TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

October 18, 2005

Approved November 1, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Robert Mason, Michael Bissonette, Monte Stokes, Gloria Reynolds, Loy Harrell, Rae Harrell, George Bedard, Nicholas Nowlan, Lin Isham, Tim Isham, Tim Brown, Butch Holcomb, Marion Holcomb, Tony St. Hilaire, Michael Hart, Elaine Hart, Russ Barone, Collin Frisbie.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of October 4, 2005 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the September 20, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Lisa and Joe abstaining.

Site Plan Revision and Conditional Use Permit for Fencing on Upper Intramural Field at CVU

**continued from September 6 meeting**

Bob Mason explained that after meeting with Peter, Alex and several team members at the school , CVU proposed that they would shorten the fence to 34' on the North-South side and 220' on the East West side. The fence would be coated in either gray or green, dependent on the board's request. CVU agreed to landscape on the outside of the fence and would return to the DRB after two growing seasons for review of the landscaping to see if additional landscaping is needed at that time.

Tom said that he has watched several soccer games on the lower field where there is no fence. He said he has not seen any players run off the field and that when balls do roll down the slope it takes a minimal amount of time for them to be retrieved. He was not convinced that the fence is necessary and the affect on the viewscape was a concern. In addition, he noted that he has concern regarding how the condition of the landscaping near the fence will be maintained as currently there is an old scoreboard, couch and extra goals located on or near the athletic fields. The extra items detract from the overall impression of the school. Tom also thought that parking on Pond Road by visitors during games is becoming a safety issue. He wanted to know whether CVU or the Hinesburg police are in charge of monitoring parking in this area.

Bob said that it is a condition of the school's permit approval that if parking becomes an issue CVU has to work with the town to resolve it. He also noted that the upper field is being used beyond its intended use until the lower fields are completed. Once the lower fields are functional, varsity games will take place there and intramural games will occur on the upper fields. He also said that the couch and old scoreboard will be removed as a condition of approval.

Tom thought the parking issue should be addressed as soon as possible. Lisa asked how big of an issue parking needs to become before it is addressed. Bob said that if anyone notifies the principal or chair of the school board the parking issue will be addressed.

Ted asked Alex to summarize what was discussed at the meeting with Bob and other members of the team at CVU. Alex said that several options were discussed including those presented tonight; shortening of the fence, coating the fence and landscaping. In additional other options were discussed as well but did not meet with the school member's approval for various reasons. Lowering the height of the fence was not acceptable as it is more of a temptation for athletes to attempt to jump the fence and injure themselves on it. Alex also suggested moving the field to the north 20' to alleviate the need for fencing but that the school wants to keep spectators off of the slope for safety and erosion control reasons. Alex and Peter tried to give the applicants guidance as to how they thought the board would react to different proposals.

Tom asked if there was any discussion of spectator safety and comfort. Bob said no. Alex said the only thing he could think of was a suggestion to move the goal to the north by 20' to provide additional spectator space behind the goal, however spectators are not allowed behind the goal during a game. Bob also noted that the upper field is not intended for varsity use and therefore does not offer as much accommodation for spectators. In the future, intramurals will be played on these fields which should draw smaller crowds.

At this point Tom asked if there was any public discussion on the application before the board. Loy Harrell agreed with Bob in regards to a lower fence being a safety hazard.

Ted MOVED to direct the staff to draft conditions of approval for the Site Plan Revision and Conditional Use Permit for the Fencing on the Upper Field on Pond Road at CVU.

George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED with 5 voting in favor, Joe abstaining and Clint voting opposed.

Subdivision Revision Sketch Plan – Mallard Pond Road – Applicants are Loy and Rae Harrell, Gloria Reynolds and Monte Stokes

George Bedard explained that the applicants are requesting Sketch Plan approval to revise a previously approved 2-lot subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. This subdivision was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 4, 1996 (final plat/mylar recorded on slide 18b). Parcel #08-01-78.300 is approximately 10 acres and is owned by Reynolds/Stokes (lot 1 on new plan). Parcel #08-01-78.100 is approximately 28 acres and is owned by Harrell (lot 2 on new plan). The subject parcels are located on Mallard Pond Road, which is a private road on the west side of Silver Street.

The applicants would like to make lot 1 much smaller and more regular in shape by transferring approximately 7.5 acres to lot 2. See the applicant's letter for details. The Harrell's wanted this lot to be smaller in the original subdivision, but ended up making it 10 acres so they could install an innovative sand filter septic system without a State wastewater permit. Note that prior to 2002, wastewater permits were only required for lots under 10 acres. This sand filter septic system wasn't permitted under the old State rules, but is permitted now.

Tom asked George to outline the benefits of merging the strip from lot 1 into lot 2. George explained that currently the strip of land is not used except as a disposal area. If the change is approved there will be a pipeline easement for the existing system as well as a secondary system. Clint asked if the existing septic system will need to be changed. George said no, and that at this point it is actually an overbuilt system based on current regulations.

Alex said that on a procedural level the applicant has requested sketch plan approval for the revision to the subdivision. However, they will also need to apply for final plat approval for the revision. Alex suggested that since the application seemed straightforward that perhaps the board should just continue the discussion to another meeting so that Alex would have time to warn the meeting in the Burlington Free Press as required for final plat hearings. Ted asked if the decision couldn't be considered a boundary revision. Alex said that would actually require more steps for the applicant to complete. Lisa asked if all the involved buildings had the appropriate setbacks. George said they did.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public. There was no public discussion.

Ted MOVED to continue the Subdivision Revision on Mallard Pond Road to the December 6 meeting and to direct staff to warn the public hearing. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7 – 0.

2-lot Subdivision Final Plat Review – Magee Hill Road – Applicants are Tim and Lin Isham

Nick Nowlan, of McCain Consulting, Inc. explained that Tim and Lin Isham are requesting Final Plat approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 104 acres, and is located on the south side of Magee Hill Road, just west of the Swamp Road intersection; parcel #05-01-8.300. The land is owned by Timothy and Kristi Brown. The Browns also own 2 abutting parcels: 1. a 10.1 acre parcel, with a new home, immediately adjacent to the east (lot 2 from a previous subdivision) and 2. a 30 acre parcel across Magee Hill Road with a sugar house and associated agricultural fields and forest. The front portion of the subject parcel is open with 2 existing residential structures (mobile home and farm house), a barn, and associated agricultural fields. The back 2/3 to ¾ of the parcel is heavily forested with a significant coniferous cover that has been mapped as a deer wintering area by the VT Fish & Wildlife Department. The subject parcel is lot 1 from a previous 2-lot subdivision that was approved on May 20, 2003 (plat/mylar recorded on slide 49D).

The plan shows lot 2 from the previous subdivision, and continues the numbering scheme from there. Lot 3 comprises 3.18 acres (including a portion of the Town right of way) in the northeast corner of the subject parcel with approximately 320' of frontage on Magee Hill Road. This lot includes the existing farm house, barn and shared well that serves the mobile home and the farm house. Lot 3 has direct access to Magee Hill Road via an existing driveway. The farm house has an existing on-site septic system (to east of the house), and a replacement area in a designated easement area on the abutting parcel (lot 2 from previous subdivision). Lot 1 comprises the remaining 100 acres of the parcel. Lot 1 contains the existing mobile home and the bulk of the farm and forest land. This lot has direct access to Magee Hill Road via an existing driveway. The mobile home has an existing septic system ( to the east of the home), and a replacement area in the same designated easement area on the abutting parcel (lot 2 previous subdivision).

Tom asked about access to the back portion of the lot. Nick explained that on the plat there is a 60' space between the building envelope for lot 1 and Brian and Rachael Thibault's property. This area is much less steep and provides much easier access than going through the lot 2 property (owned by Tim and Kristi Brown). Tom asked if this access would be big enough for logging trucks. Nick said yes it would be. Ted asked if a road exists in this location. Nick said that the access would be through pasture and that no road currently exists here.

Tom then asked about adding deed language in regards to how maintenance of the shared well will be handled. Nick said the applicants would like to add a condition that the well maintenance be shared 50/50 between lots 1 and 3. He also noted that all current landowners are family members so he doesn't foresee this being an issue. He suggested that if any parcels were to be sold outside the family, then lot 1 would probably locate its own water source.

Tom asked if there is a utility line easement on the property. Nick said that there is an easement with an undefined width and length. Nick said he would finish the location of the power lines on the plat and will indicate it as a utility line easement.

Tom opened the meeting to the public. There was no public discussion.

Peter recommended that deed language be required before final approval is granted. He said that collecting deed language after the approval can be a difficult task and can also make the process more complicated. George Bedard said that with a permit it is expected that there will be conditions that need to be met, forcing everyone to meet conditions prior to approval will slow the process down. Nick noted that Tim and Lin would need the approval to get a mortgage approval from the bank that will enable them to complete renovations on the existing farm house. He stated it was his understanding that conditions of approval will need to be met before the mylar is signed. Alex said this varies based on conditions set by the board.

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

4-lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – North Road – Applicants are Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

George Bedard explained that this is an application for the creation of three development lots within a 152 acre parcel which has an existing mobile home on it. It was all previously owned by Everett O'Brien and subdivided on 2/25/2004 to separate the property which contains the house. While this proposal does cluster the lots next to existing residences, many on lots smaller than these, the interior of this parcel borders State lands and is part of a very large intact area of public and private forest lands containing productive commercial forests, valuable wildlife habitat and accompanying recreational uses.

George stated that current regulations prevent a septic system to be installed within 200' upslope of a drilled well and 500' upslope of a shallow well. Since two wells currently exist on proposed lot 3, the septic system for this lot will need a septic easement on another lot further upslope from the wells. Lots 4 and 5 will have septic systems further upslope or off the lots entirely. Each lot will be served by a drilled well. All bordering homeowners with the exception of the Hunter property have shallow wells.

Tom asked if the access road will create a dam for storm water runoff. George stated that Nick Nowlan from McCain Consulting will address storm water and erosion control issues. Clint asked if the septic for the trailer will need to be redone. George said no, but they were able to reserve space for a primary and replacement septic area in case it is needed in the future.

Ted asked how runoff, fertilizer and any other lawn chemical applications will be dealt with on these lots since they are in such close proximity to shallow wells. George stated that deed conditions could be added if this is of great concern to the board.

Tom asked about how the existing gravel deposits on this land will be protected. George said that beyond the brook on the area that adjoins the Bissonette property there is a great deal of gravel, however, finding gravel closer to the proposed lots is hit or miss and not of a level that would involve commercial extraction.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Mike Hart, an adjoining landowner was very concerned about lot 3 and how building in this area will impact his well and runoff onto his property. He also noted that this land is very damp.

Mr. Holcomb, an adjoining landowner said that his property gets a great deal of runoff from this property now. He has had to enlarge a pond to collect the runoff as well as open up a ditch at the back of his property. He said that the growth on the pasture has helped some but he is concerned that any development here will greatly increase runoff onto his property.

George stated that an engineer would have to design a storm water detention plan that will need to handle runoff so that no additional flow is added onto any neighbor's property.

Mr. Holcomb asked if the hedgerow screening will remain. George said he would be restricting cutting to preserve both the existing and new homeowners' privacy. Mr. Holcomb then asked if the ditch will be maintained as a part of this proposal. George said it would need to be added to the proposal.

Tom stated that he felt the new homes would look down on the existing homes along North Road. George said that he didn't feel this would be the case as there are a lot of trees that shield these properties and the existing homes are too close to the tree line to allow the new houses to see these homes.

Mr. Holcomb wanted to know why the lots can't be moved to the South behind the trailer. George said this area is much more open and he knew that the board is sensitive to visibility issues. By picking the current location he hopes to hide the homes among the existing trees. In addition, the owner wants to keep this area open in case they choose to build a home for themselves in this location.

Lisa asked if the board has ever asked for, and received a master plan for development of a large parcel of land. Tom said this request has never been very successful.

Michael Hart said that they were told that there would only be two lots built further back from their properties. They had wanted to buy the area with their well on it but were unable to. Now the development in this area is of great concern.

Lisa noted that a complete survey will be required. George said that McCain Consulting has submitted one survey and will file a complete one as well.

Mr. Holcomb asked about the possibility of the entire parcel being developed. George said he was just asked to create three lots.

Tom said it sounded like the board should conduct a site visit of this property. George said he could show the board the approximate areas where building envelopes will be located, the driveway and existing hedgerows. He said he would also walk the board members behind the existing homeowners' properties to show them the existing wells. Ted said his main concerns are the protection of the shallow wells, putting lots in a dry and usable area and the visibility of the potential homes.

Tom MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan Review to the November 1 meeting with a site visit to take place on Saturday October 22 at 9:00 am. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Other Business:

Tony St. Hilaire – Siding Color

Tony explained to the board that he had applied for a subdivision approval prior to building his house. During this process the board had specified that he should use 'darker earth tones' for his siding as a condition of approval. Tony stated that as he started siding his home he heard that there was discussion in town in regards to the color. Tony spoke with Peter Erb and the Select board in regards to what he should do. Both asked him to attend the DRB meeting and discuss the issue with the board. He explained that he had added a slate grey roof, special ordered pebble grey trim and ordered slate grey siding in an attempt to fulfill the condition of approval. He also said that he had read in the DRB minutes that there was discussion over whether his house was built on fill. He stated it was not and that fill had been placed in front of his house and during this process trees on his neighbor's property were accidentally knocked down which makes his home more visible. Tony noted that several of his neighbors have white or grey siding and that he felt a dark red or brown color would be a mistake. The siding color decision is all that is holding up his occupancy permit and he would like it resolved.

Tom said that he thought the board was thinking of the summer months when they recommended the darker earth tones. Tony said the house is not visible from town or 116 and that the only visibility issues are from CVU or Charlotte Road. Ted felt the board did not give clear guidance and that it was not right at this point to ask Tony to tear the siding off of his house. Joe asked if the board could request retroactive landscaping to try to address the visibility issue. Alex reminded the board that Tony is not requesting anything of the board, the discussion is just intended to help Peter make his decision.

George felt that specifying house colors is a big mistake. Since the board members can't agree on colors it isn't right to make them conditions of approval. He also said that darker earth tones do not necessarily blend in more. Until the board can reach a consensus on their own he strongly felt it was not right to add house color conditions. George said that all other means should be used first when visibility is an issue (i.e. landscaping, building envelope location). Clint agreed and felt owners should be able to choose the color of their own house. George said that if the board does decide to choose house colors they have to be much more specific. An owner shouldn't build a house and then be told it's the wrong color. Tom noted that color selection does not incur any additional cost for the homeowner. George said that is true, but then the color has to stay with the home. Alex asked the board what input they wanted to offer Peter on his decision. George said he had no problem with the grey color. Robert thought the color was okay but that in future situations like this the board should require the homeowner to meet with them on color selection if that is a condition of approval.

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

Ted asked that required runoff preventions and culverts be added to Order 2c. Alex said that this should be added as a requirement for plat application (Order 3d) so that the actual plat does not get confusing with too many notations. Ted also asked that a reference be added to Order 4a that would allow any future lots to join the homeowners road association as well.

Robert MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4 – 0 with George and Lisa abstaining.

Sketch Plan Review for 6-lot subdivision/PRD – 1515 Hollow Road – Applicant is Rad Romeyn – Review Draft Decision

Ted asked that the text 'discussed' in order 3d should be replaced with 'proposed'. Lisa asked if the open space requirement for the PRD is fulfilled by the agricultural easement. Alex explained that open space does not need to be for the use of all owners. The applicant can use whatever ownership pattern that makes the most sense in the given development.

Lisa said that the word 'of' should be added to Finding #7 before 'written testimony'.

Tom said as a part of Order 3D he would like to add 'finished colors'. George said he would like to see what designs the applicant comes in with before requesting colors. Tom said his view of this subdivision was greatly impacted by the designs offered by the applicant and that visibility is a large issue. Lisa noted in the previous discussion that color had not had a great impact on visibility. Robert felt that the board should present the idea of color early so that the applicant is prepared to discuss it. George thought the board should wait until they discuss the preliminary plat and that he doesn't feel he can decide on a color without a design. Tom would like the applicant to be prepared with colors as well as design at the preliminary plat stage. George didn't think it was appropriate to add an order that wasn't discussed with the applicant.

Peter thought the board should reexamine the visibility issue. The regulations state that it is a goal to have development blend into the rural landscape. The hope is that this cluster of buildings would become a part of the landscape. Houses do not need to be invisible, they need to fit into their surroundings. Alex agreed with Peter and said he felt this is an issue the board has been struggling with. He said that the regulations provide clear authority for placement of homes but no regulations for color. He encouraged the board to use the regulations for guidance first before attempting to resolve a visibility issue with color.

Joe said he agreed with what Alex had written in his staff report in regards to this PRD and felt house designs should not have swayed the decision. Lisa noted that the pictures distributed were not consistent with house sizes that would actually be built and were thus not an accurate representation of what the buildings will actually look like. She still felt the density was too high.

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 3 with Clint, George, Robert and Ted voting in favor and Joe, Lisa and Tom voting opposed.

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

Joe recused himself from the board.

Lisa asked for clarification on Conclusion #14. She could not find the corresponding order. Alex said it was order 4G.

Ted asked that a delineation of the roadway connection to Mulberry Lane be added as Order 1i.

Lisa noted that order 2B references 'adverse impact'. She felt that this is difficult to identify and that instead something should be added in reference to 'peak flows' that would allow the impact to be measured and compared to previous readings. Alex said he would add 'or increase peak flows' after the text 'adversely impact any streams...' in Order 2B.

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

Joe returned to the board.

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

Board members reviewed the draft written decision (denial).

Letter from Ruchel St. Hilaire

Peter presented a letter written by Ruchel St. Hilaire to the board in regards to her house being built on fill. Ruchel clarified that their house was not built on fill.

Official Town Road Standards – Clarification

Alex distributed a document prepared by the Select board that clarified the new Road Standards that had been previously approved. Alex explained that the board had adopted state road standards that did not all necessarily work with Hinesburg standards. This document is intended to address these areas of clarification.

Peter – Conditions for Final Plat Approval

Peter said he wanted to clarify what he had mentioned earlier in the evening in regards to approving final plats with conditions. He thought it was important to get more items addressed at preliminary plat so there are less things to collect after the final plat application. Alex also explained that some applicants will not provide legal language when asked by staff members. In these cases they put them before the board but would hope that the board would continue the hearing and ask the applicant to return at a subsequent meeting with the requested information. Tom asked that if this is the case it should be highlighted in the staff report so that the board can be aware of the issue. He also noted that some boards will not discuss incomplete applications. Peter asked that the board just make clear to the applicant what information is needed and who it should be returned to.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:35 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heather Stafford, Recording Secretary