HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

                                                        Minutes of February 19, 2002

Approved March 5, 2002

 

Present:            Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, Carrie Fenn, Tom McGlenn, Peter Ross, and Greg Waples.   Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner                         

 

Members Absent:         Wayne Burgess, Brad Jenson                          

 

Members of the Audience:        Joel and Laura Jackson, Russ Barone, Sandy Wynne, John L. Mead, Doug Mead, Peter Mead, Bill Leggett, Robert Giroux, David Giroux, Rocky Martin, Patti Drew, Larry Winters, Sam Evanson, George Bedard

 

 

Tom McGlenn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

1.  January 5 Minutes.  Greg Waples moved to approve the minutes of January 5 as written.  Ted Bloomhardt seconded, and it was unanimously approved.  Official decisions were discussed, Greg noted that denial reasons are not in the decision.  It was pointed out that the motion in the minutes describes the reasons.  There was also discussion about whether there should be official decisions written for all DRB decisions.  It was decided that for now the old system of including some decisions in the minutes was adequate but over time all board decisions should be issued as a separate, official decision.  Ted moved to approve the written decision for Champlain Telecom Associates.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

 

2.  Barone Construction - Sketch Plan Review.  Russ Barone of Barone Construction came before the Board to present a sketch plan for 6 residential lots on approximately 3 acres of a 65 acre parcel on the east side of Mechanicsville Road owned by Ernest and Theresa Giroux.  This is proposed as phase one of a two-phased project.  The second phase would be for a 30-unit elderly housing project on the same parcel.

 

Mr. Barone said the parcel has a long-standing sewer allocation, and he was granted an additional allocation for the proposed 6 housing units.  He showed how the PRD (Planned Residential Development) would work with the 6 single family residential 1/3 acre lots and the 30 elderly housing units.  He noted that access for two of the lots would be off Mechanicsville Road, the other four lots would be accessed off a new future road.  The houses would be two-story capes or colonials.  Ted asked where the village district boundary is.  It may include parts of Lot 1 and Lot 2.  Faith recommended that the zoning boundary line be shown on the plans for preliminary plat review.

 

Greg Waples suggested moving the lot lines to diminish the village lots and increase the RR1 lot sizes.  Mr. Barone said the typography of the land dictated lot lines and size.  He looked at different sizes and lines and this proposal presented tonight made the most sense.  If the lots were expanded to meet the zoning lot size requirements, the house sites would be pushed back and appear “sprawlish”. 

 

Ted described the requirement that PRD’s be innovative and that they provide a public benefit.  He asked Mr. Barone what plans he had for the rest of the parcel beyond the development presented tonight.  Mr. Barone said he had no plans, the land would remain under his ownership.  He also noted the proposed new road is not planned to connect with Lavigne Road.  Greg had concerns that this is not a PRD.  Ted asked what else was in the proposal besides just offering small lots?  Would there be pedestrian access, or trails, or open space?  Ted added that this is the other half of the PRD proposal that the Board needs Mr. Barone’s thoughts on.   Mr. Barone said he had no ideas at this point, other than to keep a compact development close to the village.  He envisioned the elderly units with sidewalks, street lighting.  He also hoped the Town would take over the new road, as he did not plan to create a homeowners association for the first six lots.

 

Tom McGlenn asked why Lots 1 and 2 have access on Mechanicsville Road.  Mr. Barone said it was to copy the feeling of the neighborhood with houses lining the road.  Faith noted that the Village Design Standards allow just one new road cut for developments in the village.  Rocky Martin, Town Public Works Director,  said he’d much rather see Lots 1 and 2 access off the same new road as the rest of the proposed lots.  He also will want to see how stormwater runoff will be dealt with at the preliminary plat review.  Faith said the new road will have to be proposed as a private road, since the Town does not take over new roads at this time.  She asked the DRB if they should require the private road conform to Town Standards for a public road.  Mr. Barone said he would need some direction from the DRB before he has more engineering work done.   There was a discussion of ditching, sidewalks, landscaping on Mechanicsville Road.

 

Audience member Larry Winters, who is a property owner on Hawk Lane, said the land is wet.  Small streams on the parcel were pointed out.  Another member of the audience expressed concerns about the water supply.  Rocky Martin assured everyone that the 30 elderly units and a future proposal by CVU will not impact the Town supply.  Audience member Patti Drew asked about the time frame for Phase II.  Mr. Barone said it would depend on when the residential lots are sold.  Peter Ross asked about the size of the proposed house.  Mr. Barone said that 2000 to 2200 sq ft is the most that could be build on a 1/3 acre lot size.  He noted also that the lots further back can hold bigger houses.  They will have cellars, which will require some blasting.  Carrie Fenn asked for landscaping plans, buffers.  Faith noted that street trees are required, and landscaping can be required for screening or buffers but the DRB can’t really dictate landscaping around the houses.

 

Tom McGlenn moved to continue the sketch plan review until 7:30 p.m. March 19th, with a site visit on Saturday, March 9th at 9:00 a.m.  Carrie Fenn seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

 

In closing the discussion, Ted asked Mr. Barone to think about public amenities that would be proposed as part of the PRD.  Mr. Barone asked about legal liability if he retained ownership of the land and allowed public access.  Ted said the DRB would have to work through this issue.

 

 

3.  Mead Brothers - Site Plan Review, Amendment.  Peter and John Mead told the members of the Board that the State didn’t like their proposal for two road cuts for the car wash, so they are now amending their proposal to have just one curb cut.  Peter Mead added the other change to the site plan involved landscaping: one less tree to allow room for any possible future attendant parking spaces off the northeast corner of the proposed pavement; and, one less crab apple tree on the north side of the building to allow room for utilities meter pit.

 

There was discussion of the proposed vacuum location in light of the traffic restrictions caused by one road cut instead of two.  The existing walkway and chain link fence next the Raymond property was also discussed.  Peter Mead said they are proposing a legal written agreement for the path with the Town.  The Meads have given the Town permission to build a walkway and the Town will protect the Meads from liability.  Faith asked if the Town could find an alternate location for the walkway, would the Meads consider putting landscaping along the western property line.  John Mead said yes, either it will be a pathway or it will be landscaped.  Faith also asked Peter Mead to identify on the site plan the future location of attendant parking spaces and future refuse storage area, if ever needed; and to add another  honey locust  tree in the front island to replace the shade tree removed in the rear.

 

Tom asked whether the plan is to allow parents to drop their children off at the school on the property as originally proposed.  John Mead said the Mead Brothers won’t designate the space for a drop off, but parents can use it.  If parents are going to park there and hang around, then the Meads will do something about it.  Tom noted that the drop off is really the problem of the State, Town and School.

 

Rocky Martin, from the audience, said the Meads can drill their own well.  He requested the use of phosphate-free detergents.   Referring to the appearance of the building and vacuums,  Peter Ross said he would like to see the Meads set the tone for how new development in the village will look.  John Mead agreed, and said they have already toned down what the carwash advisors wanted.

 

Ted moved to modify the site plan with the following condition which is attached to the end of these minutes.  Before being seconded, Rocky Martin requested the pathway be 5' wide to accommodate the Town snow plow.  Rocky also requested that the motion include phosphate-free detergents.  Tom asked for an elevation shown the vacuum.   Ted added these items to the motion.  Peter Ross seconded, and it was approved unanimously.

 

 

4.   Scheduling for Site Visits.   Faith asked the Board if they wanted to schedule a site visit for Raymond Ayer’s proposal at the same time of the Barone site visit.   It was decided, in keeping with past practices,  not to schedule a site visit without the application.  If Mr. Ayer is able to get his application in by March 9th, the DRB will consider a site visit that day.

 

Rules of Procedure.   Greg Walper will e-mail his concerns about the Rules of Procedure draft.  “Public to be heard” will be deleted.

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:00 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

 

HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

                               Mead Brothers, Inc., Revised Site Plan Approval for Car Wash

                                                                 February 19, 2002

 

 

The Hinesburg Development Review Board hereby modifies the Site Plan Approval to Mead Brothers, Inc. for a 3 bay car wash, which was granted October 3, 2001, with the following conditions:

 

1.              All conditions of the October 3, 2001 Site Plan Approval and the October 2, 2001 Conditional Use Approval shall remain in effect.

2.              A revised plan that addresses the previous conditions shall show the following:

1.              An additional Honey Locust shall be shown where the second driveway was eliminated.

2.              Future parking and refuse location area shall be shown.

3.              Between curb and fence area for the path area shall be shown as 5' wide.  The applicant is advised that landscaping will be required along the side of the property if the path, that is referred to in condition #6 of the original site plan approval, is ever eliminated.

4.              Phosphate-free detergent shall be used to limit harmful discharge into the Town sewer system.

5.   Vacuum elevations shall be shown as part of the site plan

 

 

The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg Development Review Board on February 19, 2002.

 

 

_____________________________

Tom McGlenn, Chairman

Hinesburg Development Review Board