HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 3, 2001

APPROVED 10/17/01

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: Jennifer and Daryl Miller, Schuyler Stratton, Connie LaFountain, Doug Mead, John L. Mead, Peter Mead, Tim Hultgren, Nancy Baker, Marcelene MacLean

1. Site Plan Review - Geprags Park. Jean Isham opened the meeting by inviting Ted White and Bill Marks of the Hinesburg Conservation Committee to describe the proposed pond. Mr. White described his run around with the State Agency of Natural Resources. At issue is that the pond would border a buffer of a wetland. Different people at the State have differing views of the situation. Mr. Marks added that the worst case scenario would involve filing for a conditional use permit, which would delay the project. Mr. Marks noted that this is the same project that was presented to the Planning Commission four years ago. There are no changes except the pond will be smaller, due to their budget and the actual excavating costs.

Will Patten asked about the use of the pond. He wondered about the ramifications if the pond was really good for swimming and people hang out there. Fred Haulenbeek agreed with Will. Fred relayed his experiences with his personal pond and he suggested a shallow shelf all around the perimeter of the pond for cattail growth that would discourage swimming. Will said they would need to be prepared for young people hanging out at the pond, there may be complaints, you may have to police and pick up beer cans, etc. Mr. Marks said he envisioned steep banks to encourage as much open water as possible. John Mace asked for clarification that the pond was not proposed for recreational use. Mr. Marks said cattails around the pond will discourage swimming, but they are proposing to stock the pond with deep mouth bass, and have ice skating in the winter. Mr. White added that they are not promoting recreational uses.

Also requested tonight was a request for approval of amplified sound for public events at the amphitheater. Faith explained to Mr. White and Mr. Marks that this approval would be for all public events; that they would not have to seek approval for each public event, one at a time. Members of the audience, Schuyler Stratton and Connie LaFountain, who are neighbors of Geprags’s Park expressed concerns about kids hanging out. Mr. White said they do allow very organized private parties/events (like weddings). He said they’ve put too much work in to the park to allow destructive parties.

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

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby amends the 8/13/’97 site plan approval to the Hinesburg Conservation Commission for the amphitheater at Geprags Park, to permit use of amplified sound at public events at the park. Site plan approval is also granted for construction of a approximate 1/4 acre nature pond on the west side of the property immediately west of the town well location. This approval satisfies conditions #4 and #6 of the 8/13/97 site plan approval. All other conditions of the 8/13/97 approval shall continue to apply to the use of the pond and amphitheater. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. An Agency of Natural Resources permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the pond.

2. The pond shall be constructed and maintained in such a way to encourage the “nature pond” aspects as opposed to recreational purposes such as swimming. The pond banks shall be designed to create a safer shallow rim to encourage plant growth around the pond perimeter. If experience indicates a problem with uses that are not compatible with the nature pond design or use, the applicant shall take measures to control those uses.

3. If experience indicates a problem with noise carrying off the property during public events in excess of that allowed by the Hinesburg Zoning Ordinance, then the applicant shall provide noise limits and methods of control to the Planning Commission and obtain approval of these measures.

George Bedard seconded the motion. Roger Kohn discussed “natural uses” wording. Fred noted that shallow edges provide habitat, are a safety feature for people, and also discourages swimming. The motion was unanimously approved.

2. Site Plan Review - Mead Brothers Car Wash. Doug, John and Peter Mead presented their proposal for a three bay car wash. Peter Mead said they have been reserving wastewater allocation for a number of years. Much of the wash water will be recycled and filtered. They will also monitor how much water is used. Will Patten asked why three bays, instead of two or four? John Mead said originally they planned for two bays, but the company they are working with recommended three. Traffic circulation, especially in relation to the location of the vacuums was discussed at length. Faith described the status of the proposed sidewalk along Rte 116 in relation to the Raymond property and the car wash.

Will said he would like to have the facade facing the street look as nice as possible. John Mead noted that landscaping will hide the view. He also noted that the wall will be recessed to accommodate possible vending machines. Fred said he didn’t like vending machines on the front of the building. Roger added that the Planning Commission could ask as a condition that they come back and show us the building facade for approval.

The drainage plan was mentioned. Faith said the plan wasn’t available for review before the meeting and it would be good to have Rocky Martin review it. George Bedard added that they will need a stormwater discharge permit for the State. The Meads said they had no plans for a dumpster, and Ted said he wanted their plan to show a future dumpster location as well as future employee parking.

John Mace noted Section 3.4.5(1) in the Zoning Bylaw requires all village buildings to be connected to town water and sewer. Both Roger and Faith felt the Town wouldn’t want the car wash, which is a high volume and non-potable water use, on Town water. Roger suggested having a condition that the Selectboard determine or approve whether or not the car wash should be on Town water.

