Minutes: Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Present: James Foster, Wayne Wood, Gary Foster, Wade Trudel, Richard Bibber, Jack Goosetrey.
Also present: Code Enforcement Officer Doug Webster.
Jim asked him to describe his role. Doug indicated that he has been hired to oversee code enforcement office and planning functions and handle zoning and other code enforcement. The current code enforcement officer will be back and he will be assisting them.
The meeting began at 7:05pm.
1. Approval of April 3, 2008 ORC minutes
Motion made to accept the April 3, 2008 minutes as amended.
Gary commented that there is a spelling error with the word phosphorus on page 3.
Wayne Wood motioned; Gary Foster seconded. Minutes accepted.
2. Ordinances
a. Review Chapter 401 Subdivision Ordinance re-write
Wade indicated that it would be helpful to have dates on revised materials including references to original material dates. Doug indicated that George Thebarge has had to change the format of the matrix. Wayne indicated that it is important that he use the January 3 and January 16 matrix. Wade also suggested that page numbers would also be helpful. Wayne explained an email from George outlining his work and will include the ORC policy updates and his suggested changes.
Article 6- Wayne commented on 401.6.2B. Border size and scale is not necessary to include.
Wade commented on the last sentence of 401.6.1. Wayne indicated that the sketch plan review should be incorporated in the minor review. Doug indicated that if there are changes after the initial plan, that the next plan should include those changes. Wayne indicated that the process of the sketch plan review is a good one. He has concerns about who the peer reviewers are. Doug commented that if there were some challenges to the design then perhaps the peer review might be necessary. Wade also has concerns about the peer review process. He questions which professional is right.
401.6.2B 7- Wayne questions the last sentence on the water issue. He questions why there is a change in the subdivision classification because of water.
11-Wayne asked why this is needed. Doug suggested that it is possible because of the phosphorus allocations.
16-Wayne asked about the term “lines previously established.” It is not established practice. He believes it shouldn’t be there.
19- Questioned “eligible to be listed on” the National Historic Register. He asked about that statement and indicated how is this determined.
401.6.3- Wade indicated that he and others don’t know the information about the statute listed. Doug indicated that there are state statutes and also town procedures and technical standards and gave examples. He believes it is inherent in the statute but is listed here as a reminder of the process. Gary read information from George Thebarge on this. He is unsure if it is clear. Doug indicated that 401.2 is with regards to statements from the applicant. Wayne believes that as it is written, it is unclear that it is about the applicant.
401.6.4C- Wayne questions why a letter from the sub-divider is required. He suggests a change to “a letter from the surveyor.”
At the end of Article 6 there were questions as to why it needs to change (public utilities versus water stated elsewhere.) Richard suggested that there should be consistency throughout the document.
Article 7-
401.7A-The suggested extension time of 21 days was questioned. Wayne indicated that if it is not necessary, the process as described here has extended more time in the reviewing process than necessary. He believes that the current time frame is more efficient.
401.7.2C- The use of “the borders” in the specs statement is unnecessary.
Jim Foster asked if an electronic copy of the plan is necessary and should it be included. Wayne cautioned that there are different formats which could be difficult. James believes that a specific format should be stated here.
11- Wayne asked who will define the terms in this section. “Vegetation, unusually large specimen trees” for example. Gary asked why it is included.
12-There were questions about “the great pond” reasoning.
20- Wayne asked why this is spelled out for the town. This section is considered heavy handed.
22-Wayne briefly commented on “required to be shown on the plans.”
23- The use of “eligible to be listed” statement as previously stated.
401.7.3- Wayne asked if the phosphorus questions are required here if they are not required by state law.
There was an extensive discussion on contour lines.
401.7.4A- High intensity soil survey- there were questions if it needs to be a high intensity survey and whether or not there is a true need.
Doug suggested that a high intensity soil survey could be for only a portion of the lot. Wade asked what the reason would be in relation to the lot size, it would be a small portion of it. Wayne indicated that if this will be routinely waived, it shouldn’t be included in the document first place. Doug commented on some changes in the state statute in the last few years that has helped make things a bit easier.
401.7.5 There were questions on the determination of “factual information” and what criteria are used.
Article 8
401.8C- There was discussion on this section and why Dept. of Human Services needs to give approval
C7-there were questions about storm water and the D.E.P.
D- The use of “eligible to be listed” phrase in question as previously indicated.
E- Wayne asked who the E911 street addresser is. Doug indicated that it is the assessor’s responsibility.
401.8.2B 5b- “fire protection measures deemed necessary.” This statement needs guidance as to the definition. Doug indicated that it is possibly in there as hydrants are not always an option. The intent is to allow for a variety of fire protection measures without amending the subdivision ordinance. Wayne believes that it is subjective to what the fire department defines it. Gary believes that the wording can be exploited.
401.8.1 K-Wade commented that there should be a way for an individual to build portions of the subdivision to keep costs down since getting funding can be difficult. Doug commented that since the town approved the lot within the subdivision, if they were individually sold, they can come back and challenge the town. Doug believes it is for the town’s protection. It can make it difficult for bonding for small developers. Doug cited some examples to help explain the complexities that could impact the protection of the town. He indicated that the easiest way is to phase in the project.
401.8.2C-Wayne asked if the town is asking for the correct information. Jim Foster indicated that it should be more specific and this section should have more details. There are many wells with issues, so from the town’s perspective, it is important.
16- There was a discussion of term “disposal of land clearing and construction debris.” Wayne asked why it is included. Doug indicated that where it is dumped or buried impacts the salability of the lot. (In particular, stumps and road construction debris). Normally this (land and construction) is separated.
401.8.3C- The term “letter from the sub-divider” should state “surveyor” as previously indicated. Some slight changes in the wording would make it easier for this to be achieved.
Wade asked about the surveyor and setting the pins in winter.
401.8.3B-Wade had issues with the wording of this item. Gary explained the process required on the part of the planning board when a plan is denied. There were questions about the term “and upon voting to approve” There are concerns that if all the criteria are met the board should approve. They suggest the use of “the board shall approve the plan and sign...”
3. Other-none
4. Adjournment:
Richard Bibber motioned and Jim Foster seconded. Meeting ended at 9:15pm.
Next meeting is May 1st.
| 
