HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004
Approved
12/07/04
Members Present: George Munson, Tom McGlenn, Greg Waples,
Robert Gauthier, Clint Emmons, and Howdy Russell.
Member Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.
Members of the
Audience: Jessica Pollock, John, Sara
and Justin Driscoll, John & Jean Kiedaisch, Tim Ayer, Gay Regan, Jim
Carroll.
1. MINUTES Greg
Waples made the motion to accept the minutes of November 2, 2004 and this
motion was seconded by George Munson and passed.
2. EDDY – REVISED FINAL PLAT Tom McGlenn opened
the warned public hearing
for a revision to the final
plat approval granted to Paul Eddy to create one new lot at his property on the
south side of the Charlotte Road. The
original approval had specified that the utility lines be installed as shown as
“proposed” on the plat. They have since
found a better location for these lines in a location more to the west. Alex has therefore, re-written the Official
Decision to coincide with the actual location.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to close the warned public hearing for the revision to the Eddy Official
Decision. This motion was seconded by
George Munson and passed. Howdy Russell
then made the motion to approve the revisions to the Official Decision for the
Eddy subdivision on the south side of the Charlotte Road. This motion was seconded by Greg Waples and
passed unanimously.
3. CRIMMINS – SKETCH PLAN Nick
Nowlan, from McCain Consulting Inc., was
present with Justin and John
Driscoll for a continued sketch plan discussion of the Marilyn Driscoll
Crimmins proposed subdivision. Her
property is located on the west side of the intersection of the North Road and
Route 116 and she has proposed creating 6 new residential lots.
Several Board members met
with Nick and the Driscoll on Saturday, the 13th to conduct a site
visit and the following aspects of the plan were observed:
a) The location of the potential shared septic area and
the location of the potential septic areas for lot 3and 4 if a PRD plan.
b) The potential new road location for a non-PRD
proposal and access to route 116.
c) Potential house locations for both PRD & Non-PRD
proposals.
d) The location of the snowmobile trail.
e) Approximate lot boundaries and topography of the
site.
f)
The existing screening
from the golf course and adjacent houses.
Nick then submitted copies
of a new plan proposing this subdivision be a Planned Residential Development
(PRD) and the following issues were then discussed:
a) They are not requesting a density bonus by proposing
this PRD.
b) The members that had attended the site visit agreed
that after walking the property that this new plan would be preferential to a
standard subdivision.
c) This plan would locate the houses more out of the
meadow and further to the back of the lots, which would minimize their visibility.
d) There would be a separate lot of approximately 4
acres in size, which would be open land with the shared septic system. Two of
the Driscoll brothers would build on two of these lots and plan to own the open
land and hay it. It was suggested that
this field could be kept mowed for a playing field or maybe it this would be a
good idea to keep this land in agricultural use.
e) Greg felt that because this property is so close to
heavily traveled Route 116 and not a large piece of property, this amount of
houses would be acceptable. There also
are quite a few small residential lots in this area.
f)
The developers were
encouraged to try to retain the large and healthy trees on the property that
would help with screening. The Board
would like to see dark stone used for the driveway and the more visible houses
be a color that blends.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to close the public discussion of the Crimmins proposed sketch plan and to
direct staff to draft Findings of Fact and Sketch plan approval. This motion was seconded by George Munson
and passed unanimously.
4. AYER – SKETCH PLAN
George Bedard was present
with Raymond Ayer for a
proposed subdivision on the
Ayer property on the Gilman Road.
George explained the following aspects of this proposal (on a new
slightly altered plan):
a) The Ayers are proposing a 5-lot residential
subdivision accessed from an existing private road off the Gilman Road on
property that is generally west of Cedar Knoll Golf Course.
b) George felt that the road within this new subdivision
would be gentle terrain.
c) There would be a common shared septic system on lot
#1 and all the lots would be approximately 2 acres in size. This septic area is sufficient to support a
6th house, which could be located in the area for lot #5.
d) The plan used for the meeting showed the location of
a proposed roadway to additional golf course land, which could be used for
future development.
e) There are a lot of mature trees in this area that
would screen the houses, and the approximately 40 acres of land to the north of
this area is quite wooded.
f)
There is an existing
homeowners association for maintenance etc. of the current existing roadway and
these new homeowners would become a part of that association. The Ayers may own the land under the
right-of-way.
g) It is understood that the boundary line for lot #1
may have to change to maintain a 100’ wide strip of owned land out to the
Gilman Road.
h) Gay Regan who lives in this part of Hinesburg stated
that she does not object to the 5-lot subdivision but is concerned about the
incremental growth that seems to be occurring here. Peter Erb urged her and other townspeople become involved when
the Planning Commission revises the Zoning Bylaw.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
that the Board conduct a site visit to the Ayer proposed subdivision on the
Saturday December 4th at 9:00 a.m. and to continue the sketch plan
discussion to the Board’s meeting on December 21st. This motion was seconded by Greg Waples and
passed.
5. DAVIS – VARIANCES Jeff and Jean Davis were next
on the agenda to request
variances to construct a
garage on property they have recently purchased on the south side of Shadow
Lane. Jeff explained the various
aspects of their appeal:
a) They own a lot directly on Lake Iroquois on the north
side of Shadow Lane where last year they removed an old camp and constructed a
new camp.
b) The property in question did previously have a camp
on it and was burned by the owner in 1993.
This camp had been a pre-existing non-complying structure due to setback
limitations.
c) They are proposing to construct a garage that would
be 32’ X 28” with a storage area in the second story. Due to the small size of the lot, they are requesting a variance
of 5 feet from the required 60’ frontyard setback and a 20-foot variance from
the required 30 ‘ rearyard setback.
They would also like to have a paved area in front of the garage, which
would require a variance of 21% from the required 10% for lot coverage in this
Shoreline District.
In reviewing appeals for
variances, the Development Review Board must ascertain that an applicant meet
the 5 criteria as required by State Statue.
Greg Waples had done research on this subject and found two Vermont
Supreme Court cases that would be relevant to this appeal: DeWitt vs. the Town of Brattleboro and L.M.
Pike and Son vs. The Town of Waterford.
Greg explained the following
reasons why he felt that the Board could not answer criteria #3 which states
“The unnecessary hardship indicated above has NOT been created by the
appellant” and the Board must answer in the affirmative:
a) The Vermont Supreme Court has said that it is the
purpose of Vermont law to eventually eliminate pre-existing non-conforming uses
and non-complying structures.
b) John Henry, the previous owner of this lot, under
Hinesburg Zoning Bylaw had one year to rebuild this camp, which he did not.
c) When the Davis’s purchased this empty lot they did so
with actual or constructive knowledge that the property was a non-conforming
lot. Mr. Davis’ hardship, if any, was
not created by the Zoning Ordinance, but by very acts of Davis himself.
Jim Carroll, representing
owners of a camp on Shadow Lane felt that the Board could not deny any
development on this small lot.
It was then suggested that
Jeff and Jean should obtain legal council on this issue and interpretation of
the State law.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to continue the warned public hearing of the appeal by Jeff and Jean Davis for
variances to construct a garage on Shadow Lane to the Board’s January 4, 2005
meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall.
This motion was seconded by Greg Waples and passed unanimously.
6. OTHER
BUSINESS
The meeting was adjourned at
9:40.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly Russell
Recording
Secretary