TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Approved June 21, 2005
DRB Members
Present: Tom McGlenn (Chair), Clint
Emmons, George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples (arrived at
8:10pm), Nathan Makay.
DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.
**NOTE: Nathan Makay was appointed by the
Selectboard as a DRB alternate on May 2 to fill Lisa Godfrey’s alternate
position.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Johanna White, Rob Bast, Mac Rood, George Dameron, Howdy Russell, Bruce Corbit, Carol Muller, Jay Robinson, Steve Work, George Bedard, Stan Bissonette, Mark Bissonette, Lyle Bissonette, Raymond Ayer.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.
Site Plan Review for Lion’s Club Farmers Market – United Church Property on VT Route 116:
Johanna White, representing the Hinesburg Lions Club, explained the site plan application to continue to have a farmers market on the land of the United Church of Hinesburg on VT Route 116; parcel number 20-50-64.000. Johanna explained that last year’s approval was only good for 1 year to gauge how the operation would work. She said that the new site plan has been improved by placing all vendors on the grass lawn, which allows the bulk of the parking area to be used by customers. This results in a net gain of 5 parking spaces. Other than that, the site plan proposal is the same as the previous year. The market will operate every Thursday afternoon from June through September. It will be open from 3:30 to 7pm, but vendors will arrive earlier and leave later for set up and take down. She explained that vendors park off site, either in the Town Office parking area or at the Champlain Valley Telecommunications parking area. She said that Lions Club proceeds go back into the Hinesburg community via assistance to needy families and other philanthropic activities.
Tom asked why the United Church lot was selected for the farmers market. Johanna explained that site selection had to do with many factors including shade, visibility, proximity to the village center, pedestrian access, parking, etc. She said that they would like to be successful enough to warrant a relocation of the market to the Town Office lot some day. George asked Peter for clarification on signage, specifically item #12 of the proposed decision. Peter clarified that no DRB approval is needed for the sign. He said the sign can be approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Board reviewed the draft approval that Peter had crafted. Alex wondered if the reference to Thursdays should be changed to give the market the flexibility to change its day of operation in the future. Johanna said a lot of thought had been put into that day of the week, and she didn’t anticipate a change. Tom MOVED to close the discussion on the application, approve the site plan as proposed, and approve the proposed written decision/approval as amended to add the months, days, and hours of operation. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Nathan abstaining (Greg had not arrived yet).
Sketch Plan Review for 1-Lot, 34-Unit (8 Existing, 26 New) PUD – Greenstreet & Bast Properties on VT Route 116 and Charlotte Road:
**continued from April 19 meeting**
Tom explained that the Board had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting, and asked for observations from the site visit first. Observations included:
George Dameron said he noticed that the area near his property will be more open than it is currently, and that he is concerned about pedestrians using his property as a short cut to Charlotte Road.
Mac and Rob briefly summarized the project, and then presented a model of what the project might look like once constructed. The model was quite large, filling up the entire front table. It showed the proposed development as well as the surrounding properties on the Charlotte Road and Route 116. Mac explained that the homes will have a high basement ceiling (14’ or so) in order to accommodate the bi-level streetscape design that includes pedestrian bridges over the road. Mac said the fire department requires just under 14’ of clearance, and they want to factor this into the design. Rob explained that the project will incorporate an architectural landmark of sorts between and connecting units H1 and H2. This portion of the structure will look like some sort of church or bell tower with an open area through the middle for pedestrian traffic. Nathan said this feature may be more than the 35’ allowed in the regulations, but potentially could be approved as an architectural element.
Nathan was concerned that stormwater might collect along the road and create drainage issues. Mac explained that the road would be designed to direct stormwater to specific discharge areas, including a likely detention pond. Peter asked if more pedestrian connections could go between buildings to provide more of a pedestrian loop. Mac said that they are looking into whether additional crossings are possible above the road. George Dameron asked if the development could accommodate senior citizens with limited mobility. Mac and Rob said the project was absolutely designed to provide options for this demographic. They emphasized that the project includes good pedestrian infrastructure that will be connected to the rest of the village. They also said that all units will be designed to accommodate an elevator shaft to access all 3 floors. They said that this “shaft” area could be used for any number of purposes depending on the homeowner – e.g., elevator, closet space on each floor, etc.
George Dameron asked if there would be a condominium association to manage the common infrastructure. Rob said there would be such an association since none of the residential units will be on their own lots. However, he said that the single-family condominiums will have a certain yard space around them that will primarily be under their control (i.e., landscaping, gardening, etc.).
Tom asked about possible connectivity to the Norris property to the south, since the Norris development project is also being reviewed now. Rob and Mac said that they did discuss this, but Alan and Nancy Norris weren’t interested in promoting vehicular connectivity between the 2 lots. Rob felt that a pedestrian connection was probably the most viable given the design of the Norris project. Howdy Russell expressed concern about funneling pedestrians through the Norris project to Silver Street. He felt crossing Silver Street in this location (Norris roadcut) was unsafe, and that it would be better to funnel pedestrian traffic through the Greenstreet property to Route 116 so pedestrians can cross Silver Street at a future crosswalk at the intersection. Peter said it would be great to have a connection for kids on bikes between the garage level and the pedestrian level of the development. He said that otherwise, bicycle traffic may utilize the easiest and flattest path toward the school, which might end up going through the Norris property. George Dameron felt that this development would increase the need for a sidewalk along the south side of Charlotte Road up to Route 116. Rob agreed that this piece of sidewalk was very important. Peter wondered if a bicycle path made sense on the west side of the western-most structures. He said that the street coming into the development looks narrow as it passes between 2 structures. Rob disagreed that the street was too narrow and said that the pedestrian level would also facilitate bike traffic. Mac said a path is this area might develop anyway once people start living there and figuring out which access points work best for pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
Lisa asked how the wetland, common area would be managed. Mac said it would probably be mowed or hayed along with the creation of gardening areas for the development. He said that additional trees may be planted closer to the LaPlatte River, and that the VAST trail would be preserved. Rob noted that it might be possible to have a trail along the LaPlatte River someday. Carol Muller had 3 comments. First, she asked what the commercial lot would be used for. Mac and Rob said it would not be designed for a convenience store, but more likely for professional office space, perhaps with apartments above. Second, she asked if any of the units would be designed from the outset to accommodate elderly buyers. Rob said they had studied the demographics, and feel that the project has the potential to serve elderly residents. Third, she suggested building fences near property lines that may create a visual or use problem. Mac said he could do something on this front, but that he would rather make it a “soft” border versus a “Berlin wall”. He suggested one route might be to only install fencing if problems develop. Howdy Russell and George Dameron agreed that softer borders are the answer, in part to make sure that this development can fit in with the rest of the village instead of being its own enclave.
Tom said that the Board needs to consider the big picture at the sketch plan phase, and he wanted more input on the proposed bi-level streetscape design. Bruce Corbit said the streetscape design seems too high tech for Hinesburg’s rural village area, especially since it is adjacent to the historic “Main Street” section of the village. George Munson felt the design can be made to be compatible with the village. He cited the Orchard Commons development as an example of another innovative project that fits in nicely. Lisa said the pedestrian portion/level of the development is in keeping with the village feel and function, even though the vehicular level is not. She noted that vehicular traffic is not the primary focus of travel in the village area, so the most important component to pay attention to is the pedestrian portion. Nathan said the Town can become a “dinosaur” community or it can continue to be innovative with good architecture and well thought out development.
Robert said it would be nice to get a rendering (e.g., computer generated) of what the view will look like from the back of the neighboring houses on Route 116, once the project is constructed. Alex noted that the Board should also compare and contrast this to the view from the front and side yards of these same houses. He noted that these properties are in the middle of the village area, which is a much more densely populated area. Bruce Corbit said he is not trying to be selfish about his view, but that he doesn’t want the proposed homes to effectively create a “wall” behind his home.
Howdy said that he appreciated all the work put into the design, the pedestrian focus, and that this represented village development; however, he also wants to make sure that the development contributes to Hinesburg’s overall sense of community. He hopes the development will fit into the character of the Hinesburg village, and eventually blend into the existing village. Tom asked Howdy and Rob (both Selectboard members) if this development would raise the profile or priority of getting sidewalks on the west side of Route 116. Rob explained the Selectboard’s plan for new sidewalks, including a new sidewalk planned for 2006 between the Town Office and the Cheese Factory. He cautioned against asking the Greenstreet project to pay for too much public infrastructure, as he and Mac are trying to make the development as reasonably priced as possible.
Tom asked if the Board had any other questions. Mac asked the Board if there were any other issues that hadn’t been raised. Tom reiterated his desire to see more sidewalks on public roads in the vicinity of this development. Tom MOVED to close the discussion of the sketch plan and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg and Nathan abstaining.
Sketch Plan Review for 3-lot Subdivision – Robinson Property on Magee Hill Road:
* continued from
May 3 and March 29, 2005 meetings *
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). Jay presented a revised sketch plan that now includes only 3 lots instead of 4. He said lot C has been removed and absorbed into lot A. He said the new plan calls for lots A,B,D to share the existing access, with the driveway to lot D coming off of this across the top of the property instead of coming across the wetland area below. Tom noted that the house sites for lots B & D are in the same locations, and that the acreage of these lots is the same.
Tom mentioned the issue brought up at the last meeting regarding the visibility of the new lots/structures from public roads, especially Pond Brook and Magee Hill roads. Jay said the lot D house site will not be very visible due to the pine trees in front and the street trees along Magee Hill Road. He said the lot B house site will not be visible from practically anywhere because of all the natural screening. Tom asked if Jay had considered specific building designs for the new lots. Jay said he hadn’t, but would consider this if the Board required it. Clint and George said there is no reason to restrict the type of construction given that the new lot layout does a good job of folding the building sites into the landscape.
Lisa cautioned Jay to be careful about going across the stream/wetland near the top of lot D. Carol Muller (abutting landowner) has some concerns about the building site on lot D, but commends the applicant on the new lot layout, and his willingness to forfeit a lot to help satisfy the neighbors and the DRB.
Tom MOVED to close the public discussion on this sketch plan and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Clint SECONDED the motion. Peter asked the Board how it wanted to classify this project now that it was only 3 lots instead of 4 (i.e., minor vs. major). George and Clint felt there was no reason to classify it as a major subdivision. The rest of the Board agreed. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg and Nathan abstaining.
Sketch Plan Review for 3-lot Subdivision – Bissonette Family Corporation Property on Bissonette Lane (off of VT Route 116):
George Bedard presented the Bissonette Family Corporation’s Sketch Plan application for a 3-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 120 acres, and is located on the east side of VT Route 116, on Bissonette Lane; parcel # 09-02-49.000. The subject parcel has a very irregular shape, with a large, forested eastern portion connected to a smaller, open (meadow) western portion via a 100’ strip in the middle. Access to this portion of the parcel is highly constrained by extremely steep slopes. The western portion is just the opposite, being a relatively flat open meadow. No mapped streams exist on the property. The parcel has access to Route 116 via a 50’ wide right of way across the abutting Ayer parcel (09-02-42.000). The subject parcel is essentially undeveloped, with only a hunting camp on the larger and less accessible eastern portion.
Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 4 acres on the north side of the front meadow. This lot is encumbered by a right of way (i.e., Bissonette Lane) on the north and east sides of the lot. Lot 2 is also approximately 4 acres, but on the south side of the front meadow. This lot is also encumbered by a right of way (i.e., Bissonette Lane) on the east side of the lot. Both lots would have access to Bissonette Lane (a private road), so the subdivision proposal also constitutes a proposal for development on a private right of way. Individual, on-site septic and drilled wells are planned for lots 1&2. Lot 3 constitutes the remaining land (approximately 112 acres) including the 100’ strip extending from the meadow’s edge to the larger eastern portion of the parcel.
George explained that additional easement areas will be identified on the east side of the meadow for the benefit of lot 3. One easement area will be for a replacement septic system for the hunting camp. They are required to identify a replacement area for the camp because the camp does have an existing septic system on site. The second easement area will be for use as a log landing in the same general area to ensure that forest management can continue on lot 3.
Clint asked if the proposed well shields for lots 1 & 2 would extend on to the Gardner Construction land to the south. George said there will be no overlap across the property line, and if there were any, there would be easements. Furthermore, this shouldn’t be an issue given the topography and likely suitable soil locations for septic systems throughout this well drained area.
George said that Bissonette Lane will need to be widened to meet the Town’s road standards. He also mentioned that a small stretch of the existing road exceeds the 15% maximum outlined in those standards. George described 2 options for dealing with this: 1) widen the road but allow the grade/slope as is; 2) widen the road and add fill to the bottom portion of the road to bring the overall grade down to 15%. George said that the road functions well the way it is now because the road flattens out for some distance before the Route 116 intersection. He said the steeper section is fairly short, and does not characterize the entire road, which is generally flat or gentle otherwise. He said the applicant would prefer to leave the slope as is so as to preserve as much flat area at the bottom ahead of the Route 116 intersection. Peter wondered if the DRB had the authority to waive these Town road standards, or if that was a question for the Selectboard. Greg said this was a new issue not mentioned in the staff report, and he would like to reflect on the slope/grade issue and schedule a site visit. Nathan said that if emergency access was key, it would be more efficient to have Town emergency professionals judge the road condition and report back to the Board. Greg noted that in all his time on the Board, he doesn’t remember ever approving a shared road with a grade higher than 15%. George said he didn’t need to do a site visit, and would be satisfied with input from the Town Fire Chief. Clint agreed.
Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the July 5 meeting, and instructed staff to get input from the Fire Chief on the grade issue, as well as more information on the DRB’s authority to waive provisions of the Town road standards. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Other Business:
Lisa noted that she will not be at the July 5 meeting.
Brainard Final Plat Revision – Review draft decision:
Greg MOVED to approve the decision (approval) as drafted. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Stewart Sketch Plan for 3-lot, 2-unit Subdivision – Review draft decision:
George MOVED to approve the decision (approval) as drafted. Greg SECONDED the motion. Clint reiterated his concern that the front lot will be very small, and an extremely tight fit with a new house and the existing septic area. Greg acknowledged Clint’s concern but felt the decision reflected the previous meeting discussion. The motion PASSED 5-1 with Clint voting no and Nathan abstaining.
Dark Star Sign Review – Review draft decision:
Clint MOVED to approve the decision (approval) as drafted. Robert SECONDED the motion. Clint said he is concerned about the large dirt pile that has yet to be removed or spread out. Peter said this was an enforcement issue that he would address. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg and Nathan abstaining.
Dark Star Site Plan Review – Review draft decision:
Clint MOVED to approve the decision (approval) as drafted. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg and Nathan abstaining.
Brown Conditional Use Review for Garage – Review draft decision:
Peter suggested 2 changes to the draft decision:
Peter also explained the rationale for Condition #4 of the order, which requires that the swale not be relocated. Tom and Lisa said that the key issue was keeping the swale on the Brown’s property and avoiding the use of the previously suggested culvert because this would only speed up stormwater and pose erosion problems on the outlet end. Clint MOVED to approve the decision (approval) with the 3 changes discussed above. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg and Nathan abstaining.
Assessing Buildout of Approved Projects:
Tom commented on the highly visible nature of new structures in 2 subdivisions that the DRB previously approved. He commented on the height of the front house (construction completed) of the Mead subdivision on Richmond Road and the house currently being built on the St. Hilaire subdivision on Pond Road. He noted that these houses appear to have been built on substantial amounts of fill, which may have made them far more visible than the Board anticipated. He also commented on the grade of the road leading into the Ayer subdivision on Gilman Road, and the road leading the Roberts subdivision near the Richmond town line. Tom encouraged Board members to drive by these projects and make their own assessments. He wondered if the DRB should require engineering for all new development roads or shared accesses. George said perhaps engineering should be required for all roads, and that detailed topographic information should be provided for all subdivisions where elevation or grade/slope is an issue.
The Board also briefly discussed how the visibility of a building site should be taken into account when lots are being created. Peter said the goal should be to approve good lots, but if a building will be highly visible, the Board has the option to impose conditions to mitigate (e.g., landscaping, color, etc.).
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________________/____________
Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date