TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

March 21, 2006

Approved April 4, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Jeff Davis, Jean Davis, Ray Denault (Twin State Signs), George Bedard, Berthann Mulieri, Minton Jeffrey, Tate Jeffrey, Lance G. McKee, Eric Perry.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of March 7, 2006 Meeting:

Clint MOVED to approve the March 7, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Camp Conversion – Shadow Lane – Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

**continued from January 17 meeting.**

Jeff reviewed the issues that were addressed at the previous meeting as well as the report submitted by Michael Weisel, P.E. in regards to Shadow Lane. He added that St. Michaels' has now also stated that they would provide emergency service to Shadow Lane. Alex clarified that a new letter had been submitted by St. Michaels. Ted asked if they would go down the hill to provide service. Alex said they would, except in the case of inclement weather or in a situation where the ambulance could not safely get down the lane, in which case they would find another means to get down to the person needing assistance. It was Alex's impression that they do not deny service anywhere.

Jeff explained that there are 9 current year-round residences on Shadow Lane and an additional 5 residences (including his own) which could possibly be converted if they were able to meet all conversion requirements. He noted that Michael Weisel's report seemed to support another year-round residence and read a section of the report which stated: “Shadow Lane is currently used for year-round access to multiple homes and has not caused undo problems or been the site of excessive collisions, so it would seem to me that with proper maintenance and upkeep, it could withstand the addition of another year-round dwelling.”

Ted said that he was very concerned about allowing increased use on a substandard road. As also noted in the report the road is 12' in width with grades ranging from 9 – 22% over the length of the drive. At this point Jeff distributed a sheet which listed the grades and widths of several roads in Hinesburg as measured by the applicant. He noted that the board had just approved three new residences on Bissonette Lane which (according to his measurements) is 13' – 14' wide and has a grade between 18 – 19%. Alex noted that the grades listed on Jeff's sheet were not entirely accurate since the entrance to 116 from Bissonette Lane is relatively flat. He added that the applicants had requested a grade waiver from the Select Board and received it since it was an existing road. In addition, the applicants were required to widen the road. He added that he had measured Postiche Lane recently for another application and had found it to be 18' wide and fairly flat as it enters onto 116. George added that no development has occurred on Lavigne Hill Road so it was not a good comparison to this situation and that he felt the discussion should focus on Shadow Lane.

Lisa said she was concerned about the precedent that this conversion, if allowed, would set. There could potentially be four more year-round residences allowed on the road which the board members agree is substandard. She questioned the validity of the road standards if they are not followed. Jeff said that he was not requesting any additional development and that he just wished to live in the camp 5 more months out of the year. He added that other potential camp conversions in the future would need to stand on their own merit.

Tom asked if a formal Homeowners association exists to control the maintenance of the road. Jeff stated that there is a record on file in the town clerk's office that has proved satisfactory during numerous title searches for past property sales. He added that he had spoken with his attorney regardng this issue who had informed him that it is a Vermont state law that any person living on a private shared road is required to share maintenance of the road. He referenced section 4.4.1.2 of the zoning regulations regarding Development on a Private Right of Way or Class IV Town Road which states “Legal language for deed that addresses the method for sharing the maintenance, repair, and snow plowing of the common portion of the road.“ He said that the document on file in the town clerk's office meets this requirement. The informal association meets once a year, collects dues and was developed over 15 years ago.

Peter said that he was not sure that the number of year round residences as stated by Jeff (9) are all actually within regulations to be year-round residences. George said that whatever decision is made tonight should allow the other homeowners who wish to convert their camps the same capability to convert.

Ted said that the documentation regarding the informal association were guidelines and not a maintenance agreement. Alex asked if the document was recorded in the land records. Ted said that he felt a formal homeowner's association should be created to allow individual homeowners some official method of recourse if disagreements between homeowners occur. Otherwise the homeowners only recourse is to sue the other property owners.

Jeff said that the speed limit on the road is very low (15 mph) and is policed by the individual homeowners. He added that there are 15 driveways along Shadow Lane with an average width of 30 – 31' which allow vehicles to pull off the lane if they meet another vehicle. It averages out to a driveway for every 75'.

Tom said he would feel much more comfortable if there were an official road assocation in place to maintain the road. He added that it might be an incentive for the remaining seasonal camp owners who may wish to convert to year-round residences. Jeff said he did not understand the advantage of creating an official road association. He said it was in the interest of all of the homeowners to keep the road maintained so that they can safely access their properties. He added that year-round residents pay more than seasonal owners for road maintenance.

Lisa explained that the board relys on something legally binding to ensure that road maintenance will take place. The board can't rely on the good nature of the homeowners to willingly comply with a non-binding agreement. Properties will eventually change hands and the board has no way of ensuring that all the homeowners will continue to willingly participate in an association that does not legally exist. Lisa said she was still concerned by the width of the road, the grade at the access onto Pond Road and the lack of an official road association.

Jeff said that there is no opportunity to widen the road as there just isn't room to do so. He said that there is a legal document on file regarding the unofficial association and that the document is reinforced by state law. He also added that this agreement satisfies section 4.4.1.2 of the zoning regulations (see previous reference in minutes).

George asked if the language regarding the unofficial association is filed in the properties' deeds. He said all nine year-round residences would need to have this documentation in their deeds in order for the association to be enforced. Alex added that the document itself states that it is not binding.

Berthann Mulieri, a resident of Shadow Lane, asked how the residents decide how much they are going to spend on the road. She asked what recourse she has if some homeowners decide that a great deal of money should be spent on repairs and then other homeowners are unable to pay that amount. She said she assumed that there was no recourse if someone decided not to pay their share.

Jamie Carroll, also a resident of Shadow Lane, said that the board seemed to be speaking in the hypothetical and that it seemed if people were investing money in their residences on Shadow Lane they would be more than willing to make sure that the road is well-maintained. He said that the maintenance of the road has only improved since he purchased his camp. Lisa said that proper maintenance of the road is essential for emergency access. To ensure that the road is maintained adequately she felt the board would need to see a legally binding road association agreement. Jamie asked at what point the town would step in if the road started to fail. Alex explained that the town would not be responsible for policing the maintenance of Shadow Lane and that therefore it is the DRB's job to ensure that new development meets community standards for safety. Having a homeowners association would give the individual homeowners on Shadow Lane a single entity to address if there is an issue with the maintenance of the road as opposed to having to discuss the issue with all of the other homeowners. He noted that there have been issues with other private roads in Hinesburg where some landowners do not pay their share of road maintenance and that when there is not a legally binding homeowners association in place it can quickly become a very frustrating and difficult task for the contributing homewoners to resolve. The association would allow homeowners a means of recourse for situations like this.

Peter noted that if residents of Shadow Lane wish to be able to receive town services such as emergency vehicle access, the road should be maintained to meet the standards of town roads. He felt it was important that the safety of rescue workers be taken into account and that the extra danger presented by accessing a substandard road in a large emergency vehicle should be considered. Jamie said that he has served as a volunteer EMT in the past and with that background he was well aware that individuals in that field will make every attempt to get to a person in need of help regardless of the state of the road.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and to take up the discussion in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Jeff asked if he could get an idea of the position of the board. Ted said that he felt it was unwarrented to approve the camp conversion due to the substandard road conditions. Clint said he agreed with Ted. Jeff noted that the it might be possible to change the grade of the upper portion of the road to 14.5 – 15% grade.

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

**continued from February 21 meeting.**

George Bedard presented on behalf of Michael and Minton. He said that based on the explanation in Alex's Memorandum which clarified the usage of access strips, he was under the impression that this was no longer an issue. Alex said it was unusual in regards to the regulations, but that he did not see any concerns with its usage in this manner. George B. added that there were no grade issues on the access strip.

George B. went on to explain that the layout of the lots had been designed in such a way to allow for the appropriate amount of acreage without using cross-easements. However, Michael and Minton had indicated that they would be amenable to altering the lot line to follow the natural contours of the land and use cross easements if they were necessary based on this lot line alteration if it would appease the board. Tom noted that the subdivision would be reviewed using a two-step process.

Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval for the sketch plan. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Lisa asked if the conditions of approval will include the alteration of the lot line to follow the natural contours of the land. Alex said there were two options he could use. He could either lay out the lot line specifically or use language to allow the landowners to be creative given the board's request to follow the contours. Lisa thought it would be fine to allow the applicants to use their own creativity when determining the lot line location. Peter asked if a building envelope had been indicated on the map. George B. said it had not been, but the location had been discussed. He said he could indicate a building envelope location at final review. Ted asked that conditions of approval for the sketch plan include issues regarding the irregular lot shape, plans for storm water treatment and the location of the building envelope and clearing limits.

Site Plan Review/Review Draft Decision - Travias Restaurant – Applicant is Bob Mellion

**continued from February 21 meeting.**

Bob said that with Peter's assistance he had determined that there was space for 24 total parking spaces. Using this number he was proposing that the restaurant be approved for 40 seats which would leave 4 parking spaces for employee parking. Peter noted that although the sketch may appear rough, it is drawn to scale. He added that he had attempted to address all previous issues in his draft decision. The parking spaces on Bruce Metz's property were not included in the 24 total spaces.

Ted asked that the seating limitation based on 20 customer parking spaces and 4 employee spaces be indicated as Order #9.

Ted MOVED to approve the review draft decision (approval) as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Site Plan Review – Saputo Cheese Factory, Rt 116 – Applicant is Twin State Signs, Inc.

The application is for two signs on the 116 side of the Saputo complex, one mounted on the structure and the other near the road. Other informational and directional signs will also be placed on the property; however these are permitted without review or permits per section 5.4.9 (3). There are currently no signs for Saputo at this time.

Ray Denault, of Twin State Signs, distributed a color rendition of the proposed sign. He explained that it would not be illuminated and that the white part of the sign with the Saputo logo is 13 square feet in size. Below the sign they were proposing to use red cladding which would use the color of the corporate logo. Including the cladding the sign would be 39 square feet in size. He was not sure whether the board would consider the cladding part of the sign which would then exceed the 16 square foot size limitation. Ted asked if brick could be used instead of the cladding. Ray said brick would involve a greater cost. Ted noted that brick or stone bases had been utilized for the Mobil, NRG and CVU signs and the board had been quite happy with the look of these signs. The board considered these bases part of the surrounding landscaping as opposed to contributing to the sign's square footage.

Ray said he would like to keep the red cladding to utilize the corporate colors. He added that he also needed to know how far out of the ROW the sign needs to be placed. Peter said that the director of public works had requested that the sign be at least five feet away from the sidewalk to allow space for plowing in the winter. Alex suggested that Ray should contact the state to determine how far away from the center of the road the sign should be placed to ensure that he gets an accurate measurement.

Ray explained that the grade in the proposed location was also an issue and that he would like some guidance as to at what point on the slope the height of the sign is determined to meet zoning requirements. Peter noted that for houses the measurement is taken from the center of the average grade. Ted asked how much lower the sign's base will be from the sidewalk. Ray said it would be approximately 4.5' below the sidewalk. Ted said he did not think a 10' sign would be an issue. Ray said he tries not to place signs too high but that he needs to make sure that it is visible to passing traffic.

The board summarized that any cladding would count towards the sign's square footage but that a stone or brick base would be considered part of the landscaping and would not be considered part of the sign's square footage allotment. Tom asked how the street trees will be incorporated with the sign. Ray said that in the winter they will be able to achieve a maximum visibility of 80% and that a compromise had been reached with the town to keep all the trees. Tom noted that if the white part of the sign is 13 sq ft., then the remaining 3 sq ft could be used to incorporate the company's color into the sign in another creative way.

Clint asked why there are trucks parked on the access road instead of the parking area. Eric explained that the plant had started producing another kind of cheese and that new equipment had been added to the plant. The old equipment was being stored in these trucks in case a quick swap needed to take place.

Lisa said she felt a 15' sign was too high. Ted said he thought a 10' sign as measured from the base would be adequate for this area. Peter referenced section 5.4.7 of the zoning regulations in regards to Additional Restrictions which states “Additional limitations may be imposed on signs pursuant to any other portion of this regulation, and any other ordinance or law. The Development Review Board may further restrict any signs pursuant to site plan review, conditional use approval, subdivision approval, or any other applicable ordinances. These further restrictions may require signs to be smaller than what is otherwise permitted under this Zoning Regulation, may permit fewer signs, may require signs not to be as high, or may impose any other appropriate restrictions consonant with the applicable ordinance of the law.” He concluded that the board does have the power to change the sign regulations if they feel the situation warrants different guidelines. Ted said he would need to see what the sign looks like.

Ray asked if he was correct in his understanding that the red cladding was not acceptable to the board. The board agreed that the cladding would count towards the sign's square footage total which would therefore not meet current zoning standards. Alex suggested that perhaps Ray could use landscaping to hide a less attractive pedestal or pole to hold the sign. Ray said he might be able to use a terraced pedestal.

Ray asked if the proposed building sign met the current zoning regulations. Peter said it did as long as the letters are 20” high which Ray confirmed they will be. He said the sign would not be illuminated and would have 20” plastic or vinyl letters on aluminum backing.

Tom MOVED to continue the Site Plan review of the Saputo signs to the April 4^th meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Other Business:

Variance for Telephone Utility Cabinet – Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Waitsfield-Fayston Telephone Company and Mary Baldwin

Ted asked that the order be reworded to read that the “...the back of the proposed utility cabinet shall be no closer than 32' from the center of Drinkwater Road...” He also asked that conclusion #3 be changed to indicate that if the back of the pad on which the cabinet is mounted is 32' from the center of Drinkwater Road (even with the existing anchor) then variance criteria #5 would be met. Lastly, the board asked Alex to reword the length of the variance since the 32' length refers to the distance from the center of drinkwater road to the back of the pad that the cabinet is mounted to.

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

Revision to Existing Site Plan – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Hart and Mead Inc.

Clint MOVED to approve the written decision (approval) as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval

Ted MOVED to extend the Norris' sketch plan approval for a subdivision on Postiche Lane by 6 months. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Well Location for Potvin/Jeffrey 2-Lot Subdivision

Peter noted that there may be some concern as to how vehicles will access the proposed well location for drilling purposes. Another location had been rejected by the select board because the well shield area overlapped onto the town forest. Alex said he could make a notation to the board regarding this subject when they reach the final plat stage.

Ted MOVED to discuss the Davis Camp Conversion in deliberative session. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary