TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

April 4, 2006

Approved April 18, 2006

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn (chair), George Munson, Clint Emmons, Greg Waples, Joe Donegan.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Robert Gauthier.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), John Driscoll, Justin Driscoll, Jared Allen, Andrew Allen, Jeff Wick, Jody Ciano, Grace Amao, Andrea Hollenbeek, Nick Nowlan, Rad Romeyn, Jeremy Farkas, Jeff Padgett, Steve Carlson, Lisa Carlson, Roger Kohn, David Whitney.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

Minutes of  March 21, 2006 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the March 21, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

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

George MOVED to continue the Site Plan Review for signs for the Saputo Cheese Factory to the April 18th meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Sketch Plan Approval Extension for 4-Lot Subdivision/PRD – Applicants are Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

Tom MOVED to grant a 6-month extension for sketch plan approvals to the Dams. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4 – 0 with Joe abstaining.

 

Conditional Use Approval Revision – Unit #7 in Firehouse Plaza – Applicant is Grace Amao

Grace explained that she was requesting DRB approval to operate a new restaurant in unit #7 in Firehouse Plaza in the Commercial Zoning District. The subject parcel is owned by Veronica and David Estey and is located on the corner of Commerce Street and VT Route 116; parcel #20-50-74.000. Ms. Amao proposes a take out restaurant (“Grace's On the Go Bistro”) serving a variety of prepared food with 12 seats for limited dining on site. Initially, the applicant plans to be open 5 days a week with customer hours from 11 a.m. - 7 p.m.. The applicant anticipates a maximum of 2 employees for the foreseeable future.

 

The Esteys received conditional use approval for 3 restaurants in Firehouse Plaza on September 5, 1996. This conditional use approval has been revised several times to increase the allowed seating for 2 of these restaurants – specifically the Chinese and pizza take-out restaurants. Based on the approvals (both conditional use and site plan), the coffee shop (Koval's) is permitted for 12 seats, the Chinese restaurant (Dragon House) is permitted for 50 seats, and the now defunct pizza restaurant was permitted for 20 seats. The Applicant's restaurant will take the place of the pizza restaurant; therefore, it will be limited to 20 seats – although the Applicant has only proposed 12. The only reason DRB approval is now necessary, is because the original conditional use approval was specific about the type of food served at these 3 restaurants. Although seating has been revised over time, the restaurant type was never formally amended. Since the applicant is not proposing a pizza restaurant, the conditional use approval needs to be revised.

 

The Esteys originally received site plan approval for Firehouse Plaza on March 6, 1996. This approval has been amended a number of times since, especially with regard to seating allowances for the three restaurants (as noted above). The applicant proposes no changes to the existing site plan, and will operate within its seating/parking allowances; therefore, site plan approval/revision is NOT necessary.

 

Grace explained that she plans to offer specials every day that are prepared in batches and are ready throughout the day. Her Bistro will be closed on Sundays and Tuesdays, however she did express a future interest in being open on Tuesdays. Greg encouraged her to request approval for being open Monday – Saturday so that she would not need to return to the board to receive approval if/when she decides to be open on Tuesdays. Grace thought this was a good idea and asked for similar flexibility with her open hours; expanding them from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. The board felt this was acceptable. Andrea Hollenbeek noted that there is little happening at the plaza in the evening so traffic should not be a problem if Grace decides to keep her Bistro open later.

 

Greg asked if Grace was planning to use any signs. Grace said she has ordered a sign that has the same dimension as the Shear Art sign to replace it on the sign at the front of the building. She also said she would have a sign on the door with the business name and would like to utilize a sandwich board on 116 to notify customers of her daily specials. None of the signs will be neon.

 

Tom asked if Grace would be doing any deliveries. Grace said she would not. Greg asked how trash is handled at the plaza. Grace noted that it is a shared dumpster and that she has not noticed any capacity problems since she has been doing renovations at the business location.

 

Greg asked Alex to review the previous Conditional Use Approval and Site Plan decisions. Alex said that the original Conditional Use approval was granted on September 1, 1996 and had the following five conditions: permits will not be issued until all State Licenses/permits are issued, hours of operation will be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., there will be no liquor served or entertainment, businesses must receive a zoning permit, and restaurant types are fixed as noted. The Site Plan approval had one condition in regards to parking which noted that if there is inadequate parking or if traffic flow becomes a problem the applicant would need to return to the DRB with a proposed solution. The board decided that the hours of operation should remain the same as in the original conditional use approval (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) to allow Grace the maximum flexibility as requested by the applicant.

 

Andrea Hollenbeek asked if delivery of catered items would count as delivery. Tom said it would, but that was okay as noted in the previous conditional use approval. Alex noted that the catering possibility should probably be mentioned in the Draft Decision's Finding of Fact. Grace said she would appreciate this and added that in the beginning she does not intend to deliver catered items, but rather allow patrons to order large amounts and pick them up at her Bistro for catering purposes. Peter asked if Grace did do any catering in the future if she would use the back entrance for loading purposes. Grace said she would use the back entrance and that it would be much easier and more convenient for that purpose.

 

Alex asked Peter if every business in Firehouse Plaza could have a sandwich sign. Peter said that they could according to the zoning regulations but that sandwich signs are only allowed to be displayed during a business' hours of operation.

 

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Continuation of Final Plat for 6-Unit, 6-lot Major Subdivision and PRD – Route 116 – Applicant is Marilyn Crimmins

**continued from March 7th meeting.**

Tom noted that the board had some serious concerns at the last meeting regarding possible future development of the common land. Nick Nowlan said he had been working with Peter since the last meeting to resolve the issues that were raised. The landscaping by the leach field was moved down hill around the road to preserve any possible views of the Adirondack mountains. The landscaping plan specified planting types, sizes and spacing. Greg asked Peter if the plan reflected what he had proposed for approval. Peter said that it did.

 

Nick said that he had also added more road detail to show an 18' traveled width with ½' shoulders on either side to equal a total width of 19' including the shoulders. He used some embankment on the turn which follows the road standards' provision to bank a curve that does not meet the road radius requirement. Tom asked if the banking will require additional drainage provisions. Nick said that the three proposed culverts will handle the flow and that the banking should not significantly increase runoff.

 

Nick said that information had been added to the covenants to address the development on the open land. Greg said he had reviewed the covenants and felt they had adequately addressed this issue. Alex noted that the board members could find this section on page 6 of the 'Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for O'Brien Meadows Subdivision, Hinesburg Vermont' which was included in their application packet. Peter noted that the Order is worded in such a way that development can occur if all the landowners agree. The board members noted that DRB approval would still be necessary if someone wished to build a house on the open space as it would need to be further subdivided.

 

Greg asked what plans Nick had for lighting provisions. George noted that the homes would need to follow the performance standards for all homes in Hinesburg as noted in the Zoning Regulations. Alex said that George was referring to section 5.12.8 in the Zoning Regulations which states “No glare or heat shall be discernible beyond the outer boundaries of the parcel.” He added that section 6.3 of the Subdivision Regulations also addresses outdoor lighting; “. . .All outdoor lighting shall have a concealed light source and as otherwise required by the Development Review Board to reduce glare and night sky illumination.” Nick said he would not be requesting any variance from the regulations regarding outdoor lighting.

 

Nick noted a few corrections in the order which included: in Order #6 add that “...tree plantings shall be at least 2 caliper and softwood tree plantings be 10 gallons.” In addition he noted that the date on the final legal language was April 4th as referenced in Order #9, and that the final plat is dated April 4th as well (Order #10). Peter said that Nick could email him any additional specific details tomorrow that could be added to the Review Draft Decision. Tom asked that the wording in capitals in Order #12 be removed.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the review draft decision (approval) as amended.  Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

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

**continued from March 7th meeting.**

Rad said that he had spoken with the Fire Chief regarding emergency vehicle access to lot # 5 and that Al had requested a 40' hammerhead on the drive. He had also suggested that where lots 1 and 2 split, a more rounded access would allow for easier turnarounds.

 

Tom asked if lot 5 is depicted on the pictorial representations prepared by Lexi Reiss. Rad said it was not. He noted that the renditions were created from two different points of view and that the existing bank of trees narrows the view of the hillside. At this point Rad distributed a document that listed architectural considerations as well as proposed building sizes and visibility of homes from Hollow Road. He asked the board members to note that the contour elevations of the different house sites are all very close. He added that he would like to propose that these two documents be made a part of the agreement with the town as well as the covenants for the development.

 

Greg was concerned that the pictures of a 'sample home' did not match his expectations of what Rad was proposing to construct. This was significant cause for concern for Greg since he believed that several board members had approved the subdivision sketch plan based on the concept of the house design. Alex agreed that the green house on Lexi's drawing did appear much smaller than the pictures of the sample home. Rad noted that the two homes have the same ridge height and eave height. Alex asked about the height of the existing farmhouse. Rad said it is 35' high and that it sits on a 48” sill. All of the proposed homes will be significantly lower to the ground. Greg said the sample home did not appear barn-like to him and that he felt the windows accentuated the height. Rad said the pictures of the sample home were intended to show a comparable size to the proposed homes. The design was not as significant as the size. Alex noted that it was important to keep in mind that Rad would not be constructing the homes and that the board members may wish to pay more attention to the design documentation as it will serve as the guidelines for future homeowners when they design their homes.

 

Tom suggested that the board members should consider the distance from the home in comparison with Lexi's rendition as the pictures of the sample home that are taken up close are not comparable in scale to the artistic rendering. Rad said their objective was to set a core sizing for the buildings and they were attempting to respond to the challenge of what Peter should refer to when he issues a building permit for a home in this development. Tom noted that Rad had mentioned multi-paned windows in a previous discussion and that this should probably be added to the architectural considerations. Peter said limiting the number of windows and their orientation may be important to ensure that a home is not built with a 'wall of windows'.

 

Alex suggested that they may wish to widen the entrance road up to the junction from 18' to 19' to allow for an 18' traveled width with two ½' shoulders. Rad said it was important to them that they not create a suburban-looking subdivision and that they wanted to keep the rural look of the entryway between the two existing locust trees. Jeff noted that his firm has designed drives to 8-unit condos that have a total width of 18'. He noted that these drives serve more units than this subdivision and that the main drive which serves all of the separate 8-unit sections is 24' wide from edge to edge. David Whitney, an engineer from Engineered Solutions added that there will be grass swales on either side of the drive with a bench between the drive and the swale which will provide an additional flat space next to the road. Jeff said their intention was to give the feel of a one-lane road with the ability for two cars to safely and easily meet and pass on the road.

 

Alex asked if the reconfiguration of the wells included sharing between lots. Jeff said that there will be on independent well and two shared wells. Alex noted that legal language will need to be provided at final in regards to the well sharing.

 

Rad explained that the sizing and architectural criteria was created in response to the board's opinion at the March 7th meeting that criteria could be submitted for each individual home. Alex asked what size the houses will be. Rad said they will be a 30' x 40' core with lean-to additions. Alex asked if the side dimensions included a 2-car garage attachment. Rad said it did. Alex then asked for an approximate proposed square footage range for the homes. Rad said they were proposing homes with 2200 – 2400 square feet consisting of 3 – 4 bedrooms with a 'parent' master suite.

 

Peter asked if the height to the eave is the sill height. Rad said it was. Clint suggested that windows not be allowed on the gable end of the attic space. He said he felt this might be one reason why the sample home appeared so large.

 

George said he was having trouble trying to picture the homes in conjunction with the 3400 square foot farmhouse. Rad said the farmhouse is 68' x 58' including a 2-car garage. George said he was concerned that the scale of the artistic rendering was not accurate and felt that perhaps the footprint should be larger to allow the square footage without creating very tall homes or homes that appear large based on their design. Peter was concerned that the design specifications may not create the homes that the board is expecting to see. He felt this document should be reviewed and tightened up as much as possible. Greg said his concern regarding the difference in the original artistic renderings and the sample home had not been resolved by the discussion. He did not feel ready to approve the preliminary plat based on this concern and thought that the discussion should be continued to allow other members of the board with strong opinions on the development to be heard. He added that he would also like the design document to be further clarified based on the suggestions and concerns presented by the board.

 

Rad asked if he could get a sense from the board as to their thoughts on the proposal. George said he felt the design criteria needs to be tightened up and that he is concerned about the impact of add-ons and garages on the homes' designs. Clint said he liked the original artistic rendering, but that the sample home did not seem to fit in this area. Joe asked how the board regulates a 'look'. Alex noted that the current zoning regulations provide no guidance for design standards. George asked that the footprint be re-examined to see if a larger one would allow houses to sit closer to the ground as opposed to having more square footage on the upper floors.

 

Jeremy Farkas was concerned that perhaps the clustering of homes was causing issues with the visibility, and that the clustering concept may be at the root of the current concerns of the board members. George said the sample house looked very sizable and that this was a concern to him. Joe noted that perhaps this should be a lesson to the board that they should not let architectural design standards detract from density issues.

 

George MOVED to continue the Preliminary Plat Review of Hollow Brook to the April 18th meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Subdivision Final Plat Amendment – Pond Brook Road – Applicants are Steve and Lisa Carlson

Roger Kohn explained that Steve and Lisa Carlson received subdivision approval for the creation of one lot from their existing property on August 8, 2005, and that was subsequently amended on January 3, 2006. This is a request for an amendment to that amended plat. Before the initial application for this subdivision, easements for Wastewater disposal systems had been granted from the Carlsons to the owners of two neighboring camps so that they could be converted into residences as well as parking easements for the same properties (now Allen & Ciano) and there may be some overlap between them. The easements were not professionally drafted, nor were they surveyed and have remained an issue throughout this approval process.

 

During the initial proceedings it had been claimed that an agreement had been reached between Ciano and the applicant, and the second amendment was applied for and approved to remove the remaining boundary disputes between them. The possible boundary and parking issues concerning the Allen lot were at that time unknown. The applicant has stated that in fact there are still disagreements between them and Ciano and they are applying for this new configuration of the boundaries so that the wastewater areas in contention will be located on the larger retained lot which contains the camp and Carlson residence, and not on the lot that is for sale. It is the intention of the applicant to create a lot that could be sold that would allegedly be free from these issues.

 

Roger noted that the concerns of the neighbors would not be affected by the new amendment and that rights of land are not taken away by surveyed lot lines. He acknowledged that the surveyor had originally used an incorrect pipe but that this mistake had been corrected. He noted that the only change has to do with the rear line of the the Brown/Ciano lot. Greg asked about the litigation that is being pursued. Roger said it was his understanding that the Brown/Ciano case had just been opened in Superior Court. He added that the applicants would like to alter the lot line so that the boundary dispute falls entirely on their property and a new lot owner will not become involved. Roger said that the new lot lines make sense as they include the Carlson's access to their cottage as well as some existing flower beds. He reiterated that the concerns of the neighbors are not affected by this proposal and that given the fact that the deeds were hand-drafted without an existing survey or lawyers present, it is not surprising that issues have arisen.

 

Greg said he was concerned with the shape of the new lot being irregular. He referenced section 2.4.7 of the Zoning Regulations in regards to Minimum Width and Depth Dimensions which states, “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 except as shown on Table 1. No lot or parcel of land under 5 acres in size which was created after this date (July 14, 1986) shall have a smaller lot dimension (width or depth) which is less than 20% of the other larger dimension. Triangular or other irregularly shaped lots may be allowed at the discretion of the Development Review Board provided that the configuration allows for reasonable use of the land and allows for development in accordance with applicable setback and lot coverage requirements.”

 

Tom opened the meeting to the public. Andrew Allen said that he was an adjoining property owner and that due to some confusion about his mailing address, he had just received notice of the proposed subdivision and adjusted lot lines on February 22nd. He noted that the lot lines of his property have changed in such a way that 10% of the total lot size has been lost. He said that the Carlson's had attempted to purchase a section of their lot in the past. The agreement did not work out, however now the new surveyed lot lines show that this section of land is part of the Carlson's property. Roger responded that there were not changes to the Allen's property line in the approved plat and that Andrew was welcome to speak with the Carlson's surveyor or hire his own surveyor, but that this issue has nothing to do with the proposal before the board tonight. Jared Allen asked that they be given time to resolve the property line issues prior to this amendment being approved. Andrew added that the new design would give their parking area to the new lot so the Allen's would actually have property line issues with both landowners. Jared added that the survey has been stamped 4 difference times which leads him to seriously question its validity. Roger again noted that these issues are best dealt with by speaking to a surveyor.

 

Greg asked that they return to the issue of minimum lot width and depth. He asked if the lot meets the dimensional requirements given the 80' long proboscis. Roger quoted the definition of the determination of lot width from the zoning regulations: “The distance between side lot lines taken at the setback line and measured at right angles to the side lot lines or along a line parallel to the street.” Roger said that given this definition, the Carlson's proposed new lot meets the minimum lot width requirement. Peter said that although he believes Roger is correct in his interpretation, he did not feel that this was the intention of the regulations. Roger noted that the issue of minimum lot width and depth is different from an irregularly shaped lot. Peter said that there needs to be a rational reason for the irregularly-shaped lot. He added that he had concerns regarding the easements lines which are in contention and the fact that the land was never surveyed for easement lines. He added that the boundary line with the Brown/Ciano property did not need to be moved in order to keep the dispute entirely on the Carlson's property and that it made no sense to move this line again.

 

Jody Ciano explained that they had had an agreement with the Carlson's regarding the property line dispute. The map dated 10/19/2005 was acceptable to her. However, when she checked the submitted map in town hall she noted that it was dated 11/23/2005 and did not reflect the proposed agreement between both parties. She added that in her deed the easement area is 80' x 120' and that the size on the map has an incorrect size of 60' x 80'.

 

Jared Allen said that he was concerned that if this amendment were to be approved there would be issues with lake access. As it stands the Carlson's own 40' of lake access that is utilized by 3 people as well as a rented camp. Andrew added that as a necessary party to the process that was not duly notified, he asked that the subdivision be reconsidered. Alex explained that the original subdivision was complete and he was unsure as to the recourse that the Allens could take.

 

Jeff Wick, Jared's attorney, said he would be researching what recourse the Allens have regarding the original subdivision and their lack of notice. He was not prepared to offer an official legal conclusion, but he felt it was a significant issue with the subdivision. He added that Roger's contention that the surrounding lot owners will only need to deal with one property owner may not be true given the fact that  a court may determine that the boundary lines are incorrect. Any significant development on the new lot could further confuse the issue. In addition, easements may be affected by any lot line resolution.

 

Jody Ciano asked how many red flags need to go up before someone does something about this issue. She asked that an independent surveyor be hired to survey the land at the applicants' expense as suggested in the staff report.

 

Roger noted that the new proposal does make things better and that given the original understanding of lot lines, the work that the Carlsons have done to determine their boundaries has been significant. George said he felt that the board had been told the same thing at the previous meeting regarding this subdivision.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Tom recommended that the board go into deliberative session to discuss the application. The board did not feel this was necessary.

 

George MOVED to approve the final plat amendment. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion was DENIED by a vote of 1 – 3 – 1 with Tom voting in the affirmative, George, Clint and Greg voting against, and Joe abstaining.

 

Roger spoke with his clients regarding withdrawing the application, and asked that their application be withdrawn without prejudice.

 

Tom MOVED to reconsider the decision and allow the applicant to withdraw their application without prejudice. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Other Business:

 

Review Draft Decision – Sketch Plan Approval for 2-Lot Subdivision – Applicants are Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey

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

 

Review Draft Decision – Conditional Use Camp Conversion – Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

George noted that in Conclusion #4 the reference to the zoning standards should read 4.2.2 as opposed to 4.4.2. In addition, in Conclusion #6 he asked that the wording be changed to read “For ALL of the reasons listed above...”.

 

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

 

Alex reminded the board of the pot luck all board meeting next Tuesday and asked that everyone RSVP to Jeanne.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary