TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

September 20, 2005

Approved October 4, 2005

 

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

 

**Note: Joe Donegan (alternate DRB member) was present but only participated and/or voted as a Board member on the September 6 minutes approval and the Martin decision approval since all seven regular Board members participated and/or voted in all other agenda items.

 

DRB Members Absent:  none

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Edward Campbell, David Carse, Francis Emmons, Carol Emmons, Clark Johnson, Maureen Harrison, Anna Charlebois, Rad Romeyn, Jeff Padgett, Andrea Morgante, Russ Barone, Bill Marks, Collin Frisbie, Bart Frisbie, Andy Rowe, Maureen Leahy, Matt Vinci, Sandra Leonard, Peggy Cook, Rob Farley, Howard Russell, Mark Marcelino, Chris Murphy, Sarah Murphy.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

 

Minutes of September 6, 2005 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the September 6, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0 with Lisa abstaining.

 

Sketch Plan Review for 7-lot Subdivision/PRD – 1515 Hollow Road – Abbey Family Trust – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

**continued from September 6 meeting**

Jeff Padgett of Engineered Solutions reviewed the applicants new layout proposal for the Hollow Road PRD. The new design is labeled option D and is very similar to option C with the exception that the number of lots requested decreased from 9 to 7. Option D clusters the seven lots on the western side of the property in an effort to preserve the large swath of agricultural soils on the eastern side of the property. Jeff explained that in the new design they had worked hard to leave open spaces, preserve agricultural soils and match the allowed density according to regulation standards. The septic system will remain the same as previously presented with a shared in ground system on lot 3. In addition the new design adds two new features; a community meadow will be located in the septic area on lot 3 and a community barn will be located on lot 5. It is intended that these two features will work to bring the homeowners together to foster a sense of community. Both community areas will be controlled by the homeowners association.

 

Greg asked about the access to the proposed subdivision. He was concerned that the access between lots 3 and 4 might not be wide enough to allow sufficient access. Jeff said that this access is large enough and that the access size should not be a concern at all given the current layout. Tom asked about the architectural design of the homes and how this will be controlled. Rad explained that there will be specific design controls in the covenants and that they envision homes which resemble barns with attached outbuildings that will blend into the existing landscape and appear as if they are part of an existing farm.

 

Greg referenced the letter received by the board from Henry Carse dated September 16, 2005 in regards to access concerns. He asked if the applicant had any conversations with Henry regarding access given the new design proposal. Rad explained that he had discussed two access points with Henry that would both run across the agricultural easement location on the eastern side of the property. Since the new design moves all houses out of this area it was Rad's understanding that this will not affect Henry's access. Ted asked how many acres lot 5 will own. Jeff said lot 5 is 13 acres.

 

Tom explained since this design is very similar to the original option C design the board should consider the areas of concern outlined in the staff report regarding option C. The primary concern was whether 7 lots can exist on this piece of property given all the constraints. Lisa said that although she liked the clustering of the homes she does not think that a conventional subdivision of 7 lots would be approved as the segmentation of agricultural soils would not be acceptable. Jeff said that since the agricultural soils would be an easement they would not be divided. Ted said that although this is the intention, property owners tend to do things with their land which may make this land unusable (i.e. mow large lawns, put up fences, etc.) Rad said that he currently lives in a similar situation with an agricultural easement that is used by a local farmer. The farmer entered into an agreement with the homeowners association that allowed him to use the shared land.

 

Lisa referenced section 5.1.5 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section refers to a subdivision's compatibility with its surroundings. Lisa felt that 7 lots in this location will not preserve the area's rural character. Rad responded that when driving to the development from either side of Hollow Road there are several houses on smaller plots of land as well as a trailer park. He noted that the precedents set on either side of this proposed development are not necessarily rural.

 

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

 

Bill Marks spoke on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Bill agreed with the board's reference to a technical agricultural easement as opposed to a practical agricultural easement and how homeowners may affect the usability of this space. He felt the clustered development was heading in the right direction but that since this is still a significant area for natural resources, an additional 3, perhaps 4 lots would be the most that the conservation commission would support. He also suggested using stained siding to help to accomplish their architectural goals.

 

David Carse, adjoining landowner Henry Carse's son, voiced his concern regarding access to his father's lot. He also suggested that the applicant should not just look at the development's surrounding homeowners but the larger geographical region of which this parcel is a piece. He estimated that there is 3000 acres of undeveloped land from Texas Hill all the way to the Starksboro town line. This is a great and rare asset, especially in Chittenden County.

 

Ben Campbell, a private consulting forester who has worked for Henry Carse reviewed some observations from the preliminary application. Rad noted that since the design had changed these concerns might no longer be valid. Ben felt a few issues had been addressed but there were still some areas of concern. He noted that Henry Carse has a deeded right to cross over the existing farm roads. Carse uses this land for logging and approximately 8% (or 75 acres) will be unusable due to this subdivision. Ben did note that given the change in design this number was probably now smaller. He also felt the development would further segment rural areas. He gave his written observations to Alex to be added to the record.

 

Greg said he understood that option D would satisfy Henry's access concerns. He asked if Ben was saying that Henry was not satisfied by this design. Ben said that one area of concern would be the septic system which would sit on an existing primary farm road. Greg noted that the board could not take away Henry's deeded access rights and that if this issue wasn't settled prior to the start of building it would probably become a legal issue. He noted it was in both parties interests to settle it now. Rad noted that it was also part of the deed that these access points would be allowed as long as they are not to the detriment of the use of the property owner. In addition he noted that an existing farm road runs along the northern edge of the property that would access the area which Ben was concerned about in regards to the septic system.

 

Andrea Morgante was concerned about disrupting the contiguous forest area and disrupting a natural habitat as well as a great economic resource. She felt that density was the major issue as well as the development's affect on wildlife. She liked the clustering concept but 7 lots still felt like too many on this piece of land.

 

Joe Donegan referenced section 5.1.3 of the subdivision regulations and did not feel that this number of lots would 'give due regard to the preservation of....scenic resources.” as stated in the regulations.

 

Greg noted that the major issue the board needed to decide was density and how many lots would be acceptable. He suggested that the board continue the sketch plan until the next DRB meeting and take some time amongst themselves to discuss this issue and give the applicant more guidance as to their wishes. Ted agreed, he said he thought access and density were the two major issues. In his opinion lot 5 as well as the lots tucked toward the back of the subdivision worked well. Lot 4 was questionable due to it's visibility and lot 2 seemed very small. Peter also suggested that the board should consider how accessory apartments and home businesses might affect this PRD.

 

Jeff noted that in regards to density the new design asked for 5 more buildings than currently exist on this property. The buildings will blend into the landscape and one will be entirely hidden by trees. He asked the board to consider this when contemplating how the development will look to a passer-by.

 

Lisa asked if the houses will have garages and/or sheds. Rad explained that no houses will exceed 2000 or 2500 square feet including an attached garage. Their goal is to have the homes closely resemble outbuildings that would exist on a working farm.

 

Ben Campbell also noted that homeowners would need to be made aware of their proximity to a lumber area and how that may affect their daily living.

 

At this point each board member noted their observations regarding the number of lots. Ted felt that if two lots were removed the design would be acceptable. Lisa said she would approve a maximum of 4 new lots. Robert would accept the design as is with the approved easements. Greg would approve 4 new lots. Clint would accept as is with the approved easements. Tom would approve 4 additional lots with the proposed easements. Greg felt that given this outcome the board should take some time to further discuss this issue after all other business had been completed.

 

George made a motion to continue the Sketch Plan to the October 4 meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Sketch Plan Review for 5-lot Subdivision/52 Unit PRD – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Hillside LLC

**continued from August 16 meeting**

Tom noted that the sketch plan for this PRD had been continued from the August 16 meeting so that the board could do a site visit. George, Tom, Ted, Lisa, Greg, Joe, Alex, Peter, Russ, Bart and several neighbors and community members conducted a site visit prior to the DRB meeting. The following observations were noted:

·       Attendees walked along the proposed road to the round-about location.

·       Viewed the garden home individual units in a counter clockwise direction starting at the round about.

·       Saw the location of the proposed 24 unit multi-family building.

·       Viewed the retention pond location.

·       Walked along the existing wetlands.

·       Observed several large poplars and other screening for Mulberry Lane.

·       Viewed a location on the road between proposed units 11 – 15 where the road would be lowered.

·       Lisa noted that units 14 – 17 would be very visible from Rt 116 as well as Charlotte road and Mechanicsville Road. Units 9 & 10 would be visible from Mechanicsville Road.

·       Observed the location where two 6 – 8' retaining walls would be constructed behind the main parking lot.

·       Viewed where the storm water pond would flow into a ditch on Mechanicsville Road.

·       Noted that the road crossed three strips of wetland area.

·       Chris Murphy, a homeowner on Mulberry Lane, observed that units 27 & 28 will be very visible from his home.

·       Matt Vinci, a homeowner on Mulberry Lane agreed with Chris and stated that the buildings were going to be much closer to their homes than had been originally discussed.

 

Peter noted that it was important to be aware of the viability of the trees between this development and Mulberry Lane. Their existence should not be compromised.

 

Ted asked about the restrictions on class 3 wetlands and how the current design would affect them. Andy Rowe, the engineer working with Russ and Bart, said that 1/3 of an acre of wetlands would be affected by this development. Lisa noted that unit 23 seemed to sit entirely in the wetland. Russ said that this is part of the 1/3 acre that was affected. When reviewing the topography they had decided to try to avoid the larger wetlands as well as the wetland between the development and Mulberry Lane. Bart added that it was very difficult to avoid this wetland and they felt a house located here would have lesser impact than a road. Ted also noted that the change in topography due to construction would affect drainage that currently runs into this wetland. Andy agreed with Ted and said that this wetland has limited impact on drainage and that the storm water pond would fulfill this need instead.

 

Rob Farley, of the conservation commission was concerned about the larger impact of storm water on the lower section of the development. He thought it was important to reduce the density to have less of an impact on the wetlands. He urged the applicants to consider whether the proposed infrastructures will handle the storm water effectively. He added that converting natural infiltration will affect the aquifers and that water quantity impact by the storm water pond instead of infiltration should be considered.

 

Tom directed the board to review the issues highlighted in the staff report. Peter noted that the design places a lot of houses in a small area to utilize the sewer service area. He thought the board should carefully consider whether this is an appropriate allocation of units to be serviced by the town. He also asked about open spaces for residents and if a walking path had been considered. Bart said that the design was preliminary and that ideas for walkways and recreation had not been fully explored yet. Howdy Russell noted that the trail committee would be very interested in path way that could be used for full public usage. Bart said that they were on board with this idea but that liability and parking issues would need to be settled at some point. Joe noted that this area will abut a parcel that in the future will host areas for public recreation, walking paths, etc.

 

Tom noted that the size of the multi-family building is very important. Bart emphasized that at this point they have not done any architectural designs for the building but that they just want to know if the concept is appropriate for this location. Then they would go forward with more detailed designs and sketches. Greg asked if the number of units (24) in the multi-family building is significant. Bart said that 24 seems to be the most cost effective way to build a multi-family building that would house all of the amenities needed (i.e. elevators, sprinklers, underground parking). Russ stated that during their planning stages they determined that 24 was the minimum number of units that they could use and still have the building be cost effective. Lisa still felt the size was too big.

 

Ted asked if it might be possible to remove units 27 and 28 and create a walkway from the multi-family unit to this area. He thought this space could be used as an open area for the residents. Several Mulberry Lane homeowners expressed concerns regarding drainage from units 24 – 28. Bart said their concern is legitimate but it will be dealt with. By law the applicants cannot deposit any more runoff onto their properties than is already there.

 

Andrea Morgante was concerned that the residents of the multi-family unit will not be able to walk outside onto green space. She felt the residents would need more open space to utilize.

 

Rob Farley asked how the number of parking spaces was determined. Andy Rowe explained that there would be 24 spaces in the garage and 32 in the service parking lot. This would allow two spaces per unit as well as a few extra spaces for visitors. Alex noted that the board has some flexibility in allocating parking and that since this intended to be a senior community perhaps two spaces per unit was not necessary. Russ said he would need to consult the HOPA regulations to determine what is required and Bart said he appreciated this information and that they would take it into account when looking at their design. Patty Drew asked why the multi-family unit will be designated as a living area for residents of age 55+. Russ explained that the property has a long-standing sewer allocation if senior housing is built on this site. The select board had told him that if he built something other than senior housing here he would lose the sewer allocation. He also cited the town plan's reference to diverse housing and meeting the needs of the elderly.

 

Tom referred back to the staff report and expressed a concern regarding connectivity with other neighborhoods. Tom asked if the ROW's on the design are intended to connect to Lavigne Hill Road. Russ asked Alex if the town has plans to extend Lavigne Hill Road. Alex noted that this is not high on the town's priority list. Through roads are highly encouraged. He was not sure however that the ROWs would be viable connections. Bart noted that there are a great deal of physical impediments in this area (i.e. wetlands and steep terrain) but he is not sure that there is any other better ROW location. Alex noted that he should check with his engineers to verify that this is the case as this could become an issue in the future. Bart said this could be written as a condition of the proposal.

 

Ted said he thought there can and should be a road connecting Mulberry Lane to this development. Access was preserved so that an adjoining parcel would not have only one access. Mulberry Lane residents asked if this meant they would have to pay to maintain a road that would be used by themselves as well as all the new residents of the PRD. Ted explained that the board can require the homeowners association to contribute to the maintenance of this road. Greg thought there should at least be an emergency gravel access from Mulberry Lane. Lisa agreed with Ted and thought it was important to eliminate the dead end street. Peter noted that the access does not need to stay in the middle of the ROW and that perhaps this would help to make the design more feasible.

 

Alex referenced #6 in the Staff Report regarding setback limits. He asked if the board thought the setbacks should be altered in the case of the multi family unit and unit 27 as they are quite close to the setback limits as is. Ted thought the problem could be resolved by creating open space in place of units 27 & 28. Lisa stated that the PRD was not designed for open space, flat walking areas or garden spaces. She felt the applicant was trying to fit the most number of units into the available space. George said he did not feel the setback limits should be altered but that the design should change to meet the standards.

 

Matt Vinci asked about the brush line that will abut units 13 – 27 and whether it will be disturbed during construction. Bart responded that the brush and trees in the common area on Mulberry Lane is a buffer and that although some brush may be removed the trees will not be disturbed. Sara Murphy noted that this common land is not very usable due to it's location behind a neighbor's property and the fact that it is primarily wetland. She thought the residents of the new development might appreciate some common land that is usable space.

 

Peter asked if the board would be happier with the same number of units in a different design. Bart said that the town plan encourages residents to gather as a whole community. He asked if they should really be focusing on making a self-contained community that has no need to travel to other town locations to use recreational resources. Tom asked how much residents will be able to customize their individual units. Bart said since the houses are close together he felt the association maintenance aspect would work well to ensure some degree of uniformity between homes however residents will certainly be allowed to plant flowers, install benches and basically add their own personal touches. Sara asked if the topography of this area will allow for this. Bart explained that all units will be different due to the varied terrain but that this can be a real asset to the development. Tom said he would be interested in hearing how much flexibility the individual owners will have over their unit at the preliminary plat stage.

 

Alex noted that the applicants will need to prove that the northern storm water pond on the Mulberry Lane Development's common land can go where it is located on the design because there is no other place that it can go.

 

Bart addressed the waivers that will be requested for this project. Waivers requested include: front and side yard setbacks, garage setbacks, and conditional use permit for the multi-family dwelling. He also stated that these waiver requests are addressed in their narrative in a letter dated July 18, 2005 to Peter Erb.

 

Lisa was concerned that the road designed to serve units 6, 7 and 8 used a lot of resources and wasted natural area. She wondered if perhaps there are just too many units included in the design to allow for the open space that the board was looking for. Bart said the board would need to decide if this is the case. Lisa asked if perhaps units 6, 7 and 8 could be combined with other units in the project as duplexes to take up less space but allow the same number of units. Russ explained that duplex units are more difficult to integrate into the existing topography. A longer flat area is required which would force them to dig into the landscape more. Peter asked if the shaded area around the development would be cleared and reshaped during construction. Bart said yes to some extent it would be. Andy has designed the drive to follow the natural contours of the land but some reshaping will definitely be necessary.

 

Greg suggested that perhaps the board members should take time outside the meeting to review all of the significant aspects of this development and review their own concerns. He suggested that the the discussion could then be continued at a subsequent meeting.

 

Greg MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan for the Hinesburg Hillside PRD development to the October 4 meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Final Plat Subdivision Revision – 154 Hines Road – Applicants are Norris and Kathleen LaClair

Kathleen Lclair explained that they are requesting DRB approval to make a minor revision to the building envelope of their lot, which is part of an approved subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. They own the Hines Road Lot that Raymond and Ruth Ayer subdivided from their Cedar Knoll golf course property in 2002. This subdivision was originally approved by the DRB on September 17, 2002 (final plat/mylar recorded on slide 45D). This was a minor subdivision simply used to split this new 2-acre building lot off from the remaining 277-acre parcel. The LaClair parcel is located on the north side of Hines Road, west of the Hines Road, VT Route 116 intersection; parcel number 09-02-55.700.

 

Kathleen and Norris are requesting a very minor change due to a construction error that slightly offset the house and deck (already built) from the intended location. This error resulted in one corner of the deck extending outside of the approved building envelope. The 'offending' portion of the deck only amounts to a triangle of approximately 5.5' x 8' x 9.75' (22 square feet). If permitted, the deck would change the side yard setback, in this are from 30' to 24'. The required side yard setback for this zoning district is 20' (see Table 1, Zoning Regulations).

 

Kathleen also stated that they had thought of building the deck at an angle to stay within the building envelope but the cement piers had already been poured to support the original design of the deck.

 

Lisa said the only reservation she had regarding this revision is the precedent it might set for other homeowners. However it was noted that if there had been setback issues that the applicant would have had to apply for a variance which probably would not have been granted.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the requested subdivision revision. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Other Business:

Jay and Penny Martin Conditional Use Permit for 2nd floor Addition – Review Draft Decision

Greg noted that he thought Findings of Fact #6 should be moved to the Order section with language to the effect that the 2nd floor should not be larger than the first. He also asked that the word 'My' be removed from Findings of Fact #2. Alex said he would move #6 to the order section and add a corresponding conclusion.  Peter said he will remove Findings of Fact #7 as it should not be included here.

 

Tom MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with George and Lisa abstaining.

 

Raymond and Ruth Ayer Preliminary Plat Approval 7-lot Subdivision on East Side of Gilman Road – Review Draft Decision

Greg notified Alex of a couple of typos. Peter said he would re-word the section in regards to subsequent inspections to state that an engineer must be retained.  At this point the board discussed the creation of a walking path for future residents of this development.

 

George MOVED to remove the last sentence (“The road shall not necessarily be centered in the ROW but kept to the electrical side as much as possible to create room for the pedestrian path.”)

from order 3d section i. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion failed 2 – 5 with George and Clint voting in favor, and the other Board members voting against the wording change.

 

Ted MOVED to reword the last sentence of order 3d section i to read “The road shall not necessarily be centered in the ROW but kept to the electrical side as much as possible to create a possible future pedestrian path associated with possible future development.” George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Lisa abstaining.

 

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Additional Discussion of Hollow Road 9-lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan:

 Alex noted that the board should let the applicant know how many lots are acceptable and then let them revise their design. George said that if lots 4 and 5 were combined he would not have a problem with the design. Ted felt 4 additional lots could be added to the one existing lot on the western side of the property. Lisa felt the building envelope should be removed from the agricultural easement on lot 5. Clint said he would approve either 6 or 7 additional lots. Alex mentioned that lot 2 is in a flood hazard area.  Alex and Peter said they would discuss these ideas with the applicant.

 

Hinesburg Hillside 5-lot subdivision/52 Unit PRD Sketch Plan:

Board members said they would consider this application individually and write down a list of concerns and questions for the October 4th meeting.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary