HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Present:
Ted Bloomhardt, Jean Isham, Carrie Fenn, John Mace, George Bedard, Missy
Ross, Fred Haulenbeek and Roger Kohn.
Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner
Members
Absent:
None
Members of the
Audience: Pat
Peek, Bob Peek, Howard Riggs, Joe Fallon, Wayne Bissonette, Barbara Bissonette,
Joseph Bissonette, Jane Douglas, Ken Douglas, Pierre Gingue, Barry Washburne,
Malcolm Willard, Don Taub, Moe Baker, Patrick DeCelles, Greg
Lacroix.
Before the
meeting officially began, Jeanne Wilson, the new town administrator, introduced
herself to the Planning Commission members.
1. Howard Riggs - Sketch Plan for
Commercial Lot. The meeting began with discussions with
Howard Riggs and his attorney Joe Fallon regarding a request for approval for a
commercial lot (Lot#1-A) from his farm parcel located off or Route 116
immediately north of Commerce Park.
This subdivision was originally approved in 1991, but has since
expired. Mr. Riggs is submitting
the same application as 9 years ago.
Ted Bloomhardt felt the only new issue to be discussed is wetlands. Faith Ingulsrud clarified that Town
water is now available to the lot and that Mr. Riggs has reserved capacity for
Town sewer for this lot.
Mr. Riggs said
that when this lot being considered by a potential buyer a few years ago, Kathy
O’Brien of the State Wetlands Office thought there would be about 2 ½ acres of
wetland. Mr. Fallon added that the
kind of development that might happen on this lot is uncertain. George Bedard said that the wetland
issues will preclude any road connections to lots in Commerce
Park.
Ted reminded
everyone that in order for the Planning Commission to approve the sketch plan,
they had to be convinced it is a proper and appropriate lot, even though the
Planning Commission approved it 9 years ago. Missy Ross asked if the lot followed the
Commercial District boundary. Faith
confirmed that it did and that the Commercial District includes the right of way
on the north side of the lot. John
Mace asked about the two right of ways in this proposal. Mr. Fallon replied that Mr. Riggs’
proposes to remove the easterly right of way. The northerly right of way was discussed
in relation to Mr. Riggs gaining access to his land for maple sap and wood. Faith also mentioned the future
possibilities of a sidewalk/bike path along Route 116. A 10' easement was provided on the west
side of Lot 1-A in the original subdivision.
Another
unresolved issue with the northerly right of way is a VTRANS road cut
approval. Mr. Riggs thought he had
a letter 10 years ago from the
Vermont Transportation Agency approving the road cut. Faith explained that If he could find
the old letter, and if it was still valid, then that would suffice. Otherwise a new “letter of intent to
issue a road cut permit” from VTRANS would be necessary.
The Planning
Commission decided to accept a combined preliminary and final plat
review.
Ted Bloomhardt
then made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to Howard Riggs to create
an 8.99 acre commercial lot (Lot #1-A) from a 75 acre parcel on the east side of
Route 116. A 66.019 acre lot (Lot
#1) will be retained by the applicant.
This subdivision shall be as proposed by the applicant and as shown on a
plat approved by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1991 but since
expired, except that the easterly right-of-way is to be eliminated, and is
subject to the following conditions:
1.
The applicant
is permitted to combine preliminary and final plat review for this Major
Subdivision and shall meet the relevant preliminary and final plat application
submission requirements for major subdivisions listed in Section 5.1 and Section
5.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition to these, the applicant shall provide the following
documents:
a.
Copy of a valid road cut permit for the proposed entrance road from the
Vermont Agency of Transportation or a “letter of intent to issue a permit” from
the Agency.
b.
Deed language for the construction, maintenance, repair and snowplowing
of the right-of-way.
2.
Any person
seeking to buy Lot #1-A shall be notified that the development potential of Lot
#1-A may be affected by the presence of wetlands on the property. Before seeking site plan approval for
construction on the lot, the owner of Lot #1-A shall have the wetland boundary
identified and comments provided by State and Federal wetlands permitting
agencies.
3.
All conditions
of the September 18, 1991 approval will be incorporated into this subdivision
approval except for Conditions #3, #4 and #5 which no longer apply or have been
addressed above.
George Bedard
seconded this motion. Mr. Fallon
amended the wording by adding that the easterly right-of-way be eliminated. George re-seconded the motion as
amended, and it was unanimously approved.
2. Wayne and Barbara Bissonette - Sketch
Plan for 5 Lot Residential Subdivision.
(George Bedard recused himself from the discussions.) The Bissonettes originally had presented
a sketch plan for this site at the May 3rd meeting. At that time it was denied and the
re-submittal fee waived because of questions about access to the lots and other
issues. At tonight’s meeting, Mr. Bissonette described the new
changes. Now all the lots meet
minimum lot size requirements. The
right-of-way has been moved between Lots 1 and 2, and septic locations are
identified. The four adjoining lots
will have one right-of-way. Lot 5
will have a separate driveway. The
Road Commissioner is okay with the road cut as long as it is on the crest of the
hill. Lot 2 will have its own
septic field. Lots 1 and 4 would
share septic. Lots 3 and 5 would
share septic located on Lot 3.
Faith brought up
pedestrian/recreation concerns. She
explained that Mr. Bissonette has always been generous in the past to let people
walk on his property. Thinking to
the future, if traffic gets heavy on Gilman Road, it would be helpful to have an
assured easement to the conservation land.
She said we should try to avoid situations where in the future, Gilman
Road residents would have to drive somewhere just to take a walk. Jean Isham thought that the easement
could be attained if, or when, the Pierce lot became developed. Mr. Bissonette added that a right-of-way
along the south side of the Pierce lot would not be feasible because steep ledge
would prevent access to the conservation land..
John Mace expressed
concern about Lot 2: any house on it would sit out in the middle of a
field. Pat Peek, a member of the
audience, explained that she would be buying the lot and the house on Lot 2 will
be a one-story log house. It will
hopefully blend into the area.
George Bedard said that Lot 2 is the most out in the open. There’s no way to have all house sites
tucked away. He also added that the
main viewshed from afar will look across Lots 3 and 4.
Missy Ross asked
about the clearing required for the septic pipe for Lot 5 in relation to the
impact on the trees. She was
assured that a path through the trees would be just wide enough for a backhoe
and it would not be an obvious cut through the trees.
The Planning
Commission will need comments from the Road Foreman in writing regarding road
and driveway cuts.
Ted commented that
this site was not valuable agricultural land compared to other land in the
Agricultural District. It is an
appropriate location for development in the Ag District . The size of the lots are okay, but if
lots of this size were all along Gilman Road it would be “intense”
development. It would change the
whole area in a very big way.
John suggested that
Mr. Bissonette work with the Planning Commission on a 10 or 15 year development
plan. Mr. Bissonette explained that
he did come before the Planning Commission a while ago just for that purpose,
but the Planning Commission wouldn’t discuss development planning without a
proposed subdivision plan. John
offered the opportunity for Mr. Bissonette to join a work session without a
subdivision plan, to exchange ideas and views about development of the
Bissonette properties. Mr.
Bissonette asked when the next Town Plan would be adopted and said he would like
to serve on a Town Plan committee again.
Faith said the new Town Plan is set for 2002 and the Planning Commission
would begin work next year. She
added that the new aerial orthophotos will be available in a couple of months,
which would be a helpful tool looking at future development of properties.
Ted Bloomhardt then
made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to Wayne and Barbara
Bissonette for a five-lot single family residential subdivision from a 14+ acre
parcel located off of Gilman Road.
The subdivision shall be as shown on a map titled “Sketch Plan, Wayne and
Barbara Bissonette, Gilman Road, Hinesburg, VT”. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The preliminary
plat shall be filed at least ten days before the Planning Commission meeting at
which it is to be considered.
2.
The applicant
shall meet all the preliminary plat application submission requirements for
major subdivisions listed in Section 5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations
including the following items:
a.
Building envelopes, designed to maintain as much as possible, the fields
along Gilman Road.
b.
Comments on the proposed road and driveway cuts from the Town Road
Foreman.
Carrie Fenn seconded
the motion. It was unanimously
approved, with George Bedard abstaining from the vote.
3. Barry and Jacqueline Washburne - Site
Plan for Lot #4 in Commerce Park. Barry Washburne and Malcolm Willard came
before the Planning Commission to seek site plan approval for the relocated post
office building on Lot #14. It
would be used as a commercial building with shared customer parking with the new
post office. They have no tenants
for this building at this point.
First, Mr. Willard
updated the Planning Commission on the latest developments with the new post
office. The Zoning Board denied
their request for a variance from the side yard setback to the property line.
They would need to eliminate
the side entrance canopy to meet the side yard setbacks. They do not want to eliminate the
property line between Lot #14 and the Post Office lot because it will involve
the Post Office property in the Act 250 review.
Mr. Willard then
described plans for Lot #14 with the relocated old post office building. The Washburnes purchased Lot #14 with
the intent of renting it out. There
would be just one curb cut, with the new post office and this building sharing
the parking lot. Carrie Fenn asked
where the dumpster would be located.
The building would not have dumpster at this time because the Washburnes
don’t know who will be renting the building.
The loading dock was
discussed at length. Mr. Willard
explained that the slope restricts the location of the loading dock. The employee entrance would be on the
backside of the building. Ted felt
that they must have some idea of the type business that would occupy the
building based on the fact that
there was a loading dock and there was no retail parking by the front door. Ted also expressed concern about
the traffic conflicts in the heavily used shared parking lot. He proposed not having a loading dock at
the new location. Ted thought they
did a good job with the new post office building, but that the loading dock on
the relocated building would detract from the post office. Faith asked the Planning
Commission if they could consider approving the new site plan with a loading
dock that could be added on afterwards if necessary. Mr. Willard replied that they definitely
wanted to keep the loading dock in the site plan. Ted said that they were preserving the
worst part of the building. Jean
Isham asked if they could do something to soften the appearance, perhaps plant
trees. It was agreed that salt
tolerant shade trees (similar to the trees already planned for the post office
landscaping) would be planted from parking lot spaces 32 to 39. Mr. Willard thought these were seedless
ash trees, as maple trees were not doing well on Commerce Street. Fred Haulenbeek commented that they must
be targeting light manufacturing tenants and very little else because of the
limited access and no flexibility of the parking lot. Mr. Willard said that other commercial
spaces in Hinesburg aren’t being rented for retail uses.
The boundary line
issue and Act 250 permitting was also discussed at length. Faith suggested they either
eliminate the boundary altogether or move it. You can have two building on one lot if
the Planning Commission approves it.
The boundary change could be dealt with in the Act 250 application for
the building on Lot #14 which has not yet been submitted.
The Washburnes had
planned to narrow the road cut width to 20' to accommodate a fire hydrant, but
Faith said that would require a revised road cut approval from the
Selectboard. Malcolm said it would
be easier just to keep the road cut at the 24' width previously approved.
Fred asked if the
building will be two feet above existing grade level to meet flood plan
requirements. The Washburnes have
to pay for extra flood insurance and they are trying to get the Town to re-map
the area to indicate it is not a flood zone. Jean asked about drainage. Mr. Willard said the lot was designed
for a building, so drainage is adequate for lot with a building on it. He clarified that a detention pond does
not permanently hold water but is a depression where water collects during storm
events and is discharged slowly.
With no more
questions, Ted made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants site plan approval to Barry and Jacqueline
Washburne to relocate an existing commercial building on Lot #14 of Commerce
Park. The site plan shall be as
proposed by the applicant except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Before a zoning
permit is issued for installation of the building, a revised site plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approved with the following
changes:
a.
The applicant is proposing changing back to the 24' entrance drive and
this shall be shown on the plan.
b.
A minimum of three salt-tolerant shade trees on the west side of the
parking lot and one by the loading dock shall be added.
c.
Lighting shall be proposed if required.
2.
Easement
language for the shared parking lot shall be submitted for Planning Commission
review and approval before a zoning permit is issued, defining the terms for the
availability, construction, repair and maintenance of the shared parking
lot.
3.
If experience
indicates inadequate parking or unsafe traffic flow, the applicant shall
immediately present proposed modifications of the site plan to the Hinesburg
Planning Commission, and obtain approval of it.
4.
The applicant
shall obtain a zoning permit from the zoning administrator prior to
construction.
5.
This site plan
approval is contingent on the applicant resolving the side yard setback problem
with the new Post Office westerly parking lot entrance canopy while retaining
that entrance canopy. This issue shall be resolved prior to occupancy of the
relocated post office building and the resolution shall be presented to the
Hinesburg Planning Commission for review and approval.
6.
This site plan
will expire within one year of this approval date unless a zoning permit is
obtained.
George Bedard
seconded, and it was unanimously approved.
Roger Kohn abstained from the vote because he joined the discussion
mid-way through.
4.
Ames/Gingue Private Right
of Way on Baldwin Road. (George
Bedard recused himself from discussion).
Pierre Gingue, builder for the existing 10.3 acre lot, came before the
Planning Commission seeking approval for a private right of way. Even though the lot has road frontage,
it needs a right of way from the other adjoining lot. Mr. Gingue described the house envelope
location.
With all questions
answered, Ted made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants approval to Pierre Gingue for development on a
private right-of-way on land owned by Mark Ames, serving one 10.3 acre, single
family residential lot located off of Baldwin Road, south of the Ames
property. This approval shall be as
proposed by the applicant and subject to the following
conditions:
1.
The roadway
easement shall be at least 50' in width.
2.
A driveway, to
serve only one lot, is proposed from the Town Road to the lot within the right
of way. The traveled portion of the
driveway shall be constructed, maintained and plowed at least 12 feet in width
with a minimum of 12" of gravel.
This driveway shall be the only access to this lot.
3.
The deed
language setting forth the method of sharing the maintenance, repair, snow
plowing and any other expenses for sharing the right of way is approved as set
forth in the deed.
4.
All conditions
of the June 5, 2000 Road Cut
Approval are hereby incorporated.
5.
A copy of the
conditions of approval shall be recorded in the Hinesburg Land Records within 90
days of this approval.
Roger Kohn seconded,
and it was unanimously approved, with George Bedard abstaining.
5. Daggett - Request for above ground power
lines. (Roger Kohn recused himself from
discussion.) Moe Baker and Patrick
DeCelles explained to the Planning Commission the problems they have been having
with ledge on their property. To
have the power lines in the ground would require in excess of 1000 feet of
blasting. This would be quite
costly and they estimated it would be an additional $34,000 if they had to
comply with this condition. Mr.
Baker and Mr. DeCelles requested approval for power poles to follow along their
road up to the four houses in the Daggett subdivision. They explained that there is an existing
pole not far from Pond Road near their road already. Other poles would not be visible from
the road.
Greg Lacroix, an
adjoining landowner, expressed concern that his well water might be contaminated
by pesticides used by Vermont Electric Coop when the install or maintain the
power poles and lines. Another
audience member, Don Taub, explained he was a neighbor on the St. George side of
the property, and that he was concerned about trees falling on the lines and
interrupting power service.
There was discussion
of having some parts of the power line underground and other parts above
ground. But George explained that
the power companies don’t like to have lines alternate between above and below
grow because it’s very dangerous.
John said he was in favor of granting an exception to underground power
lines, because the poles would not be very visible and because of the
difficulties they have had in getting to this point of development. Faith reminded the Planning Commission
that they have been consistent in requiring underground power, rarely granting
above ground power. George
commented that by using power poles, we would be limiting excavation in an area
where we wanted to limit digging.
Ted made the
following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants relief from Condition #3 of the January 5,
2000 final plat for Roger and Lisa Daggett for installation of overhead power
from the pole nearest Pond Road next to the driveway serving these lots to the
house sites. This relief is being
granted only due to the extenuating circumstances associated with this site,
namely the existence of ledge all along the roadway for which the blasting
requirement is represented to be in excess of 1000', the location with the main
line pole part way up the field containing the access, the close proximity to
the tree line, and the angular cut of the roadway as it enters the woods. The poles shall be placed in the
driveway right of way where the driveway crosses land not part of the
subdivision. “Woods wire” shall be
used and cutting along the roadway shall be minimized.
John Mace seconded
the motion. It was unanimously
approved, with Roger Kohn abstaining from the vote.
6. Other Items.
Carrie Fenn told the
group that a position for the Regional Planning Commission is opening up this
month. She is an alternate member
and encourages all the Hinesburg Planning Commission members to consider serving
on the Regional Planning Commission.
The meeting schedule
for the Hinesburg Planning Commission of Wednesday, June 14 and Tuesday, July 11
was confirmed with everybody.
Faith said the
Planning Commission minutes could be posted on the Hinesburg Town website. It was agreed that minutes would not be
posted until after they are approved by the Planning
Commission.
The meeting
adjourned at 10:50 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Sally Kimball,
Recording Secretary