October 21, 2015

PB Minutes 7/23/15

Draft Copy PB Minutes 7/23/15

Meeting called to order at 7:04. Members present were Linda, Rich, Bill, Dave, and Barry.

The following are notes from Tom B in regard to the public hearing held on 7/7/15:
     I noted only a few changes based on the comments. Others probably caught more. 
  1. Change Canned Hunt from P to N in the ARR  district  on page 22 
  2. Despite my flippant reply to him, John Saeli’s  comment is serious. The definition of canned hunt should be explicitly exclude livestock slaughter.
  3. 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Meeting adjourned at  9:02, motion made by Bill, second by Rich.