TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

April 18, 2006

Approved May 2, 2006

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Rad Romeyn, Katherine Romeyn, Jeremy Farkas, Ray Denault, Jeff Padgett, David Whitney, Eric Martin, Suzanne Martin, Ray Denault (Twin State Signs), Brian St. Cyr, George Bedard, Andrew Burton, Jeff Davis.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:05 pm

 

**Note: The meeting began with Tom, George, Clint, Lisa, and Joe in attendance. Please also note that different board members were in attendance at different points in the meeting. The minutes note each arrival and departure.**

 

Minutes of  April 4, 2006 Meeting:

Clint MOVED to approve the April 4, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Joe abstaining.

 

Sign Approval – Unit #7 in Firehouse Plaza – Applicant is Grace Amao

Alex explained that Grace was unfortunately unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment, however he had a picture of the sign along with all applicable information and would be willing to present it to the board if they wished to provide a ruling. The board thought the decision would be pretty straight forward given the information contained in Alex's memo and decided to review the request.

 

Alex explained that they had only just realized that her sign required a specific DRB approval, and that otherwise they would have dispensed with this issue at the April 4 meeting. Grace assumed that she could simply replace the previous sign (for Shear Art hair salon), with a new one of exactly the same size. With that in mind, she went ahead and had her sign made. Turns out that the previous Shear Art sign was large enough to have required DRB review, but apparently never got that approval. Both the previous sign and Grace's new sign are 3' x 8' (24 square feet). Pursuant to section 5.4.1 #1d (Zoning Regulations), wall mounted signs over 16 square feet require DRB approval. Furthermore, in November of 1996, the Planning Commission granted a blanket sign approval to wall-mounted signs 16 square feet or less at Firehouse Plaza. This approval did NOT prohibit larger signs; it merely reiterated that signs larger than 16 square feet required DRB approval (instead of just a zoning permit).

 

According to section 5.4.1 #1d, the maximum allowed size for a wall-mounted sign is determined by the area of the building facade dedicated to the business. The maximum size is calculated as follows: 2 square feet for each linear foot of building frontage devoted to the business, with a limit of either 100 square feet or 10% of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached (whichever is less). According to the regulations, the 'wall' includes windows, door area, cornices – i.e., the overall face of the building devoted to the business. Grace's business has approximately 22' of linear building frontage, and the wall area to which the sign is attached is approximately 22' x 16' (352 square feet). Based on the above dimensions, her 24 square foot sign is within the limits envisioned by the regulations. With that in mind, Alex recommended approving her sign.

 

Joe MOVED to approve the 24 square foot sign for Grace's On the Go Bistro. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

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

**continued from March 21st meeting.**

Ray Denault of Twin State Signs, explained that due to the sizing limitations discussed at the March 21st meeting regarding the base of the sign, they had decided to use a 'lollipop' design. He noted that the sample sketch had been drawn on a slope to show the general topography of the area but that there was additional landscaping in this location that was not included. Ray said that all existing landscaping will not be touched. Peter noted that the location reconciled Rocky's concerns regarding being able to adequately plow the sidewalk next to the sign.

 

The Board reviewed the Review Draft Decision prepared by Peter based on the new design. George said he felt it addressed all the concerns of the board that had been discussed at the March 21st meeting. Peter noted that the dates included in the Review Draft Decision had been accidentally reversed and would be corrected.

 

George MOVED to accept the Review Draft Decision (approval) as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

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

**continued from April 4th meeting.**

Alex noted that one of the concerns of the board was the lack of board members at the meeting and that this seemed to be the same case this week. Tom added that the board had also had concerns about the photographs of he sample home in Shelburne, the location of the house to the east of the existing farmhouse, and wanting to see the architectural design standards tightened up.

 

Rad introduced several people in attendance who are working with him on the project. They included: Dave Whitney and Jeff Padgett, engineers from Engineered Solutions, and Jeremy Farkas, Rad's attorney. Alex said that Rad had made some substantial changes to the architectural design standards document that made the limitations tighter and more easily understood. Rad said that they had tried to put together a description of the houses that they would like to see on Hollow Brook Road. He noted that on the perspective sheet used by Lexi Reiss to complete her artistic renderings of the development, when driving from either direction on Hollow Brook Road you will only be able to see three houses. Rad added that the placement and reduced size of the houses will lessen the visual impact on the natural setting of the valley. Rad also said that they wish to retain the older existing trees on the property to set the stage for the houses and make them blend into the surroundings. He noted that creating the design standards had been a challenge, especially since there are no zoning regulations that address design standards at this time.

 

**Note: Robert joined the meeting at this point.**

 

Tom said that one of his concerns with this project was the fact that the artistic rendering made the green house to the east of the farmhouse appear closer to the road than the farmhouse. Rad said that the angle of the viewpoint probably made the distance appear this way, however the building envelope on lot 4 sits farther back from the road. He added that from a practical standpoint the homeowner will probably want to build towards the back of the envelope to get farther away from the road and closer to a stand of trees on this lot. Tom said he thought the existing farmhouse would drive the architectural view of the development. Rad said he felt the same way and reminded the board that a two-car garage is being added to the back of the farmhouse. He said it was being built in a salt box style with low eaves as reflected in the design standards that were submitted to the board: “Garage/shed dimensions: 18 ft x 20 ft with Hollow Road eave not to exceed 7 ft.”

 

Tom said that he agreed with the darker earth toned color choices but was not in agreement with the following colors: Weathered Grey, Yellow, Cream and White. Alex explained that he had a discussion with Rad in which he suggested a greater range of colors that could apply to the farmhouse. He thought the lighter colors would draw attention to the farmhouse and further highlight it as the centerpiece of the development. Rad said he would feel comfortable restricting the lighter colors to the farmhouse only. George said he felt the design standards write-up had helped a lot. Rad said he had attempted to come up with guidelines that would achieve the right visual representation as well as being limitations that would be easy to enforce by Peter. Alex explained that these limitations could be added to the Homeowners Association guidelines as well as the conditions for approval if that was the board's wishes.

 

Tom noted that the board had discussed how the windows on the attic level of the sample house had contributed to the appearance of large size and that Rad had included this as a limitation in his design guidelines: “Window limitation: two levels of windows on gabled ends.” Alex asked what you would typically see in this location on a barn structure. Rad said there would typically be an entrance to a hay mow with a conveyor belt. In a converted barn structure people typically have ventilation in this part of the house.

 

Lisa asked if the houses will be 1 ½ or 2 story. Rad said they would be 1 ½ story. Alex clarified that for a house to be considered two-story the roof cannot cut out any of the space on the second floor.

 

Lisa asked if they had brought the storm water report to the meeting. Dave Whitney explained that he had created a design that would meet the state storm water standards even though it is not required for this site. He added that a site needs to have 8% of impervious land in order to be required to meet the state storm water standards. This site has only 3.7% of impervious space. Lisa asked if this calculation included any potential garages. Dave said that the calculation used the maximum footprint for all lots. The development utilizes grass lined swales with a minimum bottom width of 2'. Dave noted that the perc rate is quite high on this property as the soil is very sandy. All of the swales are designed such that any overflow will be directed away from the homes and other sensitive areas. There will be four infiltration swales with no co-mingling between the swales. Lisa asked if there were any concerns about a 5 or 10 year storm doing damage to the swales. Dave explained that the regulations require that water in a swale should infiltrate within 40 hours for a one year storm. The swales designed on this property will be able to infiltrate a 10 year storm within 24 hours without exceeding the system. Lisa asked what size storm would cause an overflow of the swales. Dave said that if two 1 year storms took place within 36 hours of each other the swales could potentially overflow. Jeff explained that currently the property drains through sheet flow down the slope. The swales will be intercepting the sheet flow and directing it along the same path. The intent is to continue the existing hydrologic motion on the property.

 

Lisa asked if the swales will require maintenance and if so, what that will entail. Jeff explained that all stormwater systems need maintenance and Dave added that the swales should be mowed 2 – 3 times per year. It was also noted that there is a 20' easement around each swale. Rad explained that any required maintenance of the storm water system will be included in the Homeowners Association legal language. He also said it was important to note that less than 1 acre out of the total 24 acres will be disturbed.

 

George asked how Peter felt about the preliminary plat. Peter asked that if the board approved the preliminary plat, that they just allow some flexibility to adjust the architectural guidelines between the preliminary and final plat stages. He said they would not be fundamental changes, but more likely wording alterations.

 

Peter also said that he received a letter from Margaret Fowle of the National Wildlife Federation regarding the Peregrine Falcon nesting area on the cliffs above the property. In the letter it was stated that the development will be a few hundred feet from the nesting area. Alex felt this distance was inaccurate and thought that the applicant should take this opportunity to partner with the state to protect the falcons. Peter explained that he did not want to wait until the final plat review stage to present this information and thought it should be handled prior to the final plat review if the preliminary plat is approved. Clint said he did not think the development was close enough to the nesting area to cause a problem. Tom asked how far it is from the development to the cliffs. Peter said he had taken a quick look at it and thought it was approximately Ό of a mile away on the flat and would actually be farther away given the topography of the land. Joe said that he wished they had received this information earlier. He noted that he had originally voted against this development at the sketch plan phase and that he had raised his concerns about the falcons at sketch plan after seeing one at the site during the site visit. Regardless of this, he did not feel this issue would stop the development.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and take the matter of the Hollow Brook Preliminary Plat Review up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting in order to render a decision. Clint seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 – 0.

 

The board briefly discussed the process of deliberative session and the time frame for issuing decisions with the applicant. Alex explained that the board has 45 days to render a decision and that typically a review draft decision is presented at the next meeting following a hearing but this is not always the case. The applicant expressed his hope for a prompt response so that they can take advantage of this building season.

 

**Note: Joe left the meeting at this point and Greg Waples joined the meeting.**

 

Revision to Final Plat – Route 116/Tyler Bridge Road – Applicants are Brian and Penny St. Cyr

George Bedard was present to represent the Cyrs and he explained that the applicant is requesting Final Plat approval in order to amend a subdivision permit granted 7/1/03 in the Agricultural District. The subject parcel is 8 acres to the north of the intersection of 116 and Tyler Bridge Road, parcel #12-1-56.2. Since the previous approval was granted, an amendment to the zoning regulations Section 2.5 Corner Parcel was adopted enabling the applicant to apply for this change. The relocation of this boundary will create two lots which have frontage on VT Route 116 which will not comply with the frontage requirements for the Agricultural District however section 2.5 of the regulations allows this with certain conditions. The new lot division line will not impact any existing building envelopes, setbacks, areas necessary for screening, landscaping, storm water control, existing easements or necessitate any new easement between the two lots.

 

George explained that the deed language will permanently restrict access to 116 for both lots. He added that all septic and water systems are established and in place. At this point the board reviewed the Review Draft Decision as prepared by Peter.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the review draft decision (approval) as written. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Richmond Road – Applicants are Eric and Suzanne Martin

Eric explained that he and Suzanne are requesting sketch plan approval for a 3-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 11 acres, and is located on the south side of Richmond Road, between Enos Road and Piette Road; parcel #17-22-19.100. The parcel is already developed with a 3-bedroom home along the Richmond Road frontage. The parcel also contains a Verizon easement area in the southeast corner (circular easement area show on the plan). The parcel is primarily forested with the exception of an open area around and to the west of the house, a portion of which is a wetland. At least 2 streams traverse the property, both of which converge on the western side of the open area, where the wetland lies, before proceeding through a culvert under the Richmond Road. There is a small area that maps as prime agricultural soil on the southern side of the parcel, but this is of no consequence due to its small size and the surrounding residential land use. This parcel is in an area representing Hinesburg's highest residential density due to the 2 nearby mobile home communities (Sunset Villa and Triple L) as well as the Sunset Villa and Piette Meadows housing developments.

 

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 3 acres on the western side of the parcel. Lot 2 is another 3 acre lot adjacent to lot 1. Single-family dwellings are proposed for both of these lots, with septic systems located on lot 1 (lot 2 will have an easement) and a shared road cut on Richmond Road that quickly diverges into separate driveways for each lot. Lot 2 will require a stream crossing to get to the proposed building site. Municipal water is available and assumed for lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 comprises the remaining 5.6 acres, and includes the existing residence.

 

Greg asked about the water supply in this area. Eric said that there is town water at the road. Lisa asked if lots 1 and 2 will share a septic area. Eric said they would and that they would also share the same replacement area using alternating trenches. He also clarified the location of the existing home's primary and replacement septic areas. Lot 3 currently uses a shared well but they anticipate removing the mobile home and replacing it with a new house which would then connect to town water. Peter asked if it would be worth considering keeping the pasture at the front of lot with lot 3. Alex said that would cause lot frontage issues and that it is also a wetland area.

 

Lisa asked if the applicants would be considering requesting access onto Piette Road if/when they build on lot 3. Eric said it is something that they have considered. Alex said that this access area could be problematic given the many water courses that flow through or near this access point. Suzanne said she thought that if they wanted to have access onto Piette Road in the future that they would need to seek DRB approval. Alex confirmed that this is the case. He also added that the board may wish to have the applicants designate building envelopes on the property as noted in his staff report.

 

Tom reviewed the highlights of the staff report which included: driveway sight distance, building envelopes, stream protections and crossings, shared infrastructure and legal language. Greg asked how power gets to the home on lot 3. Eric said that power runs overhead from a line along Richmond Road which crosses lot 3 along Piette Road and then crosses McDonald Lane. Greg asked if power will run underground to lots 1 and 2. Eric said it will. Alex noted it will be interesting to see what tactic the power company will take in this area given the stream locations.

 

Suzanne explained that Champlain/Waitsfield Valley Telecom actually owns the circular area on the map and that they have a ROW across their property for access purposes. The area is the highest point on the property. Alex reviewed the submitted documentation and noted that the 24' wide ROW had been relocated to run easterly to Piette Road instead of having access onto Richmond Road.

 

Clint asked about the corner sight distance on the road. Eric said that he had measured the distance today and had come up with 320' – 340'. He added that a portion of the bank that hinders the sight distance will need to be carved out and some trees will need to be removed which should help this issue. He had talked to the road foreman who did not have a problem with the sight distance. Alex suggested that the Martin's request a waiver of the minimum corner sight distance from the Select Board. Clint said he did not think the board should approve something without a waiver from the Select Board first.

 

Peter said that future pedestrian access on this road is going to be a big issue and removing a part of the bank may help this in the future. Alex said he thought there would be more room to put in a pedestrian walkway on the other side of the road.

 

Tom asked how the schedule looked for the next meeting. Alex said there will be 5 applications to consider on May 2nd and that the next opening would be at the May 16th meeting. He added that the board could approve the sketch plan with the condition that they receive the corner site distance waiver from the Select Board. It would be understood that if the waiver is not received the applicants would need to present a new sketch plan design to the board. Tom suggested that the board wait to render a decision until the corner site distance waiver is received and that in the meantime they could schedule a site visit to review any other issues on the property. They could then also decide if the process should be a 2 or 3 step review.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the May 16th meeting with a site visit to precede the meeting at 6:00 p.m. with the condition that the applicant request a corner site distance waiver from the Select Board in the meantime. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The applicant directed the board members to park in the area across the road from lots 1 and 2. The board members asked the applicants to flag as many significant areas as possible (septic locations, building envelopes, driveway locations, etc.) Tom explained that neighbors are invited to attend and that the board's observations will be recorded into the minutes at the May 16th meeting following the site visit.

 

Conditional Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure – Shadow Lane – Applicant is Andrew Burton

Andrew explained that he is requesting DRB approval for an expansion to a non-complying single-family dwelling in the Shoreline Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at 180 Shadow Lane; parcel number 14-21-13.000. The applicant took down the existing non-complying structure, and rebuilt it on the nearly same footprint. Apparently there was some miscommunication with the Zoning Administrator (ZA), such that a zoning permit (#2005-143) was issued for the new structure with slightly different understandings of what the footprint encompassed. Because of this, the ZA has not issued a certificate of occupancy, and has encouraged the Applicant to apply for conditional use review to see if the matter could be resolved.

 

The original structure was non-complying because it did not meet the front or rear yard setbacks. The original structure was 848 square feet with an additional 56 square feet under a roofed porch on the front (see the attached sketch from the Lister's records). The main portion of the structure was 24' wide by 32' long and 16' tall. The structure also included a 'bump out' on the front that was 10' wide by 8' long and slightly shorter – possibly 14' tall (see photo). The roofed porch was adjacent to this 'bump out' on the front of the building. The newly constructed structure is simply a complete rectangle 24' wide by 40' long (960 square feet). The height of the new structure varies – approximately 14'8” on the western side (opposite the lake) and 17'8” on the eastern, lake side. This averages to approximately 16'2”.

 

Two issues have been raised by the ZA. First, the new structure constitutes an expansion of the original footprint (front left corner of building) along the non-complying side of the building, which requires conditional use approval (section 5.10.3#4). Second, the new structure is slightly taller than the original structure, especially in the front (area of the old bump out), and potentially throughout. Pursuant to section 5.10.3 #4 of the Zoning Regulations, expansions of this sort may be allowed via conditional use approval if certain specific conditions are met.

 

Robert asked if the setback from Shadow Lane had changed. Andrew said it had not. Greg asked if there is a basement. Andrew said that the structure now has a basement but prior to his construction it only had a crawl space. 

 

Jeff Davis, a resident of Shadow Lane who owns a home across the road from Andrew, said that he was appearing in support of Andrew's request.

 

Tom asked where Andrew's parking area will be. Andrew said that he intends to create a parking area at back side of the home away from the lake. Tom asked if there is enough parking space to allow cars to park here without sticking out onto Shadow Lane. Andrew said that he would have enough space to park three cars in this location.

 

At this point Alex distributed a letter from Jamie Carroll, another resident of Shadow Lane. Although Jamie expressed his support for Andrew's request he also asked that ample parking be determined since parking becomes such an issue on Shadow Lane and can result in ROW's being blocked by parked cars. Alex explained that the parking area needs to allow space for two vehicles that can each have direct access to the road. Andrew said that he has enough space at the back of his lot to park two cars side by side. Alex noted that a parking space needs to be 9' wide. Greg asked if this parking area will result in removing screening from the neighbor's property. Andrew said that he had already removed all the brush that he needed to complete construction and that no additional clearing would be needed for the parking spaces.

 

Andrew also wishes to construct a deck and patio on this property but was not able to get that information together prior to the DRB meeting.

 

Lisa said she was concerned that there seem to be a lot of buildings being constructed that do not meet existing zoning regulations which create situations in which an applicant asks for approval after the building has been constructed. George said he understood Lisa's concern but that in this instance he felt the conditional use would have been approved if it had been requested prior to construction.

 

Greg was concerned with the parking issue and said that he would like the applicant to demonstrate that he has an adequate area with a scaled design. Tom suggested that demonstration of ample parking be a condition of approval. Greg said he would prefer to see a sketch of the parking area, and in the meantime thought the staff should be directed to draft conditions of approval. Robert suggested that a condition be added to the CO that adequate parking must be demonstrated prior to receiving the CO.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft a condition of approval with the condition that adequate parking must be demonstrated prior to the Zoning Administrator issuing a CO for the property. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Tom MOVED for the board to go into deliberative session to discuss the Hollow Brook Subdivision. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary