TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

December 20, 2005

Approved January 3, 2006

DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn (chair), George Munson, Clint Emmons, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples.

DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt, Robert Gauthier.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), George LeClair, Linda LeClair, David Stanilonis, Sally Stewart, Mike Patten, Val Patten, George Bedard.

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 pm

Minutes of December 6, 2005 Meeting:

Lisa MOVED to approve the December 6, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0.

Greg Waples joined the meeting at this point.

3-Lot, 2-Unit Subdivision/PRD Preliminary Plat – 1823 North Road – Applicant is Sally Stewart

Sally explained that she is requesting preliminary plat approval of a 3-lot Subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zoning District. The subject parcel is located on the west side of North Road, about ½ mile south of the Richmond Road intersection. Much of this parcel is hilly and forested. The Applicant's home is located on the eastern portion of the parcel. There used to be an accessory structure for storage (actually an old mobile home) even further to the east near the frontage, but this has been removed. The property is served by an existing driveway, but also has the benefit of possible access via a right of way (ROW) across the abutting Hathaway property to the south. To the west of the existing house, the land is forested and climbs fairly quickly to the western boundary of the parcel.

This lot and the abutting Hathaway lot to the south (05-01-67.200) were divided as 'free lots' in 1990; however pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations at that time, this division did not constitute a subdivision. Therefore no survey/plat was recorded in the Town land records, and the current proposal does not require the revision of any prior subdivision approval.

The proposed 3-lot PRD includes a small lot (approx. 1 acre including right of ways) along the frontage of North Road (lot 1), a 3.48 acre lot (2.9 acres excluding the right of way) in the middle of the parcel (lot 2) and a 2.18 acre lot at the back of the parcel (lot 3). Lot 1 constitutes the new building lot and contains its own septic system as well as the septic system for the existing home on lot 2. Lot 2 will retain the existing house. This lot will have an easement on lot 1 for the existing septic system. It will have access to North Road via a right of way and shared driveway across lot 1. Lot 3 comprises the open space for the PRD, and is approximately 32% of the parcel. It will remain undeveloped (owned in common by lots 1 & 2), and will apparently be used by both lots for recreation.

Sally clarified that there is an existing shallow well on lot 1 that has existed since before 1989. She explained that it is a 2-tile well and served her family of 5 from 1989 until 2002. The shallow well is spring fed and is 3' wide and 12' deep. In 2002 after a severe drought she had a well drilled on lot 2 that is 500' deep and produces 1.5 gallons per minute. Greg asked Sally what water source will be used by lot 1. Sally said lot 1 landowners could either use the shallow well and add more tiles for additional reserve space, or drill a well. Alex said that he is concerned about the shallow well drying up during another drought. He asked Sally if she had made any provisions for a water storage tank or sharing the existing drilled well on lot 2. Sally said she had consulted with her engineer who determined that the drilled well would probably not produce enough water to serve both lots.

Greg expressed concern that the well head protection zone extends substantially onto the neighboring property of the Orvis'. He noted that a drilled well would significantly reduce this encumbrance. George Bedard said that if a well is drilled he would ensure that the well head protection zone would fall entirely on Sally's property and he agreed that the encumbrance would be reduced a great deal if a drilled well were used.

Greg noted that the building envelope for lot 1 appeared to be bigger as requested at sketch plan. Tom said that he thought a building envelope should be specified for lot 2 that would encompass the house as well as any existing or future outbuildings, garages, etc.

Clint asked how far the existing home is away from the western boundary of lot 1. Alex said that according to the scale it is approximately 75' away. Clint said he thought the boundary line and building envelope should be moved farther to the west. He noted that since this is a PRD the board has flexibility in making this determination and he felt that since the majority of the surrounding homes sit farther back from the road, this house should as well. George Bedard said that the building envelope is designed to nestle up against the tree line and that moving the envelope back would mean removing trees behind the lot. Sally said that there are some trees at the front of the lot that will hide the house somewhat. Tom thought the building envelope width (62') was rather deep. Alex said that the board should remember that they need to allow some flexibility to add on to the home; garages, additions, etc. George Munson said he didn't think the building envelope size of 100' x 62' was very large. Tom noted that the board should keep in mind that this envelope is on a small lot. George B. said that the envelope size will allow the future landowners to stagger a garage or addition so that the front of the house does not have to be flat. Peter said he thought the board should focus on the potential of the building envelope and what could be built in that given area. Alex noted that the building envelope is actually 85' back from the center of the road and that it meets and exceeds the current front yard setback. Greg said that he didn't have a problem with the front yard setback as designed.

Tom asked Sally to explain how the common land (lot 3) will be used. Sally said that it would be land that is commonly owned by lots 1 and 2 and used for recreational purposes. Greg asked how residents will access the area. Sally said there is an existing 50' ROW that will allow pedestrian access to the area. She explained that the only improved section of the ROW is the driveway for the Hathaways and that the rest would be used as a walking path. Greg asked if the ROW should be entirely across lots 1 and 2. George B. said that a pedestrian can get from lot 1 to the ROW without crossing the Hathaway property and that the other ROW is for the benefit of lot 2 across lot 1. Greg said he was concerned about giving lot 1 residents access across the Hathaway property. George B. said this can be redesigned but that the ROW is already existing.

Greg asked why the common land is designed the way it is instead of just being all land to the west of the power lines. George B. said he designed the lots this way because he wanted lot 2 to be as close to 3 acres as possible to meet zoning regulations. Greg asked if there was anything about the topography of the land that would make it more difficult to keep the common land to the west of the power line. George B. said no, that he had just thought that two lots less than 3 acres in size in a subdivision would be unacceptable.

Tom said that due to new road regulations the ROW width for lots 1 and 2 can be reduced. Sally said this was good news as it would allow two existing trees to remain that otherwise would need to be removed. Clint noticed that the building envelope is not 60' back from the center of the ROW. George B. said that they had requested a waiver of the side yard setback and that this request was listed on the plat as #2 under the 'List of Variances'.

Clint asked if the deed language explains how taxes on the common land will be shared. Alex said this is not usually addressed in the deed as taxation is determined by the town.

Tom asked if there were any additional questions or concerns from the public or board. Alex asked the board to make sure they are comfortable with the determination needed to ensure that an adequate water supply exists for this lot. Lisa asked what options are available to the board. Is the only option to not allow subdivisions in low water yield areas? Alex said that options might include: drilling a well to find out what's there, or provisions for a water storage tank and how it can be piped into the home. George B. said that the state looks for evidence of existing wells with adequate water use. Adequate water supply is defined as wells that produce 450 gallons per day which equates to ½ gallon of water per minute. Greg thought the idea of a water supply tank was a good one. Alex reviewed well logs in the immediate vicinity which showed that there are several wells with 0 yield. Sally pointed out that several of these were due to one landowner that would not drill deeper than 400' for water so the statistics are skewed a bit. Greg asked if the state wastewater permit will require proof of an adequate water supply. George M. (who is currently having a home built) said that the state specifies that an engineer has to send in information about the water supply and wastewater system and then the state has to accept that information.

Tom summarized that current issues for this development include:

· adequate water supply

· specifying a building envelope on lot 2

· access to common land across lot 1

· common land to include all land to the west of the power line

· ensure that a drilled well does not impede the Orvis property

· lot 1 building envelope size and location

Sally asked why the town is concerned with the water supply if the state has to approve this issue on its own. Greg said that the building guidelines require that we make accommodations for water supply in a low yield area. Tom suggested that Sally could provide a statement from the state about provisions for water supply approval. George M. told Sally that her site technician should be able to help her with this.

George B. asked if the board is generally content with the PRD design. Greg said he is comfortable with the idea. Clint was not happy with the front yard setback. Tom, George M. and Lisa were content so far with the design given the changes that had been discussed.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion of the preliminary plat and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

Alex told Sally that all details regarding this discussion will be included in the written decision that will be mailed to her.

Greg asked if the application should be continued so that Sally and George can discuss any issues listed in the decision. Tom said he did not think it was a good idea to continue the application as it tends to drag out the process. In addition, he noted that survey results indicated that applicants were not happy when applications were continued and would rather have more prompt decisions issued.

Conditional Use Review – Alteration of Non-Conforming Use – 2093 Silver Street – Applicants are George and Linda LeClair

George Bedard explained that the applicants are requesting conditional use approval for alterations they have made to their non-conforming use (a home occupation) in the Agricultural Zoning District under section 5.10.1 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject parcel is approximately 2.4 acres, and is located on the east side of Silver Street, just south of Raven Hill Road; parcel #11-01-9.000. The parcel currently contains the applicant's existing home and 2 accessory structures, all of which are located in the northwest corner. The applicant uses 1 of the accessory structures, and a small portion of the dwelling, for the home occupation, which consists of firearm sales and repair and the sale of fishing bait and related equipment. The use is non-conforming for a number of reasons related to section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Regulations. First, it is a home occupation in an accessory structure without a conditional use permit to do so. Second, the size of the home occupation exceeds the maximum square footage both within the accessory structure and total once the house portion is included.

Earlier this summer, the applicant submitted an application for conditional use review, based on the applicant's plan to reconstruct the accessory structure housing the home occupation. On the advice of their attorney (Joseph Fallon), the Applicant withdrew the application on July 29, 2005. The applicant contended that this use has been in operation for over 15 years without a conditional use permit, and since no notice of violation was ever issued, the enforcement statute of limitations is up – i.e. they said that no permit is needed and no violation exists. However this summer, the applicant went ahead and replaced the older accessory structure (24' x 40' or a footprint of 960 square feet), housing the home occupation, with the new structure that is slightly smaller (24' x 32' or a footprint of 768 square feet). Based on this action and the applicant's reasoning, the Zoning Administrator ruled that the applicant had made an alteration to an allowed non-conforming use. Pursuant to section 5.10.1 (Zoning), altering or moving a non-conforming use requires conditional use approval. Therefore on November 4, 2005, the Zoning Administrator issued the applicant a notice of violation. In response, the applicant asked that their conditional use application be heard by the DRB in order to resolve the issue.

The home occupation consists of firearm sales and repair and the sale of fishing bait and related equipment. Firearm sales must occur in the dwelling; however, firearm preparation and repair occurs in the Applicant's workshop in the accessory building. Bait and fishing equipment sales occur in the accessory structure. The applicant indicated that this home occupation has been run since approximately 1983. The zoning records indicate that the house was permitted in 1977, and the accessory structure in 1983. A zoning permit (84-36) was issued for a 2' by 2' sign was issued in 1984. A zoning permit (96-92) was issued for a home occupation of firearm sales in the home in 1996, but this was apparently done upon request, merely to clarify that the firearm sales was in compliance with the regulations. In other words, there is no record of a prior condition use approval for the portion of the home occupation in the accessory building. Assuming the dates are correct, the applicant is correct in asserting that the 15 year statute of limitations has passed on enforcing the requirement for a conditional use permit to operate in the original accessory structure.

George B. presented three letters from neighbors which all asserted that the neighbors had been made aware of the hours of operation of the business and did not have any issues with the application. Letters were submitted by: Barry Lanpike and Jennifer Holiday, Marshall A. Delair, and Joe and Margaret Cioffi.

George B. explained that the bait shop is not on the same footprint as the old structure and that it is a smaller structure that is still within the required setbacks. There are floodlights at the corner of the structure that are triggered by a motion detector for security purposes. The applicant has shielded one light and if the shield is deemed acceptable he plans to shield the other in the same manner.

Greg asked if the outside sign on the building and the sandwich sign are acceptable. Peter said that signs less than 5' square are okay and that the sandwich sign is fine as long as it is taken down at night.

Tom said that due to several break-ins into firearm sales locations, he was quite concerned about security and asked what accommodations the LeClairs make to protect their firearms. George LeClair said that he had between 8 – 10 guns and that all bolt action guns have the bolt removed. All other guns are disabled or secured with a trigger lock. In addition his business is set up such that the guns are always within his sight. He explained that all gun sales take place in his office in the house and that they include an FBI background check. Lisa asked if the ATF requires that sales take place in the home. George L. said that when he received his original permit he was told that the town requires that gun sales take place in the home.

Lisa asked if the guns are in the accessory structure. George L. said that they are stored in the accessory structure as well as in a safe in the house.

Alex asked why the request was made in 1986 for town approval. George L. explained that it was a new requirement by the ATF after the Brady Bill was passed that said that a town permit must be issued to run a business through the ATF.

Tom explained that the business could not increase traffic by more than 15 cars per day (not including occupants). Greg said he felt the applicant was aware of this guideline and that he should just be aware that if this number exceeds 15, it will be an issue that will need to be dealt with either by closing the business or moving it to an alternate location. He explained that this condition is intended to discourage heavy commercial businesses in residential areas.

Tom asked if the applicant sells live bait. George said he does and that it is not that common. There is another live bait sales location in Malletts Bay and Otter Creek but the majority of his sales are to commuter traffic in the area.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George M. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5- 0.

Minor 2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Pond Road – Applicants are Paul and Margaret Stanilonis

George B. appeared on behalf of the applicants and explained that the Stanilonises own approximately 164 acres of land to the West of Pond Road and are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision in the Rural Residential Zoning District (RR1). This property is the remainder of a subdivision done in March of 2003 which separated the existing farm house, now owned by their daughter from this parcel. Two additional curb cuts were created at that time, one of which was not constructed in the approved location. This application would create a lot to the north of the existing farmhouse on a lot which is basically the field that is visible from the road, the remainder property being kept in the forest land use program.

George B. said that there is no request to build on the balance of the land and that the function of the existing drive onto this parcel is for woodland access only. George B. also clarified that the southerly drive was not built in the location that had been previously presented but that Mike Anthony has signed off on the location. Peter said that the driveway was not in compliance but its current location is acceptable and that the issue should just be cleaned up procedurally.

Justin Willis from Richmond has found good soils for septic and a dowser has also indicated a good well location. George B. said that the well head protection zone will not impede the neighbors' properties. Clint asked if a replacement area has been sited for the existing home. George B. said it had been sited and a wastewater permit has been issued. Greg asked if lot 1 will support a new and replacement septic area. George B. said it would. Alex noted that this lot is also in a low water yield location.

Tom said that this area has some large street trees and hedgerows and that the town plan supports maintaining these natural features. George B. said he thought the growth in this area was part of the allure of the lot. Tom asked if there were any plans to build on lot 2. George B. said no, that Paul greatly enjoys managing this area as a wood lot.

Tom asked if the board would like to treat this minor subdivision as a two-step process. The board agreed that a two-step process would be acceptable.

Peter asked if a 35' height limit from grade would be an issue. George B. said that it would not be an issue on this site.

George B. said that he would have copies of deed language at final plat review.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

Other Business:

Final Plat Amendment – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Steve and Lisa Carlson

Alex asked that order 2B be deleted. He explained that he is working with Holly on writing a cover letter that will direct applicant's attention to outstanding issues that must be handled. In the letter they are going to adjust the time line so that the mylar is submitted to allow time for approval and signing within the 180 day time line.

Sketch Plan for Multiple Transfers of Land – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Marian Welch and the Hinesburg Land Trust

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) for the Carlsons (as amended) and Marian Welch and the Hinesburg Land Trust (as written). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

3-Lot, 2-Unit Subdivision/PRD Preliminary Plat – 1823 North Road – Applicant is Sally Stewart

Greg suggested that a condition be added to reconfigure the common land to be to the west of the power line. Clint felt the building envelope on lot 1 should be moved as close to the western property line as possible and that the 30' rear yard setback should be waived. He noted that the house on lot 2 can be seen quite easily from the road. Tom suggested that the building envelope depth be reduced from 62' to 52'. George M. said he is not so sure that the tree line is that close to the house. Alex noted that if the rear yard setback is lessened, it could affect the tree line. Tom said that someone who buys this lot will probably want to protect these trees and move the house as far forward in the building envelope as possible. George M. noted that the trees are not very thick in the rear yard and that perhaps the house site could be moved into the tree line. Alex asked if the land starts to slope at the tree line. Clint said according to the map it is only a 6' difference. George M. suggested that the western property line on lot 1 be moved back 30'.

Greg thought access to the common land (lot 3) from lot 1 should not go across the Hathaway property. Alex asked why Greg felt this way as the ROW exists and the Hathaway's were aware of it when they purchased the property.

Clint said some proof should be supplied for an adequate water supply. Alex asked what proof the board wants. Greg suggested proof of adequate water supply or a water supply tank. Alex suggested that her site technician could show a design for a above ground or in-ground water tank that could be used to get through any problematic dry spells. George M. said he would bring Alex a copy of the documentation that he needs for the water supply at his new home. Greg asked that Alex use his creativity to offer that the applicant either provide proof of water supply or a design for a water supply system.

Tom said that this same language about water supply should be added to the Stanilonis Review Draft Decision. Tom also asked that the Review Draft Decision for the LeClair's indicate that the conditional use permit is non-transferable.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary