TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

November 15, 2005

Approved December 6, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Leonard Sears, Edith Carse, Steve Giroux, Brock Francis, Kristine Kinerson, Dick Francis, Darrin Heath.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of November 1, 2005 Meeting:

Clint MOVED to approve the November 1, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Greg abstaining.

Ted Bloomhardt joined the meeting at this point.

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

**continued from November 1 meeting**

Tom explained that the application had been continued from the November 1 DRB meeting so that the applicant could provide more detailed and updated drawings of the proposed building and parking areas. Paul distributed a new site plan which showed outside parking spaces for 28 sales cars. In addition, he had a drawn rendering of how the building and lot should appear when all construction and landscaping has been completed. Paul noted that he had moved the building so that it was parallel to the lot lines which would allow for easier parking next to the building. He also noted that he had allowed for customer parking at the back of the lot and that adequate signage would be displayed to direct customers to this area.

Ted asked about the types of trees that Paul is planning to use in his landscape design. Alex noted that Paul had told him he would use trees like the ones in front of his current business. These trees are crab apple and another species, however since a sidewalk will eventually need to be placed along or near the front of the lot, Alex suggested that Paul should work with the tree warden (Paul Wieczoreck) to determine the best species of trees for this location.

Ted asked what size cars Paul had used on his site plan. Paul said the scale of the cars was 15' which would be the average car size on his lot.

Greg asked if Paul could give a more detailed description as to what the building will look like. Paul said that the outside will be made of steel with the standard ridged siding. It will be barn red with a grey roof and grey trim. The highest point of the building will be 17' 9” and the size of the building will be 30' wide by 60' long. Clint asked if the existing fence will stay in place between this lot and the salvage yard. Paul said there is a 6' fence to separate the properties and that it is on the Giroux property and he assumes it will stay.

Greg asked if the site plan meets the 80% maximum lot coverage requirement for conditional use permits in the commercial district. Paul said that he had done the calculations and determined that 26% of the lot will be open green space. Included in this 26% is a 13' section at the front of the lot, 5' along each side of the property, a 12' x 15' section directly behind the proposed building, and a 10' by 10' center island.

Tom asked if there will be any exterior lighting on the lot. Paul noted that he had removed the light post in the proposed island on his plan as the existing street light does a satisfactory job of lighting the lot. He will light his sign with three lights shining up at the sign. Greg asked what hours the lights will be on. Paul said he had intended to have the lights on all the time after dark but that he was receptive to the board's wishes. Alex noted that since the sign will be illuminated, Paul is required to get sign approval from the board. He also suggested that the lights shine down on the sign so that they don't illuminate the night sky.

Tom asked if this lot is larger or smaller than the one on which his existing business is located. Paul said it is about the same, maybe a little bigger which will allow him to space out his vehicles a little more.

Clint asked if the road cut will be in the same place. Paul said yes, but that he intends to widen it from 10' to 16' to allow for 2-way traffic.

Greg referenced 3.5.3 of the Zoning Regulations in regards to conditions for operating a 'Motor Vehicle..service and repair facility' in the commercial district. He asked if Paul had read the conditions in regards to hazardous wastes and if he was in agreement with the conditions. Paul said that he was. Alex told the board that conditions used for Paul's current business could be found in the Automotion application packet. In addition, Alex read from the Conditional use Approval issued by the Zoning Board in 1997. Conditions included: that the exterior would be painted, spaces for 50 cars would be allowed with 1 designated handicap parking space, information about the vehicles for sale will be posted on the front passenger side window, no painting or major mechanical repair will take place on the lot, and the operating hours will be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Greg noted that he thought the designation between major and minor vehicle repair might have been intended to get around some of the regulations regarding motor vehicle repairs in the commercial district (section 3.5.3 11) and that this designation is really irrelevant as long as Paul fulfills all imposed conditions. Alex thought the distinction might have been intended to control noise. He then asked Paul if he was planning on this establishment becoming a service station in the future. Paul said no, he would just be repairing cars to get them ready for sale. He also noted that he will be purchasing insulation for the building that includes some sound proofing measures.

