TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

March 7, 2006

Approved March 21, 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), Rad Romeyn, Jeff Padgett, Jeremy Farkas, Raymond Ayer, Ruth Ayer, Michael Whitney, Patricia Whitney, John Mead, Nick Nowlan, David Brown, David Twombly.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of February 21, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the February 21, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Request for Continuation of Conditional Use Hearing

Jeff and Jean Davis requested that their conditional use hearing be continued to the March 21 meeting. The conditional use is a request to convert a camp on Shadow Lane into a year-round residence.

Greg MOVED to continue the Conditional Use hearing for Jeff and Jean Davis to the March 21 meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

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

**continued from February 21 meeting**

Patricia distributed a photograph of the proposed 'bump out' location on the driveway to give clients an easy turn around spot. The bump out is 10' x 20' in size and Patricia said that they had tested the location with their Xterra SUV which has a low turn around radius.

Greg asked the applicants if they had researched their deed to see whether the ROW across their neighbor's property designated use for specific purposes. Patricia said that they had spoken with the neighbors and they had no objection to their use of the ROW for the pet grooming business as well as residential use. Peter said that the deed appeared to be unrestricted based on his research.

Patricia said that they intend to mark the parking spaces and the turnaround so that people do not park in the turnaround space. She said she was also researching lights to use on the home. Peter said he did not think lights on the house would be an issue as it is not really visible from anywhere. Tom mentioned that Patricia had said the water would be filtered twice before entering the sewer system and that he did not see this information in the Order section of the draft approval. Alex said it was listed as Finding of Fact #14. Peter said he would update Finding of Fact #13 to reflect the fact that the research has taken place and that the ROW appears to be unencumbered for business purposes. Greg asked that Order #2 be removed now that the driveway design had been submitted and that the driveway improvements discussed be added to the Order instead.

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

Alex suggested that the board might wish to allow Patricia to open her business before the driveway improvements are completed since the roads will still be posted for some time and she indicated that she would like to open her business on May 1. Ted suggested that information be added to the order which would outline the driveway work to be completed and indicate that all driveway improvements must be completed by June 30.

Tom MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Variance for Telephone Cabinet Replacement – Corner of Baldwin and Drinkwater Road – Applicant is Waitsfield-Fayston Telephone Company

Waitsfield-Fayston Telephone Company (Waitsfield Telecom) is requesting a front yard setback variance to replace an existing telephone utility cabinet on the corner of Baldwin and Drinkwater Roads in the Agricultural Zoning District. The property in question is owned by Peter Baldwin; parcel #11-01-05.000. The applicant's existing cabinet is approximately 24' from the Drinkwater Road center line. The applicant proposes to replace this with a new cabinet slightly to the west, which will be approximately 28' from the Drinkwater Road center line. The applicant proposes to install a 6' x 8' concrete pad with a 24” x 28” x 55” utility cabinet on top (see diagram and photo). The proposed structure is so small that it does not require a zoning permit; however, it still requires a variance pursuant to section 2.5.3 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant proposes to provide evergreen screening to mitigate any visual impact. The front yard setback requirement is 60', and the applicant has requested this requirement be reduced to 28'.

Greg said that he was concerned that the Planning Commission had not yet addressed this issue in the zoning regulations and explained that he felt utility cabinets should be treated like utility poles and be exempt from meeting setback zoning requirements. Alex said he would bring this to the Planning Commission's attention. Greg said he did not have any problem with the concept of the location of these cabinets, but he had a hard time finding all variance criteria in the affirmative when the cabinet could be relocated to meet front yard setback requirements; albeit into a field that is regularly harvested. Lisa asked Alex how long he thought it would take the Planning Commission to fix this issue in the zoning regulations. Alex explained that the Planning Commission is currently working on re-zoning and would probably not get to this issue until the Fall.

Greg asked David Twombly what the structure does. David said it will provide better DSL speeds. The cabinet is constructed to accept direct fiber feeds instead of copper feeds. However, feeds from the cabinet to homes will remain copper. Greg asked if David was aware of how many comparable cabinets will be replaced in Hinesburg this year. David said he did not have this information on hand and would need to speak with his company to get this data.

Lisa asked if he cabinet could be moved back to where the anchor is located so that the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief. David did not think this would be a problem. The anchor is currently 32' back from the center of Drinkwater Road. George asked why the pad is larger than the cabinet. David said the pad is used to mount the cabinet. Tom asked what color the cabinet will be. David said it would be light green.

Tom reviewed the five facts need to grant a variance pursuant to VT State Statute, Title 24, Chapter 117, Section 4469. The board voted unanimously in the affirmative for all five criteria.

Tom MOVED to grant a 32' front yard setback variance to Waitsfield/Fayston Telephone Company for a telephone cabinet. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Greg MOVED to unanimously request that the Planning Commission amend the structure definition in the zoning regulations to exclude utility cabinets. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Site Plan Review – Hart & Mead Inc. - Applicants are Douglas and John Mead

John Mead explained that this application is for a revision to a site plan permit first granted by the Planning Commission in 1993 and revised in 1997 for two previous fuel storage tanks and more recently for the replacement of the Texaco sign with one for Mobile. This application is for the installation of an above ground BioDiesel tank to be located on the north eastern corner of the existing service station. At present the main customers will be school buses although in the future more diesel vehicles may use this fuel.

Lisa asked what percentage the BioDiesel will be. John said it will be 20%B. Tom asked if the BioDiesel goes through the regular distribution channels. John said it does and that a minimum tank size of 1200 – 1500 gallons is needed. They have selected a 2000 gallon tank which will allow a buffer to accommodate for delivery time.

Greg asked if buses will access the tank through the entrance near the car wash. John said buses will enter the area the same way they do now. The entrance near the car wash accommodates two-way traffic and there is plenty of space for two buses to meet here.

Tom asked if there are state safety standards for the tanks. John said that posts are required to protect the tank from being hit by a vehicle. Tom asked what color the tank will be. John said it will be a grey primer color. Greg asked if any state or federal permits are required for the BioDiesel tank. John said that no state or federal permits are required but that the tank will need to meet their subsequent inspection standards. Greg asked which tanks are being removed. He was referring to the photograph included in the application packet which showed two tanks in the location where the BioDiesel tank is to be installed. John explained that those tanks were merchandise to be sold that had just been temporarily unloaded in this location.

Greg asked if there were standards to follow in regards to mounting the tank. John said the tank would be a skid-mounted tank on a level poured pad. Ted asked where the tank will be located on the property. John said it would be towards the back as noted in the picture.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the site plan. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

6-Unit, 6-Lot Subdivision/PRD Final Plat Review – Route 116 – Applicant is Marilyn D. Crimmins

Nick Nowlan explained that Marilyn Crimmins is seeking Final Plat approval for a 6-unit, 6-lot Major subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Agricultural (AG) Zone to the west of Route 116 opposite the junction of North Road. This approval will also be for Development of a private Right of Way. This proposal received Sketch Plan Approval on 12/14/2004, extended by the DRB for another six months on May 17, 2005 and subsequently preliminary approval on November 22, 2005.

Nick noted that the following changes had taken place since the preliminary plat review: combined the open space lot with lot 5, outlined the control of the open space in the covenants, widened the connection between lot 5 and the open space to meet the 100' lot width requirement, and adjusted the size of lot 6 to maintain the necessary percentages. He added that all well shield protection zones had been moved onto the property and that the building envelopes had been defined.

Peter asked if the building envelopes on lots 2 and 3 had been changed. Nick said they had and that all envelopes will meet all required setbacks. He then addressed Peter's concern as outlined in the staff report regarding the fact that the '...Declarent expressly reserves the right to develop her remaining land in any fashion permitted by law.' Nick explained that he hoped the DRB would have faith in future DRB members to uphold their concept of the 'open space'. He added that the covenants are written in such a way that if the zoning regulations change the owner would be allowed to pursue more development on the open space, but that the owner would obviously need to make this request before the DRB.

Ted was also very concerned with this wording and the concept of possible future development on land which has been reserved as open space as a 'trade-off' for a higher density subdivision. He did not feel it was fair to the other landowners in the PRD who had bought their land with the understanding that the open space would remain undeveloped. Greg agreed with Ted and said he felt that this would be a misuse of the current guidelines and that the board should find away to protect the other landowners from this type of situation.

Alex said that he felt the rights of the other property owners is dependent on the purpose of the open space. If the open space is designed as a recreation area for the other lot owners or greater outdoors space to accommodate for smaller yards created by a higher density PRD, then the other lot owners should have rights to the land. If, however, the space has no specific designated usage for the other lot owners, then they have no rights to the open space. Nick noted that the number of lots in this PRD is the maximum allowable amount given current zoning regulations. He added that the leach field and the road use up a great deal of space.

Ted said he wants the other lots to have rights to the open space regardless of the designated purpose of the space. He felt this issue was more easily handled by open space in PRD's where there is joint ownership of the land but that PRD's with open space owned by one lot owner could become problematic in regards to future possible development. Greg suggested that a condition be added to the covenants that does not allow the owner of lot 5 to propose any structure on the open space unless all other property owners in the PRD agree that this is acceptable.

Nick said that he will be meeting with the Select Board on March 20^th to request a road radius waiver since the designed radius is 125'. He asked if the board had an issue with a road width of 16' with two 1' shoulders. Alex said the current road standards rely on the number of trips per day to determine road widths but that the DRB has the ability to waive these guidelines. Based on the trips per day for 6 homes, a 24' road width would be required. He noted that for 5 homes the width drops to 20'. Ted said he thought a traveled road width of 18' was acceptable but he made it clear that the road should be 18' with whatever shoulder sizes are deemed necessary in addition to the 18' traveled width.

Nick then submitted the bylaws which addressed the road association. He explained that he had just received the bylaws today and hadn't had a chance to submit them prior to the meeting. He thought that a lot of the legal issues as outlined in Peter's staff report will be resolved based on the bylaws.

Clint asked where the power enters the development. Nick explained that power will enter across the road (overhead) and will then be underground for all remaining lines. Clint asked why it will not go under the road. Nick said that it is very difficult to get approval to dig up a state road for this purpose.

George asked if the legal language includes information about maintenance of the sewer system. Peter said he had reviewed the documents thoroughly and that the only issues he found were those raised in the staff report.

Tom asked if a list of waivers had been submitted. Peter said he thought he had them all from the applicant. Nick said that they will be requesting waivers for lot sizes, and minimum road frontage on all lots except lot 1. He added that the force main issue addressed in the staff report is clarified in the covenants and that the remaining issues from preliminary plat review seemed to be covenant related.

Greg said it sounded like the applicant just needed a lawyer to finalize the covenants and submit them to Peter for final review. Peter said he didn't see any reason why this couldn't be completed and ready for the April 4 meeting. Greg added that he would like to specifically review the no-build covenant at the April 4 meeting. He asked that this covenant state that no structures as defined in the zoning regulations be constructed in the designated open space without the unanimous agreement of all other lot owners in the PRD.

Tom MOVED to continue the final plat review for the Crimmins subdivision to the April 4 meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

6-Lot Subdivision Preliminary Plat – Hollow Road – Applicant is Rad Romeyn

Jeff Padgett explained that Vineyard Harbor LLC is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of a 6-lot subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The proposal also includes a minor boundary line adjustment with the Ronald Abbey parcel to the east. The subject parcel is approximately 23 acres, and is located on the north side of Hollow Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the VT Route 116 intersection; parcel #13-01-04.100. The subject parcel is a portion of land owned by the Abbey family trust, who also owns 3 other nearby or adjacent parcels: Parcel #1, south side of Hollow Road; Parcel #3, east of the subject parcel and separated from it by land owned by Ronald Abbey; Parcel #4, a landlocked parcel to the northeast. This portion of the Hollow Road is quite different from what leads up to it from the west (from Route 116). The view scape opens up substantially here, allowing expansive views of the dramatic topography, including rocky ledges and forested slopes as well as a large wetland complex around Hollow Brook and the agricultural fields on the subject property. The parcel is currently developed with the original farmhouse and a number of barns and outbuildings, all clustered on the southwest side of the lot. The rest of the parcel is primarily open field, with few trees on the west side, but more located along a short, steep hillside that occupies the eastern half of the lot's frontage along Hollow Road.

The applicant proposes to cluster the development on the western side of the parcel. Lots 1 – 4 and 6 will range from 1.1 to 3.3 acres, while lot 5 will retain the 13 acres of primarily open field on the western side of the parcel. The required open space for this PRD (minimum of 25% or 5.85 acres) will be provided on lot 5, in the area noted as 'Open Space' on the preliminary plat (approximately 11.5 acres, including Carse and utility easements). A community septic system location is envisioned on the rear portion of lot 3. Lot 3 will also retain the existing farmhouse, which the applicant plans to restore to serve as a focal point for the development. Lot 3 will be served by the existing driveway off of Hollow Road. The other 5 lots will be served from a new private road that will access Hollow Road via an existing farm access just to the east of the farmhouse.

Alex distributed a letter written by Joseph Fallon on behalf of Henry Carse in regards to well shields and septic encroachments onto the Carse property. It stated that this was unacceptable to Mr. Carse and that no agreement had be made in regards to this issue.

Jeff Padgett explained that several changes had occurred since they had been before the board requesting sketch plan approval. Erosion control and stormwater management plans had been added to the plan even though they are not required by the state for a development of this size. Jeff explained that a network of swales would be used to increase infiltration. He used hydrologic models to design this drainage system. Ted asked what happens during the winter when the ground is frozen and infiltration cannot happen. Jeff said that the area will drain into the flood plain when infiltration does not occur.

Jeff said that the wastewater system had been designed but they had not yet submitted it for state approval pending any changes that might occur at the preliminary plat stage.

Greg noted that the well shields would be an issue if they extend onto the Carse property as the DRB does not approve development that encumbers a neighboring property. Jeff said they would reconfigure the well locations to ensure that the well shield protection zones all fall on their property. It was noted that a 15' deep shallow well is located on the property with a well shield protection zone that extends onto the Carse property. Jeff said that they will drill a new well to replace the dug well. Ted said that easements may need to be granted between lots to fit the well shield protection zones entirely on this property.

Greg asked if the applicant was familiar with the water supply in this area. Jeff said he had not yet checked on this but would review the state database for surrounding areas' well information.

Greg asked if the agreement reached with Henry Carse regarding access had been settled. Jeremy Farkas said that both parties had agreed to the access as outlined on the map. Greg asked if the access followed the contours of the land. Jeff said it did, and that this is the reason for it's curved shape. Greg asked if the Select Board would have an issue with Henry's access. Rad said that he already has an existing road cut for this access. Jeff added that Henry had noted it would probably be some time before he would harvest this area.

Jeff said that he had used tie-points for each building envelope to allow Peter to find the exact location of the envelopes using another known point on the property.

Jeff then asked for feedback from the board regarding the road width design on the plan. He explained that the road had been designed to be 20' wide for the first 230' up to the first driveway cut for lot 4 and that the road will then narrow to 14' in width. Alex suggested that a more appropriate place to narrow the road might be at the T-intersection at the top of the drive. Ted added that he felt 18' would be an acceptable road width to the T-intersection. Greg asked how the road will connect onto Hollow Brook Road. Jeff said that the road will flare out at the entrance with a 10' – 15' radius on either side of the drive.

Clint asked about the pull-off mentioned in the staff report for lot 5's driveway. Jeff said he had no opposition to a pull off on the drive. Alex said his concern was to make the driveway wide enough in one area so that two emergency vehicles could pass each other. He thought this might make sense since it is such a long driveway. Ted said he didn't think the length of this driveway warranted a pull-off. Jeff said that a pull-off would be possible but that it's construction would cause other slope issues since the driveway cuts across slope. George said he didn't think a pull off was necessary for a 350' driveway. Greg asked if a pull-off or turn around was necessary for the other half of the development. Peter suggested that the fire chief should be consulted to receive his input.

Jeff explained that the irregularity of lot 3's shape allowed the ability for there to be a single easement on lot 3. A different design would encumber both lot 3 and lot 6 with easements. Ted said he understood this concept, but that the DRB tries to create lots with usable land and that he did not feel lot 3 would have as easy access to this land as lot 6. Alex agreed that lot 6 would be more likely to use the area with the septic easement. After some discussion it was determined that it would not be that difficult to add the land to lot 6 and that the applicant would comply with the board's request regarding this issue.

Rad addressed the architectural design standards that he had submitted. He explained that this is a little bit difficult to address since there are no specific zoning regulations for architectural guidelines. He hoped to figure out a way to make these requirements clear to homeowners. Ted asked if a size had been proposed for these homes. Rad said he would like to use a 1 ½ story gabled barn concept similar to the designs he had previously submitted to the board. Rad asked the board for guidance regarding a method for making the standard agreeable and enforceable. Greg said that some covenants submitted by the applicant may be added as conditions of approval based on the board's discretion. He added that it is not unheard of to incorporate design standards into conditions of approval. Ted clarified that the architectural considerations are treated as submissions by the applicant to address issues with compatibility with surroundings and may then be added as conditions of approval by the board if they so choose.

Rad asked what criteria is most sensitive to the board. Greg said the size of the homes' footprints, and height above natural grades have been of concern in other subdivisions. Rad said they would be amenable to limiting the height of the structures so that they are tucked into the lay of the land. He noted that lot 6 has tighter contours than the other lots which might make a height requirement more difficult to follow given possible needs for fill. He asked if criteria could be defined for each separate lot. It was the board's general consensus that criteria could be submitted for each individual lot.

Tom asked Peter for clarification regarding how height of a building is determined. Peter said the average height above grade is used. He added that any alteration to the height limits in the zoning regulations should be discussed now to eliminate any future delays.

Ted asked if the covenants address the benefits to lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of having the open space on lot 5 and their rights and expections in regards to the open space remaining undeveloped. Jeremy said this is covered in the 1^st declaration and that the open space is expected to remain open in perpetuity.

Rad asked if the owner of lot 5 could construct a horse barn on his lot. Peter said the barn could be constructed on the area of lot 5 that is NOT designated as open space.

Tom asked if the applicant would be willing to superimpose an image of the proposed development over a digital photo of the hillside. He explained that a previous applicant had done this and it had really helped the board to visualize the impact on the hillside. Rad said he thought this would be possible.

Greg noted that the approval of sketch plan had been a close vote and that the board had been divided on the number of acceptable lots in this PRD. He explained that if he had been in attendance for the vote, he would not have approved the design for sketch plan. He asked if the other board members were still content with their previous decisions to approve before the application proceeds. Jeremy said that the board was bound to act in accordance with their previous decision. Greg said he understood this, but that conditions will still need to be met and followed. Jeremy said that they were aware conditions were imposed but that the board had already approved the concept and could not retract the approval at this point for the number of lots. Rad said that they were trying to work collaboratively with the board and hoped the process could continue on in this manner.

Tom MOVED to continue the Preliminary Plat Review for Hollow Brook to the April 4 meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Lisa asked that Jeff bring the modeling used for the swales and watershed sizes. Jeff said he would summarize this information onto a single sheet that would be distributed to the board.

Other Business:

Conditional Use Extension for Jared Stolper

Tom MOVED to extend Jared Stolper's conditional use permit for one year. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Building Permit Denial for David Brown

Peter explained that he had denied a building permit request submitted by David Brown because it did not meet the conditions issued for the conditional use permit. The conditional use permit had been issued because David was requesting to increase the size of a non-complying structure. Order #1 indicated that the addition will be constructed in accordance with plans labeled as final submission. Peter said that the design was not the same and that the following changes were noted: the setback from the road is greater, the roof elevation was not the same as proposed, the slope of the driveway had improved, and the footprint was different than proposed. The board recalled that two major issues of this application had been the impact on the swale in the side yard. The side yard setback from the swale did not change. In addition the area of non-compliance (front yard setback) had been increased based on this design.

George said he would like to see the minutes and the wording of the approval to decide if the new design affected any areas of concern that had been discussed. Tom said he felt the design was an improvement over the original plan. Tom, Robert and Ted all said they were comfortable with the new plan. David said he would be happy to ask his neighbors to submit letters of their approval for this design.

Ted MOVED to find the design generally in conformance with the plan presented for conditional use approval. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 1 – 2 with Tom, Robert, Lisa and Greg voting in the affirmative, George voting opposed, and Clint and Greg abstaining.

Request for Sketch Plan Approval Extension – Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

Greg MOVED to grant a 6 month sketch plan extension to Mike and Meri Charney. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

PRD Open Space Issue

George said he was very concerned with the discussion about future development on open space. He asked that the staff review PRDs in progress to make sure that in situations where the open space's ownership is retained by one owner, the rights of the other lot owners is taken into consideration in regards to future development on this space.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary