TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

November 1, 2005

Approved November 15, 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), George Bedard, Leonard Sears, Edith Carse, Paul MacCluskey, Marion Holcomb, Butch Holcomb, Nick Nowlan, Marilyn Driscoll Crimmins, Justin Driscoll, Shanda Lyman, John Driscoll, Steve Giroux, Darrin Heath.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of October 18, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the October 18, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Ted Bloomhardt joined the meeting at this point.

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

**continued from October 18 meeting**

Tom explained that a site visit was completed on Saturday October 22^nd at 9:00 am. Robert, Ted, Lisa and Clint attended in addition to neighboring property owners Hart, Holcomb, and Everett O'Brien. The following observations were noted:

· Walked along proposed drive off from North Road.

· Viewed the three building envelopes.

· Noted the proximity of the lots to neighbors' shallow wells.

· Viewed the hedgerow that follows the proposed access drive.

· Observed the abandoned shallow well below the hedgerow that had previously been used by the existing trailer.

· Viewed runoff issues on neighbors' yards.

· Walked areas mapped as agricultural land.

· Viewed a stream that runs to the south of the ROW.

· Noted mature tree growth on building envelopes of lots 3 and 4.

· Viewed continuous running water that runs off from the hill into the ditch and pond.

· Observed a ditch dug by the Holcomb's on this parcel.

· Noticed that proposed house site on lot 5 will be visible from Silver Street and that other lots are in mostly wooded areas.

· Noted that the building envelope for lot 3 is wooded and high and that the lower part of the lot is quite wet.

Tom noted that a major concern in the staff report is the protection of the shallow wells that reside downslope from the three proposed lots. In addition, other concerns include: the ag soils mapped in this location, how the proposed drive will affect runoff and how storm water runoff will be handled.

George B. responded that the mapped ag soils have not been used in a generation. He noted that the bulk of the property is in the state forestry program. In addition, each lot is 3 acres in size and it is not likely that the owners will use a significant portion of that area thereby leaving the majority of the mapped ag soils unused. George B. said on Friday Gunnar McCay was out digging test pits for septic systems to the south of lot 5 and that they had found mostly gravel. Gunnar dug 14 test pits and didn't see any issues in meeting the septic needs of these three lots. George B. also noted that the site visit took place at a rainy time of year which explains much of the runoff viewed and that the engineer will design storm water control measures to ensure that no additional runoff is deposited on the neighbors' properties. He also explained that the shape of the well head protection shields may be altered based on the contours of the land. The state dictates that the shield run 500' upslope from shallow wells. Since lot 3 is entirely in a protection zone its septic will not be located on the lot.

Ted noted that he is concerned about the development upslope of the shallow wells and how the use of this land can be restricted and then enforced. In particular he noted issues with lawn treatments and clearing restrictions. He would like to see this issue addressed at preliminary plat with the site engineer. Tom also noted that fecal matter from pets may become an issue as well. George B. said that he hasn't seen this sort of discussion in regards to other subdivisions that have come before the board. Ted said that other subdivisions haven't been built upslope of shallow wells and that this is a unique situation that deserves careful consideration of contamination issues. Peter noted that conditions restricting or forbidding lawn applications is not enforceable. Lisa said that these lots (especially lot 3) would not be a good spot for families raising any sort of livestock; i.e. horses, goats, etc. as runoff and well contamination issues could definitely become a large concern.

Joe asked if the applicant had considered adding a 20' pedestrian ROW for possible future use if interconnectivity with other lands becomes possible. He noted that the town plan discusses this interconnectivity and that since this land abuts state land and is in close proximity to the Bissonette property, that perhaps it would be a good location for a ROW. George B. asked how you would get from the Bissonette land trust area to this subdivision. Joe explained that this connection is not something that exists now, but that hypothetically in the future a connection might be possible. He also noted that this property abuts 1000 acres of the Fred Johnson Wildlife Management Area. George B. said that the 1000 acres has road frontage on Lincoln Hill Road as well as deeded access from 116 through the Gardner property. Joe said he was just asking if this is a logical piece of property for a path to cross in the future. George B. said from the applicants' point of view – no.

Ted noted that the balance of the land has a trailer on it with the condition that one house can be built in replacement of the trailer. Any additional development would need to meet with the board's approval.

Peter referenced section 6.10.8.3.b of the Subdivision Regulations which states that the subdivision “Shall be placed on the least fertile soils for agricultural or forestry uses, and in a manner which maximizes the usable area remaining for such agricultural and forestry uses;”Alex said that perhaps George would be able to better provide information about the soils on this property during the process of digging test pits. He noted that so far the test pits do not seem to be reflecting the same findings as the maps in regards to the existing soil. He suggested that George B. could provide more details about the soil types found at the preliminary plat stage. John Driscoll said that often you can best find ag soils by noting which areas have been harvested by farmers in the near past. Lisa said she agreed this is usually the case. But that in this instance, the areas plowed ran east to west while the mapped ag soils seemed to run north to south. She agreed with Alex that the applicant should provide additional information about the soils during the preliminary plat review.

Tom noted that he did not sense a clear consensus from the board and he wondered if the discussion should be taken up in deliberative session. Alex said that the board should notify George B. if the board sees any fatal flaws or just issues that will need to be addressed at the next step in the approval process. Ted said he didn't see any fatal flaws, and that he felt he just needed more info on protection of the shallow wells and the ag soils. George M. agreed with Ted, saying that his major concern was runoff into the shallow wells and he also noted that the topography of the land might have prevented access to ag soils if they exist in this location. He said often if a farmer has not worked a piece of land there is a reason; either the land is not fertile or the farmer can't get his tractor to the land. Peter noted that the mapping program does take topography into account.

Tom said his major concern is runoff into the shallow wells. Having had a shallow well, he knows how sensitive they can be to runoff and infiltration from the surrounding soils. He said it might not be an insurmountable obstacle, but it is significant. George B. said that he would provide flow maps around the shallow wells so that the board could see how runoff flows near the wells. George M. said shallow wells are typically put in these damper areas to ensure a continuous water source.

Lisa said she didn't feel that lot 3 needs to be where it is located. It's proximity to the shallow wells as well as dampness is an issue. She felt this lot should be moved. George B. noted that these locations were chosen to preserve the bulk of the land and tuck the new homes into the tree line. Ted said that the concept of future lots placed behind these three proposed lots that march up the slope would not be acceptable to him. He doesn't want to see the land be consistently subdivided for building lots one piece at a time. Tom noted that this is a sort of catch-22 situation for the applicants, as any landowner usually wishes to subdivide slowly since once a lot is subdivided into building lots the owner has to begin paying taxes on those lots but at the same time earlier lot subdivisions can affect the approveablity of future subdivision requests.

Ted also referenced section 6.10.8.3.c in regards to the visibility of lot 5 which states that the subdivision “Shall be within any woodland contained on the parcel, or along the far edges of the open fields adjacent to any woodland (to reduce impact on agriculture, to provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features.”

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct the staff to draft conditions of approval for the Sketch Plan. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

6-Unit, 7-Lot Subdivision/PRD Preliminary Plat Review – Jct of 116 and North Road – Applicant is Marilyn Crimmins

Nick Nowlan, an engineer with McCain Consulting explained that Marilyn is seeking Preliminary Plat approval for a 6-unit, 7-lot Major Subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Agriculture (AG) Zone to the west of Route 116 opposite the junction of North Road. This proposal received Sketch Plan approval on December 14, 2004 and this approval was extended by the DRB for another six months on May 17, 2005.

At this point Tom began to review the staff report. He asked Nick if the new plan had building envelopes and if they met the appropriate setback requirements. Nick said there are building envelopes and that they do meet the required setbacks. Tom noted the 35' building height notation and Nick said this was entered to show that they would follow current height zoning regulations. He also noted that he has no plans to build up any lot significantly.

Nick said that there are no current plans for the 4.5 acres of open land. Marilyn said that she plans to own both lot 5 as well as the open area. She said that the general use of this area will be for agricultural or forestry purposes. Ted asked if lot 5 will then actually be closer to 6.2 acres. Marilyn said yes. Ted indicated that this will need to be clarified on the final plat. Peter noted that the ROW will have an easement on lot 5 and that this lot will be rather odd shaped. Alex said the applicant would need to request a waiver for the minimum lot width as at the point where it crosses the ROW it is only approximately 60' wide. Ted asked what are the repercussions if a future owner of lot 5 lets the open area grow wild. He wanted to know if the other lot owners have any rights to this area. Nick said that the open area does not have to be farmed or used, it just needs to exist to fulfill the PRD requirements. Clint suggested that the board could add a condition that the area is brush hogged every so often. Peter asked the board if they feel the vista from this area is significant enough that the open area should remain clear so that it does not block other homeowners views.

Lisa was also concerned about the other homeowners rights to the open space if a future homeowner decides to use it for something that is unacceptable to them. Marilyn said there will be covenants to control the usage of this area. Ted said that some of the covenants should be added as conditions of approval for the subdivision. Otherwise the homeowners could vote out covenants as noted in the legal language submitted by Marilyn.

Tom asked about the VAST trail and where it currently runs on the property. Marilyn explained that the VAST trail is determined on a year-to-year basis based on permissions granted by individual homeowners. Nick said that the VAST trail currently enters on lot 5 and crosses lot 4 and the open space. Ted said that Marilyn might want to reserve an easement for lot 5 on lot 4 so that she will be able to cross this lot on her snowmobile in the future. Marilyn didn't think it was necessary to cross lot 4 and that she could go directly from her lot onto the open area. Tom asked if the permission is only for snowmobiles. Marilyn said yes and that she feels comfortable with this because in the winter it isn't an imposition to have someone crossing her land. She doesn't have her windows open and isn't outside as often just enjoying the outdoors the way she would in the summer. Marilyn thought there were plenty of other hiking trails in nearby areas.

Peter suggested that a pedestrian ROW might be something the applicant wants to consider just as foresight for possible future subdivisions that might be built nearby. The ROW could be under the control of the homeowners association and not used unless needed in the future. Justin Driscoll thought people should just ask permission to cross a neighbors property and that a ROW is not necessary. John Driscoll agreed with Justin and thought homeowners would be much happier to agree to individual crossings of their properties than to agree to a pedestrian ROW that could easily become heavily traveled and a nuisance to the homeowner for privacy and maintenance issues. Marilyn thought VAST is so successful because they ask homeowners for permission and show great respect and courtesy for the homeowners. She didn't want to be forced to allow access to her own private property.

Joe referenced section 6.2.3 of the subdivision regulations in regards to Pedestrian Access which states: “The DRB may require, in order to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle or other non-vehicular access from the roads to schools, parks, playgrounds, or other nearby roads, perpetual unobstructed easements at least twenty (20) feet in width.” He wondered what is to lose by adding the 20' easement and that although there are no current public uses nearby, there may be in the future. Marilyn responded that she did not think it was fair to force her to allow public access to her property where she is paying taxes. She was also concerned with maintenance and liability issues involved in hosting a public path. Joe said he didn't think maintenance or liability would be her concern and that perhaps she should speak with someone on the trail committee to get clarification on this issue.

Lisa said she was concerned that future subdivisions may be connected to this one through shared drives. She referenced section 6.1.11 of the Subdivision Regulations in regards to Shared Access which states: “Wherever it is feasible or practical, provisions shall be made for the joint use of existing access points...” Lisa said she thought it was important that the board tries hard to not create closed communities and thinking for the future might alleviate this issue.

Marilyn suggested that the DRB should come back to the homeowners association if they want to ask about creating recreational trails. She felt that the decision did not need to be made at this point. Tom thought it should be a condition of the preliminary plat that the applicant talk to the trail committee in regards to liability and maintenance concerns. He said this discussion would be revisited during the final plat stage. George asked the board members where they expect a pedestrian ROW to go since the development is surrounded by a golf course and private landowners.

Robert noted that the subdivision was actually a 6-lot subdivision now if lot 5 is going to include the open area. Tom said this should be clearly indicated on the final plat. Ted added that the open space must also be clearly defined since it is a requirement of the PRD.

Tom said that storm water plans will also be needed at final plat. Nick said that he will have grading and erosion control plans for the final plat hearing. Peter clarified that they will just need something with Nick's stamp saying how the storm water will be handled.

Tom opened the meeting to the public at this point.

George Bedard indicated that he had been asked to speak on behalf of Raymond Ayer in regards to the lots' proximity to the golf course. George asked if it might be a possibility to enlarge the building envelopes on lots 1, 2, and 3 to allow future homeowners the possibility of moving their home farther away from the golf course. Ted noted that the building envelope sizes were 100' by 100' and that they are only 35' from the boundary line. Lisa thought it was Raymond's responsibility to make sure that the running of his golf course doesn't interfere with the homeowners enjoyment of their property. George said that Raymond has put up a fence in this area but some golfers still cross and some balls are still hit in this area accidentally. Tom noted that by enlarging the building envelopes, the homes will be sited farther up the hill. George agreed that this is true, but that there are already several homes in this area so it wouldn't disrupt the view scape any more than it is now. Nick noted that since the golf course was in this location before this subdivision, the homeowners should realize that living near a golf course presents some issues and that they should be willing to deal with these concerns if they choose to live near a golf course.

Joe asked how much space George was requesting. George thought that allowing the building envelopes to grow from 100' to 200' in the upslope direction would probably be helpful to the homeowners. He also noted that lots 2 and 3 are of the largest concern.

Alex reminded the board to think about whether these adjustments to the building envelope size and potential location make sense. If the board doesn't care where the envelopes are, then perhaps they should allow the greatest flexibility. However, if there is a reason for their location then the board should consider the significance of that location in comparison with the issues George has discussed in regards to their proximity to the golf course. George M. said that he thought the building envelopes had been located near the edge of the property for visibility issues. Ted said that keeping the envelopes close to the boundary line also offered the greatest distance between house sites since the lots are pie-shaped. Marilyn said that whatever flexibility the board can offer would be appreciated, however typically someone who buys a home near a golf course wants to be as close to the course as possible.

George B. asked the board if they would have an issue with expansion of the building envelopes as proposed. George M. said he was not concerned with the expansions as long as visibility did not become an issue. Ted agreed that some flexibility was possible but he would still like to see the envelopes close to the tree line. Lisa said that as long as visibility and distance between homes does not become a concern she did not have an issue with expanding the size of the building envelopes.

Ted said he was not clear about what had to be done to define the open area and what it will be used for. George said it would be nice if there were a clearer plan for the open area. Alex said that the applicant needs to define this use so that it can be enforced. Tom suggested that perhaps the staff could work with Marilyn on the open space usage.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Conditional Use and Site Plan and Sign Review for Motor Vehicle Sales Facility – Route 116 – Applicant is Paul MacCluskey of Hinesburg Auto Sales

Paul MacCluskey, owner of Hinesburg Auto Sales, explained that he is requesting DRB approval to relocate his motor vehicle sales facility to another parcel in the Commercial Zoning District. The subject parcel is located on Route 116 (east side, across from the Giroux Auto Body shop); parcel number 20-50-03.000. The parcel is owned by Leonard Sears, but has been on the market and is currently under contract by the applicant. The parcel has been unoccupied for quite some time, with an abandoned house in the northwest corner. It is in the middle of the commercial district, and is surrounded by Giroux property on all sides (including across Route 116). To the north and east in an area the Giroux business uses for storage. To the south is a Giroux lot with existing non-conforming residential uses. To the west, across Route 116, is the Giroux Auto Body business.

The applicant proposes to construct a 30' x 60' (1800 square feet) metal building, with sales in the front and a shop in the back to do minor work to prepare cars for resale. This building will be toward the rear of the lot, with a front yard setback (from center of Route 116) of approximately 100' and rear and side yard setbacks of approximately 10'. The applicant has designed the site plan to accommodate approximately 35 cars on the lot, with room for 5 additional cars in the building. Five of these cars will be tightly parked to the south of the building, and will not be displayed for sale. These 5 spaces will be for cars needing further attention prior to sale. The applicant plans to slightly widen the existing Route 116 access to approximately 20' wide to accommodate 2-way customer traffic. See the map attached to the staff report and supporting material for a detailed description of the proposal including landscaping, lighting, traffic flow, etc.

Paul said that he had taken note of Alex's suggestions in his staff report and had redesigned the site based on his recommendations. Unfortunately due to technical difficulty Paul was unable to bring the new design with him. He said that the new design would allow for a 5' buffer around the property to adjust the lot coverage as suggested.

Clint asked if the existing house would be torn down. Paul said it would. Clint also asked how many doors the building would have. Paul said it would have one customer entrance on the front of the building, an 8' wide glass double door entry on the front for display cars, and an entry on the side for cars to enter into the shop.

Ted asked about the lot's coverage calculations. Alex said he did not scale this out, but Paul said he did and that he got above 20%. Paul said he used 14' as the average car size and that 80-90% of the cars on the lot will be this size.

Tom noted that the property would need to provide a possible sidewalk in the future. Paul said he would definitely be interested in putting in a sidewalk and paying for it. Tom asked what would trigger this to happen. Alex said that the sidewalk would be added at the direction of the select board and that building and payment for the sidewalk by the applicant would be added as a condition of approval.

Ted asked about the staff report's discussion of customer parking. Alex said that the majority of customer and employee parking is supposed to be at the side or rear of a building with 20% available at the front of the building. Based on an allocation of 3 customer parking spaces and 3 employee parking spaces the applicant could only have one space for customer parking at the front of the building. Ted wasn't sure that location mattered with so many cars on the lot anyway. Alex said it was more a matter of traffic flow on the lot. Ted asked Paul how he will keep the cars off the buffer area. Paul said he would use some sort of delineation to protect the buffer area. Tom asked if the parking lot will be paved. Paul said it would not and that they would use gravel. In addition, Paul said that two employees drive dealer plated cars and he would therefore not need additional parking spaces for those employees.

Lisa was concerned how spills and runoff from the lot will be handled. Paul said he was not sure how he could guarantee that no spills would enter the ground and that in several parking lots around town there are probably cars leaking oil and other fluids. Alex said that a sand filter for lot runoff had been added as a condition to a previous approval that presented similar issues. Alex also noted that the lot could be pitched in a certain direction towards soils that would be beneficial for filtering purposes. It was noted that the lot could not drain towards the street as it would enter the grassy swail nearby.

George M. asked if the lot is damp. Paul said that the front has been filled several times and that it is dry and will need to be built up somewhat. The back of the lot is damp.

Tom noted that this establishment will be located at the 'gateway to the village' coming in on 116 and that it would be nice if the building had a nice architectural design with healthy well-kept landscaping. He hoped for a design that was appealing to the eye, as well as less industrial-looking. Paul said that he hoped to have a print out of the design by tomorrow that he could share with the board. He said he wants a nice layout as well to draw customers into his establishment. Alex noted that this location is in the heart of the commercial district and that the building is compatible with surrounding buildings. He also noted that there are no design standards for the commercial district.

Tom asked how snow removal will be handled. Paul said he hoped to use the 5' buffer space around the lot as well as the 35' section at the front of the lot.

Ted asked if there is a fence along the back of the property. Paul said yes, there is a 8' fence in this area. Ted said he thought conditions that should be added to the approval included: 5' grass strip surrounding the lot, space for a sidewalk, landscaping plan for the front of the lot, employee parking plan to meet regulations, grading for the lot for runoff and a submitted building design. Ted also said he did not think storage of materials and/or parts cars should be allowed outside. Clint asked Paul if he will have a dumpster on site. Paul said no, that he would truck the materials out on his own.

Lisa asked how many cars he has at his lot now. Paul said 50. Tom asked if Alex looked at the original approval. Alex had not. Tom thought there were some conditions in regards to the use of balloons, flags, etc. for promotional purposes. Alex said he would look at the previous restrictions and share this info with the board.

Peter asked if Paul would be doing any oil undercoating or washing cars. Paul said no, that he has an agreement with an off-site vendor for car washing purposes.

Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Steve Giroux, a property owner across the street from the proposed shop was concerned about customers parking across the street and in adjacent lots due to the possible conceived congestion on the site. Ted agreed that the applicants should provide well-marked and inviting customer spaces.

Clint asked what hours the shop will be open. Paul said it would be open Monday – Friday from 8 am to 6 pm and on Saturday from 10 am until 2 pm and closed on Sunday.

Ted MOVED to continue the Conditional Use, Site Plan and Sign Review to the November 15 DRB meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Other Business:

CVU Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Upper Intramural Playing Field – Review Draft Decision

Tom said he was concerned with the wording on Condition #9. He was concerned that it needed more clarification to ensure that goals are removed from the field during the off-season time. George asked if it was a problem if the soccer goals are out in June. He didn't think it was possible for Peter to enforce this condition during the spring and summer when club sports and summer programs use the fields. Ted thought the goals should be off the fields from November to April. It was agreed that Condition #9 will be changed to read: “Temporary athletic equipment shall be removed in the off-season and stored in areas not visible from any public highway.”

Tom noted that traffic and parking are becoming a large issue at CVU. Ted thought that for large games the school should be responsible for hiring a Sheriff to control the situation and keep it safe. Peter noted that the expense of hiring a sheriff should not be an issue because CVU had already told the board that parking and traffic would not be an issue. It has become an issue, so now it is their responsibility to rectify the situation. Alex noted that if board members had issues with specifics of the site plan, they should have Peter enforce them.

Tom said that he would like to specify the number of days linked to condition #4 in regards to a landscaping plan submission. Peter said the board had talked about having it submitted in the spring prior to any planting. Alex agreed that he thought the plan was going to be submitted after the fence was installed. George said he would like to see the plan before they start planting and that he would be happy with a drawing or a detailed written description of their plan. The board decided to amend condition #4 to read “The design for this landscaping shall be done in conjunction with the final landscaping plan, shall be submitted to the DRB for their consideration within 60 days of this approval and all landscaping shall be installed in the next available planting season.”

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 1 with Joe abstaining and Tom voting opposed.

Final Plat Approval for 2-lot Minor Subdivision – Magee Hill Road – Applicants are Tim & Lin Isham and Timothy & Kristi Brown – Review Draft Decision:

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Joe abstaining.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:40 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heather Stafford, Recording Secretary