TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

January 17, 2006

Approved February 7, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Dennis Casey, Andrew Prim, John Pickering, Adam Streeter, Brian Barrows, Reno Pickering, Jim Hill, Pat Poulin, Frank Twarog, Berthann Mulieri, Donna Constantineau, Wendy Bakker, Raymond Ayer, Mark Bissonette, Lyle Bissonette, Joe Donegan, Denis Martel, Mike Martel, Jamie Lowell, Jeff Davis, Ruth Ayer, Tim Ayer, Andrew Burton.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of January 3, 2006 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the January 3, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Greg abstaining.

Ted Bloomhardt and Nathan Makay joined the meeting at this point.

Sno Beavers Snowmobile Club Discussion re: Property Easements

Jim Hill, interim president of the Sno Beavers organization expressed concern that landowners are starting to not allow access to their lands for the VAST trails because they are worried that the DRB will request that the temporary winter path become a permanent pedestrian path property easement for the town. Jim noted that the current zoning regulations only reference the VAST trails in connection with 'rural foot paths' which really have nothing to do with each other. He is concerned that public interpretation of the board's actions may be negatively affecting the ability of his organization to be granted temporary usage of lands for snowmobiling purposes.

Tom asked how permission is granted to the Snowmobilers. Jim explained that permission is typically given on an annual basis and that although they try to get written permission, verbal agreements occur as well. He said the VAST trails are handled this way throughout the state.

Greg said that he was concerned with the source of concern for the landowners. He noted that the board has no power to force a landowner to grant an easement to the town for a pedestrian pathway. During the subdivision process for PRD's (Planned Residential Developments) the board may request an easement in exchange for the zoning and subdivision rule changes that go along with a PRD request or for such things as the housing density bonus requested by the applicant. Greg explained that this 'trade' is intended to give the developer additional lots in exchange for more open land or recreational area to benefit the townspeople and homeowners in the potential development. He also explained that the board does have an interest in connecting different parts of town via footpaths, recreational trails, etc. but that the board has no right to ask for easements from current landowners unless they come before the board and ask to subdivide their land.

Jim asked if there is currently a existing plan of proposed trail networks. Alex said that it does not exist at this time but it is a goal of the town plan to create such a plan. A trail committee has been established but they have not been able to begin work on the network as of yet. Bill Marks who has been involved with the trail committee explained that the committee is primarily interested in establishing recreation trails for use on foot, horseback or possibly mountain biking. They are not interested in establishing trails that will allow motorized vehicles and therefore they do not represent the snowmobile associations in their goals. Frank Twarog, chair of the Recreation and Trails Committee thought that the landowners had received misinformation that could easily be cleared up with a phone call and brief discussion regarding the trails committee's goals.

Greg suggested that townspeople interested in VAST trails might wish to be added to the mailing list for being notified of applications coming before the DRB as some proposed developments might have a drastic impact on existing trails. Jim agreed this was a good idea and suggested that the Sno Beavers and Trails committee should keep in contact at least on an annual basis to keep tabs on where each organization stands in their trails progress. Tom noted that the VAST trails have been discussed during some subdivision applications and the board has asked how the proposed development might affect these trails. Ted added that he has suggested to applicants who are snowmobilers themselves that they may wish to add an easement to their plat to ensure that the VAST trails will be allowed to continue to cross the property regardless of future homeowners granting permission.

Dennis Casey asked how the trails committee plans to acquire easements for the paths. Frank Twarog explained that currently the committee is concentrating on the use of existing public lands.

Mike Martel said that he is on the Board of Directors of another snowmobile club and that it is important to note that property owners who grant permission for VAST usage of their lands are protected for liability purposes for all snowmobilers who use that trail by VAST. He thought that liability for other uses is probably a concern of landowners.

Joe Donegan cited the Evanson subdivision as an example of a conventional subdivision where path access was requested during the approval process. Tom added that the land had a pathway that had been used by surrounding residents for several years. Several of the surrounding residents requested that they be allowed to continue to use these trails and the board took these requests into consideration during the review process.

Greg said that examples of concessions that may be given in the case of a PRD request might include: open space as a trade off for a higher density than is currently allowed for a conventional subdivision. The open land might be used for recreational, agricultural or other purposes. Tom added that other restrictions may be applied as well to a PRD such as building envelope specification, cutting limits, etc.

Joe Donegan said that during the review process of a subdivision the DRB must also take into account the surrounding areas; what they are currently used for and how the proposed subdivision may affect these uses. He added that homeowners should look at recreational resources as great assets as they can increase their property value in today's market.

3-Lot Subdivision Final Plat – East Side of Route 116 – Applicant is Bissonette Family Corporation

**continued from January 3, 2006 meeting**

Alex said that the requested legal language had been submitted as requested and that it looked good. The board reviewed the draft decision as written by staff. Tom asked if there was any public discussion of the application.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing. George M. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Tom MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as written. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Greg abstaining.

Ted asked if the Select Board had stated in their decision that no further development will be served by the road in its current condition. Alex said that the Select Board's wording on this issue was included as a part of Order #3.

Conditional Use for In-Home Cattery – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Wendy Bakker

Wendy explained that she had constructed a new home to replace her existing dwelling on her property on Mechanicsville Road, on the West side just to the north of Patrick Brook. During her approval process for the building permit, Peter realized that she raised some cats for sale that technically made her residence the location of a 'Pet Breeding Service' as a home occupation and that it required conditional use approval under section 5.1.5 Pet Breeding, Boarding, or Grooming Services: Pet breeding, boarding or grooming services shall be allowed only in areas in which the Development Review Board finds that the potential for noise and traffic impacts on neighboring properties is minimal, and are allowed only as home occupations, not cottage industries. All such home occupations shall require conditional use approval from the Development Review Board pursuant to section 4.2, even if such a use would otherwise be a permitted home occupation pursuant to Section 5.1.1. This section 5.1.5 shall not apply to breeding of horses, breeding of animals for agricultural purposes, commercial pet breeding where no more than one litter is raised per year, or non-commercial raising of pets.

Wendy said that she has three female cats that she breeds once per year which can produce a maximum of three litters per year. She schedules appointments on the weekend, one at a time and only advertises via a web site on the Internet. Wendy added that typically all pick-ups on the weekend are completed by 5 pm. The board did not think that any hours restriction was really necessary given the intermittent nature of the appointments throughout the year. Tom asked if Wendy boards any cats at her home. Wendy said it is a closed cattery and no one is allowed to bring any outside cats into the home for health reasons.

At this point Tom asked if there was any public discussion.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the conditional use application. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Conditional Use for Camp Conversion – Shadow Lane – Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

Jeff Davis explained that he and Jean are requesting a conditional use approval to convert an existing camp to a full-time residence in the Shoreline Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at the end of Shadow Lane (north side of the road); parcel number 14-21-10.000. This is a small parcel along Lake Iroquois with a large camp that was renovated and expanded by the applicant in 2003. The applicant received a conditional use approval in February 2003 for this expansion to the pre-existing, non-complying camp. Shadow Lane is an area of mixed year-round homes and camps, several with a similar design and elevation to the Davis camp.

Pursuant to section 5.15 of the Zoning Regulations, camp conversions must be reviewed and approved under sections 4.2 (conditional use), 4.4 (development on a private right of way), and 5.15 (camp conversions). Section 5.15 includes a requirement that the wastewater disposal system be designed and constructed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer or certified site technician. It also requires that the registered professional engineer or certified site technician certify in writing that he/she supervised the design and construction of the system, and that it was installed as designed, all in accordance with the 'Camp Conversion Septic System Review Policy' adopted by the Hinesburg Selectboard on June 21, 1999.

The applicant replaced the old septic system with a new one in 2003 when the camp was expanded. The applicant has provided copies of the septic design along with the required documentation from the engineer indicating that it was installed per the requirements of the Town's camp conversion policy. The septic tank (1000 gallon concrete tank) was installed in 2003 along with the rest of the system, and the applicant indicated it was pumped in June 2005 by P & P Septic, who reported the tank had a normal level with no run back. This system did not need a State permit as the lot was exempt; however as an advanced 'Septi-tech' pre-treatment septic system, it does require a maintenance contract and annual State inspection reports.

The applicant used to obtain water from Lake Iroquois, but now has a drilled well – depth 85' and yield of 25 gallons per minute. The applicant has also submitted water test results showing that it is a safe drinking source (no bacteria contamination).

Jeff explained that originally emergency vehicle access had been an issue but now the Hinesburg Fire and Police chief both think access is acceptable. Alex asked the board to disregard the letter from Iroquois First Response included in the packet as their more recent correspondence refutes their earlier stance.

Jeff then handed out a documentation packet that included a listing of grades of various roads in Hinesburg in comparison with Shadow Lane. He noted that several roads have a similar slope and are navigated by school buses and other large vehicles. The grade of Shadow Lane is 8% at the bottom, 10.5% - 15% in the middle and the top section is 20%. Jeff went on to explain that the road maintenance is paid for by the residents through annual dues collection. The residents have an annual meeting to discuss the maintenance of the road where minutes are taken to document the discussion.

Greg asked if there are any other year-round residences on Shadow Lane. Jeff said he believed 9 residences are year-round and 5 are seasonal. Of the 5 'summer camps' one is his camp, and he believed that only 2 of the remaining 4 could possibly be considered as a year-round camp given septic and lot size limitations. Greg then asked how the road is maintained in the winter. Jeff said that Russ Orvis plows the road when needed. Greg asked why there is not a formal road association. Jeff explained that the current set-up is very organized and well-documented and seems to work very well. It is the general consensus of some of the long term residents that a road association is not something they would like to create.

Ted asked if all the year-round residences on Shadow Lane are permitted. Jeff said it was his understanding that they were. Peter said he did not think 9 residences are permitted as year-round.

Ted asked what has changed since 1994 that allows easier accessibility? (1994 was the most previous request for year-round residence on Shadow Lane that was denied due to accessibility issues). Jeff said that the road is 15' – 16' feet wide and there is a full site line that allows meeting vehicles to pull over to let the other vehicle by. Jean added that several trees have been removed to allow for better visibility down the lane. Jeff said that there is a parking area at the top of the road that allows people to get off the main road even if another vehicle is waiting to pull out from Shadow Lane. He added that trash and fuel trucks regularly navigate the road. Alex clarified that previous negative feedback regarding accessibility was from St. Michael's College Fire and Rescue and Lake Iroquois First Response and that the Hinesburg Fire and Police chiefs have not changed their stance since 1994.

Mike Martel said that he had applied for year-round residency on Shadow Lane and had been denied due to emergency vehicle access issues and was very interested to find out what had changed to now allow access. Alex noted that his concern was not necessary about emergency vehicle access but rather the general safety of regular vehicles entering and exiting at the Pond Road intersection. Greg asked if anything can be done at that top of the hill to make it less steep. Jeff said nothing could be done without taking away property from landowners at the top of the Lane. He said that the parking area at the top of the hill helps to allow cars to get off Pond Road even when another vehicle is trying to exit Shadow Lane. Clint asked what the parking area is used for. Jeff said he thought it was owned by Bob Bushey and that it could probably fit 6 cars but typically only one or two cars in parked here. Berthann Mulieri confirmed that the area is owned by Bob Bushey.

Tom thought coming up Shadow Lane onto Pond Road is an issue of concern. Jeff said he did not see this as a problem. Greg asked if any accidents have occurred at this location that he is aware of. Jeff said he was not aware of any accidents here in the last 10 years. Ted said he had a problem with allowing additional year-round access on a sub-standard road. Greg asked how long the road is to the bottom. Berthanne said it is 1100 ft long. Andrew Burton, a year-round new resident of Shadow Lane said that he has been able to get cement trucks in and out of the area within the past month.

Tom asked if a replacement area had been specified for the septic system. Jeff said it was not required. Alex clarified that in the staff report he was asking for the applicant to provide some information about how the system will be upgraded or replaced if issues arise in the future. Jeff explained that the whole system hinges on the pre-treatment system and that this needs to be inspected annually by the state. If there was a failure it would mean that the pre-treatment system would need to be fixed – not the leech field. He added that any failure would be apparent immediately.

Peter voiced his concern that Al's statement regarding pulling out an emergency vehicle if it becomes stuck to be cavalier and not a good response to the issue. He said he felt strongly that this is a very unsafe precedent to set regarding road and safety standards in Hinesburg. Ted said he would be interested in viewing an engineering assessment of the road about measures that could be used to allow for safer access onto Pond Road. He felt improvements would need to be made to the road in order to allow more year-round residences on Shadow Lane.

Donna Constantineau said she didn't think it was fair to approve this application when someone else was previously refused for the same safety issues. She asked if the board approved this request if other residents would be allowed to re-apply for year-round residency or if they would be refused due to an increase in traffic. Berthann Mulieri asked if the request is approved if that means that the board will need to automatically approve other possible future applicants. She thought the precedent set by approval could be dangerous. Jeff said he did not think that many more applicants would be eligible for year-round residency due to septic constraints. Alex said that due to the new advanced septic technologies he didn't think septic limitations were something that could be relied on to ensure no additional year-round residencies are possible. George M. said a line needed to be drawn as to how many year-round homes are allowed on Shadow Lane. He agreed that the road needs an engineering study to determine what needs to be done to make it safer.

Tom requested the zoning definition of a camp. Alex read from the zoning regulations and said it is 'A building that was not occupied as a dwelling for more than 7 months in each of the 3 calendar years predeeding March 23, 1981.' Jeff said that theoretically he could occupy the camp all winter as long as he is not in the camp for 5 months of the year. He asked what is the difference between access in the summer and winter. Ted said that the camp occupations in the summer are only okay because it is a pre-existing situation that pre-dates current zoning regulations.

Jean Davis asked how road traffic could be regulated. She felt travel on the road can be affected by the number of drivers in a residence and each household's normal routine. Jean added that the road is in better shape now because more people on the road are concerned with its condition.

Greg said he felt it was entirely prudent to charge the applicants to prove that the road is safe through the means of an engineering study of the road and traffic in this area. Tom said that either the town can hire the engineer and charge the applicant or the applicant can hire the engineer himself. Ted said he preferred that the town hire the engineer to ensure that he/she is not swayed by the applicant's preferred outcome. George B. suggested that the board can make a condition that the engineer hired by the applicant discuss and debate certain issues as specified by the board as a means of balancing the issue. Alex said that if the board wished to continue the application, they should probably schedule the next meeting in March to allow the engineer to complete his study. He added that the town works with an engineer named Mike Weisel who has expertise in road issues. Greg asked Jeff if this time line would be acceptable to him. He said it was.

Tom MOVED to direct the staff to engage an engineer to discuss traffic and road safety issues on Shadow Lane and continue the application to the March 7 meeting. George M. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Alex said he would follow up with St. Michael's Fire and Rescue regarding emergency vehicle access on Shadow Lane.

Berthann Mulieri said that this winter her husband had heart problems and although St. Michael's Fire and Rescue would not come down the hill, the First Responders used a station wagon to bring her husband to the top of the hill.

7-Lot Subdivision Final Plat – Cedar Knoll – Applicant is Raymond Ayer

George Bedard appeared before the board representing Raymond and explained that he was requesting Final Plat approval of a 7-lot Major subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District consisting of six building lots and the remainder developed land consisting of the golf course and existing residential uses. The area proposed to be developed is located in the south western portion of the main golf course property bounded on the south by Bissonette. It will be accessed by the shared, private road, that was previously approved in a permit granted on November 18, 2003 for a two lot subdivision and now proposed to extend to the six lots and then to the remainder golf course lot for future additional development. Lots A1 – A6, the new building lots, are two to three acre lots. A community septic system is proposed within an easement area on lot A1. This development will have to undergo Act 250 review to amend the existing golf course permit. Sketch Plan approval was granted on January 1^st, 2005 and Preliminary Plat approval on September 29, 2005.

George B. then proceeded to address the issues as outlined in the staff report. In section a-i George explained that the 50' ROW will be as designed and Green Mountain Power will modify their plan to fit this design. In section a-ii erosion control measures were discussed. George B. explained that the notations on the plat are actually the final erosion control measure and that all additional steps are outlined on the other maps. Nathan asked who will conduct the erosion control measures. George B. explained that an engineer will be on site to inspect these measures throughout the construction process.

Greg asked about the configuration of tees on the third hole. He asked if the tees will be moved to ensure that golfers are not hitting over the proposed drive. George said they would be moved. Greg then asked if the cart path will run along side the drive. Raymond said the cart path would be moved and it will not share the roadway. Robert said he thought the special tees in this area are not used very often. Raymond said yes, that they are only used approximately three times per year.

Peter asked if any materials will be moved off-site. George B. said that Raymond has an approved stump dump area and that the board could make a condition that any dredging material be moved to a safe off-site location and be properly disposed of in an area that won't erode. George B. added that he did not foresee a great deal of removal.

George B. expressed some concern regarding the 5' elevation change discussed in section a – vi. He said it was not his intention to build up the sites but wanted to know how much detail is required for final treatment and landscaping around a home that may exceed the 5' limitation. Peter said this was not his intention and that he wasn't attempting to control subsequent fill around a home but just wanted to establish a reliable building height. He added that the section could be re-worded to clarify the issue.

In response to section v-ii regarding road design he expressed concern that the curves on the proposed drive do not meet the town's current road standards. He explained that all curves in the development use a 100' radius as opposed to the regulation radius of 185'. He said that it was designed using the old road standards. In addition, George said that changing the radius would affect the intersection and that he would like to stay with the 100' radius as it allows for easier construction and less need for fill. The current design fits the land better than one designed with a 185' radius. George B. displayed a rendering of how the road layout would need to change to use a 185' radius. Ted said he thought the request was reasonable but since the Select Board adopted the road regulations he felt the request should be presented to the Select Board as a request for a waiver.

George B. also added that at the intersection where the drive to lots A2, 3 and 4 are located the current design lists a drive with a 10% grade for the length of the drive. The engineer did determine that another option would be to have a 3% grade at the bottom of the drive and a 13% grade after this. Alex said the Select Board allows some flexibility regarding grade and that the 3% and 13% option would probably best meet the existing standards allowing for a lesser grade at the intersection which would be beneficial for safety reasons.

Ted thought the intensity of the development should be considered in regards to road design. Greg asked how many acres will be left over that could possibly be developed in the future. George B. said approximately 15 acres will remain. Ted said he thought slower speeds on these roads is better but that the number of lots serviced by a road does have an impact as well.

In section b-ii the topic of tree removal was discussed. Peter said that if all small trees are allowed to be removed, it will not allow for regeneration of trees in the area. Ted asked if some lots are more visible than others. George B. said that all lots are pretty much equally hidden and that the lots will not be opened up for visibility purposes. He suggested that not allowing cutting on the hillside could be discussed. Ted thought the language allows for someone to clear out an area except for any large trees and that this could cause visibility concerns. Both George and Raymond agreed that the wording could be changed to not allow such extensive clearing of brush and small trees.

Peter noted that the shape of building envelope A4 is quite irregular and said that the envelope on lot 5 appeared to hang over the edge of the ledge. George B. said that the line was drawn straight when it really should have been more curved to follow the contour of the ledge.

George B. asked if the reference to an agricultural statement in section b-iv could be removed as the lots are .5 miles away from any agricultural lands that are used for manure applications. Greg asked if there is a downside to including this language. George B. didn't think there was a reason to alert people to a possible nuisance that really doesn't exist and hasn't existed for years. Peter said he talked with the Land Trust and they said they don't foresee this land being used as crop land. Ted said if the land in question is not active farmland, he didn't think the warning should be added.

Peter said he had three remaining concerns. He asked that the regeneration of small trees be addressed, suggested that the reference to possible future minor boundary adjustments are not easy to do and that it should be made clear to any homeowners that approval for a boundary adjustment is not guaranteed. Finally, Peter asked if the homeowners should be added as a member of the road association at the beginning of construction as opposed to at the end of construction. George B. thought the current set up was acceptable as there is language which states that if a homeowner damages the road they will be required to repair it back to its original condition.

Tom summarized that the only outstanding issue seemed to be the Select Board's ruling on the curve radius.

Tom MOVED to continue the Final Plat to the February 7 meeting, to direct staff to draft conditions of approval and direct the applicant to discuss the road curve radius with the Select Board. Nathan SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Other Business:

Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval for 2-lot Subdivision on Drinkwater Road – Applicant is Gary French

George M. MOVED to extend the Sketch Plan Approval for the Gary French Subdivision by 6 months. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Sketch Plan for 2-Lot Subdivision – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Paul and Margaret Stanilonis

Greg said he would like to see proof of water alternatives at the Final Plat stage prior to any construction. Ted added that provisions to truck in water do not constitute an adequate water supply. Peter said in order #2 he had offered the applicant two options to prove an adequate water supply including pre-drilling a well, and gaining legal access to a backup water supply. Alex suggested that Peter provide less detail and write order 2.a.ii as “Legal access to a backup water supply which has a sufficient supply to meet both needs.”

Peter did not think that the topic of well interference should be pursued and Alex agreed suggesting that the applicant just provide well logs with surrounding wells' location, yield and depth. Peter asked when the evidence should be provided. Ted thought it should be presented at final plat or prior to selling the lot. He added that during the sale process the buyer's attorney should be made aware of the process during the title search. Alex said he thought the applicants should be warned that they will need to provide proof of a water supply if the well yields in surrounding areas are low. He added that he thought the building permit section should be removed and replaced with a requirement for information to be presented at Final Plat.

Ted said he did not think a statement from a professional was acceptable proof of water – especially in a low well yield area. Greg suggested offering the following options: pre-drilling a well, legal access to an existing well, or a letter from a professional that includes an analysis of surrounding well yield areas.

George MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Nathan, Ted and Robert abstaining.

Alex distributed the staff report for Howard and Inez French's Minor 2-Lot Sketch Plan in preparation for a site visit scheduled on Saturday February 4 at 9:00 a.m.

Wind Turbine on Dynamite Hill

Tom distributed an email Connie Kendall had written him in regards to a wind turbine that is being proposed on Dynamite Hill. The application will go before the Public Service Board on January 9^th. She is opposed to the turbine due to visibility issues and the precedent it will set for wind turbines on ridge lines. Tom asked who reviews these applications for town input. Alex said there is no defined connection with the town for review. Tom thought the bigger issue was development of any kind on ridge lines whether it be residential, commercial or wind turbines.

Alex said he had directed requests for information from a reporter to the planning commission's discussion of development in scenic areas. He explained that this is on their 'to-do' list but that several other more-pressing issues are taking prominence at the moment.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary