HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
of January 9, 2002
APPROVED
Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, Jean
Isham, George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, and George Munson. Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner and Peter
Erb, Zoning Administrator
Members Absent: John Mace and Will Patten
Members of the
Audience: Clinton and Carlene
Emmons, Raymond Ayer, William Bartlett,
Tim Bourne, Brad and Catharine Parker, Bill and Patti Drew, Muriel Manning,
Jeff Hinsdale, Tom McGregor, Paul Eddy, Geoff Miller, Brad Blanchette, Sandy
Wynne, Arthur Goldsweig
Faith
noted to all present that this was the end of an era as it was the last
Planning Commission meeting with applicants before the Developmental Review
Board takes over the review of applications.
1.
Drew/Giroux - Final Plat Review.
Ted Bloomhardt opened the public hearing regarding the final plat review
of the Drew/Giroux single family residential subdivision of 3.86 acres off an
60+ acre property located off of Mechanicsville Road in the Village
District. George Bedard recused himself
from discussions. Zoning Administrator,
Peter Erb, noted that Bill and Patti Drew need to consider adequate setbacks in
light of the possibility of a future road to serve as access to the Russell
property. The Drews said they were
aware of the potential for further development next to their lot. Peter also mentioned leaving room for a
future right-of-way serving development west of the proposed house site. George Bedard said that the ROW is under
Drew control, and there is plenty of room for any future access.
Both
Ted and Roger Kohn reviewed the deed language concerning shared road
maintenance. Roger thought it looked
fine. The shared portion of the
existing driveway is already 18 feet wide, and will not need to be
expanded. The Drews said they would
like to build a garage in the future.
The building envelope shown on the plan is not specific, it only
designates the set backs around the lot.
Ted expressed continued concern about future access to the Russell
lot and whether the placement of a
garage would meet setbacks from any future road. Patti Drew described where they hoped to build the house and
future garage. George Bedard said it
was unlikely a future road would go strait up along the Drew property line to
access Russell’s due to the grades. Ted
suggested that for this particular application, substantial construction be
defined as “conveyance of the lot”.
With
no further comments, Ted closed the
public hearing and made the following motion which is attached to the end of
these minutes. Fred Haulenbeek seconded
the motion. Roger got further
clarification on the location of the
building envelope. George Bedard
will draw and label the building envelope which will be located in the
southeast corner of the lot. The
motion was unanimously approved, except for George Bedard who recused himself
from the Commission.
2. Emmons - Continuation of Sketch Plan Review. Both George Bedard and Roger Kohn recused
themselves from the discussions. Ted
described the December 15th site visit to Clinton Emmons’ proposed 3
lot subdivision at his parcel located on CVU road. At the site visit Planning Commission members talked about road
setbacks and grades; saw house sites; walked the property; saw new access road
site to CVU road; and talked about sewer and power, blasting, screening and
house site visibility.
Ted
said the concerns were the ability to meet setback and grade requirements for
the common road, and building envelopes and cutting limits. Ted liked the screening of the existing
house, it fits the landscape. Mr.
Emmons said screening shouldn’t be a big issue because there are lots of big
trees, but it is a hill so you will see the houses from some places. The Planning Commission would definitely
like clearing limits set around each building envelope.
Mr.
Emmons described the driveway location and lessening the grade. He had talked to an excavator about taking
the ledge down near the garage. Fred
noted the driveway needed to be engineered.
Mr. Emmons thought the engineering work was just for the septic. Ted said the technical details of the road
should be looked at before going to final plat and suggested the Planning
Commission require preliminary plat review for this project. Other members agreed. Peter Erb brought up setbacks of the garage,
and said if the setback is measured from the center of the R.O.W, Mr. Emmons
should make sure to leave room for road maintenance in the R.O.W. Mr. Emmons said the existing ramps at the
garage will be relocated.
Ted
then made the following motion:
The
Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval to Clint
Emmons for a 3 lot single family residential subdivision on land owned by Clint
Emmons and located south of the CVU Road. Lot # 1 is to be approximately 2.4
acres, Lot # 2 is to be approximately 3.9 acres and Lot # 3 is to be
approximately 3.7 acres. The subdivision shall be as proposed by the applicant
and shall be subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. It
is impossible to determine if all lots will comply with the Zoning ByLaws
without more complete engineering information about the location, grades and
curves of the common road and driveways. This determination is best made with
engineering data at a preliminary plat review.
2.
In accordance
with section 4.1.4 of the subdivision regulations preliminary plat review will
be required to establish that this subdivision will meet the standards required
by the Zoning Bylaws.
30.
The applicant shall meet all the preliminary plat application
submission requirements listed in Section 5.1. Specifically, but not limited to
, building envelopes, screening, burial of all utilities from existing overhead
poles, sewer and water locations and lighting plans, building color, and
driveway and road location, curves and grades, runoff protection during
construction, provisions for handling water along the driveway and building
sites, and clearing limits.
Carrie Fenn
seconded the motion. It was approved by
all of the five remaining members.
3.
Manning - Transfer of Land to Adjoiner and Development on Private Right
of Way. George Bedard recused
himself from these discussions. Muriel
Manning and Jeff Hinsdale, who was acting as her spokesperson, came before the
board with two proposals. One was for
access to the develop-able portion of her 19.90 acre lot from a section of
Partridge Hill Road, which is a private road.
She wishes to create a single family residential lot on 14 acres. The second proposal was to transfer the
remaining 5.7 acres on the southwest
side of the 19.90 acre lot to the adjoining town cemetery. Mr. Hinsdale noted that it had been Mrs.
Manning’s and her husband’s wishes to give some of their land to the cemetery,
and the proposed one house lot shouldn’t be a high impact to the area.
Ted said the issue
was access of the ROW and the stream crossing where the road does not meet the
18' width requirement. Ted also noted
that there is a road association for some of the other lots. George Bedard said that once you cross the
stream the road is 16' to 17' wide.
Carrie asked if the highway department had made any comments. Faith said they had not because it is a
private road. She added that the Fire
Department is depending on the Planning Commission to require the 18' width.
Brad Parker who is
neighboring landowner spoke from the audience.
He first introduced other members of the audience who were also
concerned neighbors. Mr. Parker noted
the town portion of the road is dangerous near the culvert, there is a steep
drop off. He is worried about increased
traffic on the road. He added the road
association has approached the town about the stream crossing on the private
portion of the road because it is very narrow and the culvert could collapse
from heavy trucks. Neighboring
landowner, Bill Bartlett spoke from the audience. He expressed concern about the culverts and the extra traffic
from the proposed residential lot.
Another neighboring landowner, Arthur Goldsweig described the flooding
problems on their road, and how the road association cleaned out the culverts
this past Fall. There was a great deal
of discussion from the audience members about their road association, and their
desire for Mrs. Manning or the new landowner to pay for the road and culvert
improvements, especially if heavy construction vehicles damage the
culvert. They were concerned that they
would have to share in the costs of improvements. Roger explained that the Planning Commission can’t order the road
association to do anything. Ted felt
that whoever damages the culvert should fix it, but given that 8 houses already
cross this stream, he has a problem with making the new owners pay for the
improvements. A stream crossing is
already a long-time coming community project, and to have the 9th
house lot pay solely for it is unreasonable.
Carrie and Roger both expressed their agreement with Ted.
Throughout the
discussions both Ted and Faith explained that Planning Commission can only
review the issue of access to a land-locked parcel on a private road. The Planning Commission does not have
authority to review impact of development or public road issues.
Catharine Parker
and her husband Brad Parker had many issues with the location of the driveway
of the lot. Mrs. Parker felt there was
no safe location for a driveway to enter the road due to poor site
distances. Mr. Parker said he drives
very fast on the road to make it up the hill, and wouldn’t be able to see a car
exiting a driveway. Mr. Hinsdale
disagreed with Mrs. Parker. George Bedard described two possible driveway
locations for the lot. Given the
opposing views, the Planning Commission would normally schedule a site visit to
see for themselves. Since Mrs. Manning
needed a decision tonight, it was eventually decided that the Zoning
Administrator would have to make a determination regarding a safe location for
the driveway.
Ted, with the
input of Roger, made the following motions, which are attached to the end of
these minutes. George Munson seconded
the motion for Development on a Private Right of Way, and it was unanimously
approved. Jean Isham seconded the
motion for Transfer of Land to Adjoiner.
It too was unanimously approved.
There was a
discussion about timing of the conveyance of the adjoining land prior to
selling the 14 acre lot. It was
determined that no one cannot buy the 14 acres until the smaller piece of land
is transferred to the Town, otherwise it would be considered a subdivision.
4. Ayer - Sketch Plan Review. George Bedard recused himself from
discussions. Raymond Ayer described two
subdivision proposals on different parts of the Cedar Knoll Country Club
property. The first is a new 2 acre
triangular house lot at the corner of
Hines Road and Route 116. The
second is an expansion of previously approved Lot #2 on Gilman Road,
adding 2+ acres resulting in a 5.18
acre lot. This would create room for a
possible future right of way to land to the east.
The lot width and
depth of the triangular lot was discussed.
Ted said the lot met technical requirements. Faith noted issues of set backs from agricultural lands, and
preservation of scenic and natural resources like open fields. Jean Isham questioned the well location so
close to agricultural lands. Mr. Ayer
noted that drainage on the Bissonette parcel drains towards the Bissonette’s,
not his proposed residential lot.
George Bedard said an Act 250 amendment will be required.
There was a strong
sentiment that a site visit by the DRB would be necessary. Faith said the Planning Commission could not
continue this sketch plan review for the DRB to pick up. She suggested Mr. Ayer withdraw his
application and resubmit to the DRB next month. Mr. Ayer didn’t wish to do this.
Discussions continued about the agricultural soils on this lot. Mr. Ayer pointed out that farming equipment
is so large now, it’s not manageable to work this small triangular lot. Carrie noted that the lot is very flat, and
the visibility of a house is an issue.
Mr. Ayer described his plans for screening.
The Gilman Road
proposal was reviewed. Mr. Ayer said he
wanted to re-create a previously approved lot that he had swapped. When it was swapped it converted back to the
golf course. He said the third lot
would no longer be a lot and he was keeping the ROW to keep the same septic
location. Ledges dictate the location
of some of the lot lines. Ted and Roger
agreed with Faith that it would be best to deal with this proposal as a
subdivision.
Fred said the DRB
may have other issues or re-hash the same issues discussed tonight. He was inclined to approve the 2 lots at
this point, and let the DRB take over but to require preliminary plat
review. Ted agreed and made the
following motion, which he amended to include a site visit scheduled with the
DRB prior to preliminary plat review.
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sketch plan approval for the following two
new residential lots created from the Cedar Knoll Country Club property:
1) A 2 + acre
triangular lot on the north side of Hines Road as shown on a sketch by Raymond
Ayer dated 11/21/01.
2) A 2+ acre lot
on a private right-of-way on the east side of Gilman Road, in the location
originally approved as Lot #3 in the 1991 subdivision approval for this area,
and later “swapped” for a new 2 acre lot on the north side of the right-of-way
in an approval for simple parceling in 2001.
The re-created 2+ acre lot would use the right-of-way and septic area
previously approved for Lot #2 and Lot #2 would merge with the remainder of the
Cedar Knoll Country Club property, connected by a 50' owned right-of-way, as
marked on a copy of a plat, and labeled “Sketch Plan” 11-21-01.
This approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1.
In accordance
with section 4.1.4 of the Subdivision Regulations preliminary plat review will
be required. The applicant shall meet
all the preliminary plat application submission requirements for major
subdivisions listed in 5.1.
2.
The final
subdivision design shall include the following for the lot on Hines Road:
a. A
building envelope to minimize the visual intrusion of a residence in this open
location, with a 200' minimum setback from the western boundary to the western
edge of the building envelope to provide separation between the agricultural
use and the residence. This may be
reduced if evidence can be provided that it is not needed.
b. A
landscaping plan around the building envelope to provide additional visual
buffer.
3.
A site visit
with the DRB prior to the DRB meeting when this application is scheduled for
preliminary plat review.
Fred seconded the motion, and the amended
motion. It was unanimously approved,
with the exception of George Bedard who recused himself from the vote.
Faith reminded the members that the next
meeting is a work session on Wednesday, January 16. She also suggested that the Planning Commission start meeting the
2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month, since the DRB will
be meeting the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month. Those members who will be on the Planning
Commission agreed that would be alright.
The first “new” Planning Commission
meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13th.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary
HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Giroux/Drew
Subdivision
January
9, 2002
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby
grants final plat approval and development on a private right-of-way approval
to Ernest & Theresa Giroux and William & Patty Drew for a single family
residential subdivision of 3.86 acres off the remainder of the 60 plus acre
property owned by Ernest & Theresa Giroux. The subdivision shall be as
shown on a map titled Part of Ernest and Theresa Giroux Property, by George
Bedard, Inc.and dated 11/27/01 and also Site Plan, Drew, by Vermont Contours
Inc, dated 12/20/01 and shall be subject to the following conditions:
1.
Utility lines
shall be placed underground as required in Section 7.9.1 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
20.
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.
30.
Any principal
structure and any garage shall be located in the building envelope shown on the
plat. This building envelope, as
proposed, shall include only the southeast corner of the lot above the 50'
Robert Giroux ROW. Any construction
outside of this envelope shall require further review and approval shall be
obtained. This building envelope is to
be shown on the mylar that is to be filed.
40.
A roadway
serving two houses is proposed along an existing driveway in a 50' right-of way
on the remaining Giroux land. The shared portion of the road shall be
maintained in accordance with the Hinesburg Town road standards for a
"lane", except that blacktop is not required. The road shall be
maintained, and plowed with a traveled surface at least 18 ft. wide, and the
road shall have at least 12 inches of gravel.
The driveway serving the lot shall be a minimum 12' in width with
12" of gravel.
50.
The proposed
deed language as submitted for setting forth the method of sharing the
maintenance, repair, snow plowing and any other expenses for the common portion
of the roadway, is approved and shall be included in the deed to this lot.
60.
The applicant
is reminded of the necessity of obtaining any other necessary local or state
permits such as a subdivision permit, building permit, Act 250 permit, etc.
70.
The dwelling
shall be connected to Town water and sewer as indicated in Site Plan, Drew,
12/20/01. Before obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy the owner of the land shall
require that an engineer submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator stating
that the connections have been made in accordance with the approved plans.
80.
"Substantial
Construction" for this subdivision shall consist of survey and pinning of
the lot, and conveyance of the lot to separate ownership . In accordance with
Section 8.9 of the subdivision regulations, if substantial construction has not
begun within 3 years from the date of this approval, final plat approval shall
expire.
90.
In accordance
with State statute, the Mylar of this subdivision and a copy of the conditions
of approval shall be recorded in the Hinesburg Land Records within 90 days of
this approval.
100.
No further
subdivision of this property shall occur without review and approval of the
Hinesburg Planning Commission.
110.
The lot(s)
shall not be sold or a zoning permit issued for building construction until a
Subdivision Permit from the State Division of Wastewater Management is obtained
or if a project review sheet indicates that no subdivision permit is required
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg
Planning Commission on January 9, 2002.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt, Chairman
Hinesburg Planning Commission
HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Manning,
Development on a Private R.O.W.
January
9, 2002
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants approval
to Muriel Manning for a
development on a private right-of-way serving one single family
residential lot approximately 14 acres in size, located on the south side of Partridge Hill Road (Tax Map
#17-22-45.1). This approval shall be as
proposed by the applicant and subject to the following conditions:
1.
The private
portion of Partridge Hill Road currently serves nine residences. The road up to the new driveway 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 traveled surface at least 18 ft. wide, and the road shall have at
least 12 inches of gravel. However the
portion of the road crossing the stream need not be widened by the applicant,
and the roadway shall taper to this section in an appropriate manner.
2.
The driveway
serving the residence shall be built, maintained and plowed with a traveled
surface at least 12 ft.. wide, and the driveway shall have at least 12 inches
of gravel.
3.
The driveway
shall intersect the private road more than 100 ft. westerly of the northeast
corner of the lot, and more than 100 ft. easterly of the culvert crossing the
stream, and shall have at least a 15 inch steel culvert. If the applicant desires a plastic culvert
the applicant will return and obtain approval from the Development Review
Board.
4.
The owner of
the residential lot shall share in the costs of maintenance, repair and
snowplowing of the private roadway. If
the neighboring road association does not permit the owners of this lot to
join, these costs shall be shared equally by all lots using the portion of the
road from the town road to driveway. If
the road association for the neighboring lots will permit the owner of this lot
to join the association, the lot owner shall join the association and shall
have a vote and pay expenses shared in the same manner as the neighboring
lots. (This does not require the lot
owner to agree to any covenants on the lot.)
If a lien is imposed on neighboring properties for failure to pay these
costs, the same provisions will apply to this lot. The owner of the residential lot will pay and be solely
responsible for any damage during construction to the roadway or stream
crossing.
5.
Before
obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling, the owner of the land
shall require that the contractor improving 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. Since 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.
This shall only be done, however if the contractor in his letter to the
Planning Commission specifically states the location in which less than 12
inches of new gravel has been added, and provides an estimate (based on
measurement, if this is feasible) of the amount of gravel located on the
present roadway.
6.
Prior to
installing the driveway road cut onto the private road, the applicant shall
show the location to the Hinesburg Zoning Administrator. If the Hinesburg Zoning Administrator
believes that the road cut may not be in an appropriate location due to safety,
approval for the location of the driveway shall be obtained by the Development
Review Board.
7.
The deed to the
lot shall refer to the conditions of this motion.
8.
A copy of this
approval motion shall be recorded in the Hinesburg Land Records within 90 days
of this approval.
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg
Planning Commission on January 9, 2002.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt, Chairman
Hinesburg Planning Commission
HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Manning
- Sketch Plan Approval for Transfer of Land
January
9, 2002
The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby
grants sketch plan approval to Muriel Manning for a Transfer of Land to
Adjoiners, to transfer approximately 5.7 acres of land from her existing 19+/-
acre parcel located on the south side of Partridge Hill Road (Tax Map
#17-22-45.1), to the Town of Hinesburg to incorporate into the Town Cemetery
property, leaving 14 +/- acres. The
transfer of land to adjoiners shall be as described in a letter by George
Bedard dated January 2, 2002, and shall be subject to the following conditions:
1.
The transferred
land shall become part of the neighboring parcel and shall not be further
subdivided except in accordance with these regulations.
2.
The deed and
survey shall state that no new development may take place on the transferred land
as a separate lot without further review by the Planning Commission or
Development Review Board.
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg
Planning Commission on January 9, 2002.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt, Chairman
Hinesburg Planning Commission