TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

December 6, 2005

Approved December 20, 2005

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Loy Harrell, Rae Harrell, George Bedard, Gloria Stokes, Monte Stokes, Steve Carlson, Lisa Carlson, Jody Ciano, Gay Regan, Andrea Morgante.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.

Minutes of November 15, 2005 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the November 15, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

Lisa Godfrey joined the meeting at this point.

Revisions to Final Plat for Previously Approved Subdivision – Mallard Pond Road – Applicants are Loy and Rae Harrell and Gloria Reynolds and Monte Stokes.

**continued from October 18 meeting**

George Bedard represented the applicants and explained that in this revision 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.

George explained that the system has been built and that there are no issues with it. Ted asked when the state wastewater permit will be obtained. George B. said that the application is being processed now and the permit should be received within three weeks. Tom asked if the Stokes are the only ones using this septic system and George said that they are. Ted asked staff if the board needs the state wastewater permit before they can approve the revision. Alex said that the board just need to be presented with a viable septic system design which has been shown.

Alex distributed the deed language as requested by the board and suggested that conclusion #3 should be reworded to indicate that deed language has been submitted and also that order #1 should be removed as language has already been submitted.

Peter asked for clarification regarding the title of the change. He said that procedurally this is not a property line adjustment. Alex agreed with Peter and said that technically it should be considered a 'revision to a previously approved subdivision' which is the reason that a public hearing was required. George B. said that the deeds had recorded the change as a boundary line adjustment. Alex noted that it would be good to have it recorded in the land records as a revision to a previously approved subdivision and that this plat revises a previous plat. He asked that a note be added to the mylar that this is a revision of a previously approved subdivision with a mention of the previous plat's slide.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing. George M. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Ted asked the staff to add additional text to condition 3 that requires the applicant to obtain a state septic permit prior to transfer of the land, unless the state determines that the system is exempt from this requirement.

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

Revision of Previously Approved Final Plat – Applicants are Lisa and Steve Carlson

Lisa Carlson explained that she was requesting two changes to the final plat. She said that due to time constraints the plat had been submitted with two mistakes that they wished to correct at this time. The two corrections include:

· Delineation of septic systems for Brown-Ciano and Makutu.

· Resolution of a boundary dispute which resulted in a 2' boundary line adjustment that accommodates Brown-Ciano's patio and stairs.

Lisa asked how many days she has to file the corrected mylar. Alex said she has 180 days to file the new mylar.

Ted asked if the boundary adjustment and clarification of septic easement required a public hearing. Alex said it did.

Jody Ciano asked about the date on the revised plat. She explained that she had received two different revisions and that the first, dated 10/19/2005 was agreeable to her but the second was not. Tom said that the plat was dated 10/19/2005 and asked that Jody review to make sure that all changes noted were what she had agreed to. Jody reviewed the changes and said that they were the changes she had agreed to.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

At this time the board decided to rule on Other Business until the remaining applicant arrived.

Other Business:

Site Plan and Conditional Use Review – Route 116 – Applicants are Darrin and Katherine Heath (owners of Automotion) – Review Draft Decision

Ted asked if the new road standards for access width needs to be addressed. Alex said that since this is an existing lot with an existing state approved access he did not address it in the draft decision. He noted that this is a different scenario from the Hinesburg Auto Sales location. Ted asked if the access apron not being paved will cause an issue when the sidewalk is installed in the future. Alex noted that this probably would be an issue, especially since the access is so wide. Ted asked if a condition should be added that the applicant will be responsible for paving the apron when the future sidewalk is installed. He noted that perhaps it should be added to order #5 which already addresses the future sidewalk.

Tom asked if the board thought the landscaping discussed in the draft decision is adequate. Ted asked if Paul Wieczoreck minds having the town refer so many people to him for landscaping advice/tree recommendations. Alex said that he does not mind recommending tree species but that he would double check with Paul to make sure that this arrangement is agreeable to him. Tom noted that he felt more landscaping should be required in the southern corner of the lot. Alex explained that the applicant's current plan is to plant grass in this area. Tom said he would like to see some trees planted in this location. Lisa asked if Tom is thinking of large evergreens, something that would fill in between the crab apple trees and the ground or something larger than the crab apple trees. Tom said he would like to see larger trees here. Ted suggested that the location of the sidewalk could vastly affect the viability of any planting in this area. Alex said that he thought the sidewalk could go on either side of the crab apple trees or that the trees might have to be removed to make room for the sidewalk but he was not sure of a definite location. He also noted that a power line runs above the crab apple trees which would impede the growth of any larger trees. Lisa suggested that if Tom's concern is visibility, street trees would not provide the lower screening and that perhaps shrubs should be planted between the trees as well.

Ted asked about the distance between the existing shared driveway and the Esteys. Alex said that there is about 140' from the edge of the driveway to the chain length fence. He also reminded the board that the goal shouldn't be to hide locations in the commercial district but rather to make lots pleasing to the eye. Tom thought the board should use this opportunity to do something with the lot to improve its appearance.

Ted said that the landscaping should be coordinated with the sidewalk installation. Nothing should be planted before the location of the sidewalk is determined.

Alex asked if the board agreed with Tom's feeling regarding landscaping and if so, should he be specific or lenient with the number of tree plantings. Peter asked that the condition be something that is enforceable and therefore specific. Ted suggested that a condition be added that requires the applicant to plant three street trees (consistent with the 40' spacing between street trees as recorded in the town's zoning regulations), as well as two clumps of shrubs placed between the street trees. The trees should be planted within one planting season of the determination of the sidewalk location.

George asked about Order #2 and how this comes into play with the current discussion. Ted noted that this is a different area. Alex said that there are currently two spruce evergreens and one deciduous tree growing in this location and that they are all small.

Lisa asked about adding a requirement about having materials on hand to handle any spills that might occur at this location. She noted that the swails used to drain this lot run in to the brook. Alex said that he would add this language to the draft decision.

Tom MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5 – 0 with Lisa abstaining.

Site Plan, Illuminated Sign, and Conditional Use – Route 116 – Applicants are Leonard Sears and Paul MacCluskey of Hinesburg Auto Sales – Review Draft Decision

Lisa noted that although this one commercial lot may not drastically affect runoff patterns, there should be some concern in the town about how incremental commercial development will affect runoff over a longer period of time. Since the impact is unknown it is difficult to link future issues to specific development, however she thought this was an issue that the town should be considering as more commercial developments are built. Alex said that he thought there wasn't much the DRB can do to handle this but that he would discuss the issue with the planning commission to decide how they might handle the affect of incremental development on storm water runoff patterns. Clint noted that he foresees that from the new Hinesburg Auto Sales location to the canal will eventually all be commercial development and that he could see how this much development could affect runoff.

Peter referenced the issues South Burlington had with their storm water certification issues and asked Alex if he knew how they handled it. Alex said that South Burlington created a storm water utility into which commercial and residential property owners pay based on their location's affect on runoff as determined by a team of experts. Peter noted that this might be something that the town should look into further as it could become a large future expense if culverts start to fail.

Tom asked if there were any other issues with the draft decision. Heather asked if the applicant might still lose a parking space due to the access width required by the new town regs (adopted from state regs). Alex said that the 24' access width was required in the ROW for 116 but that once the access drive gets to the property line it no longer has to be 24' wide. Peter asked how the access would taper from 24' to Paul's proposed access width of 16'. Alex said that regs don't address this issue and it is something that the board needs to determine. He noted that the applicant will lose at least one and possibly two spaces if the board asks him to taper the drive from 24' to 16'. Peter asked if the state or the town is enforcing this regulation. Alex said that since 116 is a state highway, and he will need to get state approval for his access, the state of Vermont should be enforcing the regulation.

Ted asked that order #10 include text which requires that the access width shall taper from the ROW entrance to the lot and that this tapering may affect the number of parking spaces in the southern corner of the lot. Alex said that conclusion #5 will also need to be modified to reflect the tapering in order #10. He said he would add text regarding the taper and the possible loss of one parking spot. Peter asked that the wording allow flexibility if the state allows for different access width regulations or if the state allows the taper to extend into the ROW for 116.

Tom asked about the conditions placed on Paul's previous approval ten years ago (in regards to advertisements, flags, promotions, etc.) Alex read that the conditions allowed for one American and one state flag no larger than 4' by 6' and a sticker on the passenger side window with the vehicle's sales information. Tom asked that these conditions be added as orders to the review draft decision without reference to the state or country in regards to flag selection.

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

Transfer of Land (Multiple) – Lewis Creek Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Land Trust (along with three receiving abutting landowners)

Andrea Morgante, of the Hinesburg Land Trust, appeared on behalf of the applicants. She explained that Marian Welch and the Hinesburg Land Trust are requesting Sketch Plan approval for a series of land transfers of a parcel in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres. It is located on the north side of Lewis Creek Road, just west of Gilman Road; parcel number 12-01-27.100. The parcel is currently developed with the Applicant's home and a relatively long driveway (approx. 730'). Beyond the house site and driveway, the rest of the parcel is heavily forested with steep forested ledges to the east of the existing driveway. The property abuts a large, conserved parcel owned by the VT Fish and Wildlife Department. The subject parcel is part of a previous subdivision that was approved on January 3, 1996 (mylar slide 14A). However, it was the remaining land (approx. 125 acres) in this 1996 subdivision, and was not depicted on the final plat mylar. It subsequently became a 10-acre parcel when the applicant sold the balance (approx. 115 acres) to the Hinesburg Land Trust via a transfer of land for forestry/agricultural purposes. Even though a new 'conservation' lot was formed, this was NOT a subdivision under our regulations and only required a zoning permit. With that said, a survey was filed to show this division (dated December 8, 1998 on mylar slide 28D); however, since it was not a subdivision, this survey was not approved by the Planning Commission. The VT Fish and Wildlife Department later acquired the 115 acres from the land trust.

Procedurally, the proposed transfers can be done through the simpler process of transfer of land to adjoiner, which simply requires sketch plan approval, deed language, and a zoning permit. This is possible for 2 reasons. First the transfers will not modify any approved plats in the Town's land records, so they don't constitute re-subdivision. Secondly, as transfers (no new building lots being created) this proposal does not constitute a subdivision, and therefore, requires no revision to the prior 1996 subdivision approval as outlined in the conditions of that decision.

This proposal consists of 2 discrete steps. The first step involves a transfer of land for conservation purposes of 7.21 acres to the Hinesburg Land Trust (lot 1 on the sketch). This will leave Marian Welch with a 2.9 acres lot around her existing house (lot 2) and a septic pipeline easement across lot 1 to her replacement leach field area in an existing easement area on the Willsey property. The second step involves 3 transfers to adjoining landowners. Lot 1 will be split up with 1.7 acres (lot 1b) transferred to Willsey, 1 acre (lot 1a) transferred to Smith, and 4.51 acres (lot 1c) transferred to VT Fish and Wildlife.

**Note: See Article 2 and Article 9 (Definition of 'Subdivision') in the Subdivision Regulations for more background on options for land transfers that don't constitute a subdivision.

Alex distributed the legal language that had been submitted by the applicant. Andrea noted that in the deed language it states that no building lots or buildings will be created by this process. This restriction only applies to the lots created by this transfer. Abutting property owners existing land holdings are not affected by this restriction. Lisa asked about the difference is referring to one transfer as a 'boundary adjustment' and the other as a 'property transfer to adjoiner'. Andrea explained that this has to do with the differences in percentage of land being transferred to overall land held by the adjoiner.

Gay Regan asked where the language restricting building lots and structures on this land will be recorded. Andrea said it would be recorded in each deed which would be listed in the town offices.

Clint asked if the conditions can be changed if one of the adjoining properties is sold. Ted said no, that any conditions imposed on this approval will carry over from one landowner to the next.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Other Business:

Conditional Use Approval for Addition – Hayden Hill West – Applicants are Brock Francis and Kristine Kinerson – Review Draft Decision

Ted noted that the decision listed the addition as a new garage and asked that it be changed.

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

Request for Sketch Plan Approval Extension – Charlotte Road and 116 – Applicants are Rob Bast and Mac Rood

Request for Sketch Plan Approval Extension – Magee Hill Road – Applicants are Jay and Carol Robinson

George MOVED to extend the sketch plan approval for Rob Bast and Mac Rood and Jay and Carol Robinson by 6 months. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary