HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of September 6, 2000
APPROVED
Present:
Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, John Mace, Jean Isham, George Bedard, Carrie
Fenn and Fred Haulenbeek, George Munson and Will Patten. Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town
Planner
Members
Absent:
none
Members of the
Audience: Amy and John Lyman, Dan
Owen, Michael Dorman, Jerry Wetzel, Gabriella Foldesi, Chris Hendel, Cynthia
Hendel, Eric Hendel, David Lyman, Barbara Forrest, Roy Bass, John Stuart, Paul
Truax, Rocky Martin, and Ellen Foster.
Prior to opening
the meeting, George Munson and Will Patten were welcomed as the newest members
of the Planning Commission.
1.
Foldesi - Site Plan Review. Jean Isham opened the meeting with
the request for approval for an apartment on the second floor of the NESTEC
building on Commerce Street.
Gabriella Foldesi, co-owner of the building with Steve Foldesi Jr.,
explained that the apartment has zoning approval. She added that they are working on
electricity and plumbing, and the apartment should be ready in a week. Mrs. Foldesi confirmed that they have
applied for a Wastewater Permit from the State, and the Town has indicated there
is plenty of capacity for water and sewage. Chatham, the original users of the
building, had septic approval for 200 employees and NESTEC operations are much
smaller. Fred Haulenbeek noted that
residential use above commercial conforms with the Zoning Regulations and the
Town Plan.
With no further
questions, Jean Isham made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants site plan approval to Steve Foldesi Jr. to
install a one-unit dwelling on the second floor of the NESTEC building at 223
Commerce Street. The site plan
shall be as proposed by the applicant except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
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.
2.
The applicant
shall obtain a zoning permit from the zoning administrator prior to occupancy of
the apartment.
3.
All conditions
of the 6/20/00 Zoning Board Conditional Use approval are incorporated
herein.
4.
If the
apartment is rented to a non-family member in the future and Zoning Board
approval is obtained as required in the Zoning Board conditions, no further site
plan review will be required of the rental property as long as there are no
substantial changes to the exterior of the building or site.
John Mace seconded
the motion, and it was unanimously approved by all those
present.
2. Saputo Foods - Follow-up to Site Plan
Approval. (Roger Kohn joined the meeting during
discussion of this item.) Michael
Dorman from Breadloaf Construction was present to represent Saputo Foods, as the
people from the company had commitments in Montreal. Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant
does not want to demolish the front of the building as originally proposed,
because they are looking to expand their operation in Hinesburg and are
considering re-using the space. To
expand on the west side, they would need to keep a storage area on the east
side. Saputo is considering
selective demolition of the building in front. There are two leaking underground oil
tanks that are in the process of being removed along with the contaminated
soils. They will have to take down
part of the boiler room to get to the soils, and it will not be replaced.
Town Zoning
Administrator, Jerry Wetzel, who was in the audience said that there is a permit
to demolish the front of the building, but now Saputo is reconsidering what will
be the final configuration. They
are not in compliance with the approval to tear down the front of the
building. The demolition was
supposed to start June 1st.
Fred Haulenbeek added that tearing down the front of the building was
appealing to the Town. Faith
Ingulsrud agreed that there is a violation right now in that Saputo has not met
their time frame for demolition.
Jean Isham noted that the timeframe for landscaping also has not been
met. Mr. Wetzel said that it is
the Zoning Administrator who now
has to issue a citation.
Mr. Dorman relayed
that it was his understanding that Saputo will come to the Planning Commission
next month with a presentation.
George Bedard said that we need to know how Saputo will make the front
attractive. Everyone was looking
forward to seeing the front demolished.
Fred asked about the
leaking oil tanks. Mr. Dorman
explained it had been leaking into dense clay soil, which is good, because it
doesn’t spread much. Fred
asked if oil was the only contaminate in the soil. Rocky Martin, Public Works Director,
noted that there is also MTBE gasoline contamination. This is a concern of the Town. The Saputo well is contaminated and Town
wells are close by. Amy Lyman, who
lives immediately north of the cheese factory, asked about a time limit to take
care of this problem. Mr. Dorman
said it would be done this year. He
said Saputo is working closely with the State to take care of the
contamination. The soil will be
trucked to Burlington for treatment.
Mr. Dorman then
addressed the noise generated by their new HVAC unit on the north side of the
building. New England Air did a
noise study, which showed noise monitoring results on-site and at neighboring
locations. The results were
distributed among planning commission members and the audience. The testing was done on a Thursday
afternoon at 5:00 p.m. It was 88
degrees and the HVAC unit was running at full capacity. The noise level is too high and Saputo
is proposing building a sound barrier wall that will drop the noise level heard
on adjacent properties 5 to 10 decibels.
They are talking to a company in Canada that makes sound barriers. Roger Kohn asked if anything could be
done with the fans. Mr. Dorman said
they could go with variable speed drives, but that building a sound barrier
enclosure still looks like the best solution. John Mace asked if taking a noise
reading at 5:00 p.m. (rush hour on Route 116) may have drowned out the noise from the unit, making it seem
not so loud. Perhaps taking
readings on a Sunday morning or in the middle of the night would give a more
accurate depiction. Mr. Dorman said
the next step would be take additional readings at other times. Faith said it might not be the type of
noise that doesn’t get drowned out.
David Lyman, commented that you can hear the noise at his house on
Shelburne Falls Road as well. Ted
Bloomhardt noted that when a barrier is put up, the noise will go the other
way. Mr. Dorman said that the
proposed barrier will have three sides and possibly a top. It is designed to send the noise
up. Jean Isham mentioned absorbing
versus blocking sound. George
Munson asked if they could build out to the canal. Mr. Dorman said they would need Act 250
permit and a stream setback variance.
Mr. Wetzel said the
noise level is not an acceptable situation. It is a violation of the noise ordinance
in the Town. He expressed
disappointment that Saputo is still just studying the problem after nearly a
year. He also felt that the fans
might not be the only way to cool the process air. He felt that Saputo was not being
responsive and that Town citizens were not getting a fair shake. Will Patten asked how the planning
commission could get somebody from Saputo to come to meet with the
Commission. Roger added that it
matters less who comes, the planning commission just needs someone to
attend who has the authority to
answer questions and address concerns.
Roger asked Mr. Wetzel if he had any solutions other than fans for
cooling the air. Jerry was
sure there must be something other than three big fans running at the top of a
tower. Roger then asked Mr. Dorman
if Saputo was looking at other technology.
Mr. Dorman explained that the fans provide product cooling and are used
to cool milk quickly. He added that
Saputo recognizes there is a noise problem and wants to fix
it.
Amy Lyman expressed
her disgust with the situation. She
said Saputo was only talking about further plans and not doing anything, just
dragging their feet and taking advantage of the townspeople. Saputo was not professional, and they
should have a sense of community.
Instead they are running the town.
She pointed to the leaking oil tanks as an example of
this.
Ted told Mr. Dorman
that the planning commission expects that someone will be at the next meeting
(October 4th) with answers to the questions raised and a presentation
of a solution to the noise problem.
A more detailed plan for demolition also should be provided at that
time.
3. Champlain Valley Telecom - Sign Review
and Site Plan Review (George
Bedard recused himself from discussion).
Dan Owen of Champlain Valley Telecom explained that Champlain Telecom
purchased the former Hinesburg Health Center a couple of weeks ago and their
network service employees and Internet company, Green Mountain Access will be
located there (in addition to other department uses). They are seeking approval for a
free-standing sign to be placed in the existing sign structure next to the
entrance. Mr. Owen distributed
color drawings of the proposed sign.
They also are proposing a wall mounted sign as well that will be the same
size. There is no proposed lighting
on the signs, and the free-standing sign will be the same size as the former
sign so it will fit into the existing brackets.
In terms of
landscaping, the applicant proposes picking up where CHP Kaiser Permante left
off in 1996 after expanding the parking lot resulted in the loss of 26 juniper
shrubs. CHP asked for an extension
on the site plan approval, but then left the State. The applicant’s landscaper, Outdoor
Works Landscaping, suggested planting 40 to 45 mature sea green junipers. They would block views of the parked
cars from Mechanicsville Road. The
shrubs would be planted this fall.
With no further
questions, Ted Bloomhardt made the following
motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby approves the landscaping plan by
Selectronics/Waitsfield & Champlain Valley Telecom to plant shrubs along the
road frontage as proposed in an August 25, 2000 letter by Outdoor Works
Landscaping for the property at 246 Mechanicsville Road. This approval satisfies the conditions
of the 7/10/96 Planning Commission approval and authorizes the parking lot
expansion as required in Condition #1 of the 2/7/90 Site Plan Approval. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Any plants and
trees shown on the landscaping plan shall be properly maintained and any plants
or trees that die shall be promptly replaced.
2.
All other
conditions of the previous Site Plan Approval shall remain in
effect.
