HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 10, 2001

APPROVED July 25, 2001

Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, John Mace, Jean Isham, George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, George Munson, and Will Patten. Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner

Members Absent: none

Members of the Audience: Wendy Pelletier, Bob and Pat Peek, Frank Babbott, Miriam and Gary Husted, Wayne Bissonette, Bill Maclay, Sam Eveanson, Mary McClements, Tom Herbick

1. Request for Building Envelope Change - Bill Maclay. Ted Bloomhardt opened the meeting with the first item on the agenda. George Bedard recused himself from the discussion. Bill Maclay, the architect for the proposed Mead Frisch residence on Lot #6 in the Evanson subdivision on High Rock Road off of Lavigne Hill Road, represented the purchasers of the lot. Mr. Maclay explained that his clients wanted to move the building envelope 50 or 60 feet in order to retain some trees; have slightly nicer views; and to be further away from the septic system. Mr. Maclay added that his clients are also requesting to expand septic capacity to accommodate the option for a 5^th bedroom. He said the state permits were based on 4 bedrooms and he would be amending the Act 250 permit.

John Mace asked about the visibility of the house and window reflection. Mr. Maclay said the house would be visible within the subdivision, but not visible from off-site. Sam Evanson, a member of the audience and the person who subdivided the parcel, noted that he wouldn’t be able to see the proposed house from his home. Mr. Evanson said they didn’t place the building envelope in that location originally because they didn’t think anyone would want to live that far up in the lot.

With no further discussion, Ted Bloomhardt made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby revises the June 3, 1998 Subdivision approval granted to Samuel and Carroll Evanson, to change the building envelope and revise the number of approved bedrooms for Lot #6 as proposed by William Maclay, for the proposed Mead Frisch residence. The new building envelope shall be as shown on a site plan by William Maclay Architects and Planners and dated 3/28/01 and shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. All other conditions of the June 3, 1998 subdivision approval shall remain in effect.

2. The applicant may apply for a zoning permit for a 5 bedroom house provided that an amended state permit is obtained prior to the application.

Roger Kohn seconded, and it was unanimously approved by all those present with the exception of George Bedard who recused himself from the vote.

2. Husted - Development on a private Right of Way. Gary and Miriam Husted requested re-approval of the Development on a Private Right of Way approval for an existing lot (Lot #1) off of Pond Road. The original approval was granted March 1, 2000 and has expired. Mr. Husted explained that the right of way has been moved over 30 feet on the Morin property to give Ms. Morin more privacy and to accommodate the location of her pet cemetery.

Roger thought it best to combine this item with the Babbott/Husted Sketch Plan Review, so at this point, Frank Babbott joined Mr. Husted at the table. Roger wanted to know the plans to access Lot#2. Mr. Husted explained that now he doesn’t want to access Lot#2 from Lot#1 (per Mr. Babbott’s request). Mr. Husted once proposed to access Lot#2 through Lot#1. Mr. Husted said he wanted to keep Lot#2 to preserve his views. Mr. Husted’s intention is to renew approval for development on a Private R.O.W so he can sell Lot #1.

George Bedard confirmed for Roger that the new R.O.W. to Lot#1 is surveyed and shown on the deed. There are also provisions for maintenance.

Roger then moved for approval for Development on a Private Right of Way with the same conditions of the March 1, 2000 motion, with minor grammatical changes:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants approval to Gary and Miriam Husted for Development on a Private Right-of-Way to Lot 1 for access from Pond Road over the right-of-way located northerly of Lot 1. This will serve one single residence on Lot 1. This approval shall be as proposed by the applicant and is subject to the following conditions:

1. The traveled portions from Pond Road of the roadways serving the lot shall be a minimum of 18 feet wide where the road is shared, and 12 feet wide where the road will serve one residence.

2. Any portion of the roadway serving more than one house shall be built in accordance with the Hinesburg Town road standards for a “lane”, except that blacktop is not required. The road shall be built, maintained, and plowed with a travelled surface at least 18 ft. wide, and the road shall have at least 12 inches of gravel.

3. All stumps shall be removed rather than buried.

4. Before obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling on Lot 1, the owner of the land shall require that the contractor constructing the road submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator stating that the road has been built in accordance with this approval and the standards specified in this condition. If the roadway is being built in the location of a present roadway, the requirement of 12 inches of gravel can be reduced by the gravel presently located on the roadway.

5. The deed language previously approved setting forth the method of sharing the maintenance, repair, snow plowing and any other expenses for the common portion of the roadway shall be applied to the deed for Lot 1.

6. All conditions of the July 7, 1997 driveway permits from the Town of Hinesburg are hereby incorporated.

7. Prior to conveyance of Lot 1 the lot shall be surveyed and monuments placed at all corners.

Jean Isham seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved with the exceptions of Will Patten who abstained from voting since he arrived at the meeting midway through the discussion of this item, and George Bedard who recused himself.

3. Babbott/Husted - Sketch Plan Review. Frank Babbott is intending to purchase Lot#1 from Mr. Husted and is requesting sketch plan approval to divide the 10 acre lot into two lots (3 acres and 7 acres). Both lots would be accessed from the right-of-way through the Morin and Curtis properties. Mr. Babbott explained that both lots are 100% wooded. The drawing he presented showed utilities poles with overhead lines to avoid clearing. Mr. Husted explained that it is expensive to have underground power because there is so much ledge. Mr. Babbott said the poles and driveway cuts would be done together to minimize clearing. Roger noted that the Planning Commission should be very careful in granting a variance for the underground power requirement. Carrie Fenn felt that it would be easy to run the underground power along the driveway since there will already be some excavating and moving of soils for the road. Faith said the applicant would have to demonstrate underground power is “deemed unreasonable and prohibitively expensive.”

In response to Ted’s questions on septic and clearing limits, Mr. Babbott explained that there would be conventional septic on both lots. He wants restrictions on clearing and doesn’t want to open anything up. Mr. Babbott said he had talked with both Mr. Curtis and Ms. Morin about keeping trees. Roger asked why the lot lines were drawn as shown. Mr. Babbott explained that the smaller lot is lower in elevation and is self contained, whereas the 7 acre lot is 100% wooded. Will Patten wondered if the Planning Commission should have a site visit. Ted agreed, noting the lot lines need to be finalized before a site visit. John Mace asked about the slopes of the lots. George Bedard said none are greater than 25%. Mr. Husted said the proposed building sites are very level. Ted suggested building envelopes be identified prior to the site visit. Faith said that specific locations of building envelopes are less important than defining areas that are off limits (wetlands, steep slopes).

Ted asked about pedestrian access to Pond Road for residents who would want to walk to CVU. Mr. Husted said the wetland area that would need to be crossed had heavy brush and George Bedard thought the State wetlands people would be concerned. Others clarified that the pedestrian easement could be located in the southern R.O.W. to Lot #2. There was a discussion of the wetlands history on the parcel, especially in regard to whether a road could be permitted within the southern R.O.W. George Bedard said that based on his previous conversations with representatives of the State Wetlands Office, a road could be permitted in the R.O.W. since it crosses the wetland at the narrowest point and as long as wetland edges are defined and respected. Faith mentioned that the Town Road Foreman would require improvements to the driveway intersection with Pond Road and Mr. Babbott would need a new road permit.

With no further discussion, Ted Bloomhardt made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to Frank Babbott and Gary and Miriam Husted for subdivision to a 10.03 acre parcel of land (Lot #1) owned by the Husteds, located off of Pond Road (tax map parcel 17-20-6.1), into two single family residential lots. The lots are proposed to be approximately 3 acres and 7 acres. The subdivision shall be as proposed by the applicant and shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. A site visit with the Planning Commission shall be scheduled at least one week prior to submitting the final plat application. The centerline of the proposed private road and building envelopes shall be staked and flagged and the clearing covenants proposal shall be available in advance of the site visit. The final plat shall be filed at least 20 days before the Planning Commission meeting at which it is to be considered.

2. The applicants shall meet all the final plat application requirements for Minor Subdivisions as listed in Section 4.2 of the Subdivision Regulations and provide the following additional information:

1. Proposed covenants addressing clearing limits for the road and house sites. Clearing and house siting provisions should favor energy conservation through solar access and wind protection in winter and shade in summer.

2. Proposal for avoiding clearing and construction on steep slopes (over 25%) and near wetlands (building envelopes, no-build zones, etc.) These no-build zones or building envelopes shall be shown on the plan.

3. Proposal for reducing the impact of the proposed or widened road on the Curtis and Morin residences, such as landscaping, fencing or other screening features.

4. An analysis of the pros and cons of serving future development on Lot #2 from the northern and southern rights-of-way. Comments from the State Wetlands Office may be needed to address the feasibility of access from the southern right-of-way. A right-of-way through Lot #1 should be provided to Lot #2 if the feasibility of the southern right of way is questionable or if it is determined by the town that the northern right-of-way is preferred.

5. An easement for non-vehicular access shall be provided through Lot #2 and across the southerly portion of the divided lot and across the southern right-of-way to Pond Road to ensure residents of the new lots have pedestrian access to CVU and Pond Road.

6. Design and installation of the septic systems shall take into consideration the well-head protection area for Orchard Commons.

3. In accordance with Section 7.9.1 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Commission will not consider a request to place utility lines above-ground unless the applicant can provide information convincing the Planning Commission that underground will be “unreasonable and prohibitively expensive.”

Carrie Fenn seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved by all those present with the exception of George Bedard who recused himself from the vote. (Fred Haulenbeek had to leave the meeting midway through discussions of this item.)

4. Peeks - Utility Line Waiver Request. Bob and Pat Peek requested a waiver from the requirement to place utility lines underground for the house they are building on Lot #2 of the 5-lot Bissonette subdivision on Gilman Road. Mrs. Peek explained that they have ledge everywhere, and undergound power would mean dynamiting right up to their house. The Peeks were concerned that dynamiting could damage their foundation and cause their well to collapse. Mr. Peek also discussed the added cost of dynamiting. Mrs. Peek described running an overhead line from the pole across Gilman Road directly to the house.

Roger felt that since this is a short distance, the waiver should be granted. Ted disagreed, noting that longer distances of underground power have been required. Ted asked if the Peek’s neighbors knew of their request, as they had their power put underground for a considerable distance. Faith said notices were sent. John agreed with Roger, he felt the Peeks made a good faith effort to meet the underground requirements. Wayne Bissonette, who was in the audience, said he had no problem with above ground wire. He felt it wouldn’t be noticeable. Ted was concerned that if the Peeks are allowed above ground lines for 138 feet, what would happen with the neighboring lots; would the Planning Commission allow them above ground lines too? Jean Isham commented that by requiring undergound power, the Planning Commission is requiring blasting. George Munson added that the Peeks are here after their main construction has taken place on the lot and that they had intended to place power underground when they had started construction. He said he would not give approval for overhead power if the request was made before the house was built..

Roger made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver of the requirement for underground utilities and that the Planning Commission will permit a line to run from the pole to the house as proposed with no additional pole to be set. The Planning Commission bases their decision on the very substantial additional expense on a percentage basis which the applicants have demonstrated would be required for underground utilities, on the fact that no new pole is required, and a relatively short line is proposed, and the fact that blasting through improvements which have already been constructed would be required, and the fact the applicants have demonstrated that they have investigated alternatives but not been able to locate an area for underground utilities. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that it would be unreasonable and prohibitively expensive to place underground utilities at this location.

George Munson said the minutes will show the applicants have done all these things. Will Patten felt the waiver should be granted without listing all the reasons. Roger replied that the Commission’s decisions need to be accompanied by findings.

John Mace seconded the motion. It was approved with 5 voting in favor (Roger, John, Jean, Carrie and George Munson), 2 against (Ted and Will) and 1 abstention (George Bedard).

5. Mary McClements - Sign Review. Mary McClements of the Springhouse School of Arts requested approval for a free-standing, 16 sq. ft. sign. She presented postcards that were used to announce the grand opening to show the beige and green colors that will be used on the sign. Ms. McClements said she wanted to change the sign location as it is shown on the plan, but the location she wanted was in the Town road right-of-way. It was determined that the sign will be moved to a location between the northeast corner of the building and sidewalk.

Ted Bloomhardt made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants sign approval to Mary A. McClements for a 16 sq. ft. sign painted beige, green and gold with overhead illumination. 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. The sign location shall be at the northeast corner of the building or at the center of the building on the north side. The location shall not block the views from traffic entering or exiting the site.

4. The sign may be illuminated as proposed but only when the business is open to the public and no later than 10:30 p.m. The lighting shall be directed so as not to cause any off site glare or visible lamp source. The lamps shall be a maximum of 60 w incandescent or equivalent.

5. The sign and posts shall be a maximum of 9 ft in height from the natural surrounding grade level.

Will Patten seconded, and it was unanimously approved by all those present.

6. Saputo Cheese USA - Site Plan Amendment. Tom Herbick, Plant Manager at Saputo Cheese, presented changes to the site plan that was last approved on March 7, 2001. Mr. Herbick described some of the changes in the curbing, grading, and relocating of shrubs. An erosion control measure at the canal will redirect the runoff away from the creek towards a newly stabilized bank.

Ted Bloomhardt moved that the Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants approval to Saputo Cheese USA to amend the site plan approved on January 8, 2001 with the following changes shown on a plan by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated 5/17/01:

1. Removal of the building behind the existing storage building in the northwest corner of the property.

2. Reduce the length and width of the paved access in front of the milk receiving building and install a grass-lined depression for stormwater next to the existing concrete pad where milk trucks unload.

3. Remove the curbs on the 8' wide access drive between the concrete pad and the storage building on Route 116 and replace with 2' wide gravel shoulders.

4. Reduce the width of the entrance driveway onto Route 116 to 40' wide.

5. Revised reconstruction of the concrete spillway on the canal.

6. Planting relocations along Route 116.

7. Revised grading on the south side of the storage building.

This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit from the zoning administrator prior to demolition of the building next to the canal.

Will Patten seconded, and it was unanimously approved by all those present.

7. Miscellaneous

Jean Isham moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 2001. Will Patten seconded and it was unanimously approved by all those present.

Carrie said she had the final version of the Chittenden County Regional Plan for anyone to review. The final hearing is set for July 31.

Will Patten described the Circ Highway meeting he attended. It was hosted by the State Highway Department and the Agency of Natural Resources to get input from host and surrounding towns. Carrie mentioned the impact of the Circ Highway on Silver Street, Dorset Street, 2A, Pond Road. If funding goes to the Circ Highway, then funding will be taken away from other feeder systems/southern highways.

Roger touched on the CVU proposed addition, the declining enrollment in the elementary school, and phasing. Will noted the importance of tracking population and enrollment not only in Hinesburg, but neighboring towns.

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary