HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2004
Present: Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Howdy Russell
(left after Ayer review), Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, and Clint Emmons. Also Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator.
Member Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.
Members of the Public: Wayne Bissonette, Darlene Ruggles, David
& Helen Nagel, John Kiedaisch, David & John Lyman, Sandy & Hank
White, and Cindy Blumen.
1. MINUTES Howdy
Russell made the motion to accept the minutes of the December 7, 2004
meeting. This motion was seconded by
George Munson and passed.
Prior to the review of projects, Tom McGlenn put on the board and explained the procedure that the DRB uses in reviewing applications at their meetings.
2.
AYER – CONTINUTED SKETCH PLAN George
Bedard was next on the agenda
with Raymond Ayer for the
continued sketch plan review of the proposed Ayer 5-lot subdivision off the
Gilman Road. [Raymond recorded the
meeting] George B. explained that at the
site visit to the property his had indicated where a 6th lot could
be located and this evening he used a new plan with 6 residential lots on
it. This subdivision is to the east of
the Gilman Road and to the west and south of Cedar Knoll Golf Course.
George Munson and Howdy
Russell were the DRB members that had gone on the site visit with Peter Erb and
George M. had submitted a list some of his observations of the property: there is considerable ledge where the road
is going to go that could require blasting, topography makes screening a concern,
well sites were not discussed, there did not seem to be any wet lands in this
area and select cutting would be good at the building envelopes. Howdy then added there may have to be some
blasting for the cellar holes too, there seems to be enough trees so with
careful cutting visibility may not be an issue if small building
envelopes. Greg Waples had also made a
site visit on his own.
George B. explained some of
the issues brought up in the staff report:
a) They will have a report from an engineer on the plans
for erosion control and run-off in constructing the roadway and several of the
members felt that an engineer should design the portion of the road within this
subdivision,
b) There will be road association and the owner of the
golf course will own the land under this private road. Their lawyer is working on language
concerning and damages that may be caused by golf course activities. There will also be legal language presented
for the shared septic system on lot #1. The owner of lot #1 can only mow the
area where this septic system is located and it cannot be used for a parking
area.
c) The building envelopes will be located on the next
plan and due to the possible visibility of these houses; they will ensure that
trees are saved.
d) The utilities will be underground and may follow the
road.
e) The right-of-way to lots 5 & 6 continues to
approximately 40 acres of land to the east that is not being utilized by the
golf course that could be developed further in the future. George B explained that there is a wet area
and ledges here that could limit development.
f)
They have a letter from
the Fish and Game Department that this area is not a deer yard.
g) There will be a buffer between the private road and
the #3 fairway. There will also be
signage for golfers crossing this roadway.
John Kiedaisch, a member of
the audience, had several concerns about this project: stormwater runoff affecting ground waters
and also the LaPlatte River, these 6 houses affecting wells and the aquifer,
this is a connector for the wildlife corridor, and how much development may
occur in the future on the 40 acres.
Greg commented that he would like to see a master plan indicating future
development. George B said they could
provide a larger map but do not want to spend a lot of money on this.
In summarizing the project,
George M. felt that after visiting the property, it would be OK to develop here
as it is tucked away from the Gilman Road, there is good water, and not prime
ag soils; however it would be good to preserve the trees for screening. Howdy brought up that the fire department
may require a fire pond, and he strongly feels there should be engineered plans
for sections of the road (it was explained that the Board may required
engineered plans for all new roads), that the DRB should look doing a traffic
study of the Gilman Road and requiring developers to help pay for this, and
that the Ayers should perhaps work with a forester to ensure that these houses
are screened. Peter Erb suggested that
it would be good to work on connecting pedestrian and recreational uses for the
subdivision and the Gilman Road.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to direct staff to draft conditions of sketch plan approval to be acted on by
the Board at their next meeting. This
motion was seconded by George Munson and passed unanimously.
***** Howdy
Russell left the meeting at this point
*****
3.
LYMAN – REVISE SITE PLAN Tom Lyman had previously received a
conditional
use permit from the DRB to
construct and operate a woodworking shop at his property on the Shelburne Falls
Road. He has constructed a copula on
the roof of this barn and after received notice from Peter Erb, he has now
shielded this light so it is not as visible.
He is requesting approval now to leave the light on all night.
Tom explained that the light is only a 15-watt bulb and he would like the light on all night long for decorative purposes. His brother John commented that this would be nice for the entrance into Town. Tom had a list of comments from his neighbors who did not have a problem with the light being on all night.
Greg Waples made the motion
to revise condition #3 of the Lyman conditional use permit granted on 11/18/03
to state: the exterior light on the
copula shall be maintained downward and shielded to prevent impacting the
neighbors, have a 15 watt bulb and be on at the discretion of the owner. This motion was seconded by George Munson
and passed unanimously.
4.
NORRIS – SKETCH
PLAN Alan Norris was next on the
agenda to request sketch
plan approval to construct
two apartment houses on property that he and his wife Nancy own on Silver
Street. His engineer Dave Burke of
O’Leary-Burke, Civil Associates, PLC was also present to explain the following
aspects of this proposal:
a) This project is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in
order for the owners to have the parking lot in front of the buildings rather
than in the back as required by Section 3.4.5(5) of the Bylaw. Davie Burke explained having these buildings
with walkout basements could mean less encroachment on the class 2 wetlands on
the back of the property.
b) They plan to remove the remove the existing ranch
house and construct a 4-plex and 5-plex building with two of the units being
3-bedroom and the rest having 2.
c) They will also be seeking a conditional use permit for
constructing within a flood hazard area.
They have a letter from Karl Jurentkuff stating that as long as the
basements are 1 foot above the 327’ 100 year flood level it would be OK
d) They plan on having 19 parking spaces and don’t feel
that they will have any overflow parking that may have to use the parking lot
across Silver Street at the elementary school.
Their lot will be paved (as required in the Village District) and there
will not be any parking allowed on Silver Street.
Dave then addressed the memo
prepared by Alex, the Town Planner, in regard to this project:
a) They have not proposed a sidewalk along the west side
of Silver Street to the village.
However, they would have a raised walkway across this road to the
school. They are also suggesting a “yield”
sign at the intersection with Silver Street and Route 116. Dave stated that there is 300’ of sight
distance from the intersection to this proposed cross walk.
b) They are willing to have a connecting path to the
Devost property to the west that may be developed in the future.
c) Their plan shows additional landscaping for screening
of this parking lot and also for the properties to the north and south.
d) They do not intend to light the parking lot and feel
that the lights on the units will be sufficient.
e) This project will be on Town water and sewer with a
pump station between the two buildings that will pump the sewage into the Town
line. Dave stated that this pump will
not be noisy. If this pump is not
working, there will be an alarm so that a plumber can be notified.
f)
They had submitted
elevations of the fronts of these buildings and it was felt it would be good to
also show the appearance of the back of the buildings.
g) Dave has tried to change the locations of the
buildings and to have this number of units it is not possible to fit them into
this space and not have the parking lot located where it is shown on the plans.
There were several neighbors
present, Hank & Sandy White and Cindy Bluman, who had very strong concerns
about people, especially children, crossing Silver Street in this
location. As homeowners on this busy
street they stated that traffic is very fast on this stretch of road and
therefore any pedestrians would be in danger attempting to get across. They also questioned where this proposed
walkway will access the school property and the fact there is a steep ditch
there. There also needs to be a way for
children to get from the walkway to either the parking lot or the school.
Cindy questioned what the
plans are with the Select Board for the Silver Street and Route 116
intersection and the Board is not sure where that project stands at this
time. She also commented that last year
the LaPlatte River flooded quite high and was concerned that the basements may
be wet.
Darlene Ruggles, homeowner
to the south, was also concerned about this runoff going onto her property,
which is to the west of the Norris land.
Dave explained that her property is also a class 2 wetland and cannot be
developed or used. He also said that
their southern run-off and that from the parking lot will go into the wetland
on the Norris property. She also
commented that traffic onto Route 116 is now backed up every morning and these
additional living units will add to this congestion.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to close the public discussion of the Norris sketch plan review and the Board
discuss this proposal later in the meeting in order to render a decision. This motion was seconded by George Munson
and passed unanimously.
5.
BOVAT/KAUFMAN –
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ron
Bovat was next on the
agenda representing Mortimer
Kaufman, owner of Sunset Lake Villa mobile home park, to request a conditional
use permit. This request is to replace
a 12’ x 66’ home on lot #38 with a 14’ x 70’ home.
Peter Erb explained that the
length does not seem to be a problem but the width will reduce the setback
between the existing homes. Under
Section 5.20.2(3) of the Bylaw, the DRB shall not modify the mobile home lot
line setback standards by more than 50%. Ron explained that the homes in this
park are not on cement pads but as there is a power pole on the south side of
this lot and also a wet area there it would make changing the position of the
home a problem.
Greg Waples explained that
the Board members are very cognizant of the fact that this park provides
much-needed affordable living units for people but that as the units are
replaced with wider homes, the amount of open space is reduced for the
homeowners and their families. At some
time, the DRB is going to have to look at this aspect in reviewing requests for
conditional use permits.
The Board members felt that
they needed more accurate measurements and also the cost of moving the utility
pole before they could make a decision.
Tom McGlenn made the motion
to continue the public hearing for the Bovat/Kaufman appeal for a conditional
use permit to the Board’s January 4, 2005 meeting. This motion was seconded by Robert Gauthier and passed
unanimously.
6.
BOARD DISCUSSION
– NORRIS After having closed the public discussion of the
Norris project, the Board
members then discussed it among themselves.
It was felt the following issues warrant further information and/or need
to be addressed by the applicants:
a) The crosswalk to the school and some traffic calming
methods for this dangerous situation.
How this crosswalk will then connect to the school
b) Plans for a sidewalk on the west side of Silver
Street to the village.
c) Submitting some traffic counts for Silver Street,
which the State may have done recently.
d) The elevations of the back of the property.
The general consensus was
that it is all right to have the parking lot in front of the buildings. However, due to the complexity of the
project, preliminary and final plat should not be combined.
Greg Waples made the motion
to grant sketch plan approval for the Norris project and direct staff to draft
conditions of approval. Due to the
scope of this project, the Board will not combine preliminary and final plat
reviews. This motion was seconded by
George Munson and passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at
10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly
Russell, Recording Secretary