Tom asked about the operating hours of the business. Paul said he intended to be open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., open on Saturday from 10 a.m to 2 p.m. and closed on Sunday. Tom noted that he felt Paul had a good track record from his current business which he has operated for the past 8 years. Peter noted that he had had one complaint from a neighbor regarding junk cars in the back of his current business but that the issue had been resolved. Ted noted that there should be a condition attached to limit the storage of junk cars and materials on the lot.

Tom asked that the board members review section 4.2.1 9 of the new zoning regulations in regards to Authorization to Grant or Deny Conditional Uses. Since this business will be located at the gateway to the village, Tom wanted to make sure that the board felt it had all the information listed in order to make a decision on the application. Ted asked if there was a time line for finishing the landscaping. Alex suggested that perhaps mid – June of 2006 would be a good target date to have plantings in. Paul agreed with this date. Greg asked when Paul is closing on the property. He said the closing would occur on Friday. Alex asked that Paul wait until the spring to plant any trees. George noted it would also be beneficial to plant at this time as all construction should be completed so the trees would be less likely to be damaged during the construction process.

Peter asked if there were any other time lines that the applicant should be made aware of. Tom thought a time line for the sidewalk would be beneficial but Alex noted that at the present time they are waiting on the sidewalk until the select board decides to act on this issue. He noted that the select board has indicated they would like a sidewalk installed from Commerce Street to Mechanicsville Road at one time and that there really isn't a value to a small section of this stretch unless the rest has been completed. Tom thought the town should have some sort of time line for this project. Alex suggested that a conversation with the select board take place regarding the timing of this project. Alex also noted he was somewhat concerned with where the sidewalk will go on Paul's lot if it does not fit into the ROW for 116. If this is the case, Paul might lose one parking spot next to the entrance where there is a smaller green space. Ted suggested that the possibility of the loss of this space due to the sidewalk construction be added as a condition.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Alex noted that Rocky had asked that both Paul and Darrin Heath (the next applicant) work with him on wastewater drainage from their sites. He noted that Paul will need to get approval for wastewater drainage from the select board to get an allocation since the lot will change from residential to commercial use.

Alex also read an email from Al Barber, the town Fire Chief. Al's concerns on the lot included: wetness of the lot and current drainage onto Giroux property, snow removal, car washing and that the building should have no floor drains. Alex noted that the lot drains to the North and South into existing swails that go toward 116 and then run North into another swail. Rocky would like a condition added that ensures that Paul will use this existing drainage pattern and that he will maintain it as well. He would also like the lot graded to drain to these swails. Paul said that he plans to clear debris and junk from the swails to ensure that they drain properly. Peter asked if Paul will reestablish grass in the swails that is disrupted during the cleaning process. Paul said he would.

Alex asked about the lights on the outside of the building. Paul explained that there will be a light on each corner of the building and two sensor lights on the sides of the building. In addition, there will be three lights to illuminate the sign on the front of the building that will shine downwards. Greg asked if the sign lights can be turned off in the middle of the night. Paul said he didn't see a problem with that.

Alex said there might be a problem with the proposed access width of 16'. The new road standards adopted by the select board currently require a minimum width of 24' for a 2 way undivided commercial drive. Joe asked if it is possible for the board to waive this requirement. Peter said he thought the width could be reduced with select board approval. Greg asked if the staff could research this issue in the interim between DRB meetings and report back to the board with their findings. Alex noted that if the drive width does have to be 24', Paul would probably lose one more parking space.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Conditional Use, Site Plan and Sign Review. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Motor Vehicle Service/Repair Facility – Route 116 – Applicants are Darrin and Katherine Heath, owners of Automotion

Darrin Heath explained that he and Katherine were requesting DRB approval to expand their motor vehicle service/repair facility by making use of a 2^nd parcel in the Commercial Zoning District. The subject parcel is located on VT Route 116 across from the Fire Station (east side, next parcel south of Firehouse Plaza); parcel number 20-50-02.200. The parcel is owned by Victor Giroux. It is currently leased by Hinesburg Auto Sales, which is preparing to relocate/purchase the Sears property to the south (also before the DRB for review at the present). Automotion plans to lease the property from Mr. Giroux, while retaining its existing facility (also leased from Mr. Giroux) on the other side of Route 116. Automotion is interested in utilizing the new location to accommodate an increasing customer base and relieve their current parking limitations. The parcel is currently developed with the 'Quonset hut' structure and a large surrounding parking area, a small portion of which is paved in front of the building. Interestingly, a 30' wide strip of this lot, to the south of the Quonset hut, is utilized by the Giroux Auto Body shop as part of their larger storage/salvage area on the lot to the south.

Operating hours would be from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Car repair work will be done inside the structure, which will accommodate 4 vehicle lifts and 3 – 4 employees. The existing shared access (shared with the other Giroux lot) to Route 116 will be utilized. The site plan indicates parking areas in the front, on the side, and behind the building. The plan also shows a dumpster and a fuel tank behind the building as well as a fuel tank near the southwest corner of the building. Presumably, these are standard heating oil fuel tanks used to heat the building. The site plan also shows 3 lights on the front of the building and 2 lights on the back of the building. Customer access will be through the front door, but access for vehicles to be repaired will be through overhead doors on the back side of the building.

Tom asked if this is new location is to expand Darrin's business. Darrin said yes and he was also hoping to alleviate some parking issues with the extra space. Tom asked how the flow of business will change using two locations instead of one. Darrin explained that they will still run the business from the current location. No customers will go to the eastern location. The quonset hut will be used strictly as a repair facility. Darrin also said that customers will not cross their cars across the street from one location to the other. Ted noted that from a practical standpoint accessibility to the east is easier than to the old location on the west side of 116. He also asked if all the space at the hut will be used. Darrin said it would. He said he plans to work on longer jobs on the east side and shorter easier repairs on the west side.

Greg asked how the facade of the quonset hut will change. Darrin said that there will be two entrances on the back and that he would use the existing entryway at the front of the building. Greg then noted the fuel tanks on the outside of the quonset hut and cited zoning regulation 3.5.3.11d which states 'The storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall be located fully underground or screened and not nearer than thirty-five (35) feet to any property line other than the street line.” Steve Giroux said that the tanks are in the leaseback area for Victor Giroux and that they had been used to heat the hut. Greg noted that according to the regulations, these tanks do not meet the required setback from the property line. Darrin said that the fuel tanks will not be used as there is wood heat in the quonset hut.

Peter asked what type of vehicles Darrin will be working on. Darrin said he services all makes and models up to a 1 ton truck. He tries to get everything repaired within a few days and there will be no parts vehicles on site. In addition he said every vehicle on the lot will be registered. Ted noted that requiring that all vehicles be registered should deter the storage of parts cars. He felt there should be no outdoor storage of parts.

Clint asked if Darrin will decrease the number of cars that currently exist on the lot now. Darrin said yes and that he hoped the extra space would allow him to avoid double parking cars.

Tom noted that in the staff report there was a lengthy discussion regarding landscaping. Darrin said that he plans to replace dead trees at the back of the lot. Peter asked how the lot drains. Darrin said from what he has observed, it seems to drain toward the Estey's and to the west. Steve Giroux said he thought the site drained to the ditch at the front of the lot as well as a swail at the back of the lot. Ted noted that the plan seemed to show 5 – 6 more trees along the back line of the lot and 20 – 25 shrubs along the North side. Darrin said he does not plan to do this as he doesn't think it makes sense to plant so many shrubs to block a field. He also noted he will remove the junkyard and that the leaseback will still exist but it will be fenced out.

Tom asked if the 9 parking spaces in front of the hut were paved. Darrin said they are and that is all the paving that is planned for now. Greg asked if Darrin was proposing to use any sort of sign. Darrin said that he plans to have a sign on the front of the building. He wants to illuminate the sign during business hours only with three lights. After the business closes he plans to use only motion detector lights to deter vandalism. Alex said that since the sign will not be illuminated outside business hours, Darrin does not need board approval for the sign. Darrin said that the lights will be shoe box style to comply with the zoning regulations.

Greg asked if Darrin would be agreeable to installing a sidewalk at the front of this property when the town decides to begin this project. Darrin said that he would agree to installing the sidewalk.

Ted asked what is along the north side of the lot. Darrin said there is a 5' – 6' chain length fence. Alex asked the board if they felt trees were needed on the northern side of the property to shield the property from Firehouse plaza. He also asked if it was really Darrin's responsibility to provide this landscaping to shield his location. Darrin said he thought everything is pretty well screened from travelers heading North by the trees on the west side of the lot. Tom said in the past when this property was used as a used car lot, visibility from the road was beneficial for business. As a repair business, visibility is not such a large issue so perhaps more landscaping along the west side of the property would accent this section of 116. Alex noted that there are some existing trees in this location, however they are 15' which keeps them away from the power lines over head. He was concerned that larger trees would probably grow in to the lines if planted in this location. Peter asked if there are any trees on the eastern boundary of the property. Alex said existing trees were mostly deciduous trees like the box elder, elm, etc. Alex thought that any trees planted in this location should be appropriate for the heavy and not well drained soils. He suggested that Darrin should discuss any plantings in this area with the tree warden (Paul Wieczoreck) to make sure that they will survive in this location.

Ted suggested that Darrin move some parking spaces to the North of the chain length fence to add some landscaping to this section to define the business' entrance. Darrin said there are already some existing trees in this location as well as some blacktop. Alex noted that the area Ted was referring to was designed to be a vegetated break between the two properties and that he thought it might be beneficial to refurbish this area. Darrin asked what he would be attempting to shield by planting in this location. Ted said he was not concerned with screening in this location, but thought that substantial landscaping to this wide open area would nicely define the driveway and circulation on the lot. Darrin said this area is not very 'wide open' and that the area to the north is more open. Greg suggested that the staff should consider landscaping as a part of the approval process and that the board members should take some individual time to review and consider the landscaping plan. Peter reminded the board that whatever they recommend does not invalidate other approvals which have already taken place.

Ted thought the proposal was a good use of the property and that as long as it is well-kept and the landscaping issues are handled, he thought it would be acceptable to him. Tom said that one of his concerns is pedestrian traffic across 116. Since there is no crosswalk in this area, he felt it could be quite dangerous for customers to be crossing the street between the two business locations. Darrin said that this isn't his plan and that he is going to try to have employees retrieve cars for customers prior to their arriving to pick them up to avoid having customer cross the road. Ted said that in the future Darrin might want to consider having customers come to the other side of the street for accessibility reasons.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for the Motor Vehicle Service/Repair Facility on Route 116 including a landscaping plan. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Conditional Use Review for Addition onto an Existing Non-Complying Structure – 699 Hayden Hill Road West – Applicants are Brock Francis and Kristine Kinerson

Brock Francis explained that he and Kristine were applying for conditional use approval to expand an existing non-complying structure closer to a stream within the stream setbacks. This is a wonderful 'Victorian' house on Hayden Hill West and the addition that they would like to construct is actually a recreation of a wing that formally existed.

Brock showed a floor plan for the proposed addition. The addition, if approved, will be 9' by 28' with 14' enclosed and 14' of porch area. Ted asked how close the addition will be to the stream. Brock said that at the highest the water has ever been the addition will be 40' away. Greg thought that the zoning regulations for allowing this sort of request (5.10.3) allowed the board some flexibility.

Tom asked about the type of vegetation that exists between the house and the stream. Brock said there are several bushes, trees as well as a pre-existing lawn in this area. Tom then asked if the roof will slope towards the stream. Brock said it would. Tom noted that any existing vegetation should remain to use up as much runoff from the roof as possible before it gets to the stream. Brock said that the house is built on stream bed soil and that the gravel allows for excellent filtration and that they have had no problems with flooding.

Greg asked what type of foundation will be constructed under the addition. Kristine said there will be a 4' frost wall with a crawl space into the foundation under the kitchen.

Tom asked if the applicants are planning to add roof gutters. Brock said they are not currently used and had not planned to use them, but that they are open to suggestions. Tom thought since they hadn't been used before, perhaps the addition was better off without them as well.

Brock explained that the addition would be replacing a structure that existed in 1924 and would contain an entryway mudroom as well as a half bathroom. Greg asked if the toilet will connect to the existing septic system. Peter said it would and that the system was approved during a previous subdivision request.

Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Dick Francis said that the area around the house has never flooded and that the land is pitched toward the brook. Any flooding occurs where the barn used to be.

Tom asked how the culvert is maintained. Brock said that it has never blocked up but that he will need to remove some larger rocks that were swept downstream during some heavier rains this summer. He said that the stream flows fast during high water and consequently the culvert tends to be self cleaning. Tom asked what diameter the culvert is. Brock said it is 3' + and that if the culvert were to plug up the water would flow towards the barn.

Ted said he thought it was important that the water quality of the stream be protected and that the expansion should not impact adjoining properties which it does not seem to do. Tom asked about the percentage of the expansion. Ted thought the percentage was minor and Greg asked that the percentage be recorded by staff in the Findings of Fact.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the Conditional Use for addition application. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Other Business:

Extension of 6-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Wayne Bissonnette

Alex explained that the applicant had already requested and received a 6 month extension for the approval, but that he is currently working to conserve the land and that if this goes through, the land trust will probably come to the board with a development plan because they won't be able to afford not to. Alex thought that due to the extenuating circumstances this was a situation in which the second extension request should be allowed. Clint asked if the conservation committee should be asked to come back with a new plan. Alex said he didn't foresee any large changes in the regulations in the interim so he did not think it would be an issue if the board allowed the land trust to use the same sketch plan approval if they so choose.

Ted MOVED to extend the sketch plan approval for the Bissonette property for 6 months. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Creekside – Exterior Lights on Porches

Peter noted that the minutes taken during the Creekside Review process showed that there was no reference to keeping the porch lights downcast, however he thought it had been agreed to by the board. Ted said he thought porch lights were exempt from zoning regulations. Alex said that section 5.6.5 of the zoning regulations seemed to allow some flexibility. Peter said that the outdoor lights are brass carriage lamps with reflectors behind the lamp. Tom noted that wattage makes a difference and suggested that Peter negotiate with the builder to adjust wattage so that outdoor the illumination will be acceptable.

CVU

Tom said that although he thought the staff at CVU had been doing a great job with the inside of the building and the parking lot lights he was somewhat bothered when he noticed portable scoreboards at the championship soccer games at Mt. Abraham UHS in Bristol, after CVU staff and said that they do not exist. The scoreboards were produced by DAKTronics and Tom visited the web site and found it unacceptable that the staff at CVU did not seriously consider this possibility during the review process.

Greg left the meeting at this point.

Sketch Plan Approval for 4-lot Subdivision – North Road – Applicants are Anup and Sanghamitra Dam – Review Draft Decision

Ted asked that the following language be added in regards to protection of the shallow wells “Applicants are encouraged to consider alternative lot configuration that would keep potential homeowner activities away from near proximity to the shallow wells as a better way of dealing with the potential for contamination than deed restriction or subdivision conditions that limit activities on part of the lot(s), particularly lot #3.”

Joe didn't see how George B. would be able to prove to the board that the shallow wells will not be affected by these lots. Clint said that most homeowners won't use more than one acre of those lots. Peter suggested that the development should be designed as a PRD to get the houses away from the wells. George M. said he thought fencing should be put up around the shallow wells to keep the animals away. He noted that once a well is contaminated it is hard to keep the contamination out. Peter noted that these lots sit on an incredible aquifer and that they could share a drilled well and probably have plenty of water. George M. said that part of the problem with this situation is that once a well is contaminated it is the owners responsibility to prove how it was contaminated which is very difficult to do. He thought a hydrologist should be consulted on this application. Clint thought the well concerns could easily be taken care of if the lots were moved further up slope or down the proposed drive.

Joe asked the board for additional clarification as to their thoughts on the trail system proposed by the recreation committee. He noted that during the Dam and Crimmins applications he had brought up the idea of allowing for a pedestrian ROW and he didn't get an impression from the board if this is appropriate. Tom said that personally he is all for the trail system but he doesn't know how much the board members can advocate for this without more public input from the trail committee and public at large. He doesn't know how much of the town supports this effort. Alex mentioned that the trail committee is not an officially appointed town committee. Ted said that he needs to know where a trail would be coming from and where it would be going to in order for him to decide if it is significant. If there aren't any connections he doesn't see how it adds to the trail network. He noted that he is supportive of the concept but he needs to know it has the town's support.

Joe explained that he was not trying to be an advocate, but that he had asked for the board's feedback on the issue and hadn't received any response at the meeting. He also explained that he brought up the idea knowing that future opportunities may be missed if plans are not made now for interconnectivity. Alex said that it is not guaranteed that the Bissonette property will allow public access. Peter felt it was a stretch to try to interconnect the Dam property with other subdivisions. He thought it might be something to reconsider at final if a great amount of time has passed. He also noted that the town plan trail information is not in the zoning regulations. Alex said that a good way to look at it is that the regulations provide the rules for the game and the town plan provides the context. Robert agreed with Tom that he would need to hear additional feedback from the trail committee. Tom said that it is easier to impose conditions such as pedestrian ROW when town citizens provide feedback as opposed to just board members.

Clint added that since there is direct access to the Wildlife Area from Lincoln Hill Road, he did not think it was necessary to create trails across individual properties to get to the same location. George said that the snowmobile path cannot be considered a pedestrian ROW since it can change from year to year based on what individual landowners want to allow. Peter thought that in the future this might be the tactic that the trail committee may wish to take to give individual landowners some control over the usage of paths on their land.

Ted said he thought trails make sense in a subdivision as long as it goes from one place to another. Peter noted that Hinesburg Hillside is a great example for where a trail system would make a great deal of sense given the close proximity to Lavigne Hill Road and other neighborhoods in town.

George MOVED to approve the written decision as amended (approval). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 1 with Tom opposed.

Preliminary Plat Review for 6-lot Subdivision – North Road – Applicant is Marilyn Crimmins – Review Draft Decision

Joe said that while riding by the location he noted that if the building envelopes are moved uphill they will become more visible. Peter agreed but said that for the most part people will be looking down on the homes so it does not make that big of a difference in visibility.

Clint said that he thought the applicant should try to keep as much screening as possible near the entrance to 116. Peter noted that the state was going to require that a lot of this vegetation be removed to allow better visibility at this entrance, but that perhaps the applicant could be asked to plant trees farther back from the road to screen the houses but still allow for visibility at the entrance.

Ted MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0 with Joe abstaining.

Clarification on Landscaping Plan for MacCluskey Application:

Alex noted that the site plan showed 9 trees planted on each side of the lot in the 5' buffer. He asked the board if he can give Paul the flexibility to work with the tree warden to determine the appropriate species and number of trees (based on species selection) to plant in the buffer. The board agreed that this would be acceptable.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary