TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

May 3, 2005

Approved May 17, 2005

DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn (Chair), Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples (arrived at 8pm).

DRB Members Absent: none.

**NOTE: Lisa Godfrey was appointed by the Selectboard on May 2 to fill Howdy Russell’s position.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Joan Hughes, Pamela Pratt, Betty Wright, Peggy Jones, Patrick Coulombe, Millie Barry, Alan Brace, Scott Brace, Dickerman Orvis, Steven Work, Hilde Caswell, George Bedard, Jared Stolper, Dori Barton, Andrea & Brad Brainard, Sally Stewart.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Appeal of Zoning Permit Issued for New Boathouse; Appellant: Pamela Pratt; Permit Issued to: Jared Stolper; East Shore Lane:

* continued from January 4, 2005 meeting *

Pamela Pratt is appealing a zoning permit issued by the Zoning Administrator’s (ZA) on November 5, 2004 to construct a new boathouse on property owned by Jared and David Stolper (parcel number 15-20-25.000). The Stolper property is located at the end of East Shore Lane, on Lake Iroquois (southeastern side). The Appellant is part owner of a camp on the abutting property to the north of the Stolper parcel.

A zoning permit for the boathouse was initially issued on August 2, 2004 (permit #2004-85). In September, the ZA observed that the partially completed structure was different from what was shown in the initial application. The ZA instructed the Stolpers to stop work on the structure, and apply for a new zoning permit with revised plans that ensured the structure would not exceed 600 square feet. The Stolpers applied for a new zoning permit with revised plans. The ZA issued a new zoning permit (permit #2004-125) for the revised boathouse on November 5, 2004. It is this later permit (#2004-125) that has been appealed.

See January 4, 2005 meeting minutes for the initial discussion of this application. A site visit was also conducted on January 8, 2005, with observations entered into the record at the February 1, 2005 meeting. The continuance to May was agreed to by all parties in order to allow Mr. Stolper time to have some survey work done.

Pam said that it appears that survey work is being done, but she is unsure of the result. George Bedard (surveyor for Mr. Stolper) presented his deed and field research on the Stolper parcel and surrounding properties. He displayed a map showing property lines based on deed references as well as some field observations. He described how the properties were originally laid out starting from south of the Stolper parcel. Based on his research, he said that there is at least 17’ from the south property line of the Stolper parcel (bordering Barry parcel) to the boathouse in question. Pam said that some of the camp lots to the north actually have surveys on file in the Town land records. She asked George why he his investigation didn’t start in this area. George said he started to south because that is how lot lines are described in the deeds and how these parcels were originally laid out. George said the survey(s) to the north are specific to those properties and likely won’t help elucidate the property lines in question in this case. George concluded by saying that he hasn’t completed the survey (still needs to thoroughly field check the area for monumentation), but that he doesn’t anticipate any significant changes from what he presented tonight.

Tom said the substantive appeal issues were primarily based on the necessary side yard setback (minimum of 10’) and how this related to the overall size of the boathouse. The boathouse must be no larger than 600 square feet in order to qualify for the reduced 10’ side yard setback. Jared presented a revised design for the boathouse, which reduces the size from the original 16’x20’ proposal. He showed that the new design eliminates 4’x16’ on the 2^nd floor, which will make the boathouse 576 square feet, or 596 square feet if the landing is included.

Alex reiterated the 2 basic points of the appeal (as noted by Tom above). He also clarified that the Board was ruling on the action taken by the Zoning Administrator (to issue the permit) back on November 5, 2005. Ted felt there was no reason to overturn the zoning permit on the setback concern, because the preliminary survey evidence indicates that the minimum 10’ setback is satisfied. He also felt there was no reason to overturn the zoning permit on the size concern, because the revised boathouse plans indicate the structure will be no larger than 600 square feet.

Pam said she was confused because Jared had first built a structure that was over 600 square feet. Alex clarified that zoning permits can be amended prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy as long as the changes are minor and create no compliance issues. Peter clarified that he felt the boathouse design submitted for the November 5, 2004 zoning permit met the 600 or less square foot requirement due to certain interior design features.

Tom MOVED to deny the appeal with a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator to modify the zoning permit to reflect the new boathouse design. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Lisa abstaining. Tom also recommended that Jared complete the survey work.

Final Plat Public Hearing for Subdivision Revision – Iverson Property (Lot 2) on Silver Street:

Ginny Iverson explained that she would like to make a very minor change to the plat for her 3-lot subdivision, which was approved on July 22, 2004. She would like to modify the building envelope for lot 2 to allow a bit more building area to the west or back side of the approved envelope. This expansion will be off set by shrinking the envelope on the east or front side. She clarified that the net building envelope area is not increasing. The proposed revised plat also includes a new note pertaining to the new building envelope’s proximity to the primary and replacement septic areas. The new plat also includes a note (pursuant to section 2.2 #3 of the Subdivision Regulations) that the land transferred to the Holt parcel (which was part of the original subdivision review/approval) shall not be developed without subdivision review by the DRB. Ginny said the Vermont Land Trust owns a conservation easement to all the land outside of the approved building envelopes, and they have agreed to the proposed change.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing, and to approve the proposed plat revisions pursuant to the written decision/approval as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Final Plat Public Hearing for Subdivision Revision – Brainard Property (Lot C) on Crow Hill Road (off Shelburne Falls Road):

Brad & Andrea Brainard, owners of lot C in the Boutin Subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District (AG), explained their request to amend a subdivision permit granted on April 2nd 2002 in order to increase the size of the approved building envelope on the lot. Brad said the existing building envelope is approximately 70’x200’ (14,000 square feet or 0.34 acres). They would like to expand the envelope to approximately 43,000 square feet (0.99 acres) to accommodate the proposed house and barn.

Greg asked why a larger building envelope is needed. Brad said that they would like a large envelope to better fit the house and barn in a design so as to create a courtyard effect with more enclosed space. Brad explained that the barn will have an accessory apartment in it, and that they plan to live in this unit while the house is being built. Greg asked Ted if he remembered why the envelope was created for this lot. Ted said he didn’t recall the reason for this specific lot, but he remembers a general recommendation from the Planning Commission (pre DRB) to minimize the building envelopes. Ted said that the applicant (Boutin) actually decided the delineation of the building envelopes for this subdivision. Peter said he couldn’t find any reason for the precise location of this lot’s building envelope, except that it does help to minimize the impact on the prime agricultural soils that are present on the lot.

Dori Barton (Brainard’s consultant) said that this project will require the revision of the existing Act 250 permit. She said she anticipates no problems with the Act 250 revision, as she has already discussed the project with Act 250 staff.

Ted asked the rest of the Board for clarification on why another lot in this subdivision was denied a request to enlarge that lot’s building envelope. The Board discussed the fact that this application (Evart) was denied because the proposed envelope was excessive and the proposed use (an accessory structure to house a large RV) was inconsistent with the prior approval. Furthermore, the Evart application was strongly opposed by abutting landowners. Brad noted that various neighbors have expressed support for their application, and that their existing building envelope is the smallest of the entire subdivision.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing on this final plat application. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0. Ted MOVED to approve the proposed change to the building envelope on lot C, and that the final mylar be filed within 90 days of the written decision with all the original decision conditions to remain in force. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0. Greg noted that the Board should be cautious that subdivision revisions don’t become common practice. He said that this could be the top of a slippery slope that could create a lot of unnecessary work for the Board after well thought out projects have already been discussed and decided.

Sketch Plan Review for 4-lot Subdivision – Robinson Property on Magee Hill Road:

* continued from March 29, 2005 meeting *

Greg recused himself from the sketch plan review since he was absent for the initial review on March 29 and since he was unable to make the site visit.

Tom explained that this was the continuation of a sketch plan review for a 4-lot subdivision of Jay and Carol Robinson’s property on the east side of Magee Hill Road (RR2 zoning district). The applicants purchased lots #2 and #3 of the Palmer Family subdivision that was approved on October 2, 1996. Although they now own two separate lots this application will remove their common boundary as it now exists and replace it with new internal boundaries to create the four lots, one of which will contain the existing house and accessory apartment. Tom explained that the Board had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting, and asked for observations from the site visit first.

Ted noted the wetland areas between lots B and D, as well as wet areas near the road on lot C. Tom noted that the eastern boundary of lots A & B is not along the tree line. He noted the spring location along the side of the road that serves the abutting property across the road (Work property). He also said the possible building area on lot C appeared fairly small due to road setbacks and wet areas. Tom also felt the driveway to lot D would require engineering given the wet areas, slopes, etc.

Peter noted that the unmapped stream that crosses the lower portion of the property would qualify as a stream for setback purposes. He also said that the proposed building in this area (lot D) would have to be carefully planned if the trees were to be preserved. Tom noted that Jay had pointed out a 250 year old maple tree with an 18’ circumference on lot D. Clint noted that there was a patch of trees upslope from the power line on lot B. Lisa noted that the house locations for lots B&C were in open areas rather than in close proximity to tree/forest edges. Steve Work (abutting landowner) noted that the water running into the road side wet area comes in part from the hillside. Dickerman Orvis (abutting landowner) informed the Board that he also has a spring near the road at the southern corner of lot D.

Ted asked Jay about the possibility of getting access to lot D via the existing driveway. George thought this was a good idea. Jay said he’d prefer to do it that way, but is concerned about getting across and down the ledge areas. Steve Work said such an alternate access would address some of his concerns regarding potential impact on his spring. Ted and George discussed alternate lot layouts and house locations. Jay and Carol said there is flexibility in the lot lines and some flexibility in possible house locations. Tom said he has concerns about balancing the visibility of this development from public roads with the Applicant’s desire to site houses for good views.

Steve Work said he has concerns about impact on his spring from the proposed residential uses. He said he isn’t concerned about animal waste, which currently runs into the area of the spring, but he feels that pesticides, household cleaners, etc. are a bigger threat. Tom reiterated his desire to see engineering information on lot D’s driveway. He would also like to see a building envelope on lot C that addresses the setbacks and wet areas. He also felt that the next application (e.g., preliminary plat) should address the visibility of lot B and potentially other lots depending on the proposed building locations. Ted said the Applicant should have an engineer address the hydrology of the site – i.e., where the water is going, runoff patterns, wetland locations, and how all of this will be handled post construction. George said it is important to make sure stormwater runoff does not leaving the site any faster than it currently does.

Clint suggested that Jay and Carol consider smaller lots that are clustered in order to keep the development away from the more difficult areas on the front or downslope side of the parcel. Clint said the subdivision might benefit from being redesigned as a PRD with clustering. Jay said he is willing to consider this, and Tom encouraged him to work with staff.

George MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to June 7 to give the Robinsons time to explore alternate layouts. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Greg abstaining. Jay and Carol thanked the Board for the input and said that they would work with staff. Tape recording was switched to side B.

Sketch Plan Review for 3-lot, 2-unit Subdivision/PRD – Stewart Property on North Road:

The Board discussed an earlier sketch plan with the Applicant on August 3 and October 5, 2004. Based on feedback from those meetings (and a DRB site visit), the Applicant has submitted a new sketch plan.

Sally Stewart explained her request for Sketch Plan approval of a 3-lot Subdivision & Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zoning District. The subject parcel is located on the west side of North Road, about ½ mile south of the Richmond Road intersection. Much of this parcel is hilly and forested. The Applicant’s home is located on the eastern portion of the parcel with an accessory structure for storage (actually an old mobile home) even further to the east near the frontage. The property is served by an existing driveway, but also has the benefit of possible access via a right of way (ROW) across the abutting Hathaway property to the south. To the west of the existing house, the land is forested and climbs fairly quickly to the western boundary of the parcel.

