HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of August 2, 2000
APPROVED August 16,
2000
Present:
Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, Carrie Fenn, John Mace, Jean Isham, George
Bedard, . Also Faith Ingulsrud,
Town Planner
Members
Absent:
Missy Ross and Fred Haulenbeek
Members of the
Audience:
Raymond Cote, Sr., Darcelene Lewis, Lynn and Marie Gardner, Howard Riggs,
Joe Fallon, Wayne and Barbara Bissonette, Bob and Pat Peek, Raymond Ayer, Jim
and Peggy Burbo, Veronica Estey
1. Riggs Subdivision - Continuation of
Final Plat Review. With only five planning commission
members present at the start of the meeting, Ted Bloomhardt began the meeting
with the continuation of the public hearing for the Riggs subdivision that was
opened at the July 11th
meeting. Faith Ingulsrud
distributed copies of the letter from VTrans regarding the road cut, and she
also provided the deed language for the revised plat. Mr. Riggs’ attorney, Joe Fallon
explained that “special conditions” mentioned in the VTrans letter relate to the
eventual use of Lot 1A. Mr. Fallon
said that the easement on the eastern side of Lot 1A has been eliminated. Faith explained that the ten foot wide
easement for a pedestrian/bike path on the western side of the lot did not have
to be granted until it was deemed necessary since the path could be located
completely on the State right of way.
With no further
issues or comments from the audience, Ted closed the public hearing and made the
following motion which is attached to the end of these minutes. Before it was seconded, the issue of
what defines “substantial construction” was raised. Faith responded it was the approval of a
site plan. George Bedard said that
Mr. Riggs doesn’t need to do any substantial construction to sell the land. It is up to the buyers. It was also noted that the three year
approval can be renewed if there is no activity. John Mace wondered why the right of way
was 80 feet, and Mr. Fallon responded that it was only because it was proposed
that way.
Jean Isham then
seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
2. Lynn and Marie Gardner - Follow-up on
Site Plan Approval for Clifford Lumber. The Gardners came before the Planning
Commission with a proposal to plant hemlock trees in an effort to provide more
screening along the bordering Lewis and Cote properties . Mrs. Gardner explained that the trees
would be planted along the southeast boundary. The hemlocks will be staggered in open
areas between, the large oak trees on the Gardner’s
property.
Both Darcelene
Lewis and Ray Cote, who were in the audience, expressed concerns about
contamination of the water supply.
Mr. Cote would like a two foot high clay barrier to stop the wood
acid. Mr. Gardner replied that they
try to maintain a berm near the culvert down by the road. Ted reminded everyone that tonight’s
issue concerned screening along the property line. Mr. Gardner noted that in the summer it
is well screened and in the winter the leaves are gone. Mrs. Gardner said that they have talked
with landscapers and hemlock is the only thing that will grow in that location
because of the oak tree canopy creates too much shade for other evergreen
species. Mr. Cote would like a
hedgerow that will grow thick.
Carrie Fenn agreed that the planting is reasonable and will work out in
the long term. She added that
hemlock can be trimmed to make it bushy and full. Mr. Cote asked about the building
additions. Mrs. Gardner explained
that the smaller shed additions were complete and the ground work has just
started for the firewood processing building.
Ted suggested
they try the hemlocks and see if it works.
Ms. Lewis asked that the Planning Commission come for a site visit on her
side of the screening in the spring to see if it is working. Ted noted that there is a continuing
requirement for the Gardners to replace dying trees, and it was also noted that
it takes a couple of years of growth for the hemlock to have full affect.
George said that
having a site plan showing the location of the large existing trees and the new
plantings would be helpful. Mrs.
Gardner thought that they might not be able to get a site plan within 90 days
since the hemlocks are scheduled to be planted in mid-September. Ted then made the following
motion:
The
Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby approves the plan of Lynn and Marie Gardner
to plant fifteen 4-5 foot high hemlock trees along the northern boundary of the
Cote and Lewis properties. The
plantings shall be located to fill in the gaps in the existing hedgerow starting
approximately at the southeast corner of the sawmill building, running east to
the intersection of the boundary with the Cotes and then continuing east
approximately 16 feet. The
applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the trees to achieve maximum
screening and shall promptly replace the trees if they die. If these trees fail to grow in this
location the applicant shall return with an alternate proposal.
The
plantings shall be installed within 90 days and an as-built site plan shall be
submitted within 90 days of planting showing the new planting location and the
relationship to the existing large trees.
This proposal satisfies Condition #4 of the 12/02/98 site plan approval
for building additions at Clifford Lumber.
Carrie Fenn
seconded, and it was unanimously approved by all those
present.
3. Wayne and Barbara Bissonette - Final
Plat Review. The final plat review was warned for
tonight’s meeting, but the application was incomplete (lacking the engineer
reports), so therefore, Ted Bloomhardt opened the public hearing and made the
motion to continue the public hearing until the August 16 meeting if the
application materials are received by August 6th, or alternatively to
the September 6th meeting.
Before the
motion was seconded, Faith asked if there were any substantive issues. Mr. Bissonette wondered why the planning
commission could not approve the final plat review before the engineering work;
was it an issue of the planning commission lacking trust in engineers? Ted responded that the engineering work
is one of the provisions of a sub-division review. The planning commission wants to make
sure the job gets done, and can’t have a situation of an approved sub-division
without approved septic. Faith
added that the planning commission needs the complete plat, and that the
planning commission requirements are more comprehensive than the State’s. Bob Peek, who was in the audience,
sought assurance that there was still a chance for final plat review on the
August 16th meeting.
The motion to
continue the public hearing was seconded by Jean Isham, and with the exception
of George Bedard who recused himself, was unanimously approved by all those
present (including Roger Kohn who joined the meeting during this
item).
4. Raymond and Ruth Ayer - Preliminary Plat
Review. George recused himself from
discussion. Mr. Ayer presented a
site plan to the planning commission for a proposed four lot residential
subdivision on the east side of Route 116.
The site plan showed the four lots with building envelopes and a road
with a turn around center island.
Mr. Ayer explained the power box would be located in the center island
and he would have some plantings around it. He also explained the building envelopes
on the south lots were 100 feet from the boundary line.
John Mace asked
about drainage. Jim Burbo, whose
property is next to the proposed subdivision, said he wanted to see a culvert
under the access road. Faith noted
that there are no standards for culverts in private roads. Roger Kohn indicated a need for a final
condition about culvert size and placement. Mr. Ayer said he would find out the
proper size. Faith also noted that
Mr. Ayer will need a letter of approval from VTRANS for the roadcut. Faith asked if there will be common
ownership for road maintenance.
Roger said it should be in the deed language at the time of the final
plat review. He recommended
easement wording for each lot to the road.
Mr. Ayer
submitted proposed wording for the deeds regarding screening along the
industrial district boundary. Mr
Ayer noted there already is a hedgerow of hardwood trees on the Gardner property
and he is not proposing further screening.
The Gardners, who were in the audience, described the landscaping in that
area, and they expressed their desire for no-mow zone. Mrs. Gardner would like to see it an
obligation, not a choice for the buyers.
Roger thought “reforestation” was a better term than no-mow zone. He suggested that Mr. Ayer plant trees
in the area to make it look attractive; buyers will view it as getting
landscaping in the purchase deal.
John Mace confirmed that Mr. Ayer’s intentions were to tell buyers they
could plant trees if they wanted, and the buyers would have to deal with the
Gardner’s themselves if they had complaints. Both Ted and Jean Isham felt the
planning commission’s goal is to try to avoid conflicts. Ronnie Estey, who was in the audience,
agreed with Mr. Ayer; people should do what they want on their land. Ted noted that the boundary line is
between two zoning districts, and the proposal is for residential houses on the
lots. Should the planning
commission be concerned with protecting the house lots? Roger noted that current buyers may be
okay with the location, but then when they try to sell in a few years they may
run into problems. Mr. Burbo asked
if the planning commission was supposed to protect
everyone.
John asked Roger
if the proposed deed language wording submitted by Mr. Ayer was common. Roger said it was, but it has no legal
effect. It doesn’t solve problems,
but it doesn’t hurt. Mrs. Gardner
commented that not everyone reads their deeds. Ted asked the audience for final
comments. Mr. Gardner thought the
50 foot buffer seemed like a good idea.
Mr. Cote thought the 50 foot buffer was too much.
Roger noted that
he has seen lots of subdivisions in different towns, and there are all sorts of
limitations for parks, green belts, no build areas, etc. A buffer zone is not uncommon. Mr. Ayer replied that he is firmly
opposed to the concept. Mr. Ayer
noted that right now, in summer, you can’t see the Gardner house from Lots 3 and
4. Jean Isham said it’s not so much
seeing the house as much as conflict over noise.
John likes the
proposed deed language wording and would not have a lot of sympathy if owners
from Lots 3 and 4 complain about the sawmill. Carrie Fenn thought all 4 lots should be
warned in the deed language. Roger
said that a the final plat review specific deed language can be adopted. Carrie also felt that it’s important to
add evergreens to provide year round buffering. Roger suggested giving the applicant the
option of either leaving a strip for reforestation or planting an evergreen
border. Faith noted that in 20
years evergreens will be tall with high branches providing very little screening
or effective buffering.
Ted suggested
reducing the buffer zone to 25 feet as a compromise. John questioned why the planning
commission should do something the home owners may not care about. Jean and Carrie disagreed with John;
they both felt the planning commission had to take some
steps.
Ted then made
the following motion:
The
Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants preliminary plat approval to Raymond
and Ruth Ayer for a four-lot single family residential subdivision from a 15
acre parcel located off of Route 116.
The subdivision shall be as shown on a map titled “Sketch Plan - Raymond
& Ruth Ayer Property” and dated June 22, 2000, and is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The applicant
shall provide all the documentation required for Final Plat review as stated in
Section 5.2 of the Subdivision Regulations including the following
documents:
a.
A letter of intent to issue a road cut permit from the Vermont Agency of
Transportation for a private road serving four residential
lots.
b.
Proposed deed language or covenants setting forth the method of sharing
the maintenance, repair, snow plowing and any other expenses for the roadway and
any other shared facilities.
c.
Proposed deed language for a 25' wide reforestation area along the
southern boundary of Lots #3 and 4 where landowners can either plant and
maintain a dense mix of evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees or allow the
area to naturally reforest by not mowing, with the purpose of providing an
additional buffer of trees between the residential lots and present and possible
future industrial uses on the adjacent lot. The reforestation area shall be shown on
the plat with a note indicating the purpose and function of the reforestation
area.
d.
Full documentation of the proposed septic systems including test pit
information and an engineer’s certification that the systems as located and
designed meet the State Environmental Protection Rules.
5.
The
culvert midway up the straight section of the common access shall be sized and
shown on the plan.
6.
Cul-de-sac
transformer island landscaping shall be shown on the
plan.
7.
Deed language
reflecting the applicant’s intent for warning future buyers shall be
provided.
Roger seconded
the motion, and it was unanimously approved by all those present, with the
exception of George who recused himself from the vote.
5. David and Veronica Estey - Follow-up on
Site Plan Approval for Firehouse Plaza. Mrs. Estey came before the planning
commission to clarify the landscaping and parking lot changes that have been
made, as well as to discuss an as-built plan requirement. Mrs. Estey presented both the Duffy
architectural site plan and the Phelps engineering plan. She placed a mylar of one plan over the
other to show that there were only two differences. One being the entrance driveway location
and the other being the parking lot islands.
Members of the
planning commission tried to explain to Mrs. Estey that the issue was
landscaping, and that neither plan accurately shows the landscaping as it is
today. Roger, Ted and Faith
explained that the sidewalk easement was not the issue as previously expected
since according to the Route 116 study engineers the sidewalk is likely to be
located next to Route 116 when it is constructed. Faith added that a
construction easement may be needed in that area but it would not likely affect
the landscaping. The planning
commission wanted to discuss the landscaping close to the parking lot. Carrie Fenn was concerned with the
outdoor storage of bag items and the garden center. Mrs. Estey defended the bag items, as
they were part of her business and they needed the space outside for pallets of
bag goods and fence posts. She
feels the Firehouse Plaza is kept very, very neat and not
unattractive.
Roger asked what
items of landscaping were not shown on the Duffy plan. Mrs. Estey said the stonewall was
reduced in size, there were now five matching 10 by 5 foot beds. The berm is not appropriate because of
traffic concerns and because the location for the berm is a drainage area. The fence along the Giroux property
belongs to the Giroux’s. The sign
is blocked by trees. The parking
islands are not working for traffic control.
Roger said the
garden center is not what was expected.
Ted said about half of the approved landscaping has been installed and
the parking lot circulation was changed without submitting a plan for planning
commission approval. Mrs. Estey
explained that the striping has helped traffic control a lot. Ted said the landscaping changes should
be shown on the Phelps engineering plan.
The revised plan should show all the things that have been approved to
date. Roger noted that when an
applicant asks for modification of site plan, the planning commission has a
right to review all aspects.
George said he
had no problem with the landscaping, all modifications should be put on one
document. Roger stated the planning
commission needs to see an as-built site plan before it can be approved. Mrs. Estey was strongly opposed to
having an engineer draw a plan before approval because of the high cost. Roger replied that his intent was not to
make her incur high costs and that it didn’t have to be an engineer’s
plan.
The planning
commission explained they wanted an as-built plan that shows the current
landscaping. The plan should
include: new landscaping; widened entrance and curbs; diagonal parking; note on
sidewalk easement; overhang; planter and parking by doctor’s office; two sign
locations; indication of parking in rear.
The planning
commission asked Mrs. Estey to come back with her plan so that the approval
matches the plan.. Mrs. Estey was
opposed to having a new plan drawn up, unless the planning commission would
pre-approve it now. Ted explained
that all other commercial projects have had to provide as-built plans and that
the Firehouse Plaza is not being singled out.
6. Miscellaneous Business. Faith confirmed the next meetings are
scheduled for August 16th and September
6th.
Faith described
a memorial gift for Maurice Goodrich, of a book for the town library recommended
by Librarian Sue Bardon, entitled “Vermont Voices: 1609 through the
1990's”. All agreed it was an
appropriate gift to be made in Maurice’s memory and made contributions.
The meeting
adjourned at 11:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Sally Kimball,
Recording Secretary
HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
Howard Riggs
Final Plat Approval
The
Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants combined preliminary and final plat
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 lot
was previously approved on September 18, 1991 but the approval has since
expired. This subdivision shall be
as proposed by the applicant and as shown on a plat dated October 12, 1988 and
last revised July 2000, and is subject to the following
conditions:
1.
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.
2.
The following
conditions of the previous approval of this lot, dated September 18, 1991 are
revised and incorporated into this subdivision approval as
follows:
1.
Both lots shall be served by a single curb cut, just northerly of Lot
1A.
2.
Lot 1A and Lot 1 will be accessed by an 80-foot right-of-way, as shown on
the plat.
3.
The water supply is proposed to be by connection to the Town
system.
4.
Sewer service is proposed to be by connection to the town
system.
5.
Deed language for the construction, maintenance repair and snowplowing of
the right-of-way has been submitted to the Hinesburg Planning Commission and
approved. The approved deed
language shall be applied to any deed pertaining to Lots 1 and
1A.
6.
(Condition pertaining to a right-of-way on the eastern side of Lot 1A is
no longer applicable.)
7.
A ten-foot wide easement shall be reserved along the westerly boundary of
Lot 1A, as shown on the plan, for pedestrian/bicycle access. If the town desires to accept
same, the applicant shall execute a warranty deed to the town conveying this
easement to the Town. At such time
as a sidewalk or bike path is constructed to the southwest corner of Lot 1A, or
upon development of Lot 1A, whichever shall occur last, the applicant shall
construct a five-foot concrete sidewalk or a 10' wide asphalt bike path, as
stipulated by the Town, either within the easement along Route 116 which was
just set forth, or else (if permission from the State of Vermont is obtained)
within the right-of-way of Route 116.
Further pedestrian access to uses within Lot 1 and Lot 1A are considered
important by the Commission, and appropriate pedestrian access will be made a
condition of site plan approval for any development on Lot 1 or Lot
1A.
3.
A copy
of the plat and these conditions of approval shall be recorded in the land
records within 90 days of this approval.
4.
No further
subdivision or commercial development of this property shall occur without
review and approval of the Hinesburg Planning
Commission.
5.
No
commercial development shall occur on Lot 1A without first obtaining approval of
a site plan for the intended use.
6.
Pursuant to
Section 8.9 of subdivision regulations, final plat approval will expire within
three years if substantial construction has not taken place or a continuation
has not been granted.
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg
Planning Commission on August 2, 2000.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt,
Chairman
Hinesburg Planning
Commission