HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
of September 5, 2001
APPROVED September 26, 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: Dan Reinhardt, Bernadette Goodrich,
Robert Goodrich, Julie Burger Pierson, Vanda Crook, Stew Pierson, Hannah,
Patricia, and Hilary Whitney, Tim Hultgren, Scott Johnson, Nicandra Galper,
Nancy and Greg LeRoy, Susan Mead, Guy Fisher, John, Kathy and Abby Ferrara.
Eileen Carpenter, Andy and Jean Hubinger, Brian Fisher, Sally, Chuck and Evan
Reiss, John Roos, Carl Bohlen, Kristy McLeod, Wilma Smith, John Pacht, Rolf
Kielman, Norman S. Smith, Carla and Ryan Wuthrich, Andrea Morgante, Sam
Evanson, Ralph Goodrich
1. Continuation
of Goodrich/Evanson Sketch Plan Review.
Ted Bloomhardt opened the meeting with the first item on the
agenda. He explained that with three
members recused (George Munson, George Bedard and Roger Kohn), the Planning
Commission will need 5 votes from the
remaining 6 members to pass any
motion. Ted described the site visit of
August 15. The Planning Commission
walked the property where the main driveway left Buck Hill Road, they viewed
upper lots and house sites. They
followed the seasonal water course and looked at the two larger lots in the
meadows off of Lavigne Hill Road. They
also walked up the road to discuss drainage and erosion issues.
Ted then asked for comments from the
applicant. Ralph Goodrich described the
Goodrich family history of the land, and the original concept the Goodrich
brothers had for subdividing the parcel.
He said their concept is similar to what Mr. Evanson is proposing. Mr. Goodrich added “We are not newcomers.
It’s not our intent to degrade it.”
The brothers had hoped to have some nice house on the parcel, and a PRD
made more sense then having 3 acre lots.
Mr. Evanson said the sketch plan was
slightly modified from the original plan as a result of the septic test pits
results indicating excellent soils for disposal systems. He also described some changes in driveway
locations. He said a PRD will keep the
fields open and allow a shorter road and shorter power lines going into the
development. Concentrating the houses
on level ground will not affect the offsite impact of views. Mr. Evanson proposed having access to trails
along the eastern boundaries while the parcel is being developed. After it is finished, the new landowners and
neighbors could work out an arrangement for a shared trail system.
Ted asked about the traffic impact on Buck
Hill Road. Mr. Evanson said there would
be a more than 50% increase. It will
add one car to Buck Hill Road every 8 minutes during rush hour. John Mace confirmed with Mr. Evanson that
the ownership of the parcel has been resolved.
John asked why this development will have double the density as the
other neighboring development that Mr. Evanson had previously created. Mr. Evanson said the soils are better for
septic, and the other parcel was open and the soils weren’t as good. John asked why the application was for a
PRD. Mr. Evanson said there was an
advantage to using 2 acre lots. The
power would be concentrated; it would be more appealing to have shorter roads
and keep the fields open. John said he
felt PRD’s were a way for the developer to meet some town goals in exchange for
some relaxation of zoning regulations.
John said offering smaller lot sizes doesn’t meet town goals nor offer
design innovation. Jean Isham said PRD’s refer to clustering, and the proposed
2 acre lots didn’t really reflect a clustered development. Jean also expressed concern about the safety
of school children walking on Buck Hill Road.
Mr. Evanson said that it is up to the drivers to protect school
children.
Fred Haulenbeek was encouraged by the
concerns for recreational access, but felt the trails should be designated
before approval. He also wondered about
the value of having septic systems not contained in each lot. Any maintenance would require digging on
someone else’s property. Carrie Fenn
said that when she followed a well used horse trail through the parcel, she was
struck by the value of the woods. She
suggested clustering in the meadow, to preserve the forest. Mr. Goodrich responded that his family did
not create the trails that go through the middle of the property. He thought it wasn’t fair for the Planning
Commission to tell him to preserve the trails. Will Patten noted that a PRD should be developed in a way that
is beneficial to the community. Will
asked Mr. Evanson what the community benefit was in this proposal. Mr. Evanson said economics is also a reason
for a PRD. Will thought PRD’s should
not just be efficient for the developer, but for the community and for the
protection of land.
Ted summarized that the biggest issue is
that the proposal uses the PRD provisions to maximize the density of the 33
acre parcel. Ted said it was not clear
that this proposal covers innovation, public amenities and clustering. Ted added that he liked many things about
the proposal, but that using a PRD to maximize density may not be
appropriate.
Ted then asked the audience for any
comments. Reference was made to the
September 5 memo to the Planning Commission from the Buck Hill Road and Lavigne
Hill Road community. Jeff Galper asked
about the proposed turn around and its distance from his property. Ted said the turn around is not there now,
and the details would be worked on as the proposal develops. George Munson, speaking from the audience,
commented on the traffic problems he sees regularly at the bottom of Buck Hill
Road, cars often end up in his yard. He
felt the road could not handle any more traffic. Stewart Pierson asked if the Planning Commission would take the
role of defining trails for public use and seeking easements for a designated
recreation trail. Faith said that would
be a really big project that could be undertaken by the Planning Commission but
they have not had the time for it. She
said the town Recreation Committee has discussed pursuing a trails project in
Town. Sally Reiss said she supported
the concept of trails, property owners shouldn’t feel threatened by it.
Chuck Reiss said he was struck by the
density of the project. Mr. Reiss
suggested that site visits be handled differently. Input from neighbors was not solicited or wanted. He was uncomfortable with how it was
run. Greg LeRoy noted that when
Planning Commission members represent subdivision proposals, that gives the
applicant too much of an advantage. Ted
responded that the Selectboard chooses Planning Commission members, so any
concerns about Planning Commission members should be presented to the
Selectboard. Norm Smith and Carl Bohlen
both expressed concerns about aquifer recharge areas.
Ted then polled each Planning Commission
member. All members felt this proposal
did not meet PRD requirements. Mr.
Evanson withdrew this sketch plan application.
2. Pamela Tingris - Site Plan Review for Bed
and Breakfast. Pamela Tingris
described her proposal for a Bed and Breakfast in her 4 bedroom house located
on Molly’s Way which is off lower Texas Hill Road. Parking was an issue.
Roger Kohn requested a more detailed site plan that shows dimensions of
the parking area and parking spaces.
Roger made the following motion:
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby
grants site plan approval to Pamela Tingris for a 3-bedroom tourist home (bed
and breakfast) on her property located on 12 Molly Way. The site plan shall be as proposed by the
applicant except as set forth herein.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.
All conditions
of the 8/21/01 Conditional Use Approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment are
hereby incorporated, and shall be complied with.
2.
Prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall obtain a Project
Review Sheet or other confirmation from the State confirming that state septic
regulations are not violated.
3.
Prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a revised
site plan to the Planning Commission showing the parking area with dimensions
and shall obtain Planning Commission approval.
4.
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 these.
Will Patten seconded the motion.
Ted noted the landscaping that exists on the property appears
sufficiently landscaped for the site plan.
Will confirmed the sign is unlit.
With no further discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.
3. Tim Hultgren - Request to
revise Subdivision Condition. Tim Hultgren, who received subdivision
approval for a lot off of the MacLean parcel last spring on Hayden Hill East,
requested a change in condition requesting a letter from a contractor
constructing the road improvements stating the road is built to Town
Standards. Mr. Hultgren and his
neighbors recently asked the Selectboard for clarification of the road
improvement requirements. Mr. Hultgren
is seeking relief from having to construct the road improvements before
obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
Faith said the Selectboard had previously adopted a road standard that
permits a 14 foot road with ditching.
Roger expressed great concern that this standard exists without the
Planning Commission’s knowledge. He was
not comfortable modifying a condition without knowing and understanding this 14
foot road standard for Class IV roads.
Mr. Hultgren said he was going to cut some trees down to get the
required 18 foot width and his neighbors became concerned, so everyone went to
the Selectboard and that was where the 14 foot width standard was
discovered. Mr. Hultgren stressed that
he needs a Certificate of Occupancy and can’t get it without all the conditions
being met. Mr. Hultgren asked for
approval prior to getting the road finished.
Will Patten said the 14 foot width road standard is a good thing, but
the Planning Commission should discuss the process at a latter time. Roger asked why the Planning Commission was
not involved when the Selectboard was dealing with it.
Faith explained that the issue under review at this time is whether Mr.
Hultgren can obtain a certificate of occupancy before he completes the road
improvements. Mr. Hultgren and his
neighbors, the Hubingers, who were required by their road approval to
contribute to up-grading the Class IV road, wish to put money in an escrow
account for the necessary road improvements so that Mr. Hultgren can obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy in the next week or two.
Ted made a motion which is attached to the end of these minutes. Carrie Fenn seconded. There was a discussion of putting a dollar
amount to go in the escrow account. The
motion was modified to include an amount, then modified not to include an
amount, and finally modified to say the escrow is to be accompanied by the
estimate of a competent contractor.
Carrie Fenn re-seconded the modified motion. It was unanimously approved.
4. Revision to Bissonette
Subdivision. Faith noted that at the last meeting the
Planning Commission asked Dan Reinhardt to change the plat showing the new
powerline location. She said that from
a staff point of view, it was not fair to ask one landowner to make the change,
when all other lot owners are also changing powerline locations. The power company has said powerline
locations are often changed, and the plats don’t have to be revised. Mr. Reinhardt, who was in the audience, said
that the word “proposed” on the plat applies to the powerline. Roger said this is an issue of the Planning
Commission being told where the powerlines will be, and if they are moved, we
need a revised plan showing where the powerlines are. Faith suggested reconsidering the requirement of revising the
plat. Roger said the Planning
Commission is being asked to amend the approval for subdivision. Will Patten asked why bother to have
utilities shown on the plat if they can do whatever they want. Another lot owner, who was in the audience,
noted that Wayne Bissonette didn’t really develop the land, he just sold
it. Mr. Reinhardt pointed out his
perception of George Bedard’s role in this problem.
Roger made the following motion.
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby amends the Final Plat approval
for the Wayne Bissonette Subdivision on Gilman Road, dated August 16, 2000, to
permit utilities where they are presently and permit utilities on Lot #3 to be
in a different location than on the plan, but to be entirely underground,
provided a new final plat be provided to the Planning Commission for signature
and recorded in Hinesburg Land Records within 90 days. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
believes that this is a minor change to the final plat of such a nature that this
change can be made without a formal warned hearing.
Will Patten seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
Ted suggested the Planning Commission write a letter to Green Mountain
Power, reminding them that they need to follow the subdivision plan. Ted moved the Hinesburg Planning Commission
will write to Green Mountain Power to explain that their deed does not have
precedence over approved subdivision plans.
The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
5. Sign Lighting Approval for
Larson Chiropractic. Faith explained that Larson Chiropractic
was seeking approval for lighting their existing sign. The sign lighting will be similar to the
down-lights on the Lantman’s IGA sign.
Ted made the following motion:
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants sign approval to Lars
Eric Larson for top-mounted-sign lighting for the existing free-standing sign
for Larson Chiropractic located at 10792 Main Street on property owned by Rob
Bast. 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 prior to installing the sign
lighting.
2.
The sign may be
illuminated as proposed but only when the business is open to the public. The lighting will be low voltage, 20 watt
halogen or 35 watt MR II lamp. The
fixture will be black or bronze finish.
3.
Lights shall be
shielded and directed towards the sign so that they will not shine on or
interfere with vehicle traffic.
Carrie Fenn seconded, and it was unanimously approved.
6. Miscellaneous.
Faith mentioned the upcoming Halloween production at Geprags Park and
the need to review and approve the use of amplified sound before the event in
conformance with the original approval for the amphitheater. She felt the
October 3 meeting doesn’t give much time before the event and suggested the
review take place at the next work session, but members felt October 3 would be
adequate.
Roger said he was very concerned about the road standards and the
Selectboard’s actions. Faith described
how the Hultgren road situation happened, creating a confusing situation. Roger thought the Planning Commission should
make it a priority to look at road standards.
George Munson noted that Buck Hill residents were unhappy with the site
visit. He suggested the Planning
Commission’s site visit guidelines be addressed. He referenced an article on site visits that Faith had
distributed to members a while ago.
Faith said she would make copies of the article for everyone again. Roger felt neighbors need a chance to say
things. It was agreed that the Planning
Commission could have done the site visit better and will consider making site
visits a public meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35
pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary
HINESBURG PLANNING
COMMISSION
Revisions to
Hultgren/MacLean Subdivision Conditions
September 5, 2001
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby
revises conditions #7 and #10 of the March 21, 2001 Final Plan approval given
to Grant and Marceline MacLean and Timothy Hultgren, to read as follows:
7.
The portion of
the Class IV roadway serving more than one residence shall be built in
accordance with the Hinesburg Town Road Standards with details as determined by
the Selectboard at their September 4, 2001 meeting. The road shall be widened, ditched, maintained, and plowed to the A-21 standards approved by the
Selectboard. The applicant’s excavator
shall coordinate road work with the Town Road Foreman and shall schedule a
meeting with the Road Foreman before starting construction.
10.
Before
obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for a dwelling on the approved 3.12 acre
lot, the road improvements shall be completed and approved by the Town Road
Foreman or Public Works Director. The
applicant may enter into an escrow agreement with the Town in an amount
required for completion of the work as estimated by a competent contractor.
The Hinesburg Planning Commission has approved this motion based upon
special circumstances of this property including that this property is within a
Class IV Road, the Class IV Road accesses the Town Forest, the ditching
proposed, the fact that the sub-base and shoulders to be accessible by
emergency vehicles is at least 18 feet wide, the location of mature trees, and
the specific review by the Selectboard.
The Planning Commission does not expect that it will apply this standard
to future projects unless and until the Planning Commission has reviewed and
changed its usual policy.
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg Planning Commission on
September 5, 2001.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt, Chairman
Hinesburg Planning Commission