TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

May 17, 2005

Approved June 7, 2005

DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn (Chair), Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples (arrived at 7:50pm).

DRB Members Absent: none.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), David Brown, Ginger Johnson, George Bedard, Andrea Morgante, Gay Regan, Richard & Nancy Bell, Marian Welch, Bob Mason, Michael Bissonette, Gianetta Bertin, Tom Barden, Kelly Leary, Michael Sorce.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision – Welch Property on Lewis Creek Road:

George Bedard presented Marian Welch’s Sketch Plan application for a 2-lot Subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres. It is located on the north side of Lewis Creek Road, just west of Gilman Road; parcel number 12-01-27.100. The parcel is currently developed with the Applicant’s home and a relatively long driveway (approx. 730’). Beyond the house site and the driveway, the rest of the parcel is heavily forested with steep forested ledges to the east of the existing driveway. The property abuts a large, conserved parcel owned by the VT Fish and Wildlife Department. The subject parcel is part of a previous subdivision that was approved on January 3, 1996 (mylar slide 14A). It was the remaining land (approx. 125 acres) in this 1996 subdivision. It subsequently became a 10-acre parcel when the Applicant sold the balance (approx. 115 acres) to the Hinesburg Land Trust via a transfer of land for forestry/agricultural purposes. Even though a new “conservation” lot was formed, this was NOT a subdivision under our regulations and only required a zoning permit. With that said, a survey was filed to show this division (dated December 8, 1998 on mylar slide 28D). The VT Fish and Wildlife Department later acquired the 115 acres from the land trust.

George Bedard described a substantially different lot layout than what had been originally proposed in the application, and delivered to Board members in advance of the meeting. He said that the Regans (abutting owners across Lewis Creek Road) have 1^st right of refusal on any new lot created from the Applicant’s 10-acre parcel. George Bedard said the Applicant has been negotiating with the Regans and with the Hinesburg Land Trust on an alternative plan to suit everyone’s needs. The project would still be a 2-lot subdivision, to create a new building lot; however, this lot would likely be purchased by the Regans and/or the Hinesburg Land Trust for conservation. He said that Marian would retain 2-3 acres around her existing house site, and the new building lot would consist of the remaining 7-8 acres. Both lots would share the initial portion of the existing driveway. Marian’s lot would have a right of way across the new lot to retain the existing access/driveway to her house. The new lot’s driveway would branch of from the existing driveway and proceed east and then northeast to a proposed building envelope. The proposed building envelope is over 150’ from Lewis Creek Road due, in part, to a deed restriction to this effect. Both lots would have access to an off-site septic disposal area on a reserved easement area on an entirely different parcel to the east (on Gilman Road) owned by the Willseys (parcel number 12-01-27.300).

Ted asked for information on the topography of the site. George Bedard explained that there is a steep cobble to the east of the driveway (about ½ way up). He said that a perfectly suitable building area exists to the east of this area, and that it is easily accessible by running the new driveway across the front of the new lot and the gradually up a lesser slope to the building envelope. Clint asked where the Applicant’s existing septic system is located. George Bedard said it is just east of the house. He said this system is functional, but that the reserved septic easement area on the Willsey property will easily handle new primary and replacement disposal areas for both lots.

Lisa and Ted asked if the lot around the Applicant’s existing house would be coincident with the existing property lines in the northwest corner of the parcel. George Bedard said this was yet to be determined. Ted said the Applicant may want to consider the “transfer land to adjoiner” provision if the proposal was going to create a small strip of land around this lot. He was concerned that the proposed lots might not meet the lot shape requirements otherwise.

Tom reviewed the remaining items (natural features, access, shared infrastructure, well isolation areas) in the staff report. George Bedard discussed these items, and said that a site visit should demonstrate that there are no issues with regard to natural features protection (i.e., steep slopes) or access. Gay Regan said that the negotiation process is still ongoing but that all parties are hoping to conserve the new lot being created.

Clint and Ted asked about well isolation distances and the proposed septic systems. George Bedard described where the wells and septic systems would be (proposed and existing). He said that there will be adequate isolation areas around both wells. He said that the well on the Smith property, which abuts the proposed septic area on the Willsey property, will be more than 200’ away from any new septic systems.

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the June 21 meeting to give the Applicant time to submit the revised/evolving lot layout, and to allow for a site visit to be held at 6pm prior to the meeting. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Site Plan Review for Lions Club Farmers Market – United Church Property on Route 116:

No one was present to bring this application forward. No action was taken.

Conditional Use Public Hearing to Expand a Non-Conforming Structure (Add Attached Garage) – Brown Property on Pine Shore Drive (East Side):

**continued from March 15 and February 1 meetings**

Greg recused himself from reviewing this application since he wasn’t present for the earlier meetings.

David Brown explained his conditional use application to expand a non-conforming structure in the Shoreline zoning district. The subject parcel is a small lot on Pine Shore Drive; parcel # 14-21-39.000. The parcel is currently developed with the Applicant’s home, which is a non-conforming structure because it doesn’t meet the 60’ front yard setback (only has 45’ setback). The Applicant would like to add an attached 2-car garage with expansion space on the second floor under dormers. The Pine Shore Drive neighborhood contains many small, 100-foot wide lots, quite a few of which have received variances. This application is for conditional use because the garage addition will be connected to the existing non-complying structure.

David explained that the application has changed since the Board first reviewed it back in February. The proposed addition now conforms to the side yard setback (20’) and keeps the same front yard setback as the existing house (45’). David discussed the issues brought up either in the staff report or at previous meetings.

He said the septic tank and pump station will be moved in front of the house to make room for the addition. He said wastewater is currently pumped under the road to a disposal area, and this will not be changed. He showed a plan for the driveway, and indicated that the driveway will only have a 7% grade (i.e., approximately 38’ long with a drop of 2’). He said that 5 trees will definitely need to be removed, and perhaps as many as 7. He said there are approximately 28 trees on the property, although most are closer to the lake. He said the trees to be removed are mature and don’t provide much screening since the foliage is quite high up on the tree. He said he is willing to plant additional trees after construction to help address any privacy issues.

David said the height of the garage will be 24’ from the garage floor to the peak of the roof. The actual average height of the garage will be larger since the back or lakeside drops below the garage floor. The peak of the garage will be 11’ above the peak of the house. This height difference is largely due to the very slight roof pitch on the house, and their desire to have usable space over the garage.

David felt stormwater runoff issues should be minimal. He didn’t feel that runoff would be diverted on to the abutting Johnson property. He said most runoff is captured by a stream on the opposite side of the house. He said he is willing to address any runoff issues if it becomes a problem.

Tom said the hours of construction was an issue brought up by neighbors at the last meeting. Tom felt this should be addressed. Peter said that an 8am start time has proved problematic for other applicants dealing with contractors that often begin before 8am. Alex said that 7am-5pm, Monday through Saturday, has frequently been used to limit the hours of construction. Lisa asked for clarification on the lakeside and southern facades and possible basement area for the addition. Lisa said she was concerned about the appearance of the exposed foundation. She felt the 2-story addition will create quite a large façade. David said he will either use attractive stonework or foundation plantings to break up the exposed foundation. He said he is unsure if the addition will have a basement accessible from the lakeside.

Clint asked how much fill would be used and how far this fill would effectively move the bottom of the swale toward the Johnson property. David said the bottom of the swale will move 5-10’ to the south, but will remain on his property. Tom suggested stipulating this in any conditions of approval. Clint suggested that an alternative might be to install a culvert and catch basin.

Ginger Johnson expressed her concerns on the following issues: 1) impact of tree removals on stormwater runoff and lake water quality; 2) hours of construction – she feels 7am is too early; 3) she wondered if there will be hay bales to deal with erosion during construction; 4) will trees be replanted if additional ones die due to construction; 5) she would like some landscaping on the south side to break up the large building facade that faces her property.

Ted said there will need to be a condition related to the swale on the south side, and this will be an engineering issue for the Applicant. Ted also said the large facade of the addition will need to be addressed with additional landscaping. Otherwise, Ted and George felt the plan was OK with appropriate conditions to address the issues already discussed. David asked if the approval could include some flexibility regarding the front yard setback of 45’. He wants to make the front of the garage flush with the front of the house, but isn’t sure if the road is perfectly parallel across the entire frontage.

Clint MOVED to close the public hearing on this application, and to direct staff to draft a decision with conditions of approval. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Greg abstaining.

Site Plan and Conditional Use Public Hearing to Install Fencing and a Scoreboard – CVU Property on CVU and Pond Roads:

* continued from April 19 & May 3 meetings *

Greg recused himself from this review since he was absent for previous meetings. Ted asked for a brief summary of the May 3 meeting, since he missed that one. Alex said very little was discussed, and Tom briefly explained. Bob Mason noted that CVU wasn’t at that meeting.

Bob explained that he was here to seek approval for 3 items: 1) fencing around the baseball field; 2) fencing on the south and west sides of lower and upper Pond Road fields; 3) a scoreboard for the upper Pond Road field.

Bob said CVU had done research on fence options and gotten advice others who had installed various options. Based on this, he felt that galvanized chain link fencing is the preferred option for all the proposed fencing. He said both painted fence and fence mesh or inserts will deteriorate rapidly after the first season or 2 of use. For the baseball field, they propose a 4’ high fence with a foam protector on top of a neutral color. He said that they won’t install the fence until they work out the details with the Town (e.g., Rocky Martin) regarding the future multi-use path. Bob said they would like to address any necessary landscaping for this fence at a later date, when they come back in to discuss the overall landscaping plan for the entire CVU project.

Tom said at a previous meeting, the baseball coach felt a more solid fence would be better than a chain link fence. Bob said more solid fencing options would only stand out more, which is not the intent. Tom asked for clarification on why the other fencing options wouldn’t work. Tom Barden explained that ultraviolet light breaks down the other fencing options.

Bob said the lower Pond Road field will be used for competitive (inter scholastic) sports/games, and the upper Pond Road field will be used for intramural sports/games. Bob said CVU is proposing a 6’ high fence on the south and west sides of both fields. Bob said the scoreboard is proposed for the upper field, as they already received approval for a lower field scoreboard. Robert and Ted made it clear that they distinctly remember that CVU representatives portrayed both these Pond Road fields as practice fields that would not be used for competitive interscholastic games. Bob apologized for any past miscommunication, and said that CVU has always intended for the lower Pond Road field to be a competitive field.

Tom Barden said that for competitive games there would be about 15’ of room between side line of the playing field and the fence. He said the fence would be installed where the slope drops off. He said the fields are approximately 140 yards long by 75 yards wide, so there will be approximately 1080’ of fencing. Ted asked why this fencing was 6’ high. Tom Barden said that it needs to be at least 6’ high to prevent players from jumping over it during the course of play. He said it is primarily a safety issue for the athletic department, but it also will serve to keep balls from rolling down the slope. He said having people running up and down the slope to retrieve balls will cause erosion.

Gianetta Bertin asked the Board what the most important issues are. Ted said that this fencing is not aesthetically pleasing as proposed. He felt even galvanized chain link fence would mar the landscape and especially the view along Pond Road. Lisa said that she would still like to see plans with a scale so the Board will know an accurate distance from the edge of the playing field (out of bounds line) to the edge of the slope. She wondered if 15’ (approximate as proposed) was actually enough room for players to regain control before the edge of the slope (i.e., for safety issue).

Tom brought up the use of the Pond Road fields. He said events/games scheduled on these fields have resulted in illegal parking along Pond Road and safety questions about crossing from the Alliance Church parking lot. He noted that even this evening, there were cars parked along the road for some sort of activity for younger kids. The Board and the Applicant discussed current parking issues and how they relate to the use of these Pond Road fields. Bob appealed to the Board not to judge the overall parking situation until other new fields, and additional parking closer to the building, go into use. He agreed that there are currently issues, and agreed that CVU will do what it can to address these, but he felt that these are temporary, and will largely disappear once the overall construction project is further along. Clint and others felt that these Pond Road fields were going to continue to generate a lot of traffic and parking issues given that CVU now plans to use them for interscholastic games.

Tom asked Bob to discuss the proposed scoreboard for the upper Pond Road field. Bob said they haven’t found a way to do a portable scoreboard that could be stored during the off season. He said that they have tried to tuck the scoreboard into the existing tree line. Tom noted that a portable scoreboard was used at St. Michael’s College when CVU played in the soccer playoff games in the fall. Lisa wondered if a smaller or less obtrusive scoreboard would be possible on the upper field, since it is only being used for intramural sports. Tom asked if the soccer goal frames could be removed from the field during the off-season. Bob wasn’t sure.

Ted and George said they had no real issue with the fencing proposed for the baseball field since it was lower on the property and more adjacent to the building itself. They were, however, concerned about the fencing proposed for the Pond Road fields. Ted said he’d like to do a site visit to get a better idea of how the slopes constrain the use of the field. Lisa and Clint agreed that this would be valuable. Lisa also said she wants a revised plan for the baseball field that shows all of the proposed fencing. Ted MOVED to continue this hearing to the July 5 meeting with a site visit before the meeting at 6pm, and to direct staff to draft a separate decision with conditions of approval for the baseball field fencing only. Tom SECONDED the motion. Ted asked about room for a future bike path along Pond Road (discussed at previous meetings). Bob said that the various partners (CVU, Town, etc.) felt that such a path could be accommodated with 1 tight spot around a utility pole. Tom said CVU should come to the July 5 meeting with more information on parking issues, scoreboard options, and fencing. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Greg abstaining.

Site Plan for Parking Area and Sign Review – Dark Star Property on Commerce Street:

* continued from April 19 & May 3 meetings *

Michael Sorce and Kelly Leary explained their concerns about doing additional landscaping along the east property line to screen the parking area. The said they couldn’t do the landscaping proposed by staff because it would be in the way of any new building they hope to put on that side of the property someday. Clint said he feels this side of the property is very visible to drivers proceeding west on Commerce Street. He said he drove by the lot this evening and he described the various generators, trucks, trailers, and dumpster that are all plainly visible. George agreed and said he felt strongly that some screening on the east side of the lot is needed for this parking area. Michael said that the tree prices he has found will make more screening financially difficult, but that he is willing to put in more trees if they can be smaller (e.g., 3-4’ tall instead of 5-6’). He said that tree prices go up a lot for larger trees. Michael said that 5-6’ white pine or white cedar (arborvitae) would cost him upwards of $200. Lisa and other Board members said they were confident that these could be obtained for far less than that. Lisa offered to provide contact information for less expensive sources. Ted felt that the site plan could be approved with a condition that more trees be added along the eastern edge of the property, and that 3-4’ tall plants could be used instead of 5-6’ tall plants in order to have more total. Ted MOVED to approve the site plan on the condition that it be revised to show more trees along the eastern side of the lot to better screen the parking lot. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Michael and Kelly explained their request for a free-standing sign with 3 appendage signs for the other businesses that share their building. They acknowledged that the appendage signs were larger than what the regulations call for, but they would like to treat all 4 of the businesses fairly. They also felt it would be unfair to require smaller signs for their tenants when other businesses in Commerce Park have large signs. Ted explained that these businesses are on their own lots and can take advantage of a single free standing sign outlined in the regulations. He also explained that larger signs were allowed if attached to the building face. Ted and Greg felt the DRB has limited authority to approve a free-standing sign with appendages that are larger than what is called for in the regulations. Greg clarified that the Board has the authority to approve different “types” of signs than what the regulations envision, but not larger sizes for the types that are detailed. Ted MOVED to approve the sign location as part of the overall site plan, so long as it meets the setback and size requirements. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Other Business:

The Board will review the Stewart sketch plan and Brainard final plat decisions at the next meeting. The Board briefly discussed a couple of the Planning Commission’s proposed regulation revisions (i.e., accessory apartments & expanded administrative review). Greg expanded administrative review would be more acceptable if the public and the DRB received full notification of decisions being made by the Zoning Administrator for items that used to be handled by the DRB. Peter, Ted, and Lisa expressed concern about not requiring conditional use review of accessory apartments in accessory structures within 200’ of the single-family dwelling. They felt that conditional use review was still warranted in this area.

Pratt Appeal of Stolper Boathouse Permit – Review draft decision:

Greg MOVED to approve the decision (denial) as drafted. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Crimmins Preliminary Plat - Filing Deadline Extension:

Ted MOVED to grant Marilyn Crimmins’ request for a 6-month preliminary plat application filing extension for her proposed 6-lot subdivision, which has already received sketch plan approval.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date