TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

August 16, 2005

Approved September 6, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: Nathan Makay.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Arthur Guarino, Taylor Corrigan, Dana Charlebois, Jeff Padget (Engineer for Abbey Trust Subdivision), Rad Romeyn, Clark Johnson, Maureen Harrison, Francis Emmons, Carol Emmons, Peg Montgomery, Patti Drew, Bill Marks, Russ Barone, Bart Frisbie, Andy Rowe (Engineer for Hinesburg Hillside Subdivision), Collin Frisbie, Andrea Morgante, Josh Kiedaisch, Paul Wieczoreck, Ronald Abbey, Peggy Ann Cook, Sandra Lavoie, Rob Farley, Larry Winters, Chris Murphy, Mark Marcenno.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of August 2, 2005 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the August 2, 2005 meeting minutes. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0 with Joe abstaining.

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

**continued from August 2 meeting**

Tom noted that this was a continuation of the Sketch Plan Review from the previous meeting on August 2. Tom McGlenn, Joe Donegan, Lisa Godfrey, Ted Bloomhardt, Peter Erb, Peg Montgomery, Jeff Montgomery, Randy Kaiser and Mike Charney conducted a site visit prior to the DRB meeting. The following observations were noted:

· Walked from Texas Brook Road up the proposed ROW over lot 1 to lot 2.

· Passed a seasonal brook.

· Followed logging roads to the proposed house location.

· Walked along the Montgomery property border to their driveway.

· Observed the culvert for the seasonal brook as well as three other culverts on Texas Brook Road.

· Lisa noted that two of the culverts on Texas Brook Road were undersized or placed high and that they were not fully draining the existing swail. Attention will need to be paid to these culverts during the road design process.

· Ted said the existing road bed for Texas Brook Road isn't an 18' roadway and was closer to 14' where they measured.

· Tom observed that all of the lots in the existing subdivision on Texas Brook Road run at angles to the road.

· Lisa noted that the proposed driveway location was very moist and there were several depressions where water currently collects.

· Joe said that there were many small stream beds that met the proposed driveway location as well as the Kaiser driveway on their way to Texas Brook Road.

At this point Tom summarized the concerns listed in the Staff Report which included: the grade of the finished drive, storm water runoff and its effect on Texas Brook Road, the proposed drive crossing Texas Brook Road and managing and equally distributing the maintenance of Texas Brook Road. Tom also noted that there seemed to be quite a rise in elevation from Texas Brook Road to the house site. He estimated this rise to be approximately 200'. Mike said that the site survey that had been completed showed an 18% grade for the first 100' of the proposed driveway. Peter made reference to section 6.1.1 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding the requirement for “Convenient and safe access for maintenance and emergency equipment in all weather conditions.” He was concerned that the steep grade would not provide for this provision and that this was significant since the proposed driveway is so long (800') and could not easily be walked in a short amount of time.

Joe also voiced his concern on the encroachment of houses on a largely undeveloped area and the precedent it will set for further subdivisions of similar lots. He noted that all these lots have the same slope and that development will affect runoff and could really impact Texas Brook Road. Ted said that the house would definitely have less impact on the land if the location was moved farther down the slope. Mike noted that there is a privacy issue with the neighbors if he moves the house forward. In addition the septic location could become an issue if the house location were moved down slope. Lisa was concerned that this plan does not work to preserve the forestry and usefulness of the lot and that it doesn't seem to follow the town plan in this aspect. Mike said that no industrial size logger is going to log 10 acres. All the neighbors would need to agree to have someone log all of their properties together. Since they can't currently agree how to equally divide the maintenance of Texas Brook Road, he says he thinks it would be hard to get neighbors to all agree to logging.

Joe noted that an 800' driveway on such a steep slope is definitely going to have an impact on storm water runoff. He felt the drive will catch a lot of water and that it could end up ripping into the hillside when runoff was at its highest.

Greg Waples joined the meeting at this point.

Tom proposed that this subdivision should proceed through a three step process of approval. Alex noted that the board should clarify what information they want Mike to provide at the Preliminary Plat Review. It was decided that Mike would need to provide a plan for road maintenance at Preliminary Plat Review but that he will not need legal language to this effect until Final Plat Review. The board would like Mike to create a road association that will consist of the two lots he is subdividing. In addition he is strongly encouraged to invite the other residents of Texas Brook Road to join the road association but the DRB cannot force them to do so. Ted explained that this helps the town to have one entity to go to if an issue arises. A deeded obligation is harder to enforce.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Charney Sketch Plan. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0 with Greg Waples abstaining.

Sketch Plan Review for 9-lot Subdivision – 1515 Hollow Road – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

Jeff Padgett, an engineer with Engineered Solutions, Inc. of Burlington, VT explained Rad's request for sketch plan approval for a 9-lot subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 23 acres, and is located on the north side of Hollow Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the VT Route 116 intersection; parcel #13-01-04.100. The subject parcel is a portion of the land owned by the Abbey family trust, who also own 3 other nearby or adjacent parcels (see Abbey Trust Land Map): Parcel #1, south side of Hollow Road; Parcel #3, east of the subject parcel and separated from it by land owned by Ronald Abbey; Parcel #4, a landlocked parcel to the northeast. This portion of the Hollow Road is quite different from what leads up to it from the west (from Route 116). The view scape opens up substantially here, allowing expansive views of the dramatic topography, including rocky ledges and forested slopes as well as a large wetland complex around Hollow Brook and the agricultural fields on the subject property. The parcel is currently developed with the original farmhouse and a number of barns and outbuildings, all clustered on the southwest side of the lot. The rest of the parcel is primarily open field, with few trees on the west side, but more located along a short, steep hillside that occupies the eastern half of the lot's frontage along Hollow Road.

Point of Order – since there is now a full board, Joe Donegan (alternate) will listen but not vote on all following business.

Jeff outlined the three different designs for the subdivision and explained that Rad Romeyn would be seeking a density bonus of 15%. He also explained that he felt plan B where the housing envelopes are located at the back of the property and no additional curb cuts are needed would serve to preserve the agricultural soils as well as the view of this area. Rad Romeyn also noted that there would be strict deed restrictions in regards to architecture and building envelopes so that the development would be closely controlled and contribute to the rural landscape.

Tom noted that lot 2 contains the existing house as well as a community septic system. Jeff explained that the community septic system allows them to place the houses where they will fit best as opposed to where the best soils for septic systems reside.

Ted said he thought that subdividing into 7 lots as opposed to 9 would allow the houses to be hidden better. He also asked what was the benefit for the town in granting the 15% density bonus. Rad noted that the houses on lots 1 and 3, which would be more visible, are intended to complement the existing home on lot 2 that is currently being renovated.

Greg asked if there is a steep embankment in front of lots 5 – 9. Jeff said that the houses would sit 30' – 40' above the existing road. Peter said that it might be possible to see the top of the houses over the trees. Rad noted that the trees that exist there grow up on the top of the slope as well and that there is a pasture area at the top of the slope that would set the houses even farther back.

Lisa was concerned that the use of the agricultural soils was not being preserved in the way that the town plan intends them to be. Jeff noted that was an issue on which they were seeking further clarification on what is appropriate. They would be happy to provide an agricultural easement, and/or include this usage in the covenants. 12 out of the 23 acres are designated as agricultural soils.

Tom directed everyone to review the major issues outlined in the staff report which included: preservation of agricultural soils, and the validity of granting the density bonus. Greg asked what was the rational for increasing the housing density by 15%. Jeff explained that he felt they had worked hard to reach their main goal to preserve open land and a large agricultural plot to allow for functional open space.

Joe referred to the staff report's mention of a density of one unit per 3 acres (page 5) and asked staff what is appropriate for this site. Alex explained that in his report he had outlined that given a conventional subdivision layout (option A) lots 6 and 7 would not be approved due to their impact on agricultural soils as well as the additional curb cuts needed. Given this fact he had concluded that “given the need to protect the agricultural soils and other site limitations (flood hazard area, slopes on eastern portion of frontage, etc.) it looks to me like the parcel could support no more than 3 – 4 new conventional building lots, in addition to a lot for the existing house.” (staff report p. 3). Peter noted that the conventional design does have many more curb cuts than is standard.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Bill Marks, representing the Hinesburg Conservation Commission stated that he reviewed the staff report and was in total agreement with Alex's conclusions. He noted that visibility will be a real issue and that it is more important to actually protect the rural character of the land than to try to project the appearance of preservation.

Ronald Abbey, an adjacent landowner felt that the houses will be easily seen in this location and that the trees are not large enough to hide the houses. He also noted that on the west end of the property (lots 1, 2 and 3) the spring thaw can produce heavy runoff and often floods the house and field at the bottom of the hill. Ronald was concerned that the developer take runoff into serious consideration during the planning process.

As a point of clarification Greg asked about the lot line adjustment on the map. Ronald explained that this is a half acre of land that is intended to be returned to Ronald.

Andrea Morgante stated that the dominant land use in Hinesburg is for forestry and that this is encouraged and protected in the town plan. Andrea explained that this parcel abuts one of the largest Wildlife Management Areas in Chittenden County that was established to continue to allow hunting in Chittenden County. She asked the board to consider the density of this development in the context of what the surrounding land is currently being used for.

Alex also explained that a letter had been submitted by Henry Carse regarding undefined access to his land which lies directly behind the proposed subdivision. Rad said there is no defined easement but he has discussed some options for access with Henry.

Paul Wieczoreck a resident of Lincoln Hill Road noted that this is a very scenic spot. His concern is the aesthetic impact on the hollow. He would not like to see the ridge line disturbed. He also noted that Red Rocks cliffs sit behind this proposed site and would potentially look directly down on the houses.

John Kiedaisch felt that given all the issues (density, agricultural soil impact, impact on hunting and visibility) this subdivision does not seem to fit into the Hinesburg town plan. He thought all of the designs looked very similar and that there is a more innovative way to put 5 lots on that land and protect the agricultural usage.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and continue the Sketch Plan Review to the September 6 meeting with a site visit of the property before the meeting at 6 pm. He noted that observations will be recorded into the minutes at the September 6 meeting but that additional discussion will need to take place at the following meeting on September 20. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Sketch Plan Review for 5-Lot Subdivision – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Hillside LLC.

Russ Barone explained his request for Sketch Plan approval for a 5 lot subdivision in the village and rural residential I districts. Russ is now working with Bart Frisbee of Sterling Construction Inc. to develop the portion of the property that will be accessed from Mechanicsville Road and within the Sewer Service Area (SSA). The subdivision is being proposed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) of two developed lots and two open space lots. The corner of Thornbush and Mechanicsville will contain a storm water detention area and developed open space, the next, just up the hill, which will contain a 24 unit multifamily building of Senior Housing, a third lot containing 28 units of single family 'garden homes' housing targeted at 'seniors' but not restricted to them, in both the village and RR1 districts, a fourth lot containing the necessary remaining open spaces and a fifth which is the remaining property, 29.5 acres. The density calculations, if this application is approved as proposed, will allow an additional four lots there, probably accessed from Lavigne Hill Road, and not part of this application. The lot containing the single family homes will remain as a single lot, maintained by a homeowners association, with the individual homes having 'personal' access to some areas around the homes if they so wish.

The portion of the property being proposed for this development, 26 acres, lies on a hillside above Mechanicsville Road, bounded on the west by Thornbush Road which is on a right of way on this lot, on the south by the Russell lands, proposed for protection, on the east by the remainder of the property and on the north by the existing Mulberry Lane PRD subdivision and its open spaces. The developed portion of the property will continue the existing village and RRI development and will be surrounded by an undeveloped hillside extending to the Russell Property. the previous subdivision protected the lower portions of an extensive class III wetland that separates this proposal from the remainder as well as a backdrop group of larger trees which extends further into this PRD. There is an existing farm road that crosses this wetland area. There are 20% or more, ledgy areas and agricultural soils 'if drainage is possible' mapped within this area. They have not been drained, are separated from any nearby agriculture and Peter does not think of agricultural significance to this proposal. The same areas also contain class III wetlands, that are possibly serving valuable storm water and environmental functions which should be locally addressed. This project will require an act 250 review, a State storm water permit, and possibly an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the wetlands. The DRB review will incorporate local Development of a Private right of way, conditional use and site plan where necessary.

Greg thought that an access point to the new development from Mulberry Lane would be necessary for vehicle access in the event that the existing drive gets cut off for a period of time. Russ said that this had not been included in the design because of the differing needs of the two neighborhoods and the class III wetlands that exist between the two areas. He said he would need to have their engineer check to see if the wetland and topography issues are insurmountable to design a connecting drive between the two neighborhoods. Alex noted that the subdivision regulations do not discuss vehicular interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Lisa referenced section 6.1.5 of the subdivision regulations ('...no dead end street shall be more than a reasonable length,...) and asked Alex if there were any additional specifications to define 'reasonable'. He confirmed that there are no additional specs.

Ted asked if there were any defined right of ways to lot 5. Russ explained that there are two right of ways designed from lot 3 and that in the future, access from Lavigne Hill Road may be possible. Greg asked for more information about the design of the multi-family structure. Andy Rowe, the engineer for the project, explained that the building will be two stories high with subterranean parking beneath the structure. Fill will need to be brought in to fill in around the base of the structure as it is being built into a hillside. Greg asked about the elderly housing provision and how this will affect the project. Russ explained that only the multi-family housing unit will be restricted to residents of age 55+. This is due to the fact that given the topography of the area, the garden homes cannot be built to meet federal HOPA (Housing for Older Peoples Act) regulations. Most of the regulations are interior standards, such as one level living spaces, elevators, etc. Russ explained that the garden homes will be marketed toward 'empty-nesters' but not restricted to this population. Ted asked how the homes will be designed such that they will appeal to this demographic. Bart explained the homes will be smaller with 2 bedrooms, some having a master bedroom on the main level. Andy added that the condo association maintenance aspect as well as the close proximity of homes to each other will also appeal to this demographic. Russ compared the garden homes to developments like Bittersweet and Meadow Run that have traditionally attracted residents of ages 55+. Alex noted that since the planning standards do not address these issues that they were not of concern to the board and that marketability was strictly the applicant's concern.

Greg asked about the reference in the staff report in regards to open space for senior residents to utilize. Peter asked that this spacing should just be noted during the site visit. Since there is a larger space that can be used, he just wanted to make sure that we allow for potential issues that could arise in the future so that when the applicants need to address these potential issues they do not run out of space to use to do so. At this point two letters were distributed from abutting neighbors to the project and Tom opened the meeting for public discussion.

Paul Wieczoreck said he disagreed with Alex's comment regarding marketability not being a concern of the DRB. Paul felt there is more value to a neighborhood with a varied population. He questioned if the town wanted to embrace an exclusive neighborhood and if there is any flexibility in this target audience.

Russ responded that the town plan addresses the needs of the elderly and seeks to fulfill these needs. There are already several unrestricted housing areas in the surrounding neighborhoods but an elderly component is currently missing. Paul said he thought there was also a great need for affordable housing for young families and asked if it might be possible to spread out the multi-family housing unit to cover a greater area and only be one story. He suggested removing units 27 and 28 to make room for the larger multi-family unit. Bart explained that the hillside becomes an issue if you try to enlarge the building's footprint. The unit will no longer fit on the hillside. In addition since the building is being built low on the site it won't sick up above the tree line.

Rob Farley, a representative from the Hinesburg Conservation Commission had several concerns about storm water runoff and water supply for the PRD. He wanted the applicant to ensure that this development would not affect the existing wetland and that the appropriate setbacks were utlitized. He also thought more innovative designs could be used to handle storm water runoff such as reducing curb usage, using water gardens and generally trying to get the water back into the soil using infiltration measures as opposed to just managing runoff. Rob was also concerned that the town ensure that the water availability from the well field would be adequate to support existing residents as well as this new PRD. The increase in pumping could draw additional contamination into the well field. Finally Rob asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of water regulation and runoff.

Chris Murphy a landowner adjacent to lot 1 was concerned about potential light pollution from the parking lot and the possibility of extending the tree line so that the lights won't impact Mulberry Lane residents.

Larry Winters, a Hawk Lane resident asked if the PRD will be sitting on the ridge line and was concerned that the PRD will negatively impact the existing view.

Mark Marcenno owns the lot next to the proposed storm water collection pond and was concerned about the standing water and the mosquitoes that it may draw. In addition, he observed that runoff from the pond would potentially flow across the ditch in front of his property which is already difficult to maintain. He hoped that if this becomes an issue someone else could maintain the ditch. Mark also asked if the tree line behind his property will remain.

Patti Drew asked all those in attendance to notice the visibility of this location when driving on 116 near NRG and how it will affect the landscape.

John Kiedaisch asked about lot 5 and the four development rights that had been reserved. He asked if this means sometime in the future 4 houses might be built on this land. Russ said that any houses that may be built on that lot would need to meet state and local septic regulations as the lot is outside the village sewage district. The number of potential homes was determined by current zoning density regulations. John then asked if Russ and Bart will be the actual designers and builders of the entire PRD or if the houses will be designed and built by individuals. Bart said that it is their intention to design and build all buildings in the proposed PRD.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and continue the Sketch Plan Review of the Hinesburg Hillside LLC PRD to the September 20 meeting with a 5:30 pm site visit to precede the meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Building Variance for New Shed – 223 Hayden Hill Road – Applicants are Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey

Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey explained their request for a building variance to construct a new shed on their property in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 7 acres, and is located on the south side of Hayden Hill Road East; parcel # 06-01-64.000. The house is located in the northeast corner of the parcel, just north of 1 of 2 streams that cross the property (see maps). The applicants would like to construct a 16' by 20' shed, and are seeking a variance of the front yard setback and the stream setback to do so. The applicant would like a 20' variance from the required front yard setback of 60' (see Table 1, Zoning Regulations), and approximately a 17' variance from the required stream setback of 75' (see section 2.4.2, Zoning Regulations).

Greg summarized the staff report by stating that since the application does not meet all five of the criteria to meet a variance that it cannot be granted and that the shed would need to be built in the shaded section of the map. Alex mentioned that a conditional use application could be considered to expand the garage for storage purposes. The garage does not meet current zoning standards so it would be considered a non-conforming structure. The applicants asked if they could place a smaller shed in their proposed location without getting a building permit. Tom explained that you do not need a building permit for a shed smaller than 10' by 10' but that setbacks would still need to be met.

Alex said he would be happy to work on a conditional use application for a garage addition if the applicants wished to do this. Minton said she did not think they would be able to build a large enough addition for their needs.

Tom then directed the board to vote on the 5 conditions that must be met for the applicants to receive a variance for the proposed shed.

Condition #1: “There are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the bylaw in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.”

Condition 1 is met: 0

Condition 1 is not met: 7

Condition #2: “Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the bylaw and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.”

Condition 2 is met: 0

Condition 2 is not met: 7

Condition #3: Unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Condition 3 is met: 0

Condition 3 is not met: 7

Condition #4: “The variance if authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, not be detrimental to the public welfare.”

Condition 4 is met: 7

Condition 4 is not met: 0

Condition #5: “That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from zoning regulation and from the plan.”

Condition 5 is met: 0

Condition 5 is not met: 7

Tom stated that the variance could not be granted but that the applicants could work with Peter on a conditional use application to add on to the existing garage if they wished. Ted noted that any expansion should not increase the encroachment on the stream setback. Greg referenced zoning regulation 5.10.3.4.a in this regard as well “The expansion is planned and constructed in such a way that the applicable setback standards are modified as little as practicable based on the existing building orientation, lot size and site constraints...”

Other Business:

Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval for St. Cyr boundary modification:

Ted MOVED to extend the time line attached to the sketch plan approval by 6 months. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval for Collins 2-lot subdivision on Lincoln Road:

Ted MOVED to extend the sketch plan approval time line by 6 months per the applicant's request. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Lisa Godfrey and Greg Waples left the meeting at this point as they would be abstaining from all remaining votes.

Gerry and Linda Newton Conditional Use Permit for a porch to be built on Shadow Lane Camp – Review draft decision:

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4 – 0 with George abstaining.

Frank Babbott Preliminary Plat for 2-lot subdivision on Pond Road – Review draft decision:

Peter asked if there were any height visibility issues on this property and Alex responded that there were not.

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 pm.