TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

October 4, 2005

Approved October 18, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Paul Fournier, Tim Fournier, Alan Norris, Nancy Norris, Rad Romeyn, Jeremy Farkas, Anne Charlebois, Bart Frisbie, Collin Frisbie, Francis Emmons, Carol Emmons, Paul Wieczoreck, Clark Johnson, Maureen Harrison, Mauren Leahy, Jeff Padgett, Dennis Patriccio, Russ Barone, Chris Murphy, Sarah Murphy, Andy Rowe, Patti Drew.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of September 20, 2005 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the September 20, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

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

**continued from September 6 meeting**

George Munson recused himself from the board as he is a bordering property owner to the proposed subdivision.

Tom explained that the sketch plan for this subdivision had been continued from the September 6 meeting so that the board could do a site visit. Tom, Ted, Greg, Alex, Alan and Nancy Norris conducted a site visit prior to the DRB meeting.

The following observations were noted:

· Walked Postiche Lane up to the Estes driveway.

· Took several measurements of the drive and found it to be wider than 18'.

· Viewed the location of the proposed two house sites.

· Noted the slopes that driveways to these sites would need to accommodate.

· Observed the views from the proposed house sites to route 116 and Silver Street and the proximity to other surrounding homes.

· Noted the northern and southern site lines on 116.

· Viewed the flatness of the private drive at its entrance onto 116.

· Observed the location and proximity of neighbors to the southwest.

· Walked the property line along the west and southwestern boundaries.

· Walked to the Norris' home to view the proposed southern house site.

Greg said that the slope on the proposed southern building site was of concern and he asked if building envelopes will be designated and if so how big will they be. He also noted that the board often requires that building envelopes be established as a condition of approval. Alan explained that he would like to designate a building envelope on the lower house site and let the buyer attempt to modify the subdivision if they wish to use a different building envelope.

Ted noted that if he wants to give a future potential buyer the option of the southern building envelope that he might need to alter the boundary line of the property on that side to allow for front and back yard space. If he doesn't do this, then a buyer who might want to use this house site would not only need to try to modify the subdivision, but would also need to have a property line change. Ted thought the house site closer to the drive definitely seemed do-able. He noted that he thought clearing limits should be established and that the hedgerow on the south side near the Miner's property should not be cleared to allow for privacy.

Tom said he was very impressed by the Norris' residence and how minimal the visual impact is on the surroundings despite it being located at a higher elevation. He said he would like to see a similar lessened impact with the new house site.

Greg asked if this subdivision should be treated as a two-step process. Tom said yes. Ted said that since Alan is going to use the house site closer to the Postiche Lane and therefore no driveway engineering would be required, that he thought a two step process would be adequate as well.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Greg asked if a replacement area had been sited for the existing home's septic and if the well location for the new lot had been determined. Alan said that a replacement location for his septic system had been sited on his property as well as a primary and replacement septic location for the proposed new lot. He also noted that the well location will be above the house. Greg said that at final approval they would want to make sure that the well head protection area does not overlap onto the Miner's property so that no restrictions are placed on any future needs they might have for their septic system. He also mentioned that the board would probably require that a road association be established for the Norris' and the new homeowners, and that other homeowners on Postiche Lane should be invited to join as well. Greg also asked where the power for the lot will be located. Alan explained that a vault will probably be placed near the location of the exiting junction box near the proposed lot.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the requested 2-lot subdivision. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

George returned to the board.

Sketch Plan Review for 6-lot Subdivision/PRD – 1515 Hollow Road – Abbey Family Trust – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

**continued from September 20 meeting**

Jeff Padgett of Engineered Solutions reviewed the applicants new layout proposal for the Hollow Road PRD. The new design was very similar to option D that was presented at the September 20 meeting with the exception that one lot had been removed. The design consisted of six lots clustered on the western side of the property. He also briefly discussed a revision of the conventional subdivision layout of 7 lots in which they had moved house sites away from the agricultural soils to support the contention that a 7 lot subdivision would be do-able.

Jeff noted that with the new design there would be a net gain of 4 new buildings. This would include the replacement of an old barn. In addition he displayed a more detailed design of the access point to the subdivision. In his design he attempted to over-compensate for an emergency vehicle's size by using a 42' bus as a test. The proposed drive would allow access to a vehicle this size and therefore Jeff noted it would be more than adequate for emergency vehicle access. He estimated that the distance between the two trees was approximately 21'. The existing house would set back from the drive 26'. He said that a typical side yard setback is 20'. Alex explained that due to this lot's location it would actually be considered a corner lot and therefore would need to meet the front yard setback limit of 60' on both Hollow Road as well as the new drive. Jeff said the setback from the proposed drive would probably not be 60' but it would be close to that. Alex said that there is some flexibility here since this is a PRD.

Ted asked how wide the drive would be. Jeff said it would be 20' up until the first driveway and then it would narrow. Ted was concerned about what impact the drive would have on the two trees on either side. He felt the road construction might seriously affect these trees. Jeff said this is a valid concern but it is important to note that these two trees are the only ones close enough to the drive that might be impacted by its construction.

Greg asked if the existing home would be accessed off from the new drive. Jeff said the existing home would use it's current driveway which exits directly onto Hollow Road. He also noted that both curb cuts already exist.

Jeff explained that the reason why the building locations on the drawing might look is smaller is that instead of drawing a building envelope, they included a 30' x 40' footprint of each home. At this point Rad distributed some renderings of barns that he envisioned would be used as a design base for the homes that would be located in this PRD.

At this point Jeremy Farkas, the applicant's lawyer spoke in regards to the access issue with the Carse property to the north. Jeremy noted that he has been in touch with Henry's lawyer and that initially Henry proposed three access points. Two of these cross the agricultural easement area and are acceptable to the applicant. The third would cross through the house site locations on the western side of the property and is unacceptable to the applicant. The forester was unable to visit the site the previous Friday, but has planned to visit this Friday to see if the two access points on the eastern end of the property will be sufficient. Jeremy's goal is to formalize and specify the location of the access points. He noted that this is an open issue but is nearing finalization. He said that if the board members called Henry's lawyer, Joe Fallon that they would get the same impression from him.

Paul Wieczoreck asked if these access points are just for logging purposes or also for trail usage by the public. Jeremy said at this point they are just working on determining access for Henry.

Greg noted that in previous discussions several board members had noted that they would like to see no more than four additional lots on this property and that this proposal has 5 additional lots. He explained that four board members will need to approve the sketch plan in order for it to move forward. If there are not four votes, Greg asked the applicant if he would like the board to deny his request for sketch plan approval, or continue the hearing so that the applicant can return with a new design.

Rad said that in the board discussions he had noted that there was a difference of opinion as to whether 4 or 5 additional lots were acceptable. He felt that they had made significant attempts to fulfill the board's wishes on several fronts and that they had done a professional job of trying to collaborate with the board. He asked that the board vote on this design.

Peter mentioned that the access resolution might affect future development if Henry decides to develop his property and that this could affect everyone involved.

Ted asked about the agricultural easements and how this is restricted. Alex said that the regulations require a certain amount of open space but don't regulate how agricultural easements are handled. Jeremy said that the land would be permanently encumbered due to the agricultural easement. Other lot owners would need to understand that they could be living in close proximity to a farm. Ted asked if lot 5 would control the agricultural easement and how many acres this adds up to. Jeff explained that lot 5 would hold the majority of the agricultural easement lands with some falling on lot 4 as well. The total acreage for lot 5 is approximately 13 acres. Ted then asked how the ag easement on lot 4 would be utilized. Jeff explained that this is a smaller area and they basically wanted to show on their design that the house will not be built on the agricultural soils.

Rad mentioned that in discussions with the Abbey's he has discovered that the existing culvert between lots 3 and 4 will need to be bigger to handle the spring runoff. In addition he discussed their concept of building placement near the entrance to the PRD and how it is intended to balance buildings on either side of the drive. The existing house is intended to become the visual centerpiece.

Paul Wieczoreck thought the renderings of the barn buildings was appealing but he wondered what the DRB can do to insure that the houses built in this PRD will look like these drawings. He wanted to know what control the DRB holds over this aspect of the development. Ted explained that the board usually doesn't include design conditions in the approval process, however when an applicant includes drawings as a part of their presentation, the board can make the applicant's design proposal a condition of approval. Ted said he would expect to see provisions or covenants in the deed in regards to architectural design.

Paul Fournier asked if any homes built in this PRD would need to stay like this forever. Ted said that ultimately the applicant has control over design issues. The board doesn't propose designs but since the applicant included these designs as a part of his proposal, the board can include it as a condition of approval.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and to take up further discussion in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

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

**continued from September 20 meeting**

Tom explained that the Sketch Plan Review for the 5-lot subdivision/52 Unit PRD had been continued from the September 20 meeting to allow board members to collect their thoughts for further discussion about serious issues and concerns with the proposed project.

Russ Barone addressed the board and explained that he felt it was important that the board consider the fact that this proposal meets several objectives of the town plan. Some of the specific objectives included: diversity of housing, elderly housing, higher density within designated growth areas, increasing connectivity between neighbors, and utilitizing community resources. In addition he stated that he and Bart had heard the board's concerns regarding the architectural design of the multi-unit building, lack of open space for recreational usage, connection to Mulberry Lane and how the proposed retention pond will look. They fully intend to address these concerns, however they need to know if the design concept is acceptable. The plan is flexible but they need to know if the concept works.

Ted asked if the project will require Act 250 review. Russ said yes it would.

Greg noted that the multi-unit dwelling is an issue. He understands that they need 24 units to make it economically feasible to build, but he hopes that the applicants would make every effort to reduce the building's visibility and to think creatively as they enter the design phase of this project. Russ agreed that they will address this issue.

George noted that the multi-unit building's proximity to several other buildings concerns him in regards to density and open space issues. In addition he would really like to see an easily accessible park area where residents could congregate to get outside and foster a sense of community. The surrounding open land is great but not very usable for anyone who has mobility issues. Since the topography is so hilly this becomes a larger issue of concern.

Ted thought there were important visibility issues with units 12 and 13. In general he said he is in support of this density in the village district. Connectivity to Lavigne Hill Road seems to be an issue but in general he is supportive of the design with imposed conditions. Russ suggested that a permanent floating easement for the ROW might be a good way to address the connectivity to Lavigne Hill Road. This would allow for the best placement of the ROW when that time comes and insure that the ROW is guaranteed to be there.

Ted also said he would like to see a walking trail added to the design. Russ said they understood this and are receptive to adding this to the plan.

Maureen Leahy spoke on behalf of the Mulberry Lane Residents' Association. She said the association had three main concerns that they hoped would be addressed in the design process. They included:

· Connectivity between the two neighborhoods. Mulberry Lane residents are opposed to this proposal unless the town is willing to take over maintenance of the road.

· Would like to see increased setback limits on units 27, 28, 13, 1, 2, and 3. Ideally they would like to see these units removed and thereby decrease the development's density.

· Would like to make sure that the tree line behind Mulberry Lane is not disturbed. They would like all of the mature trees to remain regardless of whether they are in the common land.

Chris Murphy, a resident of Mulberry Lane said he would like units 27 and 28 removed and this space used as an open area for the residents.

Patti Drew, a resident of Thornbush Road noted that the proposed driveway to the parking lot seems to cut through a grouping of trees. She is concerned that this will make the multi-unit building much more visible. Russ said that he thought the mature Maple trees and the majority of the knoll would remain untouched. Greg also explained that engineered plans and more details in general will be required at the preliminary plat stage. Patti asked if one drive could be used to access both the parking lot and the underground parking area. Andy Rowe explained that this would be difficult to do due to the difference in grades.

Dennis Patriccio, a resident of Mechanicsville Road was concerned about the encroachment of units 27 and 28 into the knoll as well as storm water runoff issues.

Russ referenced section 4.5.7 item 5c of the zoning regulations in regards to PRD Standards. “PRDs within the Village District shall be designed so that: . . . adequate provision for open space or community facilities to serve as central organizing features within the PRD, such as a green or park.” He noted that the regulation provided for open space OR community facilities and that therefore open space is not required for approval. Alex noted that either of these options needs to serve as a 'central organizing feature' and he felt that this is what the board is looking for. Bart said this is a valid point and they are willing to try to work something into the plan to meet this need.

Chris Murphy noted from personal experience with common land that ease of accessibility is an important issue and the easier it is for the residents to use, the greater asset the open space will serve.

Russ said he had reviewed the Declarations for Mulberry Lane and found that anything can be changed or moved. He also noted that this information is on record in the town's offices.

Greg suggested that the board should take the matter into deliberative session to get a consensus on the most important issues of concern.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and further discuss the PRD in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting to render a decision. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Site Plan Review for New Building – Route 116 South of United Church – Applicants are Len and Carolyn Duffy

Len explained that he is requesting Site Plan approval for a new commercial building in the Village Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately .5 acres and is located to the south of the United Church on Route 116. The applicant proposes to construct a 999 square foot building with no changes to the existing parking area and traffic patterns. It had been requested to approve this as a minor change to the site plan per section 4.3.1 and 4.6 however it was found to be a major change that would need the board's approval.

Ted asked what the space would be used for. Len said uses for the building would be similar to the office and professional business uses that are in the existing building. He said that uses of this new building would be consistent with what the zoning regulations allow. It would be a one story building with an attic. Tom noted that the first issue raised in the staff report was in regards to the lack of any building elevations, its use and occupancy. Len explained that the only use he intended for the attic was for storage of his office's dead archives. It would not be occupiable because it is not handicap accessible. He said he would not provide elevations as a matter of principal. In the past when he had provided elevations for a previously proposed building the board ended up redesigning the building and he did not want that to happen again.

Greg referenced section 4.3.4 section 3 of the zoning regulations in regards to Site Plan Review Standards “Adequacy of landscaping, screening, setbacks, hours of operation and exterior building design in regard to achieving maximum compatibility with adjacent property and with the character of the neighborhood.” He didn't know how he was supposed to decide if this building met these requirements if he can't see an elevation. In addition the regulations in sub section 9 of the same section stated that the board needs to determine 'Conformance with design standards as stated in sections 3.4.5 and 5.6, where they apply.' which also cannot be done without viewing an elevation drawing. He stated that the review process requires the board to take a building's design into consideration to make a decision.

Len stated he felt that an elevation is not required for site plan review and would not provide one on principle. Robert asked if the board shouldn't take a straw vote before continuing if an elevation is needed to make a decision. Tom noted that it would be helpful to Len to make sure he knew all the information that would be required to proceed so that board should go ahead and address all issues now.

Ted noted that it might be necessary for the board to have a more specific idea of what the space might be used for in the future as different uses can have vastly different affects on parking. Alex asked if the regulations (section 5.6.4) noted a use that would greatly affect parking patterns. Len said that he currently has an informal agreement with the church next door in which church members may use his parking lot on weekends and he may use the church parking lot during the week. He stated that he has consistently had more parking than needed. Greg said that the problem with an informal agreement is that there is no guarantee that it will continue. Len noted that parking is also allowed on the street in the village and that he does not foresee this causing any change in parking. The building currently has 17 spaces and will gain an additional space when one tree is removed.

Tom told Len that an elevation will be required for the board to make a decision. He asked Len if he would like the board to continue the Site Plan Review to another meeting so that he can provide the requested elevation, or if he would like the board to vote on his request as is. Len asked the board to vote and said he would not provide elevations to the board. He strongly felt this was expanding the power of the board. Ted stated that since the board requires other businesses to provide elevations it is not fair for them not to require the elevations of him. He again referenced the zoning regulations that are required for the board to make a decision on a site plan review.

Tom MOVED to grant Site Plan Approval for a 999 square foot building on route 116 south of the United Church. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion FAILED 0 – 6.

Other Business:

Extension of Sketch Plan Approval for Wayne and Barbara Bissonette's Subdivision Request on East side of Gilman Road:

Alex referenced a letter from George Bedard dated September 27, 2005 which requested a 6 month extension of the sketch plan approval to allow work to be completed on the parcel.

Ted MOVED to extend the sketch plan approval for this subdivision by six months. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Norris and Kitty LaClair Request for Revisions to Final Plat for Building Envelope on Hines Road Lot – Review Draft Decision:

Greg asked if orders # 3 – 6 are required. Alex stated that these orders are part of the template used for requests of this kind and that although they are not specific to this request there is no harm in them being included.

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

Request for Continuance of CVU Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Upper Pond Road Field Fencing:

George MOVED to continue the CVU Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Upper Pond Road Field Fencing to the October 18 meeting. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Deliberative Session:

2-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan on Postiche Lane – Applicants are Alan and Nancy Norris

The board felt the following issues should be listed as conditions in the draft decision prepared by staff:

· Creation of a road association.

· Specific location of actual driveway cut.

· Specify clearing limits.

· Specify a building envelope.

6-lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan on Hollow Road – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

Ted stated he was swayed by the renderings provided by the applicant. Tom noted that there is nothing to control that the barns will be a larger square footage. George felt the applicant understands that there will be design constraints on whatever is built on this PRD. Currently he feels the existing barn is an eyesore and that these new buildings will be an asset. George said he did not have a problem with this site plan.

Alex reminded the board that lot 2 is quite a small lot with several constraints in regard to the flood hazard area. He said he thought 2/3 of the lot is in the flood hazard area. George said the lot is 1.1 acres which is not necessarily that small. Peter also noted that he didn't think the location of the flood hazard area on the map is correct as it is not near the brook. Alex agreed that the hazard area might be skewed.

Tom mentioned that the access agreement with the Carse property is very important. George agreed but said that the applicant is aware that this will need to be resolved prior to getting to the preliminary plat stage.

Alex thought the use of the open space was creative, and that the Planning Commission specifically changed the relevant PRD/PUD regulations to allow wide latitude in the ownership of required open space. Tom noted that if this land is used for agricultural purposes they will probably need outbuildings and wondered if the owner would be able to have them. Alex said this would not be a problem as long as they were for agricultural usage. Ted thought that having one owner retain usage of the common area would make it more likely to be used for agricultural purposes. Peter said that there are vague regulations on accessory buildings and that this may be an open door for a horse farm. He wasn't sure there was anything to stop someone from constructing an indoor riding ring building on this lot. Greg said that as a condition the applicant should be asked to have covenants to control the construction of future buildings. Alex noted that he wasn't sure it was a good idea to require applicants to restrict designs. He thought this might be a legal issue if the board was using conditions to circumvent what they are actually able to regulate by law. Alex said he would check with the town lawyer about this.

Greg thought the design was good with six units, as did Clint and George. Robert agreed with the design as well. He thought the house sizes should be limited but did not feel owners should have to build according to the dictated design. Ted said he thought the subdivision would be approveable based on covenants and representations made at this hearing. Alex again noted that once these provisions become a direction of the board there may be a legal issue. He said the renderings presented by Rad seemed to totally change the board's opinion on 6 lots vs. 5. George said he felt the pictures reinforced how visibility will be affected. Ted asked if the board has control over house size and Alex said that he was not sure they could given the type of development.

Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval on the Hinesburg Hollow subdivision. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

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

Greg said he had taken note of several items that he found to be of issue. The first being access through Mulberry Lane. He felt that there should at least be an emergency access through a gravel pathway. Ted thought this was also important but as a real road connection, not just an emergency access. In addition, he noted that creating a lot of dead end roads is not beneficial to the town of Hinesburg. He noted that the residents of Mulberry Lane saw maintenance as an issue but that he felt this could be resolved through an agreement with the association of the new development. Tom agreed and felt the expense should be handled proportionately between all residents. George thought at least an emergency access should be added but he really felt like a permanent road would be better.

Next Greg noted that units 27 and 28 seem to be an issue as far as visibility is concerned. He thought the applicants should rethink these two lots and possibly eliminate them. Ted thought this space should be used as open space for the multi-unit building instead that could be accessed from the second floor of this building. Clint thought that perhaps they could just remove one unit and reconfigure the other to fit somewhere else. Peter asked if the board's issues had to do with the density of the PRD or the design. Greg had no problem with the density but the placement of units 27 and 28 seemed problematic. Clint said the applicant could work on a re-design for preliminary plat but that the board should give them an idea as to whether the concept works and he felt it does.

Tom thought a sidewalk should be added from Thornbush to the round-about on one side of the road. He would also like to see interconnecting trails to allow for more walking. Alex noted that the entire PRD will be owned in common so the residents can walk anywhere. They don't have to avoid individual's property. He thought the trails on the Russell property might dovetail nicely into this development. Alex also noted Peter's idea that residents at the back of the property might not follow sidewalks down to the park space at the front of the development and that walking trails through green space should be built to accommodate for this.

Greg was concerned that unit 23 is entirely in a wetland. Clint questioned if the area is really a wetland as it did not seem that damp. Tom said it might fulfill some need in treating storm water. Alex thought that perhaps the engineer should assess what function this wetland is performing in treating storm water.

Greg was also concerned with the visibility of units 11 – 15. He said these five units would be visible from both 116 and Falls Road. Ted thought landscaping might help here. Greg also noted that existing vegetations that shields units 13, 15, 26 and 27 from Mulberry Lane should be maintained. He thought the applicant should also work with setback limits to further shield Mulberry Lane residents.

In a previous meeting Lisa had mentioned an issue with having one road serve units 6, 7, and 8 and whether this was a waste of resources or not. The other board members did not have this listed as one of their concerns.

Greg urged the applicant to be creative in his design of the multi-family unit. Tom thought the front facade could be broken up somewhat with a different roof design and other architectural features. Ted mentioned that the actual need of parking should be determined. He also thought trails should be accessible by the public.

Tom said since the common ownership is a new thing to Hinesburg that the legal language for the PRD should be carefully reviewed. He thought that they should ask for a review of the draft legal language by the town's attorney and that the legal language should be required at preliminary plat.

Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Hinesburg Hillside development. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary