TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

June 21, 2005

Approved July 5, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: none.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), George Bedard, Mary Jane Ballard, Ron Jerombie (sp?), Tim Ballard, Marian Welch, Bob Pelletier, Gay Regan, Linda Smith, Andrea Morgante, Tim & Lin Isham, Nick Nowlan, Alan Norris, Darlene Ruggles, Roger Kohn, Lisa & Steve Carlson, Jody Ciano.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Announcements:

Andrea Morgante handed out information about the stone wall to be built next to the Town Hall. Alex encouraged DRB members to attend the first hour of the July 6 Planning Commission meeting to participate in a discussion about visibility of development and how this figures into the Town Plan and Subdivision Regulations.

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

**continued from May 17 meeting**

Tom opened the sketch plan review and asked for observations from the site visit that took place earlier this evening (before the meeting). Greg noted that the group walked the proposed driveway to the building envelope of lot 1 (new building lot). He said the group noted the following: 1) vegetation in the 50’ buffer to the east of the building envelope; 2) vegetation (forest) throughout the building envelope area; 3) southeast corner of lot 2 near the owner’s existing well; 4) vegetation in this area; 5) approximate location of septic pipeline easement area leading toward Willsey property. Tom noted that the group observed where forest clearing would likely occur on lot 1 for the building envelope and driveway. Linda Smith noted the buffer on the east side of lot 1’s building envelope, and encouraged the Board to preserve the trees on this side, which borders her property.

George Bedard presented a revised sketch plan based on the discussions at the May 17 meeting. The new plan shows a smaller lot of approximately 2.9 acres (lot 2) around Marian Welch’s existing house. Lot 1 would occupy the rest of the parcel (approximately 7.21 acres) with a proposed 200’x200’ building envelope on the east side. George said the driveway to this building envelope would branch off of the existing Welch driveway soon after the Lewis Creek Road intersection. He said the driveway would proceed east and then north or northeast along gentle grades to the building envelope. George said there are significant trees on the property line with Smith, and as an added buffer, there will be a “no-cut” area in the 50’ buffer between the building envelope and the Smith property line. He said the building envelope will probably shrink in the east-west dimension because of the slope of the hill, but will probably stay the same size (200’) in the north-south dimension, perhaps with some shift north or south. He said the septic easement area on the Willsey property has excellent soils and plenty of capacity for both lots 1&2. George said the objective of the project is not to open up the forest substantially, but rather to crate a “tuck away” lot in the woods.

Ted asked where the top of the hill was in relation to the sketch plan and building envelope. George described the hill as just west of the envelope on lot 1. Greg asked how the Applicant plans to protect the Smith property line. George said this property line runs roughly along a ledge, and they plan to leave the trees in this area to provide a forested buffer. Greg asked how wide the clearing would be for the septic pipelines to the Willsey property. George said they would need to be wide enough to accommodate a backhoe – i.e., 10’-12’.

Tom commented on the gentle slope of the proposed access to lot 1. Greg noted that the power to the Welch house is above ground, and asked if the power to lot 1 would be underground. George said that it would be. Greg also observed that there were no drainage ways or streams in/around the approach to lot 1’s building envelope. Ted said this is a minor subdivision, and should be a 2 step process. Andrea noted that the goal of this project is to have the Hinesburg Land Trust purchase lot 1 and possibly transfer it to VT Fish and Wildlife or to an abutter. Tom MOVED to close the public discussion on this sketch plan application, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Final Plat Public Hearing for 2-lot Subdivision – Ballard Property on VT Route 116:

George Bedard, representing the Ballards, explained the final plat application for a 2-lot subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 225 acres. It is located on the west side of VT Route 116; parcel number 04-01-35.100. Currently a non-conforming situation exists because of the second residence on the parcel. The proposed subdivision would correct this situation by creating a separate lot around the second home. Previously, the second residence was a mobile home, but the Applicant was recently granted conditional use approval to replace the mobile home with a new manufactured home.

George explained that the Ballards have a State wastewater permit that covers the systems for both the farm house and the second house. He noted that the plat includes a right to farm statement and a building envelope for the new lot that is 200’ away from the lot line of the adjacent agricultural operation. He said there will be no formal easements on lot 2 (new lot) for farm use by lot 1. Instead Tim Ballard will retain the first right of refusal for the new lot, so that he has the option of buying it back should his daughter decide to sell it. George said the revised plat presented tonight doesn’t show the driveway, per staff’s suggestion. He said that 6 trees have been planted on lot 2 as required by the earlier conditional use approval. He passed around a diagram showing where the trees were planted, as well as digital photos of the plantings.

Peter explained his suggestions from the staff report. He said that extraneous details shown on the septic design site plan could come off the survey plat. He also felt a context or location map was needed since the survey only includes lot 2 (new lot) rather than the entire parcel. George said he would add a context map.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing on this application, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision – Brown Property on Magee Hill Road:

Nick Nowlan, project engineer, explained that Tim & Lin Isham are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 150 acres, and is located on the south side of Magee Hill Road, just west of the Swamp Road intersection; parcel # 05-01-8.300. The land is owned by Timothy & Kristi Brown. The Browns also own 2 abutting parcels: 1) a 10.1 acre parcel, with a new home, immediately adjacent to the east (lot 2 from a previous subdivision), and 2) a 30 acre parcel across Magee Hill Road with a sugar house and associated agricultural fields and forest. The front portion of the subject parcel is open with 2 existing residential structures (mobile home and farm house), a barn, and associated agricultural fields. The back 2/3 to 3/4 of the parcel is heavily forested with significant coniferous cover that has been mapped as a deer wintering area by the VT Fish & Wildlife Department. The subject parcel is lot 1 from a previous 2-lot subdivision that was approved on May 20, 2003 (plat/mylar recorded on slide 49D).

The plan shows lot 2 from the previous subdivision, and continues the numbering scheme from there. Lot 3 comprises approximately 3.2 acres (including a portion of the Town right of way) in the northeast corner of the subject parcel with approximately 320’ of frontage on Magee Hill Road. This lot includes the existing farmhouse, barn, and shared well that serves the mobile home and the farmhouse. Lot 3 has direct access to Magee Hill Road via an existing driveway. The farmhouse has an existing on-site septic system (to east of the house), and a replacement area in a designated easement area on the abutting parcel (lot 2 from previous subdivision). Lot 1 comprises the remaining 147 acres of the parcel. Lot 1 contains the existing mobile home and the bulk of the farm and forest land. This lot has direct access to Magee Hill Road via an existing driveway. The mobile home has an existing septic system (to the east of the home), and a replacement area in the same designated easement area on the abutting parcel (lot 2 previous subdivision).

Nick reviewed the issues brought up in the staff report. Alex provided more explanation on issue #1 and #2 with regard to lot size and viable access to the remaining farm land. Nick explained that better access to the remaining farm land on lot 1 would actually be closer to the mobile home due to steeper contours near the existing farm road. Nick explained that the frontages labeled on the sketch plan are not accurate, and that this was probably just an oversight rather than a real issue. He said that the Applicant will prepare the necessary shared infrastructure legal language with the final application. He also said that they would be willing to create a building envelope around the mobile home on lot 1. Lin said she thinks the Browns intend to keep the remaining farm on lot 1 in the family. Greg asked what is the current use of the subject parcel. Lin said it is used for hay and forestry. She said there used to be an active dairy operation, but not for the last few years.

Ted said this application is similar to the Ballard application in that there are 2 residences on 1 parcel, and the subdivision will correct this non-conforming use. Nick said they will survey the entire frontage of the parcel to demonstrate that they have the required frontage; however, they do not plan to survey the entire parcel – i.e., focus on lot 3 and frontage. Greg wondered if a building envelope was needed for lot 3. Alex said probably not given the nature of the lot and the existing development (house and barn). Tom said the pond shown on the plan should be removed since it has already been filled. Peter said the Board will have to waive the surveying requirement if it wants to allow the Applicant to survey only a portion of the subdivision. Peter asked Tim if there was a deer camp on the back portion of lot 1. Tim said there was, but that it didn’t constitute a residence and never would because of access issues if nothing else. Ted MOVED to close the public discussion on this sketch plan, and directed staff to draft conditions of approval. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Final Plat & Site Plan Public Hearing for 1-lot, 9-unit PRD – Norris Property on Silver Street:

David Burke, project engineer, explained Alan and Nancy Norris’s Final Plat application for a 9-unit (1-lot) Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Village Zoning District. The subject parcel has an existing house (currently being rented), which would be replaced by the proposed redevelopment project. The parcel slopes quickly away from Silver Street, and then gradually declines toward the back of the lot. The back portion of the lot is within the flood hazard area (328’) and contains class 3 wetlands associated with the LaPlatte River, which is to the west of the parcel. The project also requires 2 related approvals, which were already granted by the DRB in conjunction with the preliminary plat approval (approved April 20, 2005) – i.e., Site Plan approval and Conditional Use approval (for development in the flood hazard area). Since the site plan has been modified slightly in support of the final plat PRD application, this hearing also includes a revised site plan review.

Two multi-family dwellings are proposed for the lot – 1 containing 5 units and 1 containing 4 units. Of these 9 units, 7 will be 2 bedroom units and 2 will be 3 bedroom units. These are envisioned as townhouse style units, each with a walk out basement facing west. This is NOT a subdivision application. Instead, it is a redevelopment project, which has been proposed as a PRD. As a PRD, the project must be reviewed using the major subdivision protocol (see 4.5.5, Zoning Regulations) – i.e., sketch, preliminary plat, and final plat review. Town sewer and water are proposed.

David reviewed the staff report. He said that unit #9 is still a 2 bedroom unit, but the label for this unit was inadvertently left off the site plan map. He also indicated where the proposed stakes and construction fence would be placed to delineate the excavation extent on the north side of the parcel. David said the purpose of this was to help ensure that equipment operators know the limit of the excavation into the hill. Greg said the cut area appears to be closer than 20’ to the abutting property owner’s barn – as indicated in staff report. David explained that the cut starts 10’ from the barn on the west side and 20’ from the barn on the east side. He said the cut starts off very shallow (approx. 6”) and increases the maximum amount of excavation at approximately 20’ from the barn.

David said the Selectboard wants the Town easement along Silver Street to be reduced from 15’ to 5’, as the Town doesn’t want to assume responsibility for the proposed street trees. David said the Applicant was amenable to the proposed conditions of approval discussed in the staff report.

Tom asked if any additional plantings were proposed immediately around the structures. David explained that the project already includes substantial landscaping to address screening from the public road and neighboring properties. He said that foundation and other plantings were possible, but needn’t be required as part of the approval. Tom said he felt the project could benefit from additional plantings like foundation plantings. David and Alex explained the proposed tree screening and visibility. Alan said that the foundation plantings would not be visible from the road.

Peter felt the buildings were going to be built higher than the existing grade. He also felt that the parking lot would not be that much lower than Silver Street. David explained that the back of the buildings would be very close to the existing grade, and that the structures were designed to work with the natural contours as much a possible. He said that the plan shows the 1^st portion of the parking area at 2’ lower than Silver Street, and the back portion at 8’ lower than Silver Street.

Ted asked where pedestrians will go upon leaving the development. David explained that the proposed sidewalk would direct pedestrians to the top of Silver Street where they cross in a safer and more controlled manner once VTrans improves the Route 116, Silver Street intersection (planned for summer 2006). Ted said he was very concerned about kids crossing Silver Street near the project driveway to get to the school. He suggested adding language to any rental leases or homeowners association to prohibit residents from crossing Silver Street at the project’s driveway access. Lisa suggested establishing a gravel path from the mid to back portion of the parking lot to the proposed sidewalk on Silver Street. She said this would allow residents in the development a more direct route to the top of Silver Street. David felt a defined path wasn’t necessary as this sort of cut through could happen anywhere along the frontage. He also questioned the need for as much sidewalk down to the project’s driveway if this alternate path were required. He recommended allowing such a path to develop naturally through use. George and Alex agreed that installing such a gravel path should be delayed until actual use demonstrates the most viable location.

Greg asked about the proposed gravel turn-around. David said this would work for delivery trucks but wouldn’t be large enough for fire trucks to turn around. Alan said he spoke to the Fire Chief about fire truck access, and the Fire Chief felt the proposal was satisfactory. David said the driveway is relatively short and fire trucks would simply pull in during an emergency, and back out when done.

Greg and Tom asked about pedestrian connectivity to the proposed Green Street project to the northwest. The Board and Applicant discussed options for informal pedestrian connections, especially for residents of the Norris development proceeding north toward the LaPlatte river and the Town Office. The Board felt pedestrian traffic through the Norris project to Silver Street shouldn’t be encouraged, since the best place to cross Silver Street will be at the top near Route 116. With that said, Ted said the Norris project should make an allowance for pedestrian access somewhere in the vicinity of the Town sewer easement.

Peter asked if the Applicant plans to construct any accessory structures (e.g., sheds) in the future. David said no. David said that since none are envisioned and none are shown on the site plan, then any future accessory structures would require an amendment to the site plan approval.

Ted brought up the letter submitted by Darlene Ruggles (abutting landowner to the south). He said the letter lays out 3 concerns: 1) drainage & impact to her property; 2) screening; 3) possible impact on existing trees on her side of the property line. David said the drainage issue has been addressed so as to direct runoff away from the Ruggles house and yard, and instead toward the back of the Norris lot. He said the plan calls for a 6’ high cedar hedge along the south property line to a point 15’ west of the back of the Ruggles house. Clint asked if a berm could be created along Silver Street to better screen the parking area. David said this would be tough given the negative impact on the drainage patterns.

Tom opened the hearing for public comment. Darlene Ruggles said she was not happy with the proposed development, and really wants more screening in the back yard. Ted suggested extending the 6’ high cedar hedge to accommodate this request. Dave discussed possibly extending the hedge another 50’-75’ to the west to be even with the Ruggles back yard shed. Lisa asked if some willow trees could also be planted in the Norris back yard to provide additional landscaping/screening. David said he didn’t think this would be necessary. Tom MOVED to close the public hearing on this application, and directed staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Final Plat Public Hearing for 2-lot Subdivision – Carlson Property on Upper Access Road:

Roger Kohn, the Applicant’s attorney, explained the final plat application for a 2-lot subdivision in the Shoreline Zoning District. He passed out newly revised plans that address some of the issues brought up in the staff report. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres. It is located on near the end of Upper Access Road (south end of Lake Iroquois); parcel number 15-20-52.000. Roger said the Carlsons have reached a legal agreement with the abutting landowner (Brown-Ciano) regarding a number of outstanding items. Alex passed out a letter from Jody Ciano to the Board on this topic and the Carlson’s application.

Roger reviewed the issues raised at the preliminary plat review. Regarding the road association (issue #6 from staff report), Roger said the proposed association is the best the Applicant can do since no one can force other landowners along the road to sign on to an agreement. He said he hopes other landowners will join the association as it will help clarify responsibilities. Peter asked if the association language creates a corporation. Roger said it does not. He said it forms an unincorporated association. Roger said issue #7 is moot since there is no easement across the Brown-Ciano property for lake access. Roger said the new plans show the proper septic easement area, and that the survey and the septic design are now consistent on this front (issue #8). Roger said issue #10 (tree screening) has been addressed as the new plans show trees grouped outside of the utility easement area. He said that the proposed driveway has been relocated to address the Board’s concerns. He explained that the plan shows a 50’ wide easement for the road. He said the final deed language may reserve a 50’ wide easement beyond the end of the road to the camp, with the understanding that road improvements may be difficult here due to septic systems and lack of space.

Roger then reviewed the other issues raised in the staff report. He said that as part of the legal agreement, the Carlsons will be drilling a new well for the Brown-Ciano lot. Responding to other issue #3, Roger said the landowner would have to come back to the Board for approval of any other site modifications. Greg asked for clarification on the location of the building envelope for lot 1 (proposed house). Roger said this is shown on sheet S1 of the overall engineering site plan. Peter explained the need for a waiver of the requirement that no new lot can have a minimum dimension of less than 100’. Roger wasn’t clear that this was needed. Roger noted that the logging road shown on the plan does not constitute an easement, and that it was simply shown for reference. Roger said no further plat changes were necessary (item #7 from report). He also said the Applicant has no issues with the general conditions outlined in #8 of the staff report.

Tom said he would like a condition that the base elevation of the building should be at the existing grade, if in fact that is what is being proposed. Roger said such a condition would be fine as long as it allowed a couple feet of deviation. Ted asked about the camp “lot”. Roger said this was a lot at one time, but its status is now unclear under State statute. He said that for the purposes of this subdivision, the camp is simply part of lot 2. Ted asked about the access easement width to the camp and the Brown-Ciano house. Roger explained that the easement could only be 15’ wide due to existing septic easements. Peter said that it is important to make sure the road will be maintained to provide emergency access.

Tom opened the public hearing for public comments. Jody Ciano asked if it is a problem to have the parking area so close to her existing well. Peter and Alex said the State suggests some well isolation distances, but neither was sure if these recommendations included parking areas. She also expressed concern about access from lot 1 to the lake. She explained that her property includes a walkway on the opposite side of her fence, and that she doesn’t want lot 1 residents using the walkway to access the lake. Roger said that the proposed deed provides lot 1 to have access to the lake on the Carlson property, but doesn’t specify where. Peter asked if there was a survey marker at a particular corner in this vicinity. Roger pointed out that the survey indicates an iron pin here.

Greg felt the Board should leave the public hearing open in case any issues came up during the drafting of a decision. Roger also requested that he be able to review a copy of the draft decision before it is approved. Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the July 5 meeting, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval for review at that meeting.

Other Business:

Lisa and Ted noted that they will not be at the July 5 meeting. George said he will be at that meeting, but won’t be able to participate in the review of the project on his property. Alex said he will try to get the alternate DRB members to attend.

Robinson Sketch Plan for 3-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:

George noted typos in the first paragraph (refers to final plat instead of sketch plan) and in the page 2 header. The Board discussed proposed condition 3c on the need for a building elevation benchmark related to the average grade around the foundation of any new home. Ted suggested modifying this condition so that the Applicant shall provide proposed building elevations (i.e., of the total exposed face on each side) to better assess visibility from public roads. George felt the Board should only impose this condition if it will be used consistently for all applications where slope and/or visibility are an issue. Clint and George felt this condition should simply be deleted for now. Tom said something is needed to address this, but he’s not sure if this condition captures it. Peter said he could work this out with the Robinsons. There was substantial frustration around the table as to how this should be handled. Tom MOVED to approve the written decision as amended to remove condition 3c. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg abstaining. Ted had already left the meeting during this discussion.

Green Street Sketch Plan for 3-lot, 34-unit Subdivision & PUD – Review draft decision:

Clint and George felt that the snowplowing and commercial lot issues had been discussed during the sketch plan review. George MOVED to approve the decision (approval) as drafted. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Greg abstaining.

Norris Final Plat for 1-lot, 9-unit PRD – Deliberation & instructions for staff:

Tom said he would like a condition that an additional 75’ of 6’ high cedar hedge be added along the south property line, to the west of the proposed hedge. He said this was needed to better screen the development from the abutting Ruggles property. Robert asked Alex to include a condition stipulating the hours of construction – per the Board’s usual days & times. Lisa said she would like to see 2-3 more trees planted generally to the west of the end of the cedar hedge. She suggested willows, and said this additional landscaping was warranted given the high density of the project and the mass of the buildings.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date