The Fayston Development Review Board is expected to issue a ruling this week on a proposal by Don and Dinah Simonini to subdivide a 21.09-acre parcel into a 10.05-acre lot, a 3.76-acre lot, a 4.24-acre lot and a 3.05-acre lot.


The property is on Deer Run Lane which is on the north side of Center Fayston Road. Engineer George McCain represented the Simoninis at the December 5 hearing. The Simoninis are proposing separating the three smaller lots off from the parcel where their house sits.

They asked for a deferral of all permits associated with development of the lots, suggesting that those who purchase those lots would need to come back to the town for permitting. Through McCain they asked for a waiver of the requirement that building envelopes be shown on the new lots. They said their intent was to conserve the land, selling it to neighbors and abutters as buffer parcels.

DRB chair Shane Mullin suggested that without conservation easements in place, the lots need to be reviewed and permitted as developable.

During the hearing McCain asked if it was possible to “create a raw land lot with an intended use as an undeveloped lot, and a sale would have the understanding that additional steps would need to be taken before it would be developed?”

Other board members asked about whether creating deferred lots on this particular parcel of land is appropriate. The land has some steep slopes and wildlife habitat areas. There were also questions about Act 250. This proposal will need an Act 250 amendment, which McCain said would come after the local process.

Board member Ky Koitzsch said that the existing Act 250 permit does not allow further subdivision and said that any town approvals without Act 250 would be invalid.

Neighbors voiced concerns about the impact of further development in the area, including impacts on the road.

“When we purchased our property 25 years ago, which abuts proposed Lot 3, there was a letter from Don which said there would never be more than five lots. Several years later, there were additional lots subdivided. We would not be happy with further development, especially on the proposed Lot 3. We are concerned that this is step one toward the eventual sale and development of this land. The letter, which was written in 1986, states that there would be limited development of this property,” neighbor Brian Degen said.

After further discussion about parameters and logistics of creating deferred lots, and further comments from abutters, the board closed the hearing with a plan to have McCain submit more information about the language of deferring permitting of lots.