TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

July 19, 2005

Approved August 2, 2005

 

DRB Members Present:  Ted Bloomhardt (acting chair), George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, Clint Emmons, Nathan Makay.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Tom McGlenn, Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Donna Constantineau, George Palmer, Bob Mason, Karla Munson, Frank Babbott, Chris & Diana Borie, Chuck Reiss, Raymond & Ruth Ayer, Tom Barden, Howard Russell, Harry Russell, George Bedard, Anne Donegan, Ray Curtis, Gary French.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

 

Minutes of July 5, 2005 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the July 5, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.  Robert SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0 with Clint and Ted abstaining.

 

Site Plan and Conditional Use Review for Athletic Field Fencing & Scoreboard – CVU Property on Pond Road:

**continued from July 5 meeting**

Tom McGlenn was out of town, and tried to participate by speaker phone, but we were unable to keep a good cell phone connection.  Alex passed out Tom’s pre-prepared written comments on the application.  The Board reviewed the 3 draft decisions Peter distributed earlier – upper varsity field, upper intramural field, scoreboard for upper intramural field.  Ted first asked for the Board to comment on the upper varsity field draft approval with conditions.  Greg felt conclusion #4 regarding spectators, parking, etc. should not require coordination with the Hinesburg Police Department.  Instead he recommended adding a condition frequently used by the Board, which requires the Applicant to return with proposed solutions should parking or traffic circulation become a problem.  Nathan asked Bob Mason to reiterate the primary use for the fence.  Bob Mason said the purposes were two-fold: 1) player safety to provide a barrier in front of the steep side slopes, 2) stop balls from rolling down the steep side slopes.  Tom Barden said that the principal and athletic director are steadfast about the fence being 6’ high, especially due to safety concerns.  Donna Constantineau asked if the fence could be landscaped to appear more natural.  She said the proposed plain, chain link fence looks out of place and institutional on this hillside.

 

Bob Mason said CVU is willing to make 3 compromises: 1) reduce the northern extent of the fence by 80’; 2) use a vinyl coated fencing if the DRB deems it necessary; 3) plant vegetation on the outside of the fence to help it blend in.  Greg wondered if a 4’ high fence would still accomplish CVU’s goals.  Tom Barden reiterated the safety concerns of the principal and athletic director, both of which feel that a 4’ fence is too low to provide a safe barrier to players leaving the field of play out of control.  Bob said they can’t do planting on the inside of the fence due to the necessary “apron” that is needed around the field of play.  He repeated that CVU is willing to put plantings on the outside of the fence.

 

Donna asked if there will be landscaping on the Pond Road side of this field.  Bob said there will be landscaping around the adjacent parking area, but not the fields themselves.  Donna felt that as the host town for this union highschool, Hinesburg deserves a comprehensive and well thought out plan that is cognizant of the area’s scenery.

 

Ted compared the slopes on the lower, existing varsity soccer field to those on the new upper fields.  Ted felt the slopes on the existing field were still substantial, and that athletic events there have been successful without as much fencing.  Bob Mason and Tom Barden argued that the slopes are much steeper on the new upper fields.  Alex noted that the Applicant plans to pay for any additional field landscaping from the same pot of funds that will be used for previously approved landscaping plans.  He said that additional landscaping should have no impact on previously approved landscaping from other aspects of the CVU expansion project.

 

Ted moved on to the next draft decision, and asked for comments on the draft denial for the upper intramural field fencing.  Again, Bob Mason said that CVU is willing to make the same 3 compromises on this field (coated fence, shorter fence, plantings).  He said that he would rather continue with the negotiations than have the DRB give CVU a denial for the fencing of this field.  Greg said a 4’ high vinyl coated fence might stand a better chance of approval.  Tom Barden wondered if the fence could be 4’ high on the west side and 6’ high on the south side.  Donna wondered why berms and landscaping wouldn’t be a suitable substitute for the fencing.  Tom Barden explained that these options won’t work because these fields were “shoe horned” into the site, and due to the wetland constraints, they literally can’t increase the field area.

 

Bob Mason and Tom Barden explained that the negotiation process is difficult because the CVU board must make the final decisions on what is proposed and what is acceptable to the CVU community.  Tom Barden said that CVU is a bit frustrated by the process.  Ted explained that the DRB has been very frustrated by the manner in which CVU has handled the application and local development review process.  He clarified that the easiest way to have solved this issue would have been to plan usable fields from the outset, and to have identified the need for fencing earlier in the process, before fields were constructed.

 

The Board also discussed the draft approval for the scoreboard for the upper intramural field.  Bob Mason said the draft decision language was acceptable.  He also said that he would prefer a separate approval of this scoreboard even as CVU develops alternate fencing proposals for this field.  Nathan agreed with the draft condition language requiring some plantings around the scoreboard.  Ted MOVED to close the public hearing on the upper varsity field fencing and the upper intramural field scoreboard, and to direct staff to finalize the conditions of approval for the next meeting.  He also MOVED to continue the hearing on the upper intramural field fencing to the September 6 meeting.  Greg SECONDED the combined motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

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:

**continued from July 5 meeting**

George Munson recused himself from the Board for the review of this application.

 

Ted said that this was a continuation of the sketch plan review from the last meeting.  He noted that Board members (Ted, Greg, Robert, Nathan) and the Applicant had conducted a site visit earlier this evening.  The following observations were noted:

 

Ted asked what purpose lot 8 would serve.  Chuck said it isn’t really another building lot at this time, and that he would like to keep his options open for the future.  Alex mentioned that the recently adopted Town Plan discusses a possible zoning change for this area that might open up a wider variety of allowed uses (e.g., commercial, etc.).  Ted asked if open space would be set aside as undeveloped land per the PRD regulations.  Chuck said that a portion of lot 9 would be identified as open space.  Howdy Russell described the general location of the open space – i.e., generally to the north of the developed portion, occupying the best agricultural land at the height of the property as well as some surrounding pasture land.  Howdy explained the Russell Family’s intent to utilize the open space for a variety of agricultural uses.  He also explained that the open space will likely grow substantially in the future (5+ years) once the Russell Family settles on a location for the 2 future building lots – i.e., the remaining area not used for these lots would likely be added to the open space from this project.  He explained that they can’t set it all aside now as they need some flexibility when it comes time to create these 2 future lots (5+ years).

 

George Palmer asked what the tax implications would be for this open space land.  Ted clarified that this land is proposed to remain in private ownership (Russell Family), and would be taxed as open/agricultural land.  George Palmer also indicated concern about his well on Friendship Lane, which has a yield of 100+ gallons per minute.  He said he would like his well monitored before and after wells for this project go in.  Ruth Ayer asked the Board if visibility was an issue for this development.  Ted explained that visibility had been an issue for the previous Munson subdivision proposal that received preliminary plat approval early this year.  He explained how this proposal is substantially different, with the development proposed much lower on the property.  Howdy and Chuck explained that they are trying to be cognizant of visibility issues through lot placement, building into the hill, road access location, and possible exterior color & construction design.

 

George Munson said he felt that stormwater and erosion issues should be addressed.  He felt the Board should pay particular attention to these issues given that the development is proposed on the hillside, and given that all the runoff will be traveling to the Buck Hill Road ditch and then under Route 116 to a ditch on his property.  Ted felt that the Board will address the stormwater and visibility issues.

 

Before the discussion was closed, Chuck asked if Board members felt there were any deal breakers for this plan.  Greg said that he and other Board members expressed their opinion at the last meeting that this was a good sketch plan application.  Nathan said his only outstanding concern was the safety of the proposed Route 116 access given the approach along Route 116.  He said more investigation should be done to determine if this is the best access and whether any mitigation measures are needed.  George Bedard said his real concern is traffic on Route 116 coming from the north.  He said cars pick up speed after coming out of the village and around the corner to the north, and that he was concerned about safety with southbound cars stopping to turn left into the development.  Clint asked how the Russell Family would get to their future lots if they were located across the stream as desired.  Howdy said they would utilize a shared driveway extending straight from the end of the access road.  Ted MOVED to close the public discussion on this sketch plan, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

George Munson returned to Board for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Preliminary Plat Review for 2-lot Subdivision – Babbott Property on Pond Road:

Frank Babbott explained his request for Preliminary Plat approval of a 2-lot Subdivision in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District.  The subject parcel is located on the south side of Pond Road, across from Maple Tree Lane; parcel number 17-20-06.000.  The parcel is undeveloped, and landlocked with access to Pond Road via a 50’ right of way (approx. 500’ long) across the Borie and Curtis properties.  The parcel is almost entirely forested and of varied terrain with wetland below an area of ledge on the western side.

 

Lot 1A, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 5.9 acres on the western side of the parcel.  A building envelope (approx. 140’ x 250’) is identified in the middle of this lot, to the east of the steep slopes along the ledge and to the west of the proposed access right of way.  The plat also calls out this building envelope as the clearing limit for this lot.  Access to lot 1A is from a proposed shared right of way with lot 1B and the Applicant’s abutting property to the south.  Lot 1A will be served by an individual well and on-site septic located just downslope from the ledge.  This lot will be encumbered by a septic easement for lot 1b’s leach field and force main pipeline.  Lot 1B comprises the remaining 4.1 acres on the eastern side of the parcel.  A building envelope and clearing limit (approx. 150’ x 200’) is identified in the southeastern corner of this lot, to the east of the proposed access right of way.  Access to lot 1b is from the proposed shared right of way with lot 1a and the Applicant’s abutting property to the south.  Lot 1b will be served by an individual well and septic system located on lot 1a just downslope from the ledge (adjacent to lot 1a’s system).  This lot will be encumbered by substantial amount of right of way, the initial portion shared with lot 1a, and the remainder shared with the Applicant’s abutting property to the south.

 

Ted noted that the Board approved the sketch plan for this project over 2 years ago.  He asked if there were any major changes from that time.  Frank said there were only minor changes to the proposed right of way to account for wetlands.  Ted reviewed the issues discussed in the staff report, beginning with the conditions from the sketch plan approval.  Frank indicated that the new utility lines would be underground along the proposed right of way.  He also indicated that some existing contours may be changed by more than 5 feet in one small section of the access right of way where a bank exists and fill may need to be added.

 

Diana Borie expressed several concerns during this review, including: 1) proposed screening from her lot; 2) possible impacts to her property (well and house) from any blasting; 3) septic system location and impacts on the wetland that may end up affecting her property.  Frank felt a DRB site visit would clarify the amount of vegetation being left to contribute toward screening.  He said he didn’t think any blasting would impact the Borie property, but that well monitoring could be done.  Alex and Greg explained the wetland classification system and said that the surveyor’s map shows the infrastructure (including septic) well away from both the wetland and any buffer areas.

 

Ted mentioned the need for draft legal language to address the shared infrastructure (access, septic easements, etc.).  Alex explained that Frank should work with an attorney to present draft legal language (e.g., deed, homeowner’s association, etc.) with the final application.  Greg asked Frank if he understood the implications of designing lot 1b in such a way that it does not meet the contiguous area requirements in the Zoning Regulations (section 2.4.6).  Frank said he did understand that this would limit the use of the right of way to his abutting parcel to only 1 lot.  Ted discussed the various plat changes recommended in the staff report.  Greg asked Alex if the Board typically requires formal surveying (e.g., metes and bounds) for right of ways.  Alex said it may not be typical, but that he recommends it in cases where the location of the right of way or easement is critical – e.g., shared by many users, very little wiggle room, not along a pre-existing route.  Greg asked George Bedard surveying of these areas is typical.  George said it is not.  Alex explained that it is particularly important for the sewer easement that crosses lot 1a since it is in very close proximity to the proposed house on this lot (i.e., potential neighbor issues if location isn’t clear to all parties).  Frank said he may have these elements formally surveyed just to be safe.

 

Ted MOVED to continue this sketch plan review to the August 2 meeting with a site visit of the property before the meeting at 6pm.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.  Frank said he would make sure to have access and building envelopes flagged.

 

Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision – French Property on Drinkwater Road:

Gary French explained his request for Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District.  The subject parcel is approximately 18.8 acres, and is located on the south side of Drinkwater Road, at the Charlotte town line; parcel # 11-01-02.200.  The parcel is currently developed with the Applicant’s existing home and sugarhouse, which sit relatively close to the road in the northwest corner of the parcel.

 

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises approximately 2.4 acres in the northwest corner of the parcel, and includes the existing home and sugarhouse.  Lot 1 will have access to Drinkwater Road via the existing driveway.  On-site septic and a well already exist on this lot. A small portion on the eastern portion of lot 1 may be encumbered by a right of way area for access to lot 2.  Lot 2 comprises the remaining 16.2 acres of the parcel.  Lot 2 has rolling terrain with the top of a small hill in the northwest corner and Lewis Creek along the southern boundary.  Much of this lot is forested with scattered open areas along the road, in the southeast corner, and on top of the hill.  The probable house site will be part way up the hill, but on the forest edge to reduce visibility from surrounding roads.  Lot 2 will have access to Drinkwater Road via a new driveway cut.  Access to the new house will take advantage of an existing farm access/road that works with the natural contours of the hillside.  On-site septic is proposed.  The Applicant is exploring the option of sharing the existing water source on lot 1.

 

Gary and George Bedard explained a change to the submitted plan to create a new driveway cut for lot 2 rather than sharing the existing driveway with lot 1.  Gary said that the utility line is on the opposite side of Drinkwater Road (north side).  He would like to come across the road with 1 new pole located approximately 400’ south by the tree line, and then go underground from there to the new house on lot 2.  Greg referred to section 6.9.1 of the Subdivision Regulations that requires underground utilities.  Ted agreed that the new utility line would have to be underground.  Gary said he would do it this way if that is what is required.

 

Ted reviewed the issues from the staff report.  Gary said he was fine with the final plan showing a building envelope that keeps the house for lot 2 on the forest/field edge.  George Bedard described the grade of the proposed driveway, and said that he will be doing contours with the final plan.  He said the runoff will be designed to sheet flow away from the driveway toward the wetland area in the northeast corner of the lot rather than into the road.  Robert felt this should be classified as a minor subdivision.  Ted MOVED to close the public discussion of this sketch plan, and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Other Business:

Greg said he won’t be here for the August 2 meeting.  George said he may not be here for that meeting as well.

 

CVU Site Plan & Conditional Use for Pond Road Lower/Varsity Field Fencing & Upper/Intramural Field Scoreboard – Deliberation & review draft decisions:

Per the discussions early in the meeting, the Board felt the draft approvals should be finalized for the varsity field fencing and the intramural field scoreboard.  Aside from filling in various blanks in the draft decisions, the following conditions should be made clear:  Fencing – green coating, plantings behind fence, no need for 15’ no-cut buffer; Scoreboard – largely OK as drafted (see discussion).

 

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

Greg felt the decision should be amended to ensure the Applicant proposes a suitable turn around for emergency vehicles.  Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0 with Clint abstaining.

 

Creekside LLC Final Plat for Revisions to Prior Approvals – Review draft decision:

Greg noted minor corrections to conclusion #5, and an addition to conclusion #7 to indicate the Board’s concern about future revisions to this development.  The Board discussed condition #4 of the order, and decided to leave it as drafted.  George MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0 with Ted and Clint abstaining.

 

Carlson Final Plat for 2-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:

It was noted that the parking lot offset in condition #2 of the order should be 8-10’.  The last sentence of condition #9 of the order was removed since this is required in any case.  Condition #11&12 of the order were modified slightly to limit forest clearing and to allow other users of the road to join the road association.  Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0 with Nathan abstaining.

 

Reiss/Russell/Munson Sketch Plan for 8-unit, 9-lot Subdivision/PRD – Deliberation & instructions for staff:

The Board clarified that they would like a traffic engineer to assess the safety of Route 116 access.  They also felt that the preliminary plat application should include information on stormwater runoff and erosion control.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:20pm.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning                        Date