John Mace seconded,
and Roger Kohn recommended adding Condition #2. Roger then seconded the motion and was
unanimously approved with the exception of George Bedard who recused himself
from the vote.
Ted then made the
following motion regarding sign approval:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sign approval to Selectronics/Waitsfield &
Champlain Valley Telecom for a 2' by 5' free standing sign to be placed in an
existing sign structure at 246
Mechanicsville Road. The sign shall
be as proposed by the applicant except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The applicant
shall obtain a Zoning Permit from the Zoning Administrator prior to installing
the sign.
2.
Any additional
signs shall require further approval from the Planning Commission unless the
zoning bylaw states that the category of signs is exempt from Planning
Commission review.
3.
No sign lighting is
proposed and none is allowed without further Planning Commission
approval.
Roger Kohn seconded,
and it was unanimously approved with the exception of George Bedard who recused
himself from the vote.
Rocky Martin,
Hinesburg Public Works Director, questioned whether there would be room along
the road frontage for a sidewalk after the shrubs are planted. Faith said the original site plan
approval required that the owner of the property construct a sidewalk if and
when a connecting sidewalk is proposed.
Rocky said a sidewalk along the east side of Mechanicsville Road is being
planned. Faith said since the
shrubs were proposed in the same line as the trees she assumed they would not
interfere with the sidewalk. She
asked if the planning commission would allow the shrubs to be moved in either
direction to accommodate the sidewalk as determined by the Public Works
Director. Members agreed. Rocky and Faith said they would work
with Champlain Valley Telecom to determine the location of the sidewalk before
the shrubs are planted to prevent any conflicts.
4. Bass/Truax - Subdivision
Revision Subdivision developer Paul Truax and the
engineer John Stuart came before the planning commission to describe the new
house and septic system location on Lot F of a previously approved three-lot
subdivision on Sherman Hollow Road.
Lot F is now owned by Roy Bass who was in the audience. Mr. Truax was seeking approval for the
subdivision revision for a change in location of the septic system. Mr. Truax explained that the house
location is pretty much in the same site location, but the septic system
location was moved so that it is now below the house, rather than above as
originally planned. It was moved
because they saw it as opportunity to do away with a pump station and the
liabilities associated with that.
It still meets regulations.
Fred asked why they
didn’t recognize this better septic location before the approval process. He remembered this subdivision approval
and all the detail the planning commission went through. It appears that if Jerry Wetzel hadn’t
noticed the changed location, this would have just slid through. The planning commission trusts
everybody’s word; they volunteer their time. This flies in the face of all the
planning commission’s work. Mr.
Truax said that was not the intent at all.
Mr. Stuart assumed this plan was approved before he wrote his letter
indicating that the septic system was installed as shown on the plans. Roger Kohn said that he understood that
accidents happen.
George Munson
commented that it looks like the house location did change as well as the
septic. Faith said that the house
location is important only in terms of its location in relation to the 60 foot
side yard buffer. The critical
issue is the location of the septic system. She added that it’s hard to understand
why the original plan proposed the septic to pump uphill, when soils were found
that allow the a gravity flow septic system. Mr. Stuart described the soil test pits
results. Ted said he would feel
better if an independent engineer confirmed that the soils in the location of
the septic system are okay and meet State standards. Mr. Stuart explained that
the original layout of the driveway precluded that area from any
use.
Fred was hopeful
that the soils are good, but a decision to change a sewage system is a BIG
thing. It can’t be glossed
over. He had two issues: one being
that of health; the other being that of enforcement. In defense, Mr. Truax said changing the
septic location was not arbitrary.
He has proven his integrity to the planning commission over the years;
he’s not often at planning commission meetings with problems.
The owner of the
house, Roy Bass, asked about the time frame for independent confirmation of
soils. He was worried that a long
delay would complicate his construction loan/mortgage. He doesn’t want to lose his home. Roger assured him that he didn’t think
he’d have trouble with financing.
Jerry Wetzel
described how he discovered this problem while trying to locate the well. It was being dug on the wrong side of
the road than that shown on the approved plan and it was very close to the
septic field. There is a setback
requirement from the well to the road, and he doesn’t know where the road is
anymore. Jerry added that it is not
okay for Mr. Bass to be living in his house at this time because a Certificate
of Occupancy has not yet been issued.
Mr. Truax explained that the excavator put a row of stones along the
second driveway location which is not built yet because the lot has not been
sold. Jerry thought it was a wall,
not a boundary. Jerry said he
cannot issue a certificate of occupancy until he can be confident that the
development is as approved by the planning commission. It was suggested by George Bedard that
they take a survey and spot the well, the road and the leach field. Mr. Truax will show Jerry where
all the boundaries/corners are.
John Mace thanked
Jerry for discovering this. John
also asked Mr. Stuart not to write any more letters sayings things are built as
approved when they are not.
Ted Bloomhardt the
made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission moves to continue review of this application to the October
4th meeting at which time the applicant shall bring independent
assessment of the soils at the location of the septic leach field on Lot F, by a
site technician or engineer not involved in this project to date for Planning
Commission consideration. In
addition, the Lot B well protection zone may be modified on the plans to reflect
the wellhead isolation distance rules.
The location of the septic, well, and house shall be accurately plotted
on the survey map of the property.
After discussion
about the discovery of changes, enforcement, and fines, the motion was seconded
by Carrie Fenn. It was unanimously
approved.
5. Bedard - Sketch Plan Review. George Bedard presented a color coded map
of a sketch plan for a 3 lot residential subdivision of 34 acres on the north
side of Texas Hill Road. He said
this was the same parcel of land that the Planning Commission saw around 1990
when there as a proposal for an 11 lot subdivision. He described the septic locations and
possible house sites for the 3 lots.
Each lot would be for a four bedroom house with conventional septic. Eleven lots won’t work because of
wetland rules and a deer yard location.
George saw moose tracks on the land. John Mace asked about reducing roadcuts
and George said it wasn’t necessary because culverts will be needed for only one
of the driveways. He said the
wetland constrains the possibility of combining two roadcuts into
one.
Will Patten asked
about restricting further subdivision on the three lots. George will present covenants and deed
conditions at the next review.
Ellen Foster who
lives across Texas Hill Road from the property, expressed concerns about water
runoff. She hoped the development
would not speed up runoff into the beaver dam. She was also concerned about well water
and new houses tapping into the aquifers. She and her neighbors, the Barbers,
have deep wells that have gone dry.
Fred agreed that
runoff is an issue. He gave
Dynamite Hill as an example. Maybe
the Planning Commission should get more specific about diverting water runoff
into meadows.
Faith opened a
discussion of forest management and subdivisions. She said the path of least resistance is
to create lots just over 10 acres.
With forest land, 10 acres is useless; it provides residents with
buffering between their properties, but landowners cannot benefit economically
from the additional acreage. In the
Town Plan there is language about trying to stop fragmentation of forest
land. She suggested considering two
smaller lots and one lot at least 27 acres that would qualify for the Current
Use program. John Mace was opposed
to the concept. He wasn’t sure that
the planning commission had the ability to do that. Roger, on the other hand, felt this was
exactly what planning commissions should do. George noted that people want bigger
land ownership and elbow room; they don’t want small lots. Faith said that if development were
restricted on the 25+ acres of forest land, the owners of the smaller lots
wouldn’t need the extra acreage for “protection.” There was considerable discussion about
forest land use and management, and current and future economic value of rural
land.
Roger suggested a
site visit prior to the next level of approval. About half of the planning members felt
a site visit wouldn’t change their opinions and were ready to approve the sketch
plan.
Ted Bloomhardt then
made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to George Bedard for a
three-lot single family residential subdivision located on a 34 acre parcel on
the north side of Texas Hill Road.
The subdivision shall be as shown on a map titled “Sketch Plan - Bedard
Parcels” and dated 8/21/00 and shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1.
A site visit
with the Planning Commission shall be scheduled prior to final plat
review.
2.
The applicant
shall meet all final plat application submission requirements for Minor
Subdivisions as listed in Section 4.2
of the Subdivision Regulations, including the following
items:
a.
The building envelopes and driveways shall be shown on a site plan.
1.
Well logs in
the area shall be provided at final plat with proposed water supply for the
lots.
2.
Provision to
limit and control runoff shall be provided at final plat.
3.
The applicant
is advised that the Planning Commission may require the applicant to modify the
lot lines based on their site visit, and this may require a final plat review
continuation to a second Planning Commission meeting.
John Mace seconded,
and it was unanimously approved by everyone on the planning commission, except
George Bedard (who had recused himself).
6. Misc. - September 20 Meeting
Agenda
A site visit to the
proposed 3 lot subdivision on Texas Hill was scheduled for September
20th at 6:00 (on the site, 5:45 at Town Hall).
.
The meeting
adjourned at 11:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Sally Kimball,
Recording Secretary