5 January 2011 | Approved: 2 February 2011
Georgette Cole called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. In attendance were Commissioners Eric Gleason, Brenda Gumula and Steve Werts. Also in attendance was resident Jim Snyder.
Approval of Agenda
Eric Gleason moved to approve the agenda. Brenda Gumula seconded the motion. In order to discuss the Boundary Survey issue before building permits, Georgette Cole asked to switch items 6 & 7. Approved: 4-0.
Election of Planning Commission Chair
Georgette Cole moved to nominate Eric Gleason as the new chairman of the Planning Commission to fill the position left by the resignation of Bob Evans. Steve Werts seconded the motion. Approved: 3-0.
There were no public appearances.
Approval of the Minutes
Georgette Cole moved to approve the minutes from December 1, 2010. Steve Werts seconded the motion. Approved: 4-0.
Eric Gleason presented some ideas for exemptions to the boundary survey requirement. A discussion about the definition of a small shed, shed sizes, types of foundations (permanent vs. non-permanent), moving sheds, surveyor certifications, permanent markers vs. flags, and Montgomery County’s shed definition ensued.
Georgette Cole moved to alter #2 (b) of the current document known as, “Information for Applicants for a Building Permit” to read as follows;
- b.) Two (2) copies of a boundary survey with house location clearly showing proposed construction or fence and distances from proposed construction or fence to property lines and corner markers. Please note that a boundary survey must be done by a licensed surveyor, be labeled “boundary survey” and you should be able to find the surveyor’s pipes marking your lot corners. An applicant for a fence permit who can demonstrate that the proposed fence lies within the boundaries as shown by all corner markers will not have to submit a boundary survey. Applicants should make sure the corner markers are flagged as they will need to be checked against the paperwork. Applications for permits for fences at least 10 feet from the property line and/or perpendicular to property line do not require a boundary survey. In addition, a house location survey clearly showing proposed construction and distances from proposed construction to property lines will be accepted for, 1.) single story sheds no greater than 100 square feet that do not have a permanent foundation (can be moved if necessary) and 2.) home modifications that do not change the building’s footprint.
Brenda Gumula seconded the motion.
Building Permit Applications
201 Maple Road – The Commission reviewed the plans for a shed on this property. The HPC did their review as well. Eric Gleason moved to approve this permit application per Article VII; Section 9.1, Standard Method of Development in All Zones. Steve Werts seconded the motion. Approved: 4-0.
Report from the Town Council
There were no questions about this report. There was a brief discussion about making the building permit application and the associated documents easier to view on the Town website. Kathy will ask Bill Saar about removing the request for information step.
- Georgette Cole brought up the gift (a plaque) for Bob Evans. Eric will check some websites, Georgette will ask Joli McCathran about the logo that the Woman’s Club used for the Town directory and Kathy will check with David Stopak for recommendations. There was a discussion about the wording. It was decided that the use of “not violative” would be perfect because it was Bob Evans who coined this phrase. For ex: …for service not violative of lofty expectations… or something of that nature.
- Eric Gleason brought up the next PC/HPC meeting on January 26th. He gave a brief overview of this in order to bring Brenda Gumula up to speed.
- Eric Gleason also brought up an e-mail from Jane Seegal which asked for continued work on the subject of propane tank size and placement. In addition to that, she asked for guidance on how to make her porch, which sits on Town property, her own.
- Chairman Gleason asked each of the Commissioners to come up with their top three (3) suggestions for process items or ordinances that need further attention by the Commission. He suggested that the Commission could agree on the two or three most pressing issues to serve as a “to do” list for the Commission for the calendar year. He expressed hope that this would encourage the Commission to be more proactive and forward-looking.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.