The proposed 3-lot PRD includes a small lot (approx. ½ to ¾ acres) along the frontage of North Road, a 3-acre lot in the middle of the parcel, and a 3-acre lot at the back of the parcel. The small lot on North Road constitutes the new building lot. It contains the accessory structure (mobile home used for storage) that will be replaced with a new home. It also contains the existing septic system that will be enlarged to serve both the existing house and the new house. This lot will have direct access to North Road via a shared driveway with the middle lot. The middle lot will retain the existing house. This lot will utilize the shared septic system on the smaller lot. It will have access to North Road via a right of way and shared driveway across the smaller lot. The 3rd lot, at the back and comprising approximately 45% of the parcel, will remain undeveloped, and will serve as the required open space (owned in common by both building lots) for the PRD. A replacement septic area is also shown on this lot.

Sally explained that the mobile home will be dismantled shortly. She said that the parcel has a drilled well and a shallow well. She understands that this part of town has low well yields but feels that this can easily be addressed. She said the most likely solution would be to install a water storage tank (e.g., 1000 gallons) to ensure enough water for the subdivision. Sally said the north side of the lot is less steep than the south side, so the proposed pedestrian access from the front lot to the common land (along the northern property line) might work nicely. She also said that she may have 2 options for the shared septic system – 1) expanding leach field, or 2) add special filters.

Greg felt this new plan responded well to the Board’s prior concerns expressed at the previous sketch plan reviews. He felt this project made sense as a PRD given the prior discussions on site constraints (e.g., access to back of property, etc.) and given that the lot used to have 2 primary uses close to North Road. Ted felt it was important for the Board to make a finding that this PRD makes sense and meets the PRD standards.

Tom MOVED to close the sketch plan review and grant sketch plan approval subject to the drafting of the written decision with conditions. Ted SECONDED the motion. Clint said he was opposed to this PRD because the front lot is so small and because a portion of this lot is encumbered by the shared driveway and the shared leach field. Ted felt the history of the parcel is a mitigating factor since it used to have 2 residential dwellings on it for some time. George suggested a building envelope for the front lot to address concerns about visibility of the new house from the road. Robert pointed out that the Board was concerned about visual impact on the previous application. Greg suggested deepening the front lot to increase its size somewhat. Sally felt this would be difficult given the natural features and her desire for privacy. The motion PASSED 6-1 with Clint voting against.

Other Business:

Greg said that he would be late to the next 2 meetings. He then left the meeting since he could not participate in any remaining items.

Dark Star Site Plan – Review draft decision:

Peter explained that the Applicant is concerned about what tree species is required for landscaping near the new parking area. Peter said the Applicant would prefer to plant arborvitae instead of pine. Tom felt pine was preferable due to snow loading capabilities. George, Clint, and Lisa explained their concerns about the need for adequate landscaping near the parking area. George MOVED to continue this discussion to May 17 to give the applicant an opportunity to explain further. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Ted abstaining.

CVU Event Sign – Review draft decision:

Peter said the decision reflects the dimensions of the LED portion of the sign and the approximate dimensions of the title portion of the sign. George MOVED to approve the decision as amended to add these dimensions. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Ted abstaining.

Wayne Bissonette 2-lot Subdivision – Request for decision modification:

Alex said that Wayne Bissonette would like the Board to modify a few words of the recent sketch plan approval to clarify that the proposed new lot is developable (not just “possible”). The Board felt no change was necessary for 2 basic reasons: 1) the language accurately conveys how this new lot was proposed (destined for cemetery usage), 2) any changes in wording can wait for the final decision. The Board also encouraged staff to discuss this project further with the applicant to get clarity on the ultimate purpose for this new lot. The Board felt that if the applicant wants the lot to be considered as “developable”, then it will need to be reviewed that way.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:20pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date