TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

May 2, 2006

Approved May 16, 2006

DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, Lisa Godfrey, Nathan Makay, Joe Donegan.

DRB Members Absent: Tom McGlenn, George Munson.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Randall Kay, Mark Brown, Tracy Brown, Brian Thibault, Dave Trevithick, Dave Fenn, Britt Haselton, Jim Brown, Sandra Collins, Tom Campbell, Howard Russell, Anne Donegan, Sally M. Reiss, Ian Jewkes, George Bedard, Bradley Carpenter, Rolf Kielman, Diane Langevin, Heather Cobden, Michael Hart, Mrs. Michael Hart, Ted Graf, Chuck Reiss, Deborah Gianelli, Ben Hunt, Greg Bombardier.

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 pm

Minutes of the April 18, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the April 18, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Ted and Nathan abstaining.

CCMPO Presentation

Alex asked the board if they had any interest in an Access Management presentation regarding traffic on public highways. The board agreed that this would be a pertinent topic and Alex said that he would schedule the presentation for a half hour slot at the July 18^th DRB meeting. Susan Smichenko will be the presentor.

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

Conditional Use Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure – 146 Sunset Lane – Applicant is David Trevithick

David explained that he was requesting DRB approval for an expansion to a non-complying single-family dwelling in the Shoreline Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at 146 Sunset Lane; parcel number 17-20-41.000. The applicant recently purchased the property, and in the process discovered that no permit existed for a 16' x 24' deck attached to the south side (lake side) of the house. The applicant is therefore seeking a conditional use approval 'after the fact' for the deck. Conditional Use approval is required because the house is non-complying with regard to the 75' stream setback (from the lake), and the deck exacerbates this situation. Technically, the house is also non-complying with regard to the front yard setback, but the deck has no bearing on that pre-existing issue.

According to the 1991 Town assessment files, the house did have a smaller deck 15+ years ago – approximately 8' x 10' (8' out from the house toward the lake). Because no zoning permit was issued for the deck expansion, it is unclear when this took place; however, it had to have occurred after the 1991 town-wide property appraisal. Therefore, the 'violation' happened within the 15 year statute of limitations, and the Town still has the authority to require that permits be obtained. The expanded deck is 16' x 24' (16' out from house toward lake); therefore, the expansion increased the degree of non-compliance by 8'.

Greg noted that this issue was really due to David having a closing attorney that did not do his work on the title search and that the attorney should be held liable for this issue. He also asked if new footings would need to be put in if 8' was cut off from the deck. David said he was not sure and that as far as he can tell the lower section of deck has two sets of footings and the upper section of deck has one set of footings.

Ted asked the board to review this case as if the structure had not yet been built to determine if it would be allowed. Greg said that despite the fact that the applicant bought this property without notice of the issue, he would not have approved this request if it had been applied for prior to construction. Nathan was concerned that removing the deck and footings could cause a larger impact on the land than leaving the deck as it is. Greg asked staff how the deck could be constructed without the office being notified. Alex said that no complaints were received by the neighbors and that in areas where there are a great deal of non-complying structures neighbors become more used to seeing smaller setbacks. Ted said that he thought the board would have approved an 8' x 24' deck if it had been applied for prior to construction. Greg said that he agreed with Ted and stated that the applicant has a strong case against his attorney.

Joe said he was concerned about setting a bad precedent if they decide to grant approval. He asked that any draft decision for approval include language in reference to the mitigating factor affecting this application.

Randall Kay asked what the applicant's redress would be if the board votes against his application. Ted said that the applicant should pursue the issue with his attorney, that he could apply for a smaller deck and that he would need to work with Peter in resolving the outstanding issue.

Nathan MOVED to approve the Conditional Use application. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion FAILED 3 – 4 with Clint, Nathan and Joe voting in the affirmative and Robert, Ted, Greg, and Lisa voting opposed.

Ted MOVED to approve an 8' x 24' deck on the house. Robert SECONDED the motion.

There was some discussion among the board and staff regarding the application process. It was decided that a separate application would be required. The board thought that an application for an 8' x 24' deck would probably be approveable. Ted withdrew his motion.

Alex explained that he would mail David a written review draft decision. He said that the applicant could appeal the decision to the environmental review board, or work with Peter to resolve the situation.

9-Lot Subdivision PRD Final Plat Report – Buck Hill West/Route 116 – Applicant is Charles Reiss

Joe recused himself from the board for this application.

Chuck explained that there were only two changes to the plans from preliminary plat. The first was that they marked the common area that would be designated for gardening space for lots 1 – 7. The second involved marking the pedestrian pathways on the map. Chuck asked the architect for the project, Rolf Kielman, to present a palette of earth tones that they would like to use on the homes. Rolf explained that they had used natural colors from the development's surroundings to build the palette. Rolf added that he felt the surrounding houses should be subordinate to the existing farmhouse. Chuck said that they had also chosen earth-toned palettes for the window cladding and metal rooves. Greg explained that he was uncomfortable with Chuck's reference to allowing homeowners to choose colors that are 'variations on the theme' of the palette. He felt that there should be a specific palette that the homeowners must choose from and that the board was looking to the applicant to come up with specific conditions to minimize the visual impact of the houses on the hillside. The applicant asked the board to consider the color palette their submission and that homeowners would choose from within that palette. Peter explained that he would like a perimeter of colors established that would help him to determine if a homeowner had complied with the proposed covenants and that this palette would provide that guidance. Ted added that he would like to see the color selection included as a part of the covenants for the development.

Chuck reviewed the list of waivers being requested for the development. They included: 1. A waiver from the 60' front yard setback from the road. They were requesting a 25' setback from the center of the road. This would set the building envelope on the edge of the easement for the ROW. 2. A waiver from the 35' building height limitation to accommodate for possible roof-mounted wind-turbines and chimneys. 3. A change in the road radius to 105'. The Selectboard granted approval for this waiver and 4. Lot size waivers.

In regards to the front yard setback waiver the board reviewed the option of placing a structure less than 600 square feet within 10' of the sideyards. The applicant said that they plan to utilize this regulation to place small garages. Greg asked where the garages will be placed in relation to the houses. Ian Jewkes explained that there are several options including: having a garage on a lower lever, and entering the garage from the side. Rolf said that at the current time all houses that have been designed that have garages enter from the side.

Ted asked for guidance regarding how the applicant would exceed the 35' height limitation when building 1 ½ story homes that are set into a hillside. Rolf explained that the houses will have a 12/12 pitch roof and that in all actuality the only items that might exceed this height limitation are the wind turbines or chimneys. The turbines are 2' in diameter and cylindrical; similar to a wind driven roof vent. Ted said that he would want to see more specific details about the wind turbines before they are approved. Alex suggested that the wind turbines could be handled through the conditional use permitting process when they get to that step. Peter added that the conditional use permits would probably need to be applied for on a house-by-house basis.

Lisa asked if any landscaping had been proposed for the development. Chuck said that no proposal had been prepared as they need to limit the amount of vegetation on the south side of the homes so that solar gain is not affected. Ted asked for clarification regarding why solar is incompatible with landscaping. He suggested that anything planted to the north would not hurt the solar gain on the homes. Chuck said that he has been encouraging buyers to plan to have accessory structures built to collect additional solar power. In addition, he is not sure where garages will be placed or other accessory structures and he does not want to interfere with their location due to landscaping constraints. Lisa thought that low shrubbery could help to make the houses blend into their surroundings. Nathan thought the applicant should develop a landscaping budget. He said he felt that landscaping can make a considerable difference in the look of a development. The board briefly discussed if this had been required of other residential developments. Peter said that they had similar requirements for the Creekside development. Alex said the issue here was the lack of a specific need for the landscaping. Lisa said she felt the landscaping would help to break up he facade of the homes and help them to blend into the surroundings. Greg asked if anything would be added to the covenants to minimize the visual impact on the downslope. He thought that standard language could be added to encourage homeowners to plant appropriate shrubbery to minimize the southern exposure of the homes without impacting the passive solar gain.

