TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

February 7, 2006

Approved February 21, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey, Robert Gauthier.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Inez French, Gary French, Rad Romeyn, Raymond Ayer, Ruth Ayer, Lenore Budd, Kate Schubart, Kristen Anderson, Alexander Anderson, Jon Anderson, Ian Jewkes, Carrie Fenn, Anne Donegan, Harry Russell.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of January 17, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the January 17, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Minor 2-Lot Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Applicants are Howard and Inez French

**continued from January 3^rd meeting**

Tom explained that a site visit was conducted on Saturday February 4, 2006 and that the observations from this visit would now be recorded into the minutes. Nathan, Clint and Ted were the DRB members who attended the site visit. The following observations were noted:

· George B. showed two different possible driveway entrances onto the property.

· Walked along the southern boundary of the property.

· Viewed a class II wetland just west of the one of the entrance options.

· Walked east to the location of the proposed conventional septic system.

· Viewed proposed building site on south east corner of property. It sits on a knoll and is located between two areas of ledge.

· Noted the proposed well head area which seemed to meet all distance standards.

· Viewed another possible building site to the north west that is further from Drinkwater Road.

· Hiked to the north west portion of the property along a possible proposed drive.

· Viewed another possible house site ½ – ¾ mile from Drinkwater Road. This site would probably need an enhanced treatment system for septic.

· Overlooked the farthest north west section of the property which is very damp and not a good location for a house site.

· Walked back along a possible driveway location.

· Nathan clarified that they viewed three possible house site locations but that the application is for one new building lot.

· Viewed the 10 acre lot which encompasses the existing home and barn.

· Ted observed the road access on the south west side of the property which seemed to have line of site issues.

George Bedard then distributed a letter and map which explained that the applicants would like the ability to apply for one building envelope location but offer a mechanism by which a new owner may approach the board to request a different building envelope location. He explained that the septic design presented had been approved by the state. In addition the applicants asked that the proposed driveway cut be determined before the final plat hearing, and that the wetlands near the shallow well will be indicated on the final plan and delineated if necessary. George further clarified that the applicant understands that depending on the circumstances of another proposed building envelope the new applicant may need to approach the board with an amended septic permit, new septic design, new well shield area, and driveway road details.

Ted asked if a house site towards the back of the lot would allow for easy driveway access. George B. said that yes, the drive could follow the contours of the land to reach this section.

Kate Schubart asked why the board would consider alternative house sites if the state has approved a septic system for just one site. Ted explained that the state's approval is only for the septic system and that it has to be in that exact location. Kate asked why the new owner would not be required to come back before the board to amend a building envelope location. Ted said that the new owner would have to come back to the board if they wish to build in a different location. Chris Anderson asked how this process could change from a single family property to a multi-home development if the proposed subdivision is just for one building lot. Tom said that a new buyer wishing to further subdivide this land for additional development would need to come back before the board and start the subdivision process from the beginning. The proposed development would need to be fully reviewed by the board at warned meetings as dictated by current subdivision regulations. Ted further added that any change in house site location would be a modification of final plat. During this process the board would need to review the driveway information, well, septic, visibility and storm water runoff issues surrounding the proposed new house site. Peter added that the first lot proposed that is closest to the road has the least impact on the agricultural land which is a goal of the town plan. He suggested that the board should concentrate on the proposed lot and not discuss any other possible site locations as this would need to be reviewed at the time of a new owner's request to modify the final plat.

George B. said he did not think a building envelope towards the back of the lot would adversely impact the agricultural soils and that it in fact might make them more accessible for use by the new owner. George M. said that the mechanism a new applicant would need to go through would be a request for a modification of final plat from the DRB so there is a process in place. Ted added that the hearing would be warned and the board would review the aspects of the new building envelope.

Alex suggested that the board should make their decision regarding the building envelope approval very clear as to why this envelope is acceptable so that in the future if another owner does wish to use another location, the board can compare the aspects of the different locations to see if the new option meets the criteria that the board used to find the first lot approveable.

Ted noted that the western potential access has minimal site distance to the curve in the road. Peter said that the farther east the access, the least impact there will be on the land. Nathan added that the further the drive is to the west, the less it will impact the neighbors on that side. Clint added that the delineation of the wetlands may dictate the location of the driveway anyways.

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

9-Lot Subdivision PRD Preliminary Plat – South Farm Homes – Applicant is Charles Reiss

**continued from January 3^rd meeting**

George M. recused himself from the board.

Chuck explained that there had been a few changes to the plan since the last discussion. The major change was moving the access point onto Route 116 to the original location proposed at Sketch Plan. Chuck said that originally he had changed this access as he was concerned about blasting near the existing barn, but that he had since contacted a blaster who had confirmed that the blasting will not affect the barn.

Ted asked if the width of the ROW to get to lot 9 was still an issue. Chuck said the ROW is designed to be 30' wide and that they would be requesting a variance for that width. The eastern entrance to lot 9 will be a 50' ROW. Ted said he was not sure that a variance has ever been granted for the width for a new ROW. Chuck explained that probably only one house would be developed on this lot so the ROW would in fact be a driveway. Greg noted that there is a maximum of two homes that can possibly be built in this location. Ted asked which lot the ROW would cross. Chuck said it would cross lot 8, which is the barn lot. Ted asked why they did not want a 50' ROW in this location. Chuck said he did not want to impede agricultural uses of this land with a large ROW. Ted said a 50' ROW would not impeded any agricultural uses, that the main restriction would be the construction of any structures within the ROW.

Ian said he felt a 30' ROW would be large enough to fit a driveway and any necessary utilities. Greg said that the applicant should realize that a 30' ROW may limit any development on lot 9 to just one home site. Ian added that there is a 50' ROW access to lot 9 at the other end of the property.

Greg said he remembered discussing potential future development on the eastern side, and asked if potential development on the south west corner is new. Chuck said that yes it is new and is a second option for a house location. Wetlands are a concern on the eastern side. They have not yet been totally mapped and there is also a shallow well in this area.

Chuck asked his daughter Alexandra to present some renderings that she had created of the South Farm Homes development. Alexandra presented a digital photo of the hillside where the proposed development will occur. She had labeled several trees as points of reference with corresponding heights. She then presented the same photo with artistic renderings of several homes on the hillside to give the board members a visual representation of how the hillside may appear when the development is complete.

Chuck explained that the pedestrian pathways have been widened to 30' ROW. Within the 30' ROW the path can be moved in either direction to allow some separation between the path and property lines. Chuck asked Howdy to explain who will maintain the paths. Howdy said that the pathways will be in easements owned by the Vermont Land Trust. The Hinesburg Land Trust or a designee of the HLT will maintain and manage the trails.

Ted asked if improvements will be needed to get to 116. Chuck said improvements will be needed. Ian added that at the worst spot in this location the grade is 10%.

Chuck then explained that the building envelopes are set up at 20' off the property line for the homes. Originally they had requested a zero side yard setback but had revised their request after receiving feedback from the board. The board had advised the applicant that accessory structures less than 600 sq ft in size can have a 10' side yard setback. Therefore the applicant requested a proposed building envelope with a 10' setback from the side yard, a 50' setback from the ROW and a 25' rear yard setback. They hoped that these envelopes would allow more flexibility for accessory structures.

Alex noted that the garages will need to be detached to be classified as accessory structures. If the garages are attached they will need to meet the 20' setback requirement for the house.

Chuck said that they had widened the sewer easement for lots 7 and 8 to 15'. In addition, the ROW for the wind tower has been excluded from the open space calculation and the boundaries of lot 9 were shifted to leave 25% of the development as open space.

Peter asked if Chuck was going to float the eastern footpath easement to be determined later once the path exists. Chuck thought this was a good option to allow for more flexibility. Howdy agreed this was a good idea, but noted that the location is pretty accurate as it closely follows the stream to minimize the impact on the agricultural lands.

Ian said that storm water runoff would be directed into the ditch which eventually runs under the road.

Tom asked about the well shields and how they will impact lot 9. Chuck said there is a 50' setback from lot 9 to protect them from agricultural uses. There is also an agreement that spraying cannot occur within 100' of the wells. He explained that the wells will be used as a geothermal heat source as well as for a water supply. Their intention is to achieve net zero energy use and no fossil fuel usage with the possible exception of gas ranges. Clint asked if the well shield area will extend onto lot 9. Ian said that they will extend 200' up field of the wells but since this is designated as open space it should not be an issue. Peter added that an agreement had been established with the Russell's that agricultural operations on the open land will be restricted to those which would cause no adverse impact on the development. Chuck said that this will be included in the covenants as well.

Ted asked if they would need to discuss the curve radius at the entrance with the Selectboard. Alex said he thought this would be the case as it doesn't meet the 185' curve radius road standard. Peter asked what is the radius of the curve. Ian said it is 70' and that a 185' radius would make the drive very visible on the hillside. Peter explained that the applicant would need to request a waiver of the road radius from the Selectboard.

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

George M. returned to the board at this time.

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

**continued from January 17, 2006 meeting**

George Bedard distributed a letter that he had submitted to the Selectboard to request a waiver of the curve radius standard of 185' to accommodate the 100' curve in their plans. The Selectboard granted the waiver. George B. also requested a waiver of the road width to accommodate the 18' road width. He was notified by the Selectboard that the DRB has the authority to waive road width and grade standards. He added that he had also asked that the curve radius standard be clarified as an amendment in the road standards.

George B. went on to explain that the legal language had been clarified and presented to Peter. In addition, the intersection for lots A2, A3 and A4 will have a stop sign and there will be warnings at cart path crossing locations. The applicant would like the drive which accesses lots A2, A3 and A4 to have a 3% grade at the connection to the main drive and increase to a 13 – 13 ½% grade over the last 110' of the hill. George also added that he will remove the proposed drives from the final recorded mylar as requested by Peter and that a temporary T-shaped turnaround will be added after lot 6. George B. went on to address a concern that runoff from the driveways from lots 5 and 6 should not run onto the shared drive. He said a condition that prohibited runoff from any individual driveways onto the shared drive would be acceptable.

George B. explained that although the legal language is mostly finalized, since they are still waiting for the stormwater, erosion and Act 250 permits from the state he would like the ability to add any necessary legal language from these permits if necessary. He said he would just like to know from the board if the structure is acceptable and that any changes can be presented to the board prior to any transfer of land. Tom asked how long George B. anticipates it will take to receive the permits from the state. George B. said it would probably take 45 days for the septic permit, and the Act 250 permit will be determined by whether a hearing is deemed necessary.

Ted asked when the associations will be established. George said that the association will be created prior to any sale of lots by the Ayers. Money will be collected at each closing to pay into the association. From then on, annual assessments for each property will be determined at a yearly meeting of the association.

Greg asked where the cart path will be relocated, and added that this was not listed in the order in the review draft decision written by the staff. George B. said it could be added as a condition in the order and that it will be constructed out of the ROW.

Peter said that he had added a modified agricultural statement which did not include the herbicide statement. Raymond said he was comfortable with the statement.

Ted asked if sections of the covenants should be included as an order of the subdivision approval so that they can't be changed. It was determined that staff would review the covenants to determine if anything needs to be added to the order.

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

Transfer of Land to Adjoiner – Lavigne Hill Road – Applicants are Harry Russell and Brian Fisher

George M. recused himself from the board.

Harry Russell explained that he and Brian Fisher are requesting Sketch Plan approval for the transfer of more than 20% of their parcel, number 9-1-2.2, to an adjoining lot in the Rural Residential Zoning District I. The subject parcel is approximately 10.4 acres and is located to the west of the northern end of Lavigne Hill Road, accessed by a 50' ROW. The parcel is currently developed with the Applicant's home and accessory structures and the adjoining lot is the open land that is part of the Russell family project with the Land Trust which will remove the development rights and create recreational paths. This transfer is part of a two step process which will eventually reconfigure the applicant's lot however keeping it basically the same size. The land being transferred will go to the surrounding land (belonging to the Russell Family Trust, and then the Trust will transfer land back to this parcel via the process of a boundary adjustment, the land being transferred back being less than 20% of that parcel.

Clint asked about the location of the septic system and if it will stay on the lot with the house. Harry said it is right next to the house and that it would stay on the lot with the house. Alex explained that this is a one-step sketch plan approval process. Peter added that the sequence of the process is determined by the applicants. Nathan asked if the Russell Family Trust will retain the ROW access onto that land. Peter said that the boundary adjustment will deal with this issue. It was also determined that the ROW ran all along the southern boundary of the property. Peter also added that a boundary line adjustment wouldn't be granted for a land-locked lot.

Tom explained that Peter had prepared a Review Draft Decision for this application. The board decided to review the draft decision at the meeting.

Clint asked if the property will be surveyed to ensure that it is a 10 acre lot. Harry said that the process had already been approved by the state and that they did not plan to survey the property. Alex said he did not think this was part of the local permit structure. Ted asked that it be added to order #7 that all necessary state permits are submitted to staff.

Ted MOVED to approve the review draft decision as written (approval). Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

George M. returned to the board.

Other Business:

Conditional Use for In-Home Cattery – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Wendy Bakker

Peter said the he forgot to add a condition that no boarding be allowed in the cattery. Ted said that he thought this should be added as a Finding of Fact as she said no boarding was allowed and that she did not intend to board any other cats. It was asked that Order #1 list 3 litters as opposed to 5.

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

Selectboard – Road Standards

Ted said that he felt the Selectboard needs to do some work on the road standards to make them more effective. Alex said that there is a long history of the staff trying to work on the road standards. Previous attempts have not been successful as no specific staff member was charged with processing the changes and there was not a clear consensus on how road standards should be handled. However, the Selectboard has recently given the staff direction to work on the road standards.

Training Session – VT League of Cities and Towns

Tom explained that he had attended a satellite session presented by the VT League of Cities and Towns with a topic of 'How to Run an Effective Meeting'. He said that the turnout was low in Williston (just he and one other member) but that he found the discussion to be helpful. He said that the function of deliberative session was discussed as an effective tool in handling some issues where board members may feel intimidated by applicants.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary