TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

February 21, 2006

Approved March 7, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: none.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), George Bedard, Michael Whitney, Patricia Whitney, Minton Jeffrey, Mike Potvin, Tate Jeffrey, Adam Provost, David Rondeau, Monica Rondeau, Diane Boutin, Kristen Needham, Daniel Needham, Stewart Pierson.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of February 7, 2006 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the February 7, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Hayden Hill Road East – Applicants are Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey

George Bedard explained that he would be representing the applicants and that they are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 7 acres, and is located on the south side of Hayden Hill Road East (existing house address is 223 Hayden Hill Road East); parcel #06-01-64.000. The parcel is currently developed with the applicants' single-family home in the northeast corner. The parcel is largely forested with a mix of open land closer to the existing home on the flatter northern portion of the parcel. Two streams traverse the property – one along the road frontage which passes behind the house, and one proceeding northeasterly through the middle of the parcel. The parcel is sandwiched between the undeveloped Town Forest to the west and south, and a residential neighborhood to the east. The applicant is interested in creating a new building lot on the southwest side of the parcel.

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, would be approximately 3 acres on the northeast side of the parcel, and would retain the existing house with direct access to Hayden Hill Road via the existing driveway. Lot 2 would be the new building lot of approximately 4 acres on the southwest side of the parcel. This lot would have access to Hayden Hill Road via a strip of land approximately 50' wide by 220' long, which will involve one stream crossing. This would access the class 4 portion of Hayden Hill Road East. This town road turns from class 3 to class 4 just about 150' before the proposed driveway to lot 2. Lot 2 is bisected by one of the streams, and the applicant is interested in siting a new home to the north of this stream on a small plateau. This would avoid the need for a 2^nd stream crossing and presumably provide for nice views to the northeast assuming some clearing is done. No mapped wetlands, mapped flood hazard areas, or prime agricultural soils pose any issues.

George Bedard explained that they were able to find soils suitable for a conventional septic system on the new lot as well as a replacement location for the existing septic system on the front lot. No cross easements have been used in the subdivision sketch plan. George said that a 5' flattened culvert would be placed under the new driveway at the stream crossing. Erosion control measures would also be used in this location. In addition, the applicant has staked the house location on the plateau to ensure that it will fit. The driveway is proposed to enter a garage through the home's side yard. George added that the irregular shape of the lots is due to the design being created without the use of cross easements. The 50' access strip on lot 2 will serve as the driveway location and the 100' x 285' proboscis on lot 1 gives lot 1 the adequate acreage for a home lot in this location. George said that driveway runoff would be minimal at the entrance to Hayden Hill Road East as the drive is relatively flat at this point, but that McCain Consulting will design any necessary measures to control runoff if needed.

Any clearing is intended to be minimal for purposes of the house site, driveway and septic locations. It is anticipated that any new owners will want to maintain the existing trees for privacy purposes.

In the staff report Alex pointed out that the driveway for lot 2 will be onto the class 4 section of Hayden Hill Road East which the town is not required to maintain. He suggested that the applicants require that the owners of lot 2 join the road association created by a previous subdivision on the other side of the road. The applicants were under the impression that the road classification had changed when the road was required to be widened by the previous applicants who created a subdivision on the other side of the road. Alex confirmed that the road had been widened, but that the classification had not changed. In addition, although the town currently plows up to the town forest, it is not required to plow past the section of road classified as class 3 which currently ends soon after the Minton/Jeffrey driveway. He suggested that the applicants could get more information about this arrangement from Jeanne Wilson.

Tom asked how large the stream setback will be from the proposed new house on lot 2. George B. said the setback is 75'. Ted asked about the building envelope and noted that it seemed to be quite tight. George B. said it is essentially a house location as there is not much wiggle room on the plateau. George B. distributed a proposed house footprint that he said would probably have a walkout basement. He also noted the two proposed well locations and explained that a dowser had visited the property and felt water could be found more readily at the well location sited by the engineer which falls to the side of the house, rather than the back location.

Greg asked why the 50' access strip was not 100' wide as dictated in section 2.4.7 Minimum Width and Depth Dimensions in the Zoning Regulations which reads: “No lot created after the date of adoption of this section (July 14, 1986) shall have a minimum width or depth dimension of less than 100 feet...” George B. explained that he was relying on section 5.7 of the Zoning Regulations which deals with access strips. He noted that in section 5.7.1.3 the regulations state that “Access strips shall be no less than fifty (50') feet in width and no wider than sixty (60') feet.”Alex said that access strip areas do not count towards lot size requirements and therefore if the access were 100' wide the lot would not meet the road frontage requirements. Greg said he did not think this was the case as section 5.7.1.1 reads “No land development may be permitted on lots which do not either have frontage on a public road (class I, II or III) or on public waters, or with the approval of the Development Review Board, access by means of a Class IV road or a permanent easement or a right-of-way on record at least fifty (50) feet in width.” Greg asked why an 100' access was not used. George B. explained that if the access were widened to 100' then lot 1 would need to lengthen the proboscis section even further to meet lot size requirements.

Greg explained that he did not feel access strips were allowable by rights to all developers and that the regulations state that the DRB must approve these means of access. Peter said the shapes would be more regularly shaped if easements were used instead of the access strip. George B. said this was not the case as the easement area could not count towards lot size requirements for lot 1 and therefore the proboscis would still need to exist to meet these requirements.

The board members then discussed whether a site visit would be necessary and helpful. After some discussion it was decided that a site visit was not necessary and that the subdivision would be treated as a minor 2-step process. Greg said he did not feel the access strip was a huge issue but he was wary of setting a precedent that access strips are rights of developers as opposed to being dependent on DRB approval. George Munson asked that the staff review the lot layout guidelines in the subdivision regulations to provide more feedback to the board about the irregular lot shapes. Ted added that he thought this would be an easier approval process if the lot lines followed the contours of the land more.

Tom MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan review to the March 21^st meeting and to direct staff to research lot layout guidelines in the interim. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Boutin Road – Applicants are Adam and Janice Provost

Adam Provost explained that he and Janice are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres, and is located on the west side of Boutin Road (existing house address is 78 Boutin Road); parcel #04-01-21.400. The parcel is currently developed with a single-family home as shown on the map. The lot was probably created before 1997, via the '3 free lots' provision of the Subdivision Regulations, which means there is no prior subdivision approval to consider. The applicant is interested in creating a new building lot on the western side of the lot. This new lot would be separated from the existing home and yard by an existing hedgerow (shrubs and small trees) that separates the field portion from the house and yard portion of the parcel.

Lot A, of the proposed subdivision, would be approximately 6.5 acres on the eastern side of the parcel, and would retain the existing house with direct access to Boutin Road via the existing driveway. This lot has a small stream in the extreme southwest corner that poses no issues. It also has a small forested hill on the northern side. Lot B would be the new building lot of approximately 3.5 acres on the western side of the parcel. This lot would share a portion of the existing driveway, and therefore, have access to Boutin Road via a right of way across lot A. Lot B appears to have few if any constraints – relatively flat to gentle terrain, no prime agricultural soil, no streams, no significant natural features. It may have a small class 3 wetland in the extreme northeast corner, and the field to the north of the property does drain along the hedgerow on the east side of lot B (not a stream).

Ted noted that there has been a long history regarding the dangerous intersection between Boutin Road and Shelburne Falls Road. Alex said that he talked to the road commissioner who said that nothing had changed at this location since 1993 when a letter was sent to the Hinesburg Town Administrator from the Transportation Technician with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The letter stated that “The sight distance looking west (along Shelburne Falls Road) is 277 feet and does not meet state standards for stopping sight distance, which is 455 feet at 45 mph and 6% grade.” However, the current road commissioner also did not think another residence on Boutin Road that would access Shelburne Falls Road at this location would be a problem. Ted said the intersection has a substandard site distance and did not think it was a good idea to add any more traffic to this area.

Greg asked if it was possible to add a driveway to the back lot given the house's septic system and replacement area locations. Adam said the septic tank is to the south of the home so this could be an issue. George M. said the applicant should determine the location of the septic system as well as a proposed drive to determine if the drive and septic can both fit in this area without interfering with one another. Tom asked if a building envelope location had been determined. Adam said they had not gotten that far in the planning process yet. Ted asked about the ROW on the map that passes through the List and Thibault properties to the north. Diane Boutin said it had been reserved by the Boutin's to access their lot immediately to the north of the Provost's, but that no home exists on that lot at this time.

Tom opened the meeting to the public.

Dan Needham asked for clarification about how the easement process occurs. Alex explained that this is an agreement determined by the landowners and does not involve the DRB. He said that ROW's are 50' wide and the board usually asks the applicant to submit legal language regarding how the road will be shared and maintained. Alex then asked the board to give Adam some feedback on his access options.

Ted said that he would not approve access onto Boutin Road due to the dangerous intersection with Shelburne Falls Road. He said if the access were in another location or if the intersection were moved 200' to the east on Shelburne Falls Road he would feel comfortable approving the access. Greg noted that the septic system may be a deciding factor for the access issue. He suggested that moving an existing septic system as well as having another new system designed as well as secondary site locations found could be more costly than getting an easement through a neighboring property.

Ted felt the sketch plan needed a workable access point in order for the application to proceed. Alex summarized that access options included: 1. Moving the intersection onto Shelburne Falls Road to the east 200' or 2. working with neighbors to the north to secure a ROW easement through their properties. Greg suggested that Adam withdraw the application without prejudice to take the time to work through these issues before proceeding. Ted agreed that this was the best course of action for the applicant and that it would not impose any time restrictions either. Adam said he would like to withdraw his sketch plan application in order to resolve the access issue.

Conditional Use Review – Birchwood Drive – Applicants are Michael and Patricia Whitney

Patricia Whitney explained that she would like to open a pet grooming business in her home. She said that her hours of operation would be Tuesday – Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Patricia explained that she could foresee potentially hiring one other part time employee at the most. 4 – 5 pets will be the maximum number of pets that she will groom in any given day and parking will be limited to a drop-off/pick-up basis. There will be no boarding on the premises and dogs will be walked on leashes if/when they need to go outside. The home is currently on town water and has a septic system. Patricia intends to use natural shampoos and the water is filtered twice before it enters the septic system. She also said that they plan to improve the driveway to accommodate the extra vehicles.

Greg asked Patricia to clarify the driveway improvements they intend to complete. Patricia said they want to widen the parking area at the house level to allow extra room for cars to turnaround and exit. There is currently room for 3 cars to park in front of the house with extra space on either side of the cars. She would like to provide 4 parking spaces and remove an existing raised flower bed to provide more room. Patricia noted that their driveway crosses David and Monica Rondeau's property on a ROW. The Rondeau's did not have any problem with the business or any improvements that may need to take place on the driveway. Greg noted that the deed language regarding the ROW may limit the ROW for residential usage. He said that this might not be an issue now, but that the applicants should be aware that if this is the case the future of their business may be affected by the neighbor's (current and future) wishes.

Patricia said she would like to have a 2' by 2' sign on her mailbox and asked if it is possible to post signs along the road in advance of the business. Alex said Patricia should talk with Jeanne Wilson about this process. He added that she would also need to get individual landowners' permission to post a sign on their land along the road even if it is in the ROW owned by the town.

Greg asked what the driveway looks like now. Patricia said it is 90' long from Birchwood drive but she did not have the other dimensions. There is currently room to park at least 3 cars in front of the home and there is no driveway access to the barn. Ted said the applicant needs to make sure that there is room for 3 or 4 cars to park, turnaround and get out of the driveway easily. Lisa asked if the applicants will be asking for any additional exterior lighting. Patricia said she would like to have a lantern-like light at the entrance of the driveway to help customers see her location. Tom said Patricia should make sure that any lights chosen are downcast and do not project light onto any neighboring properties. Peter added that the business sign cannot be illuminated. He also said that he will advise the applicant of any necessary state permits for this in-home business as well.

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the March 7 meeting and direct staff to draft conditions of approval and work with the applicant on a proposed driveway sketch. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Site Plan Review – Travias Restaurant – Ballards Corner Road – Applicant is Bob Mellion

Bob Mellion, the owner of Travias Restaurant, explained that he is applying to review an existing site plan, last amended in 1982. Certain conditions of this permit were never completed, despite warnings about violations. In March of 2001 the applicant, along with his lawyer Joe Fallon, met with the Planning Commission for an informal discussion about the situation. No application was forthcoming however, nor was a violation actively pursued. At that time the lack of clarity about the status of these violations hindered a sale of the property and the applicant is coming at this time to put closure to the matter. The previous approvals are in the packet. Since some of the uses as well as other factors that existed previously have changed, it might be best to consider a new site plan approval, incorporating in it any conditions of the previous permits that still are applicable, along with any appropriate additional conditions which would apply to the current situation.

Ted asked how many seats the applicant is proposing. Bob said he is proposing to have 50 seats with 24 parking spots. He said that the restaurant was originally set up as a 55 seat restaurant with 40 spaces.

Greg asked staff if he was correct in the understanding that any new owner will need to get a new conditional use approval for the restaurant. Alex said that restaurants in the commercial district require conditional use permits.

Bob said that the restaurant currently has 45 seats and that he does not use the downstairs for seating. Peter noted that the board has the ability to waive the parking regulations downward, but that if the business is sold, there may be parking issues since there is room for more seats in the restaurant. He added that lighting and landscaping are not an issue in this site plan. Peter recommended that the board approve the site plan for a certain number of seats and parking spaces. He also said that Bob has access to an overflow parking area on Bruce Metz's property. Bob said he has never had a problem with parking in the 28 years that he has been in this location. Alex said that based on the number of seats proposed (50), and the one employee (the owner), the restaurant needs 26 parking spots according to the zoning standards. Bob said that he has no employees, however there is a requirement of 1 space for each employee which may affect any new owners.

Tom said that the site plan in 1980 referenced the driveway/parking area being either paved or filled with crushed white stone; he asked if this guideline had been followed. Bob said that he has replaced the crushed white stones every year. Peter said that the dumpster is hidden and not noticeable to traffic driving by. He added that parking spaces need to be 9' x 18' in size.

Ted said that in 1998 an applicant stated that the restaurant had 50 spaces. Bob said that had been a previous potential buyer that had not bought the property and should not have approached the board. He explained that the new buyer wishes to keep the business at the same size it is now. He also said that deliveries and trash pickup take place when the business is not open. Ted asked if there would be room to increase the number of spaces if someone wanted to. Bob said that there is space along the drive to change the parallel spaces to angle spaces to provide more parking spots.

Greg said he thought the board needed to see a sketch to scale of the parking area with an adequate number of spaces. He then asked about the trail issue. Peter explained that there is no trail in existence in this area but that the trails committee is looking for a connection from the library to Geprag Park. Greg said he thought the trails committee should request easements as the program progresses but that he did not feel comfortable requesting an easement from the applicant at this time. Clint agreed with Greg. George added that he didn't think it was a good idea to have a recreational path pass so close by a bar. Bob said he felt a trail access here could raise parking issues and encourage vandalism and break-ins into his business. George said he felt the trails committee should pursue easements. Bob added that there are wetlands behind the business which might not make for a great trail location.

Peter said he thought Bob would need to provide a parking area sketch to scale to determine the accurate number of spaces available. Bob added that he has a formal agreement with Bruce Metz regarding the parking arrangement and that the agreement goes with the restaurant with the understanding that Bruce be held harmless for anything that happens on his property after hours. George asked that the applicant provide a scaled parking sketch, a copy of the easement with Bruce Metz and the number of spaces that the easement allows.

Tom MOVED to continue the Site Plan Review to the March 21 meeting and direct staff to work with the applicant on a site plan to scale with an accurate number of parking spaces, and securing a copy of the easement with the Metz property. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Lisa Godfrey and Robert Gauthier left the meeting at this point. Since they had not attended the meetings where all other business had been discussed, they would not be able to vote on these matters.

Other Business:

7-lot Subdivision – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Raymond Ayer

George MOVED to approve the written decision as written (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

2-lot Subdivision – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Inez French

Peter said that Order #3 would be removed as it is redundant.

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

9-lot, 6-unit Subdivision and PRD – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Vermont Building Resources and Russell Family Trust

Greg asked that a grammatical error be corrected. Ted said he felt the ROW on the 116 side of the development needed to be 50' wide, instead of the proposed 30' width. Clint asked if the applicant had received approval from the select board regarding the waiver on the road radius. Alex said they had received approval. Greg asked that a reference be added regarding the applicant's intention to use solar and other alternative energy sources as a finding of fact.

Ted asked that language be added that addresses how the remaining land will be relinquished as a part of open land on lot 9 when a maximum of two additional building lots may be added to lot 9. Peter said he would add wording to this affect in finding of fact #9, and conclusion #5.

Greg MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as amended. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with George abstaining.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary