TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

September 6, 2005

Approved September 20, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: George Munson, Lisa Godfrey.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Radcliff Romeyn, Katharine Stockman Romeyn, Raymond Ayer, Ruth Ayer, Veronica Estey, Steve Longshore, George Bedard, Alan Norris, Nancy Norris, Jay Martin, Penny Martin.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of August 16, 2005 Meeting:

Tom MOVED to approve the August 16, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Site Visit Observations for 9-lot Subdivision – 1515 Hollow Road – Abbey Family Trust – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

**continued from August 16 meeting**

Tom noted that at this meeting we would be entering observations from the site visit into the minutes but that all additional discussion would take place at the subsequent meeting on September 20. Greg Waples, Ted Bloomhardt, Joe Donegan, Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb, Radcliff and Katharine Romeyn, Paul Wieczoreck, and Matt Kiedaisch conducted a site visit prior to the DRB meeting. The following observations were noted:

· Viewed the proposed driveway locations and house sites.

· Observed the rear property line and its proximity to the proposed house sites.

· Viewed the power line location.

· Took note of elevation views and observed that the road was visible from all lots except lots 8 and 9.

· Walked along the hedgerow on the eastern side of the property.

· Viewed the existing home and the drive access to lot 1.

· Observed the location of the 20' addition of a two car garage onto the existing home.

· Ted noted that all locations were from the plan B layout of the subdivision as discussed at the previous meeting on August 16.

· Joe said that they took notice of a nesting pair of Peregrin falcons on the cliffs above the property.

· Rad explained that the road on option B that ran from Hollow Road between lots 4 and 5 would be a good access point for Henry Carse to reach his property.

At this time Tom noted that the letter from Henry Carse written in regards to the proposed subdivision would be held for discussion until the September 20 meeting.

Tom MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan Review of the 9-Lot Subdivision/PRD on 1515 Hollow Road to the September 20 meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

CVU Site Plan and Conditional Use Revisions in regard to Fencing and Landscaping:

Alex explained that the applicants would like this issue to be continued to the October 4 meeting. Peter thought that giving the applicant this extra time might enable them to iron out any other possibly impending issues so that the process can take place in a timely manner.

Tom MOVED to continue the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Review to the October 4 meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Peter noted that he plans to meet with Bob prior to the October 4 meeting to try to get a list of concerns together. He'd like to get as much resolved as possible without having to send the applicants back to collect more ideas. Peter also said that there was a condition in the original plan that set aside $7000 to accommodate for landscaping including the property across the street to shield them from the headlights of cars using the new exit. The resident of this property did not want any landscaping but asked if curtains could be purchased for the two windows that face this entrance. Peter hoped to get the board's input on this issue. It was the consensus of the board that the money was intended for landscaping only.

At this time since the meeting was running ahead of schedule, the board decided to handle other business while waiting for the other applicants on the agenda.

Other Business:

Michael and Meri Charney Sketch Plan Approval for 2-lot Subdivision – Review Draft Decision:

Greg recused himself at this time.

Tom noted that this subdivision will be proceeding through the 3-step approval process. Ted asked about the 25 year storm water provision noted in Order #3b. Peter explained that this requirement has to do with section 6.6.2 of the Subdivision regulations in regards to adequate water courses and drainage. “Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course or drainage way, there shall be provided a storm water drainage easement of such width as to encompass the twenty-five year flood of such water course,...”

Ted asked Peter if Order #3e was asking for modifications to take place to the existing septic system. Peter explained that he might not have worded this section correctly and that he meant to indicate that a replacement area may need to be identified. Ted said that he thinks the board should require certification that the existing septic system is functioning prior to the subdivision being approved. Alex noted that this was fine but that if the board wants to use this provision more consistently, then the DRB should work with the town planning commission to have the requirement implemented as a matter of policy. Ted asked Alex to integrate items 1 – 4 of the 'Policy on Septic System Requirements for New Lots with Existing Dwellings' document into Order #3e to provide additional clarification.

Clint MOVED to approve written decision (approval) as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Joe and Greg abstaining.

Greg returned to the board at this time.

Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey Variance Request for New Shed on south side Hayden Hill Road East – Review Draft Decision:

Tom moved to approve the written decision (denial). Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Letter from VTRANS in regards to Reiss Road Cut on Route 116:

Joe recused himself at this time.

Peter explained that he had received a letter from VTRANS and the applicant wanted to know if this letter addressed the concerns discussed at the previous meeting regarding the safety of this entrance on 116. Alex said that no additional information was provided in the letter that had not already been discussed at the meeting. The board agreed that the letter did not satisfy their concerns.

Joe returned to the board.

Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision – Postiche Lane – Applicants are Alan and Nancy Norris:

Alan explained that he is requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 15 acres, and is located on Postiche Lane, east of VT Route 116; parcel #09-01-64.210. The parcel is already developed with the Applicants' home and barn in the northeastern portion of the lot. The remaining portion of the lot is a mixture of forest and open fields with an area of Christmas trees in the southeast corner. The parcel is lot 3 from a previous 3-lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1994 (recorded on map slide #4A).

Lot 2, of the proposed subdivision, comprises an irregular 3 acres on the south side of the parcel. The low point of lot 2 is in the southwest corner near Postiche Lane, and the topography rises to the east and more steeply to the north. The northern half of the lot is comprised of fairly steep wooded slopes. With this in mind, the Applicant plans to restrict building to the southern half of the lot. One possible area is the low and relatively flat area immediately off of Postiche Lane (southwest corner of lot). Another possible building area is on the eastern side of the lot near the edge of the x-mas tree area. The Applicant intends lot 2 to be served by an individual, on-site well and septic system (yet to be sited and designed). Lot 2 would have direct access to Postiche Lane, which leads to Route 116 within an established 50' wide right of way that was created via the 1994 subdivision. Lot 1 will retain the existing house and outbuilding along with the remaining 12 acres of land. Lot 1 will retain ownership of a strip of land (at least 100' wide pursuant to section 2.4.7, Zoning Regulations) extending along Postiche Lane to Route 116.

Alan also explained that visibility of the lot from his home and his desire to retain ownership of the right of way were the two major factors involved in deciding on the boundary lines of lot 2 as proposed. He also said that during the original subdivision process he needed to attain Act 250 approval because the private drive is over 800' long. This regulation has since been revoked but he will still need to get Act 250 approval to subdivide this lot further.

Joe asked about the visibility of the lot from 116. Alan thought that unless the majority of the trees on the lot were cleared, the house site would not be visible. As a point of clarification Joe asked if the board may regulate building envelopes and clearing limits. Alex explained that this is possible but all conditions will need to be dealt with prior to final approval. Peter asked if sketch plan approval can be granted with a change of property lines as a provision. Alex said that yes, the sketch plan can be approved with conditions regarding property lines.

Greg asked about the section of the zoning regulations that deal with lot shape. Alex directed the board to section 2.4.7 of the Zoning Regulations. This section deals with minimum width and depth dimensions and states that “No lot created after the date of adoption of this Section (July 14, 1986) shall have a minimum width or depth dimension of less than 100 feet except as shown on Table 1. ... Triangular or other irregularly shaped lots may be allowed at the discretion of the DRB provided that the configuration allows for reasonable use of the land and allows for development in accordance with applicable setback and lot coverage requirements.”

Ted asked about the provision for Access Strips as noted in section 5.7.1 #3 of the Zoning Regulations. “Access to a lot by means of a strip of land included as part of the lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board. Access strips shall be no less than fifty (50') feet in width and no wider than sixty (60') feet.” Ted noted that he thought this provision was to be used as an exception to the 100' width regulation but that he was still swayed by the staff report's mention of a lack of usable land on the new lot.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Veronica Estey is a neighbor of the Norris property and owns lot 1 from the original subdivision. Veronica's primary concern is the maintenance of the road and how an additional lot will affect the private drive. Veronica strongly felt there were safety issues with visibility on the road and that it is currently being used for commercial purposes for which it was not intended. She was also concerned that the new house would be visible from her home. Alex noted that he had researched how the road maintenance was regulated and that it was currently only in the deed language. Tom mentioned that a Homeowners' association would be a good way to try to regulate road maintenance and that the DRB can require the Norris' to create an association for this purpose but that the board cannot force current residents to join the association, however it is strongly suggested that they do so.

Alex noted that he had walked the lot and could offer some site observations if the board so desired. He noted that the house site closer to the western side of the lot would have a short driveway with no slope conditions. The house site on the eastern side of the lot would have a longer driveway and would need to overcome some topography issues. Alex thought an engineered driveway would need to be presented to the board in order for the second building site to be considered. This would allow the buyer to have both options open to them, but Alan and Nancy would need to pay for the driveway engineering that might not be used.

Alan asked if he could identify the first building envelope and leave it up to the buyer to return to the board to have the subdivision amended to allow the eastern building envelope. Tom explained he could do this but that the buyer would need to be made well aware that nothing was guaranteed with regards to the board's decision on an amendment.

At this point Veronica asked how wide the private drive needs to be. Alex explained that it must be between 14' – 24' wide depending on the number of trips per day.

Ted MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan Review of the 2-lot subdivision on Postiche Lane to the October 4 meeting with a 5:30 pm site visit to precede the meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Preliminary Plat Review for 7-lot Subdivision – Ayer Property on Cedar Ledge Golf Course – Applicant is Raymond Ayer

George Bedard explained that Raymond Ayer is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of a 7-lot major subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District consisting of six building lots and the remainder developed land consisting of the golf course and existing residential uses. The area proposed to be developed is located in the south western portion of the main golf course property bounded on the south by Bissonette. It will be accessed by the shared, private road, that was previously approved in a permit granted on November 18^th 2003 for a two lot subdivision and now proposed to extend to the five lots and then to the remainder golf course lot for future additional development. Lots A1 – A5, the new building lots, are two to three acre lots. A community septic system is proposed within an easement area on lot A1. This development will have to undergo Act 250 review to amend the existing golf course permit. Sketch Plan approval was granted on January 1, 2005.

George reviewed the lot locations, building envelopes, utility locations, proposed shared septic system, storm water treatment plans and the driveway plans and corresponding grades. Alex asked if George knew how wide the private road to access these lots would be. George stated it would be 18' wide with a 50' ROW and a 10' power line easement on one side of the road. He did not know an estimate of how many trips would travel on this road per day.

Greg asked if any landscaping would be done to hide the road to the south of the green near lot A2. George explained that this is where the water retention area will be and Raymond also added that tall grass grows here that is only mowed once per year.

Tom referenced the draft of the Declaration of Formation of Road Association included in the Preliminary Plat packet. He suggested that a formula should be tied to the 'proportionate share' terminology referenced in #3 in regards to each homeowners' road maintenance obligation to avoid future disputes between homeowners. Tom then asked if the homes would be visible above the existing tree line. George explained that some of the rooftops may be visible but that they will not be a significant feature of the landscape. He suggested that a height restriction can be added if this is a major concern of the board.

George also noted that is is going to be made clear to buyers of these lots that they are not purchasing any rights to the golf course lands for any recreational purposes even when the golf course is not in use. This will be included in the protective covenants.

Ted noted that all final legal language, deed restrictions, septic and roadway obligations will need to be included and discussed at the Final Plat Review.

Peter asked if there is any flexibility to move the road to one side or another to allow for a walking path on the side of the road. He said the applicant might want to look at this option as homeowners may want to have a walkway along the road in the future.

At this point George addressed Peter's questions as outlined on page 4 of the Preliminary Plat Staff Report. He said a guardrail would not be needed on the road and that both a cul-de-sac and hammerhead are on the plans to allow for the greatest flexibility in design. Finally in regards to a single curb cut for lots 5 and 6, George stated that visibility is not an issue on this section of the road.

Peter asked the board to consider the boundary line that will be created on the Ayer property if this subdivision is approved. He noted that the line will be quite irregular and that the board should determine whether this is an issue or not.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the 7-lot subdivision Preliminary Plat. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Conditional Use Review for 2^nd Story Addition to Existing Home – 81 Hemlock Hill Road – Applicants are Jay and Penny Martin:

Jay Martin explained that he and his wife Penny own a residence on Hemlock Hill Road, which is a private right of way leading south from Hayden Hill Road West about 600 feet from North Road, just after the road crosses the stream before the hill. The house was constructed in 1972 on a lot created in 1972, both before there were any Town Zoning Regulations. Peter's research indicates that there was a ROW existing in 1972. Because of this subsequent subdivisions of land beyond this house did not create a later, illegal setback issue and this structure is legitimately a non-conforming structure which qualifies for Conditional Use consideration. The applicant would like to add a second story over the entire first floor, adding two bedrooms and a bathroom and increase the roof pitch slightly from the existing low pitch to improve drainage. The applicant received a conditional use approval for the same project previously from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in 1997, however it expired.

Jay also explained that he would like to make the second story overhang the first floor to achieve a raised ranch type look. It was noted that section 5.10.3 #4d of the zoning regulations states that “In no case shall the enlargement result in any upper floor's floor area exceeding that of the ground floor.” The applicant therefore agreed not to enlarge the second story but to keep it the same size as the first floor. It was suggested that the applicants may be able to achieve a similar look by using a different type of siding on each level.

Greg asked if any additional lighting will be used. Jay said that no additional lighting will be needed as they already have front and back porch lights.

Ted MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:17 pm.