TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

August 2, 2005

Approved August 16, 2005

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn (chair), Ted Bloomhardt, Robert Gauthier, Clint Emmons, Nathan Makay, Joe Donegan.

DRB Members Absent:  George Munson, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples.

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Peg Montgomery, Jeff Washburn, Chris Borie, Diana Borie, Skip McClellan (Frank Babbott's driveway engineer from Llewellyn-Howley Inc.), Frank Babbott, Mike Charney, Gerald Newton, Jamie Carroll, Tom Lyman.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of July 19, 2005 Meeting:

Robert MOVED to approve the July 19, 2005 meeting minutes.  Nathan SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0 with Joe abstaining.

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

**continued from July 19 meeting**

Tom noted that this was a continuation of the Preliminary Plat Review from the previous meeting on July 19. Tom McGlenn, Nathan Makay, Alex Weinhagen, Frank Babbott, Skip McClellan, Chris and Diana Borie, and George Bedard (surveyor representing the Bories)

conducted a site visit prior to the DRB meeting. The following observations were noted:

·       Viewed the proposed shared drive and reviewed the engineered plan.

·       Viewed the building envelope for site 1A.

·       Walked to the proposed septic area for lots 1A and 1B.

·       Followed the path that the septic pipe will take to lot 1A.

·       Viewed the class 3 wetland that affected the septic pipe location near the ledge.

·       Observed several class 2 and 3 wetlands at the bottom of the hillside.

·       Viewed the building envelope for lot 1B.

·       Observed vault location for power.

·       Noted driveway location for lots 1A and 1B off from the common road.

·       Viewed rock wall where the no cut zone has been established.

·       Walked all property lines except the southern boundary.

Tom asked if there were any other observations to be recorded into the minutes. Diana Borie expressed concern regarding the northern border of the building envelope for building lot 1A. She would like a larger buffer to remain in order to preserve some mature trees in this location. Tom noted that a covenant could be added to place the building on the southern border of the building envelope for lot 1A.

At this point Skip McClellan, the driveway engineer reviewed the plan for the driveway including the width (18') and grades. Alex noted that there may be increased flexibility in this area due to the new road regulations in effect. It was also observed that the existing road in from Pond Road might not meet current width regulations as it is approximately 9' wide.

Alex distributed a letter written by Christopher and Diana Borie that addressed several concerns that they have regarding the Babbott subdivision project. Tom acknowledged that the building location on lot 1A could be adjusted to accommodate for privacy concerns. Clint suggested that the building envelope on this lot be made smaller. Frank agreed that he would make the building envelope smaller for structures built to the south of the septic easement.  He also clarified that since the septic location will be on the eastern side, there is no need to clear trees on the western edge of the lot. Frank was not aware of any issues regarding the building envelope location on lot 1B.

In reviewing the letter to the board from the Bories, Tom asked whether there was ever a discussion of a homeowners association. Frank said that this had not been discussed. Diana Borie explained that the Curtis and Borie households currently have an informal agreement to maintain the shared drive. Tom noted that this will become an issue in the future as the additional lots will add expense to the maintenance of the road. Alex noted that in the staff notes for the preliminary plat it was required that the applicant submit draft legal language detailing responsibilities for the driveway but that this was for the deed and there was no mention of the creation of a homeowners association.

Tom then asked Frank to address the concerns of the Borie's as outlined in their letter to the board. Frank addressed the following concerns as noted. (Concern in italics, followed by response.)

Are the Babbott's still planning on building a home for their family on one of these lots?

Frank explained that although he does still plan to build a house for his family in this location he has not yet decided which lot to use. 

Endangerment to Wetlands:

In regards to the wetlands Frank stated that the Agency for Natural Resources has made several site visits and all wetland areas have been identified and staked.

Increase in Traffic:

The two back lots received sketch plan approval prior to both neighbors moving in. There will be an increase in traffic but the Borie and Curtis households were made aware of this when they purchased their properties.

Quality of Life and Privacy:

Frank felt he had made several accommodations on this issue and did not feel the entire burden should be his.

Additional Lots on the second lot of 10.3 acres:

As noted in the July 19^th DRB meeting by Greg Waples only one additional lot on the back parcel may utilize the ROW per current zoning regulations. Frank stated that he has no plans to subdivide the second lot and does not plan to join two rights of way. Tom noted the zoning regulations would not allow this anyway.

Foot Traffic to HS:

Frank believes there is a foot traffic easement through the southern parcel for students to use to get to CVU. Peter concurred that he believed that information was accurate.

Damage to utility lines currently in the ROW during construction:

Dig Safe would need to be contacted prior to any construction in the ROW to protect these lines.  If any damage is done the excavator would need to repair it.

Water runoff from ROW:

Ditches currently exist on either side of the ROW these will be utilized and a new culvert will be installed under the Borie driveway to accommodate for the runoff.

Existing drainage ditches:

These will not be disturbed. Frank said that everything between the rock wall and fence would not be touched.

Buried Utilities:

All utilities will be buried per current zoning regulations.

Additional houses using ROW:

Only one additional lot on the southern parcel may use the current ROW as previously discussed.

Improvements to ROW at Babbott's expense:

Frank stated he would be taking care of all expense for improvements to the ROW after it is determined that the current drive is in compliance of current driveway regulations. Frank felt if the current drive is out of compliance that the Borie and Curtis property owners should bear some of the expense to make the road compliant. Alex noted that compliance will be required prior to the start of construction.  Peter and Alex said they would research prior permits for the drive.

Clint asked if the last utility pole will be in the ROW. Frank said that it is on the Borie property and he has an easement for the pole in return for him addressing several privacy concerns of the Bories.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion of the preliminary plat. Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5 – 0.

Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Babbott Preliminary Plat. Clint SECONDED. The motion passed 5 – 0.

Ted joined the meeting at this point.

Conditional Use Review for a Screened Porch Addition - 117 Shadow Lane – Applicants are Gerald and Linda Newton

Gerald Newton explained his request for a Conditional Use permit. Gerald and Linda Newton own a camp on 117 Shadow Lane which is two lots up from the lake, just above the Davis camp which received a conditional use permit for the replacement of and enlargement of the existing camp in February of 2003. The Newton's would like to relocate an existing deck on the front of the camp and construct a screen porch with a roof and some siding on it. The existing 10 x 16 deck would be relocated from parallel to the front of the camp to at a right angle to the camp, so that it extends towards the road an additional 6 feet. this relocation would get the porch slightly beyond the enlarged Davis residence and allow them to regain their view of the lake.

Peter clarified that this is a conditional use request because it is a change to a non-complying structure. Nathan asked if Gerald would be using his original roof line design or the one suggested by Peter. Gerald said he would be using Peter's suggestion. Ted asked if Gerald will still be able to park his vehicles on the side of the road with the change in orientation of the porch. Gerald said he would still be able to park in the same location.

Jamie Carroll, a neighbor to the West of the Newton property distributed a letter with some concerns he had regarding the Newton request. Jamie's primary concerns were the obstruction of his view due to the new structure, the structure's impact on the Newton leech field and a shed that had been erected on the Newton/Carroll property line that did not meet setback requirements.  Jamie explained that the shed and porch would effectively remove 60% of his easterly view of the lake. Tom asked if a building permit had been issued for the shed. Peter said there was no permit issued. Gerald said that he would move the shed to the western side of his property. Tom noted that any shed 10' by 10' or larger requires a building permit. Gerald said the shed is 10' by 8' however Peter noted that it still must meet setback requirements of 15' from rear yard and 10' from side yards, or it will need a variance.

Nathan asked if the porch will be constructed over the existing leech field. Gerald said that part of the porch will sit over one line and it will also cover approximately 5' of another line. He plans to anchor the porch to the house and use cement piers on the side closest to the road. Jamie noted that with this construction the roof will drain onto the leech field. Nathan was concerned that the cement piers might hit the leech field and that runoff from the roof may become an issue as well.

The board then discussed other variations which might serve to meet the needs of all involved and protect the leech field. Jamie asked if the porch could be moved to the North side of the camp. Gerald said he has no view on this side due to the enlarged Davis camp. Clint suggested that Gerald move the porch to the south eastern corner of the camp as opposed to the south western corner. This would move the structure away from the leech field but would not help Jamie to retain his view. Peter suggested that Gerald construct a 10' screened in porch on the new location and leave the additional 6' as a deck. This would enlarge his living space but also preserve Jamie's view of the lake. Gerald and Jamie both agreed this was a good compromise to meet everyone's needs.

Ted mentioned that the shed would need to be made compliant or removed.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing. Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval including the removal or compliance of the shed, to turn the porch and move its location to the southeast corner of the camp, and to enclose 10' and leave the last 6' as a deck with no roof. Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Sketch Plan Review for 2-Lot Subdivision – 85 Texas Brook Road – Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

Mike Charney explained his request for sketch plan approval for a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential II (RRII) Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres, and is located on the south side of Texas Hill Rd, above Texas Brook.  The parcel rises steeply to the south and is one of a series of railroad lots created by the subdivision of this land by O’Brien in 1979. These lots comprise the northern terminus of a longer “chain” of forested hills that extends South through the Mclean property and then the town Forest and beyond. Peter has reviewed that approval and found no conditions that relate to this application. The approved site plan for the previous subdivision does include five foot contours of this lot and Peter included it as a part of his report. The subdivision was originally ten lots and received an act 250 permit 4-CO-374 in March of 1979 which was rescinded in August when the number of lots was reduced to six. Lot #2, now proposed for subdivision rises fairly steeply to the south and contains the home of the applicant in the northern portion, between Texas Hill Road and Brook and the right of way that leads to lot #1 (Texas Brook Road).

Peter noted that the survey drawing in the staff packet was not Mike's and had been done as part of a previous subdivision. Ted asked how many acres are on either side of the proposed ROW. Mike thought there was approximately 2 acres. There was concern that this did not meet the Contiguous Area requirement in the zoning regulations (2.4.6). Peter read from the regulations :“Each lot must have a contiguous area of at least the minimum lot size for the district in which the lot is located. Accordingly, if any lot is divided into two or more sub parcels by ... a private road (or any easement in which such a private road may be located) other than a private road serving the lot on which it is located and no more than one other lot, minimum lot size requirements must be satisfied by a single sub-parcel.”

Since the proposed ROW will only serve one additional lot the plan does not have to meet the contiguous area requirement.

There was some concern with the steep grades on the lot. Mike noted that if he is able to cut his drive slightly into the Kaiser property he will be able to meet the grade requirements for the driveway.

Peg Montgomery and Jeff Washburn are Mike's neighbors and had some concerns about the subdivision. Peg noted that the well and septic information Mike had mentioned was 26 years old and was not sure if it would still be valid. Alex explained that Mike was using this info as a reference and would need to have all information updated prior to final approval. Peg also mentioned that each deed in the subdivision has a covenant regarding the maintenance of the ROW and that all homeowners should contribute equally to its maintenance. Currently not all homeowners contribute and Peg wanted to know how Mike's new lot would be included in this responsibility. Mike said that he would include the same wording in his new deed. Peg also noted concerns about drainage and that the Kaiser property is not properly drained for the road bed and spring runoff becomes a big issue. Mike said that the new driveway will drain into the culvert under his current driveway or through the forest. Jeff asked who is liable for road improvements when they need to be completed. Since the wording is only in the deeds and there is no homeowners association it is difficult to enforce this responsibility. In the past Peg has paid for road improvements on her own and been reimbursed by some but not all homeowners. Mike again said he would put this wording in his deed and would also create a homeowners association.

Peg asked if utilities will be overhead or underground. Mike said he would comply with current zoning regulations and bury utility cables.

Jeff noted that as he is a beekeeper on the adjacent property and is concerned about the location of the building envelope. He does not want it to affect his operation, in addition he noted that there is a great deal of wildlife in the area. Tom said that clearing can be restricted based on the building envelope.

Tom said it sounded like a site visit would be strongly recommended for this subdivision. Peter stated that there are three main issues to take note of at a site visit: 1. Ensure that the road does not damage the existing intermittent stream, 2. Incursion into the back undeveloped section of the lot. This is becoming more and more common on these lots 3. Proper maintenance of a storm water infrastructure to protect Texas Brook. In addition he thought the creation of a homeowners association was a good idea as it helps with liability for issues that arise and gives the town one entity to deal with.

Tom said that the board will need to determine whether this is a two or three step approval process after the site visit.

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the August 16 meeting with a site visit of the property before the meeting at 6 pm. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Conditional Use Review for Home Occupation – 2093 Silver Street – Applicants are George and Linda LeClair.

Alex noted that the LeClairs had withdrawn their application.

Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval for Nextel Telecommunications Tower

Alex explained that the original sketch plan approval was granted and is set to expire in a few days. Nextel has pulled out of the project due to compensation issues with the town of Hinesburg. The Select board would like to find another telecommunications company to fulfill this project and would therefore like the sketch plan approval extended.

Clint noted that he did not think the time line should be extended because other applications may differ based on the company requesting the permit.

Tom MOVED to extend the time line attached to the current sketch plan approval. Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion FAILED with Nathan and Robert voting in favor, Tom, Ted and Clint voting opposed, and Joe abstaining.

Other Business:

CVU Upper Varsity Field - Review draft decision:

Ted asked that condition #3 specify that 'all landscaping shall be installed by the next available planting season.'  Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

CVU Intramural Scoreboard – Review draft decision:

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Gary and Colleen French Sketch Plan for 2-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval). Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Tom and Joe abstaining.

Reiss/Russell/Munson Sketch Plan for 8-unit, 9-lot Subdivision – Review draft decision:

Joe Donegan recused himself from the Board at this time.

Ted asked that the following wording be added to order #5 after 'Russell Trust Land...' “that were contemplated and discussed at the DRB meeting on July 19 then” the preliminary plat application...'

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

Joe Donegan returned to the Board for the remainder of the meeting.

Alex distributed the new road regulations from the select board.

At this point Tom Lyman asked if he might have a moment of the Board's time. Tom passed around photos of the sidewalk in front of the fire station and police station. He then passed around photos a barn that he built one year ago. Tom explained that he received a letter from the town regarding his need to complete landscaping around his barn to stay in compliance with his building permit. Tom was especially bothered by this notice when he noted the lack of landscaping and maintenance of grounds in front of town offices. Ted noted that the board tries to make sure everyone meets their conditions of approval. Peter was not sure if there was a condition that he was not enforcing regarding the grounds and said he would research this topic. Alex said that Tom might have an issue with the select board which actually distributes public funds. The DRB has been working with the Police Department and Fire Department for a year to get their improvement plan under way. Having appropriate money in the budgets was the issue. Alex believed the money should have been made available as of July 1 to help them complete the improvement plan which included landscaping, new parking and a new flag pole. Tom strongly agreed that public entities should serve as positive examples for the private homeowners in  town. Alex said he would draft a letter to the Select board to address the issue of town buildings setting a good example for the residents of Hinesburg to follow.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:25 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heather Stafford, Recording Secretary