Lyme Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2005
Board Members: Present: Freda Swan, Dave Swanz, Jeanie McIntyre, Jack Elliott, and Dan Karnes. Absent: Pete Bleyler and Dan Brand Staff: Victoria Davis
Public: Jackie Glass, Marcia Armstrong, and Nicole & Tom Cormen
Item 1: Approval of Minutes: Jack Elliott made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2005 meeting. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Item 2: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Hearing: Freda Swan called the hearing to order at 7:30 PM. She asked if the attending public had any specific questions or concerns. There being none, she went through each of the amendments which had not been voted to town meeting at the previous hearing. The reviewed amendments are attached.
Amendment #1 had been voted to town meeting at the last hearing.
Amendment #2: Add definition of “parent lot” and amend section 4.64 to refer to parent lot. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to take the amendment to town meeting. Jack Elliott seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendment #3: Change definition of “wetlands” to match State regulations and refer to hydric soils map as a guide. Jeanie McIntyre expressed concern the town might not be informed if the State changes their regulations to be less restrictive than the town would desire. It was determined that it should still be the definition, but the Board asked Victoria Davis to call the Department of Environmental Services to find out if any regulation change hearings would be noticed to the towns. Dave Swanz made a motion to take the amendment to town meeting. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendment #4: Victoria Davis asked the Board to consider deleting this amendment even though it had been voted to town meeting at the last hearing. She explained that there seemed to be agreement that this is a confusing section which has been changed every year. She suggested that the Board take a little more time to determine their objectives for this district and develop an amendment to reflect this. She said she had been interpreting the definition of the Steep Slopes District as 20% or greater slope measured over a 100’ horizontal distance with the 100’ measured wherever it most benefited the applicant. This had been recommended by a previous Planning Board Chair at a much earlier meeting. However, this interpretation would be impossible to map to determine the area of
the Steep Slopes District on a lot, and it might allow building on a steep slope adjacent to a long flat area which would lower the average grade over 100’. The current Steep Slopes Conservation District map is just a guide as it is taken from the topographic maps which are at a small scale quite inaccurate for small areas. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to delete this amendment. Dave Swanz seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendment #5: The explanation of this amendment has language irrelevant to this amendment because it was not deleted after a previous change. This will be removed so the amendment is just about a change in definition of “Outdoor Recreation Activities” which had been “Outdoor Recreation.” Also a reference to Table 4.1 will be added. Jack Elliott made a motion to take the amendment to town meeting. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendment #6: Conversions. Dave Swanz made a motion to take the amendment to town meeting. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendments #7 and 8 had been voted to town meeting at the last hearing.
Amendment #9: Section 4.53 Driveways. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to take the amendment to town meeting. Dave Swanz seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Amendments 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 had been voted to town meeting at the last hearing.
Amendment #13: This amendment had been erroneously noticed and could not be taken to town meeting. It was deleted. Victoria Davis stated the Selectboard has adopted the recommendation that applicants who build without a permit shall pay any additional administrative and legal fees incurred by the town in enforcing the zoning ordinance which was the essence of the proposed amendment.
The hearing ended at 8:15 PM.
Item 3: Informal Meeting with Nicole & Tom Cormen; 1979 Hack Subdivision Approval Parcel C; 95 Baker Hill Road; Map 409, Lot 57
The Cormens are considering purchasing Parcel C of this subdivision. The current lot is smaller than the original Parcel C as the back land was sold off to Dartmouth College who then sold it to the federal government for Appalachian Trail buffer. The 1979 approved plat had several conditions related to the driveways:
5. Access to Parcel A [M409 L55] shall be by the existing drive which serves it and the residence of George Bryant [M409 L54] rather than by the existing drive which serves the residence on Parcel B [M409 L54] (or the new drive provided for in the next paragraph).
6. The entrance from Baker Hill Road of the drive which now serves the residence on Parcel B shall be relocated to a point near the northwesterly corner of Parcel C….
7. The relocated drive entrance provided in Paragraph 6 shall be the sole entrance onto Baker Hill Road for Parcel C. It may be used by two residences on Parcel C over private drives which need not be constructed to Town road specifications despite the fact that the entrance also accommodates the drive to Parcel B provided, however, that the portion of the drive used in common by the three residences shall not exceed 25 feet in length.
The Board discussed that condition 5. had not been followed. Jeanie McIntyre stated the 1979 owners of Map 409 Lot 54 (which was not part of the subdivision) had refused to share their driveway with “Parcel A” so the “Parcel A” owners had used the driveway intended for Parcels B and C. She was not on the Board at the time, but knew this from personal experience. The Board determined this use had been in place for so long that it is probably grandfathered, and there did not seem to be a shared driveway agreement with the 1979 owners of Map 409 Lot 54 before the plan approval. Town Counsel Jae Whitelaw has advised the Board that the conditions of the 1979 plan cannot violate any town regulations or ordinance since “Parcel C” was not vested by any building on the
lot within four years of subdivision approval. Freda Swan pointed out that the driveway could still be shared by three lots if the beginning portion shared by all three lots were brought up to standards for a “Service Street” per the Subdivision Regulations. The Board stated the length of this could exceed the 25’ stated in the 1979 conditions to provide adequate access and snow storage. Nicole Cormen said it looked like it could be wetland in the area of the driveway entry because of the presence of Sensitive Fern. Jeanie McIntyre pointed out that if it is an actual wetland, but under 2,500 square feet, the zoning ordinance does not apply. However, it was also pointed out that the State regulations probably would apply. Freda Swan added that if the driveway is over 1,000 feet in length, there needed to be emergency vehicle pull-out areas every 1,000 feet. Nicole Cormen questioned if the lot is in the Ridgeline &
Hillside Conservation District. She had seen a draft map of the district which included her lot. The Board told her that map is not in place yet. Victoria Davis stated the current map of the district does not encroach onto this lot. However, she added that someone could appeal this to the ZBA since the map has never been taken to the ZBA before. Nicole Cormen asked if they could take their utilities to the house without a problem. Freda Swan stated the conservation easement on this part of “Parcel C” allowed utilities and a drive. She also added that the driveway and any building on agricultural soils would require a special exception for the ZBA.
Item 3: Other Business: The Board discussed the revocation request by David & Cristin Roby, II of Deerlove Realty Trust. Since this is the first time the board has been asked for a revocation, there were several questions about the time frame within which the Planning Board should hold a public hearing if it felt it needed to hold one. Victoria Davis will check with town counsel. The Board also questioned if the revocation should make the reconstructed lot a “lot of record.”
Alison Wagner had called to ask if she absolutely had to have test pits on her proposed minor subdivision on the proposed new undeveloped lot. The Board stated she did not have to, but they would designate the new lot as “unbuildable until it is proven a septic system can be built.”
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Submitted by,
Victoria Davis
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Tentative Meeting Agenda for February 10, 2005:
7:30 Approve minutes of January 27, 2005 meeting
7:40 Informal meeting with John Mudge
8:00 Board discussion about a community attitude survey
8:40 Crossroads Academy Preliminary Site Plan Review Hearing
| 
