RUTLAND PLANNING BOARD
CONTINUATION BRICE LEMON PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 14, 2014
Opened: 7:05 P.M.
Present: Carl Hultgren; Clealand Blair, jr; Julian Votruba; Atty George Kiritsy.
Guests: See attached sign in sheet
The chairman properly called the hearing to order and requested that Carl Hultgren go over the existing engineering questions/concerns.
- Item #13—refer to Quinn Engineering notes of October 6, 2014
- There was a great deal of discussion regarding the fact that Mr. Lemon no longer has a septic leach field on his own property. There were suggestions such as giving him a temporary easement. Richard questioned if it (the leach field) is on the new plan. Mr. Kiritsy asked if this was really a Planning Board issue or concern. Mr Kiritsy insisted that this should not be a Planning Board issue and asked if accommodating Lemon might cause or allow him (Lemon) to veto the plan if he was not happy.. Both Marilyn and Addison stated that if this was not a P.B. issue that we should not discuss it. Richard stated that he was content as long as the problem was corrected or shown on the new plan.
- Item #7—Norman stated that this required approval from Fire Chief.
- Item #20—ditto—letter from DPW. Clea stated that a new approval from the DPW would be forthcoming.
- Item #50—Letter from DPW—Okay within right-of-way.
Atty. Kiritsy commented about all the requested letters. He stated that various dept. heads have a right and requirement to comment on the plans—if they do not fulfill that requirement—shame on them. There was much discussion of when and if DPW had a set of plans. Norman stated that he had met with Gary at DPW and had seen the plans.
Mrs. Warrington asked about the Planning Board and sewers. She was told that the Planning Board has no oversight of sewer. There followed much discussion that does not relate to Planning Board issues.
- Items #29 & 30—come discussion of tree species.
Page 2—P.B. Brice Lemon continued public hearing.
- Items #86-88—See Quinn notes. There was discussion regarding whether a bridge was the item and how much cover is required. Details need to be approved by DOT. Carl stated that these must be built to meet DOT standards.
Tim again questioned all the apparent holes still open in the approval/comment process—DPW, DOT, etc. Blair disagreed that it should be any one persons’s job to personally go to Dept Heads for each approval or comment—they are supposed to comment as required.
Gary (DPW) stated that he wanted no retaining walls in rights-of-way. There followed a long discussion as to why retaining walls needed—due to wetland incursion and siltation. Gary is concerned about retaining walls being constructed of concrete due to possibility of concrete deterioration over time.
Mrs. Warrington again raised the issue of enforcement of conditions imposed by Planning Board. Norman provided a lengthy answer as to our )P.B.) ability to enforce and just what could be enforced.
Tim Nahrwold suggested that we allow the various Dept. Heads one more opportunity to comment on the plans. He stated that he was adamant that they (Dept. Heads) be given only a specified time to respond. There followe4d much discussion as to what length of time was reasonable.
Norman stated that the Planning Board has worked with as much deliberateness as possible on plans put before the Board. Norm stated that Blair has sometimes kept the Board waiting for answers and comments thus not allowing us to deliberate properly. Blair responded that more delays, not of his making, would now follow the request for Dept.. Head comments.
Mrs. Warrington reminded the Board that we had stated at another time that no plans would be approved until all permits are in place. This followed a discussion regarding the functions of various Depts and there relevance to the plans (s).
Richard moved to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2014 at 7:00 P.M.; Marilyn 2nd—four (4) in favor (Tim Nahrwold abstained.
Adjourned: 8:52 P.M.
Addison Redfield, sec pro tem
| 
