street Extension in the Rural and Conservation Districts.

Carl Cole and Charles Stearns approached the PC. Mr. Cole spoke on behalf of Mr. Stearns. He showed on the map where the test pits are. Lots 2 – 5 would be single family units and Lot 1 would be 2-bedroom affordable units. Mr. Troy asked about the size of the proposed lots of the current configuration.

Mr. Cole said each one is a little over an acre. He said that the homes would be 3-bedroom homes and they would be selling them as building lots and whoever buys them would propose the design; the number of bedrooms is determined by the engineer.

Mr. McDonald asked about open space. Mr. Cole said that they haven’t come to a decision on that yet. Mr. Troy said that the open space should be its own lot instead of dividing it between two of the lots. Mr. Cole said this plan leaves the woodland untouched, but splits the meadowland into 2 parcels. Linda Hamilton asked if there was a way of clustering the houses tighter in some areas and leave the remainder as agricultural? Mr. Cole said yes, there are ways to do that, but they have tried to balance the interests of the PC with the economic realities and if they start putting houses in undesirable locations or clustered too tightly, there will be a significant impact on Mr. Stearns. Discussion centered on reconfiguring the property and the open space and road and curb cut.

Mr. McDonald asked the PC about the curb cut. He said as far as clustering houses, the consensus was that it would meet the PC’s concerns. He is ok with two curb cuts, but not a third. He asked if there was a problem with going from 4 lots to 5. Ms. Radimer said as long as the fifth one is affordable. Mr. McDonald said he doesn’t think a duplex would work if that was the case.

Fire pond – Mr. Bloch read the requirement and Mr. Cole said it is required and April Moulaert (ANR Water Quality Division) has pointed out where she wants it according to the wetlands. Mr. Troy asked how many feet away is the dry hydrant – the answer is beyond 1500 feet.

There was a question if the PC had classified the proposed project. As the PC was not certain, it was agreed to restate the classification.

Mr. Donovan moved to reaffirm the classification as a major subdivision. Mr. Troy seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

ADJOURN

Mr. Moraska moved to adjourn. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.