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

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants site plan approval to Mead Brothers, Inc. for a 3 bay car wash on their property on the north side of Route 116 in the village. The site plan shall be as shown on plans by Civil Engineering Associates and dated 8/29/2001, except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1 Before a zoning permit may be issued the applicant shall provide the following items and obtain Planning Commission approval of them:

a. A revised site plan showing a sidewalk and marked crosswalks on the north side of Route 116. This sidewalk and painted crosswalks on the western driveway shall be constructed as part of the project.

b. A drainage and grading plan.

c. Information on the type and intensity of lighting in the car wash bays as well as for the free-standing exterior lights.

4. An elevation of the south and west sides of the building.

2. Water shall be by a drilled well on site. The applicant shall confer with the Selectboard to determine that this meets the Town’s interest in supporting the Town’s water system.

3. Employee parking and refuse storage is proposed to be accomplished by arrangement with the adjacent service station. If this business is sold and their arrangement is not continued, the new owner shall return to the Planning Commission with a plan, and obtain approval of it

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 it.

5. Arrows on the pavement and/or directional signs shall be installed to indicate traffic flow and in particular to direct traffic to the vacuums from the east side.

6. The applicant shall reserve space for the gravel path shown on the plans and shall allow the Town to construct and maintain a gravel path. Pedestrian access shall remain unimpeded at all times.

7. All exterior lighting shall be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector/refractor areas from view from points beyond the lot.

8. All plants and trees shown on the landscaping plan shall be properly maintained and any plants or trees that die shall be promptly replaced. The free standing sign on the west island is not permitted at this time. The applicant shall return with sign and lighting details, and obtain approval of it.

9. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit from the zoning administrator prior to construction.

George Bedard seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

3. Sketch Plan Review - Miller/MacLean Subdivision. (George Bedard abstained himself from discussion.) Daryl Miller, the son of Marci MacLean who owns a 125 acre parcel on the Class IV portion of Hayden Hill Road, proposes to create a 13.8 acre house lot. The lot is located about 500' from the Hultgren lot. A 4.6 acre lot will be created between the Miller and Hultgren parcels that Mr. Hultgren has said will become part of his parcel. Daryl Miller said the land has been in the family and is now idle. He hopes the land will stay in the family for generations to come. Mrs. MacLean said she didn’t want to subdivide the remaining 100 acres. Mr. Miller said he had talked to Rocky Martin about road improvements. Tim Hultgren widened the road up to a point, and Mr. Miller will need to widen part of the rest of the road. He’s planning to ditch at 14' wide, with a 12' wide road. Roger talked about the ambiguity of “proportionately shared” road maintenance. Faith suggested a site visit to the road.

Ted then made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to Daryl Miller and Marceline MacLean for a single family residential lot from more than a 96.88 acre parcel on the Class IV portion of Hayden Hill Road East, and a 4.6 acre transfer of land to an adjoiner. The subdivision shall be as shown on a plan titled “Sketch Plan - Marceline and Grant MacLean Property” and dated 9/18/01. This approval is 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 final plat shall be filed at least 20 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 final plat application submission requirements for Minor Subdivisions as listed in Section 4.2 of the Subdivision Regulations, including the following items:

a. Road cut approval and comments on road improvements from the Selectboard.

3. A condition will be applied at final plat requiring the applicant to contribute to future upgrades of the road if development is approved further up the road.

Will Patten seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved with the exception of George Bedard who abstained from the vote.

5. Bissonette Subdivision Follow Up Faith displayed new plats of the Bissonette Subdivision on Gilman Road. This plat showed the underground powerlines for Lot 4 (Reinhardt) and Lot 3 (Harvey). It also showed overhead poles. Faith recommended this final plat should be recorded, but not stamped. Roger felt it should be stamped and it should say revised or amended. Faith noted it was not warned, so it might not be considered a final plat.

Ted Bloomhardt moved to approve the revised plan as meeting the condition of September 5, 2001. John Mace seconded this motion, and it was unanimously approved with the exception of George Bedard who abstained from the vote.

The mylar will be stamped. Speaking for the Planning Commission, Roger congratulated George Bedard on his resolution and for his assistance in this situation.

6. DRB Faith relayed that Holly Russell’s report that many of the Zoning Board members are unsure if they will continue on a as a Development Review Board. The Planning Commission members expressed concern about the possibility of having no experienced people to serve on the DRB. George Bedard thought the Planning Commission, Selectboard and Zoning should meet and discuss this issue, to get commitments on who is planning to participate and who is not. It was noted that this issue should be discussed at the Selectboard’s DRB public hearing on October 15.

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary