TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
July 5, 2005
Approved July 19, 2005
DRB Members
Present: Tom McGlenn (Chair),
George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, Nathan Makay.
DRB Members Absent: Clint Emmons, Lisa Godfrey, Ted Bloomhardt.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Stan Bissonette, Charlie Bissonette, Raymond Ayer, George Bedard, Rad Romeyn, Lisa & Steve Carlson, Roger Kohn, Jody Ciano, Mark Bissonette, Larry Bissonette, Brett Grabowski, Howard Russell, Anne Donegan, Joe Donegan, David & Carrie Fenn, Gianetta Bertin, Bob Mason, Karla Munson, Michael Bissonette, Chuck & Sally Reiss, Lexie Reiss, Evan Reiss, Robert Lian, Harry Russell, Nancy Norris, Rolf Kielman, Patricia Whitney.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.
Minutes of June 21, 2005
Meeting:
George MOVED to approve the June 21, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Final Plat Public Hearing for 2-lot Subdivision – Carlson Property on Upper Access Road:
**continued from June 21 meeting**
Tom explained that this was a continuation of the final plat public hearing, and that Peter had drafted approval language for the Board and the Applicant to review prior to closing the hearing. Roger Kohn, representing the Applicant, presented a slightly modified final plat/survey due to a surveying error in the prior version – i.e., the surveyor had mistaken a landscaping pin for a survey marker in the vicinity of the Brown-Ciano property line. He also explained various legal correspondence between the Carlsons and Brown-Ciano. He said that per the agreement, the Carlsons will pay for necessary road improvements. He said Brown-Ciano have asked for a 10’ separation between their existing well and the Carlson’s parking area. Roger said the Carlsons can move the parking area approximately 8-10’ away from the well, and would like the DRB’s decision to give them the flexibility to do this. Greg asked what the final plat will show, and Roger said it would show the actual parking area location.
Roger then presented the Board with written requests for changes to the draft decision. He felt that the decision should not preclude the potential of the camp lot being a separate lot. He also proposed specific changes to draft findings #4,6a,6b,6c,8; to draft conclusion #1. He suggested conditions #1 and 2 of the order be deleted, and that specific changes be made to conditions 4,6,10,14. He also felt condition #11 should be clarified as to whether the landscaping mentioned is in lieu of what the plan shows or is in addition to what the plan shows. He suggested a new finding with regard to the 15’ easement to the camp, including the flexibility to enlarge this easement if possible without impacting other easements.
Greg said the camp lot issue is complicated. Although he wasn’t convinced that it was necessary, he felt Peter’s interpretation was included to ensure that the proposed subdivision could even happen in the first place. Greg felt Roger’s solution was acceptable on this issue. However, on condition 4 of the order, Greg preferred Peter’s precise reference to a building elevation from the plan (312’), rather than what Roger had suggested.
Jody Ciano questioned the location of the mound systems and septic easement area. She said there is not yet an agreement on this issue between her and the Carlsons. She is concerned about the accuracy of the survey since she has seen 4 different surveys as this project has progressed, and they are all different. She is uncomfortable with the property line shown near the walkway. She asked for time so that her surveyor could verify this. Greg explained that the Board cannot mediate boundary line disputes and must rely on the information presented by licensed surveyors. The Board noted that any approval will not affect Jody’s rights, should any survey later prove to be incorrect.
Roger asked for clarification from the Board on his requests for changes to the draft decision. Greg, Tom, George, and Robert said they were amenable to most of the requests as discussed with the exception of the building elevation language. Tom MOVED to close the public hearing. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0. Tom MOVED to take up the application in deliberative session to render a decision. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision – Bissonette Property on Bissonette Lane:
**continued from June 7 meeting**
Tom said that this was a continuation of the sketch plan review. George Bedard, representing the Bissonettes, relayed input from the Fire Chief (Al Barber) on necessary improvements to Bissonette Lane. Essentially, Fire Chief said the grade of the road was not an issue, although it should be widened pursuant to the town road standards. George Bedard explained the evolution of the Bissonette Lane right of way. He said the steeper portion existed prior to 1974. He said that the underground power line to the Ayer lot is approximately 4-5’ deep and crosses the road at the top of the steep section. He said they would have to cut approximately 4’ off the top of the slope to lower the grade to below 15%. He reiterated that the Bissonettes would prefer to leave the grade as is and focus the road improvements on widening. He said this option is preferable because it would disturb less of the site. He said cutting that much from the top would change the runoff pattern, putting more water down the road. George Bedard felt this road represents a pre-existing situation (e.g., already serving multiple homes), and their solution makes the best of that situation.
Greg asked George Bedard to comment on Alex’s staff memo that indicated the DRB does not have the authority to modify the 15% grade maximum in the road standards. George Bedard felt the Board had done this in the past. Tom asked if there were any examples of the Board allowing deviations from the road standards. George Bedard mentioned the Dynamite Hill development, but Greg noted that that project was approved by the Planning Commission prior to the formation of the DRB. Tom noted the development on Rocky Mountain Lane. Peter explained that this project was slightly different, and the Board stepped in when it came time to issue a certificate of occupancy.
Greg MOVED to close the public discussion on the sketch plan, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval including a condition that the Applicant either obtain approval of the higher road grade from the Selectboard, or submit road engineering plans that demonstrate how the grade will be reduced to meet the standards. George SECONDED the motion. Stan Bissonette asked if the Board would have any issues if the Selectboard did agree to allow the existing grade. Greg said that given the input from the fire chief, he wouldn’t have a problem if the Selectboard felt the existing road grade was acceptable. Nathan agreed. George said he agreed in principle given the information available at sketch plan. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Final Plat Public Hearing for Revisions to the Creekside Subdivision/PRD – Creekside LLC and Town of Hinesburg Property off of VT Route 116:
Creekside Investments LLC (represented by Brett Grabowski) is requesting DRB approval to make revisions to the previously approved 33-lot, 39-unit Creekside development in the Village and Agricultural Zoning Districts. This project was originally approved by the DRB on August 5, 2004 (final plat/mylar recorded on slide 142b). The subject parcels are owned by Creekside Investments LLC, and occupy approximately 3.4 acres in the center of the overall project area. These parcels are located on the west side of VT Route 116, across from the Commerce Street intersection on what will be Kenyon Court and Farmall Drive; parcel numbers 08-01-06.xxx (lots 5-22 & 24-29).
Brett Grabowski explained his 5 change requests. First, he would like to make minor lot line adjustments to lots 12-17 and 20-25 to make these lots perpendicular to road. Second, he would like to make improvements to Lot 31 (recreation field, parking area, and new landscaping), which is now owned by the Town. Brett said the recreation field parking area would not be paved, but would have a good gravel base and fabric, so that it would be ready for paving if the Town chose to do so. Peter asked about stormwater runoff implications. Brett said there wouldn’t be any, as the runoff from the field and parking area would be designed to sheet flow to the west to utilize the large vegetated buffer between the project and the LaPlatte River. Alex said that Rocky Martin (Director of Buildings and Facilities) would like the decision to give some flexibility on details for the field, parking, and associated landscaping, as some of this is still being worked out. Thirdly, he would like to change the 6 condo units on lot 23 to 5 single-family home lots. Brett explained that he has already sold a number of lots in the development, and there is more demand for single family units than for condos. Greg asked if the new 5 single-family homes would meet the same design standards that apply to the other portions of the development. Brett said they would be treated the same way. Peter pointed out that the plan indicates the sidewalk would break for the entrance to the recreation field. Brett said this was incorrect, and that the sidewalk would continue across this intersection with the appropriate gravel/paved apron. Fourth, Brett would like to change condition #1a of the approval by tying necessary on-lot fill to the issuance of certificate of occupancy (CO) instead of zoning permit.
Fifth, he would like to modify condition #4d of the approval to allow up to 5 houses to have 2-story garages instead of limiting all garages to 1 ½ stories in height. Brett said he would like the flexibility to build 2-story garages on some of the smaller lots, since they have a smaller footprint, and are more economical for him. He said possible lots included #20, 26, 27. Greg thought Brett’s intent was to keep these 2-story houses apart, pursuant to his cover letter that said no 2 houses that are adjacent or across the street will have the same design. Greg noted that lots 26 and 27 are adjacent. Brett clarified that he plans to vary the design of adjacent houses, and could have two 2-story garage houses next to each other, just with different designs. Brett passed around a color picture of what the home with a 2-story garage might look like. Greg asked if this 2-story design would add bedrooms. Brett said it would not, as all units will be 3 bedrooms. George said he is comfortable allowing 5 of these 2-story garage units, but that any more than that would have to come back to the Board for further review. Nathan felt the change would have little impact on the streetscape, since the houses will dominate the streetscape either way. He felt the proposal could improve the streetscape by adding variety and minimizing exposed roof on the street side.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Site Plan and Conditional Use Review for Athletic Field Fencing & Scoreboard – CVU Property on Pond Road:
**continued from May 17 meeting**
Tom said that this was a continuation of the site plan and conditional use review. He noted that the Board and the Applicant had conducted a site visit earlier this evening. The following observations were noted:
Nathan asked about the purpose of the fence. Bob Mason said the fence essentially serves 2 purposes given the steep slopes adjacent to the fields: 1) safety of the players, and 2) catching the preponderance of errant balls. He said the fence is approximately 21’ from the edge of the playing area. Nathan asked if landscaping has been considered to either replace or supplement the fence. Bob said they haven’t had any success working out a solution with landscaping instead of fencing. Greg said he has heard that the green fence application does hold up over time, contrary to what Bob told the Board at the last meeting. Bob said their experts told them the application doesn’t hold up well over time. He said this sort of application is also problematic on the visibility front, because it would be very visible in the winter when the background is white instead of green.
Tom asked how the vegetation near the fence would be maintained (e.g., herbicide or mechanical weed wacking). Bob said it would likely be mechanical control. Peter wondered if the vegetation could be allowed to grow behind the fence to help it blend in more. Nathan agreed that this made sense. Tom said the baseball coach was interested in growing vegetation (e.g., vine) in the fence around the baseball field. Bob said this could be possible for the fences on the upper fields as well.
Tom felt the storage of the goals was also an issue. Bob agreed that goal storage would be addressed by CVU. Tom asked about the white board now present on the lower field. Bob said this would be removed once the scoreboard is installed. Tom also noted that it will be a long walk from the parking area on Pond road to the upper field for spectators.
Tom voiced objection to the chain link fence due to the impact it would have on the viewscape from Pond Road, and the fact that it will be a permanent fixture. Nathan said the visual impact of the fence is in the eye of the beholder, but he agrees that there could by a more creative solution. Mike Bissonette said he is confused by the DRB saying that it doesn’t want the view obstructed, but might consider landscaping or ivy in the fence, which would also block the view. Bob suggested breaking the project into parts in order to negotiate a compromise for individual fields. Joe Donegan supported landscaping to break up the long expanse of fence. George Munson suggested plantings behind the fence. Mike Bissonette said he was concerned the conversation was focusing too much on stopping soccer balls and not enough on safety.
Greg MOVED to continue the hearing to the July 19 meeting, and to direct staff to begin drafting conditions of approval for both the Board and the Applicant to review at the next meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Sketch Plan Review for 8-unit, 9-lot Subdivision – Munson Property on VT Route 116 and Buck Hill Road West – Applicants are Chuck Reiss & Russell Family Trust:
George Munson recused himself from the Board for the review of this application.
Chuck Reiss and Howdy Russell explained that the Russell Family Trust is in negotiations with the Munsons, to purchase the property. They have a completely different development plan than what the Munsons presented earlier (DRB granted preliminary plat approval to the Munson plan on February 22, 2005). Chuck said that the plan submitted with the original application (and distributed in the Board packets) has changed somewhat. He presented “version 2”, which still includes 9 lots as a Planned Residential Development (PRD): 6 new building lots planned for single-family homes, 1 lot for the existing house, 1 lot for the existing barn, and 1 remaining lot encompassing most of the acreage. Chuck said he is interested in building “green” or energy efficient homes of approximately 2000-2500 square feet, with active and passive solar components (solar panel roofing, solar water heating, etc.).
Chuck noted that version 2 shows smaller building lots to keep more retained land on lot 9 for agriculture. He said that a portion of lot 8 (barn lot) would have an easement for agricultural use (e.g., garden plots, poultry) by the new homes on lots 1-6. Altogether, lots 1-6 would occupy about 2 acres. Lot 7 (existing home) would be 0.6 acres. Lot 8 would be 6.5 acres. Lot 9 would be 14.5 acres. He indicated that the Russell family may be interested in subdividing off 2 additional building lots from lot 9 in the future; however, this is not part of the current application. Chuck noted that the orange triangle on the plan indicates a possible location for a wind turbine on lot 9.
Chuck and Howdy described the proposed pedestrian easements and paths that would provide the development with access to the Village via an outlet on to Route 116 on the western side. Another path would begin at this point on Route 116 and proceed north to provide public access to the trail network on the Russell Family’s abutting property. Howdy said the family is working to conserve a portion of the abutting Russell Family property, and plans to provide formal public access/easements as a part of that plan. The Munson property would help serve as a gateway to these trails. They are also considering another pedestrian path leading north from the existing Buck Hill Road driveway to the Russell trail system. This point of access may provide the opportunity to provide a small parking area, so that trail users from outside the village can come and use the trails.
Greg asked for details on the open space portion of the PRD. Chuck said the required open space would primarily be located on lot 9. Tom noted that the new houses appear to be located in a natural “bowl” near the base of the hillside. Robert asked if the houses would be 1 or 2 story structures. Chuck said this has not been determined, but that overall size will be limited if he pursues green certification. Robert asked if the houses on the smaller lots would meet the setback requirements. Chuck said they would be asking for waivers of various setback requirements. He said the lots had been reduced in size with the hopes that nearly the entire lot would constitute the building envelope. Chuck said they are considering individual or shared wells, but will be utilizing Town sewer, so isolation distances won’t be an issue.
Nancy Norris asked if the wetland areas would be revegetated. Chuck said most of the wetland areas (apparently all class 3) would be allowed to naturalize, except that no trees would be allowed on the wetland portion of the southern end of lots 1-6. Vegetation here needs to be kept lower to preserve solar gain and views. Rad Romeyn asked if the barn would be restored. Chuck said the barn is an important part of the development plan, and that it would be stabilized. He was not sure of the final use of the barn, so future renovation plans are not yet clear.
George Bedard asked why the access is off of Route 116 instead of Buck Hill Road. Chuck said the proposed access is an existing farm access that allows better/easier access to the lower hill area along the contours where lots 1-6 are. He said they have talked to the State Agency of Transportation, and the State has given a verbal OK for the access. George Bedard explained that the Town used to be concerned about the old Buck Hill Road intersection with Route 116 (north of current intersection). He said the Town thought traffic was unsafe here because of sight distances related to the curve on Route 116 and speed. He thought they should look into this, since the traffic volume has only increased in the last 10 years. Howdy said minimizing the visual impact of the access was part of the thinking, and the proposed access point does this better than an access off of Buck Hill Road.
Chuck noted that the proposed paths would likely be simple mowed paths rather than gravel walkways. Alex asked where the required open space (approx. 6 acres minimum) would be. Howdy explained the likely locations primarily on lot 9, but also potentially on lot 8. He also explained how the possible future lots would dovetail with this open space. Nancy asked if the access road would be paved, and Chuck said no.
Nathan pointed out that traffic does tend to speed up on this section of Route 116, so they should consider this when choosing/designing an access from Route 116 or Buck Hill Road. Peter felt there was the possibility to add an additional lot for an affordable house. Robert felt a site visit would be helpful to see the lots, likely house locations, and to assess the potential visibility of the most visible house. Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the July 19 meeting, and to schedule a site visit for the same evening. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0.
George Munson returned to the Board for the remainder of the meeting.
Other Business:
Welch Sketch Plan for 2-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:
Greg felt the decision should be amended to increase the buffer to the west of the proposed building envelope on lot 1. Peter suggested there be a condition that stormwater from the new driveway to lot 1 not enter the Town road. Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Ballard Final Plat for 2-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:
George and Greg noted typographical errors. George MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Isham-Brown Sketch Plan for 2-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:
Peter reminded the Board that the map did not include a context/location map. Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Rob SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Norris Final Plat for 1-lot, 9-unit PRD – Review draft decision:
Alex suggested the language allow flexibility in selecting the 2 trees to be planted near the end of the cedar hedge in the back yard. He suggested simply requiring that the trees be appropriate for the site. Peter said past approvals included a provision that the trees be maintained for healthy and vigorous growth. Robert agreed with the proposed hours of construction, but felt there was a need to be consistent on this front. Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Nathan abstaining.
CVU Site Plan & Conditional Use for Baseball Field Fence – Review draft decision:
George MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as drafted. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0 with Nathan abstaining.
Carlson Final Plat for 2-lot Subdivision – Deliberation & instructions for staff:
The Board felt the draft decision should be amended as discussed during the hearing.
CVU Site Plan & Conditional Use for Pond Road Field Fencing & Upper Field Scoreboard – Deliberation & instructions for staff:
The Board discussed the fencing proposal and the visual impact. Nathan felt CVU had not been very creative with solutions to this issue. He felt, and the rest of the Board agreed, that CVU was presenting the cheapest and easiest option. He felt there were likely other options that would accomplish CVU’s purpose, while impacting the landscape less. Various Board members expressed the desire to see CVU explore and present other options.
Ayer 6-lot Subdivision – Request for preliminary plat filing extension:
Alex explained that Raymond Ayer has requested a 6-month extension for filing his preliminary plat application for his proposed 6-lot subdivision on Gilman Road. George MOVED to grant a 6-month filing extension (from original deadline date). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________________/____________
Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date