TOWN OF
RUTLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL16, 2009
MINUTES:
The meeting opened at 7:00
P.M.
Commission
members present: Howard Burgess, Anthony Flory, Raymond
Leonard, Richard Lloyd, William Matteson, Jerry Stearns, Tom Turner and Charles
Vajda.
Election of Officers
Mr. Leonard nominated Mr.
Matteson to be the Chairman. Mr. Vajda
seconded the nomination. The vote was
six to one, with Mr. Lloyd voting in the negative.
Mr. Matteson nominated Mr.
Turner as the Vice Chairman. Mr. Flory
seconded the nomination. All were in
approval.
Review of the 4/2/2009 Minutes
The following changes were
made to the minutes: Adding the correct
spelling of Mr. Wulfson’s name, removing Table 9 on Page 39 of the Town Plan
draft, changing health commissioner to health officer, removing Mr. Dicton as
working on the zoning meetings, and three other typos.
Mr. Lloyd motioned to accept
the minutes with these changes and Mr. Vajda seconded the motion. All approved with the exception of Mr.
Leonard and Mr. Flory who were not present at the 4/2/2009 meeting.
The Rutland Town Plan
Tara Kelly was present to
review sections of the Rutland Town Plan.
Mr. Burgess said that the Grand List amount was incorrect and that he
would provide the correct numbers to Ms. Kelly. Mr. Turner said that the new vision statement needs to replace
the old one.
Changes other than minor
typos were:
Page 12 = Add
that the crossing is paved
Page 22 = The last paragraph on treatment of
waste water is to be rewritten to be better understood, leaving out specific
numbers.
Add
fire protection to rescue squad as the Fire Department’s duties.
Page
58 = The Town of Chittenden does not have a Town Plan but are working on one.
Ms. Kelly will have the
complete Town Plan prepared for the next meeting along with a report for the
Selectmen. She will also send in the
final report to the State. Mr. Turner
was concerned about the time frame for being eligible for the State grant. Ms. Kelly said that the Commission has met
the requirements by having drafted the Town Plan. It is required that the abutting towns receive a copy of the
Rutland Town Plan thirty days prior to
a hearing.
Discussion on Site Visit for Mr. Walker
Mr. Robert Walker was
present to discuss the Commission’s site visit to the area of his proposed
subdivision. The main question is the
access to the subdivision via Rob Shawn Place.
An alternative entrance near the Hemmingway property has been discussed
but has not been mapped or decided upon.
Mr. Matteson said that Charles
and Roger Hemmingway have water concerns.
Mr. Matteson told them that once an entrance has been decided upon, then
their concerns can be heard.
The Commission agreed that
Rob Shawn Place is not a good entrance for the subdivision. Mr. Turner cited the letter from Mr.
Walker’s engineer stating that the sight distances from Rob Shawn Place are not
sufficient per the State’s B71 regulation.
In light of this
information, Mr. Turner motioned to deny the sketch plan and Mr. Leonard
seconded the motion. All were in approval.
Mr. Walker will get this decision in writing for the Court.
Amanda Place
The residents of Amanda
Place have requested that their road become a Town maintained road. Mr. Matteson passed out copies of the
deed(s) and read a paragraph that is listed on each homeowner’s deed that says
the Town will not take over the road until it is brought up to Town
specifications. He also stated that
nothing has been done to the road since the subdivision in 2003.
Mr. Lloyd expressed his
opinion that the Town should not incur any costs related to this issue in light
of what the deeds convey. Mr. Turner
also expressed his opinion that the deeds speak for themselves.
Mr. Lloyd also said that
there were culvert issues and that the boring that was done to test the road
foundation was only done on the edges vs. the middle. Mr. Spencer, the engineer who did the boring, said this was done
to check to see if there were stumps in the road.
Mr. Flory asked Mr. Rhodes,
chairman of the Select Board, his thoughts on the subject. Mr. Rhodes said that he was not present to
do so but that the Board had taken a straw poll and felt that the lawyers for
each party should handle the situation.
He also compared this situation with the DCF project.
(2)
Mr. Burgess questioned
whether this issue should fall under the Commission’s domain but said he felt
Amanda Place was different than DCF in that Amanda Place is much steeper and
could be considered a safety issue.
Mr. Matteson said he felt
the Select Board should request that the homeowners of Amanda Place provide a
complete and comprehensive report on the construction of the road and its
deficiencies in regard to the Town’s specifications. He asked for a motion to this effect. Mr. Leonard made this motion and Mr. Stearns seconded the
motion. All were in approval.
Hubbard Final Two Lot Subdivision Hearing
Mr. Turner chaired this
portion of the meeting as Mr. Matteson had recused himself based on a previous
request from the applicants.
Mr. Turner started by saying
the hearing had been warned in the Rutland Herald and that participation is a
prerequisite to the right to appeal.
Matt Branchaud was present
to represent the Hubbards for this two lot subdivision off Perkins Road. A final map was passed out to the Commission
members. Also submitted was an unsigned
letter dated March 20, 2009 written by Dominque Golliot, Agricultural Resource
Management Specialist with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture. It stated that on March 16th he
inspected the Hubbard property in regard to manure and water runoff management
and that he did not see any violation.
Mr. Branchaud stated that
water issues on the property existed before the Hubbards took ownership and
that they had installed culverts and ponds to alleviate the run off, pushing
the water past the springs.
Improvements to the existing culverts have been discussed by the
Hubbards and the Dumases but nothing definite has been decided as yet. Mr. Martin, director of Beechwood Farms, an
abutter, said he is very interested in what changes will be made to the culvert
system.
R. Brownson Spencer, P.E.,
stated his professional opinion that the subdivision drainage system was
adequate but that some fine tuning could be done for some culvert
locations. Mr. Branchaud said that Mr.
Spencer was not submitting his comments in writing but instead was present to
respond on behalf of the applicants to any Commission questions at the hearing.
Waivers were discussed, in
particular, the tree line vs. each tree and the water line to Cook’s spring as
the exact location is unknown.
Mr. Hubbard stated that the
fence on the Cook property as shown on the plat has been relocated to his
property and that all other fences located on the property of abutters would be
moved to his property by October 1, 2009.
Mr. Turner went over a
checklist he had made on issues unresolved previously. The Dumases and Hubbards and their lawyers
were supposed to have had a meeting but the only meeting was without the
lawyers. There are still unresolved
issues that do not affect the subdivision decision that the property owners
will have to resolve on their own.
(3)
One is a boundary line
agreement regarding the monument in the southeast corner. Mr. Branchaud wrote up an agreement but
never heard from Mr. Candon, the lawyer for Mr. and Mrs. Dumas. Ed Dumas Jr. said he was not completely
satisfied with the wording on this agreement even though he agreed to the line.
He said he was afraid that once the subdivision was approved, things would
change. Mr. Branchaud said that the boundary line agreement could be done after
the subdivision is approved.
Changes to the culvert
system as stated above are yet to be determined. Mr. Branchaud said there were requests that were not practical
such as no animals within 100 feet of the well, but the barn for the animals is
within 100 feet of the well. Also, the
access to Dailey Place has an easement for up to three houses and since there
is currently no house planned for the Avery lot, this should not be an issue.
Mr. Turner questioned the
wording on the map that it does not intend to depict all easements. Mr. Spencer said that this wording is very
common as not all easements have all been put into writing. However, Mr. Branchaud vouched that all
known easements are shown.
Mr. Spencer was asked about
the possible contamination of the well and if he felt this was an issue. He said that it should be all right as it
sits higher than anything else. Mr.
Turner asked Mr. Rhodes as the Health Officer if he had a report on this issue. Mr. Rhodes said that since the well is
twelve feet deep, it will be contaminated to some point. He felt that the word of the engineer was
sufficient. Mr. Branchaud said the
request to have a report from the Health Officer was out of order.
The Commission received a
copy of a deed giving Edward and Rosita Dumas exclusive right to access and
operate the spring and water line serving their property. Mr. Hubbard acknowledged this and stated
that the fencing which limited access at the time of the Commission’s site
visit had since been removed.
Mr. Lloyd said he felt this
was the most detailed subdivision map he has ever seen and that he felt the
Hubbards had done a good job complying with the Commission’s requests. He motioned to approve the subdivision with
the condition that all the applicant’s fences placed on property not owned by
the applicant would be removed and relocated by October 1, 2009. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. The vote was five to one, with Mr. Flory
voting in the negative and Mr. Turner and Mr. Matteson abstaining.
Mr. Flory motioned to end
the meeting. Mr. Vajda seconded the
motion. All were in approval. The meeting ended at 9:40 P.M.
_________________________________
_____________________
William
Matteson, Chairman Date
(4)