Draft Copy PB Minutes 7/23/15
Meeting called to order at 7:04. Members present were Linda, Rich,
Bill, Dave, and Barry.
Bill, Dave, and Barry.
The following are notes from Tom B in regard to the public hearing held
on 7/7/15:
on 7/7/15:
I noted only a few
changes based on the comments. Others probably caught more.
- Change
Canned Hunt from P to N in the ARR district on page 22 - Despite my flippant reply to him,
John Saeli’s comment is serious. The definition of canned hunt
should be explicitly exclude livestock slaughter. - We need to
tighten up the definition of a significant change of use, to determine the
threshold for a Site Plan Review of work at an existing commercial
enterprise. One threshold might be an expansion of use beyond what
was approved in the prior site plan review. Another threshold might
be beginning a commercial use listed in the Use Table. Would that be any
use in the table, or would it be only Special or Conditional uses?
I don’t think we’ll deal with the
enforcement section this time around. However, I spoke with Larry Colton after
the meeting. He will come to our next VPB meeting. Larry wanted to avoid
writing tickets if possible, and preferred an intermediate step of a fee to
remove a stop-work order. That would put more teeth into the stop work order.
He agreed to ask some of his peers in neighboring towns how they dealt with
contractors who repeatedly did work without permits. Our town attorney sounds
amenable to providing advice on a useful escalation sequence.
enforcement section this time around. However, I spoke with Larry Colton after
the meeting. He will come to our next VPB meeting. Larry wanted to avoid
writing tickets if possible, and preferred an intermediate step of a fee to
remove a stop-work order. That would put more teeth into the stop work order.
He agreed to ask some of his peers in neighboring towns how they dealt with
contractors who repeatedly did work without permits. Our town attorney sounds
amenable to providing advice on a useful escalation sequence.
Larry Colton attended our meeting. Linda reviewed the issue
involving Tim Crutchfield’s camper. At this time it appears they are still in
violation of code. This may be an issue where Larry will need to follow the
procedure outlined in the code to insure compliance.
involving Tim Crutchfield’s camper. At this time it appears they are still in
violation of code. This may be an issue where Larry will need to follow the
procedure outlined in the code to insure compliance.
Larry also raised the issue of contractors who repeatedly do
work without proper permits. We stressed that obtaining such permits is the
responsibility of the property owner even though a contractor may obtain them
on the owner’s behalf. New construction or substantial remodeling requires a
county building permit and a town zoning permit. We need to clarify in our code
exactly who is responsible for obtaining the permit. We agreed that the
enforcement section of the code needs to be reviewed.
work without proper permits. We stressed that obtaining such permits is the
responsibility of the property owner even though a contractor may obtain them
on the owner’s behalf. New construction or substantial remodeling requires a
county building permit and a town zoning permit. We need to clarify in our code
exactly who is responsible for obtaining the permit. We agreed that the
enforcement section of the code needs to be reviewed.
Larry needs to follow through with the procedures outlined
in the code where violations are found. If a summons is needed he has the
authority to acquire one.
in the code where violations are found. If a summons is needed he has the
authority to acquire one.
He also informed us that an antenna and small building were
being constructed at the water tower in the depot. He found that this work does
not require a special use permit.
being constructed at the water tower in the depot. He found that this work does
not require a special use permit.
He also made us aware that the cell tower constructed at the
corner of 96 and 336 was moved 8’. Bill later informed us that the purpose for
this was to better acquire a proper signal. It is alleged that the company
should have sought new permits to perform this work.
corner of 96 and 336 was moved 8’. Bill later informed us that the purpose for
this was to better acquire a proper signal. It is alleged that the company
should have sought new permits to perform this work.
Larry brought up an issue he has had to deal with concerning
livestock or animals (birds) roaming outside of property lines. This is an
issue the PB should discuss and possibly add to the code.
livestock or animals (birds) roaming outside of property lines. This is an
issue the PB should discuss and possibly add to the code.
Since our CEO has some other areas of concern about the code
it was suggested that he go through the code and present any issues he may have
that need clarification. The PB will gladly consider these suggestions and make
changes or additions that may be necessary.
it was suggested that he go through the code and present any issues he may have
that need clarification. The PB will gladly consider these suggestions and make
changes or additions that may be necessary.
Jeff Hogue emailed a question concerning subdivisions to
Rich – is it required that every subdivision be presented to the PB for review?
We are not sure what the code says at this time but agree that this should be
part of the subdivision acceptance. This would simply require that anyone who
desires to submit a subdivision for approval should first approach the PB with
a general plan of intent. This would include property lines, etc.
Rich – is it required that every subdivision be presented to the PB for review?
We are not sure what the code says at this time but agree that this should be
part of the subdivision acceptance. This would simply require that anyone who
desires to submit a subdivision for approval should first approach the PB with
a general plan of intent. This would include property lines, etc.
Jeff will be contacted – a suggestion will be made that
anyone who desires to subdivide property should first be directed to the PB and
then complete the necessary procedures for approval.
anyone who desires to subdivide property should first be directed to the PB and
then complete the necessary procedures for approval.
Linda also raised a question about how often a property
should be allowed to be subdivided. Currently, once a property is subdivided it
cannot be done again. Is this reasonable, should we review the intent here?
should be allowed to be subdivided. Currently, once a property is subdivided it
cannot be done again. Is this reasonable, should we review the intent here?
We believe that there may be one or two cases in the town
where subdivisions were approved but may not be code compliant. Linda will
contact Harriet Haines (sp) for help in contacting the right people at the
county level to find out the procedures for subdivision.
where subdivisions were approved but may not be code compliant. Linda will
contact Harriet Haines (sp) for help in contacting the right people at the
county level to find out the procedures for subdivision.
Our next meeting will be 8/25. However, if there are no
people or immediate problems on the agenda we will not hold a meeting until
September.
people or immediate problems on the agenda we will not hold a meeting until
September.
Meeting adjourned at
9:02, motion made by Bill, second by Rich.
9:02, motion made by Bill, second by Rich.