Clint said he thought the board had suggested planting trees between the existing barn and lot #6 to break up this expanse of area. Chuck said that a good part of this area is wetlands but that some trees could be planted in the upland area without affecting the solar gain on the houses. Nathan recommended that coniferous trees be used to provide year-round landscaping to soften the view.

Ian Jewkes said that the conditions in Peter's staff report regarding the driveways were fine. Ted asked if they would be able to access the homes from the back while maintaining the 12% grade. Ian said they would. Clint asked how steep the driveway is on lot 3. Ian said it has a 12.5% grade.

Ian noted that several residents in the area have expressed a concern about how their water supply may be affected by this new development. He reviewed the well logs provided by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and said that it looks like the area has a very strong water supply. Chuck added that each home will have its own well which will also be used for geothermal heating purposes.

Bradley Carpenter, a neighbor on Buck Hill Road said that he was also concerned about the development's impact on his shallow well. Greg noted that the town does not monitor wells before and after development unless that development is municipal. Peter said that the state only tests for well interference within 200'. Ted noted that typically the affect of a well on a water table is very localized and that drilled wells and shallow wells are drawing off from different water sources. Ian agreed, and added that the wells on this property will be 300' from the Carpenter's well and drawing from a deeper water source.

Bradley asked why the walking path is in the wetlands area and why it is 30' wide. Chuck clarified that the path has a 30' wide easement but will actually be 5' wide. The 30' ROW width just allows space for the path to meander based on geographical obstacles. Bradley asked if the trail will be maintained in the winter and if snowmobiles will be allowed on the path. Joe said that the path is strictly for pedestrian usage, possibly for horses, and not for motorized vehicles of any sort. Robert asked if a parking area had been discussed for the hikers that might visit the trail. Chuck said that there was currently no plan for parking for the hiking area.

Chuck asked that wood stained to a natural color be added as another option to the color palette. Ted asked Chuck to work with the staff on finalizing the color palette and to incorporate this into the development's covenants. Robert asked if there are any updated drawings of what the houses will look like. Rolf said that they did not have any new designs and that they are currently working with potential homeowners on this process. He added that none of the houses' ridgelines will exceed the treeline that borders the property. Chuck said that the basic plan has not changed since the preliminary plat stage.

Peter requested that the public hearing be left open so that he could discuss outstanding issues with the applicant while preparing the review draft decision.

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the May 16^th meeting and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval in the interim. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Joe returned to the board at this time.

Minor 2-Lot Subdivision Final Plat – 2350 Lincoln Hill Road – Applicants are Sandra Collins and Dustin Jurgenson

Sandra explained that she and Dustin are requesting final plat approval for a Minor Subdivision in the Rural Residential II, (RRII) District consisting of one lot and remaining land which contains the present owner's house. The subject parcel is located on the south side of Lincoln Hill Road approximately 2 ¼ miles from North Road and is currently owned by her father. A similar lot on the eastern side of this parcel was created as a free lot, with approval for Development on a Private Right of Way, and at that time the driveway met the standards for a road. The location of this property in the Eastern Hills area of Town, bordered by large 'anchor lots' of protective forest land, is identified in the Town Plan as one where open spaces, productive forest land and wildlife habitat are of primary concerns and of aesthetic importance.

Ted asked if a building envelope had been identified for the lot. Sandra said that the picture of the house on the map is where the house will be. She added that they may wish to build a garage in the future but will not do so right away. Peter said that he spoke with Dustin about Peter's proposed envelope location (100' above proposed house site and 50' below it) and Dustin felt this would allow adequate space for their current and future needs.

Greg asked if there is an issue about the shape of the retained lot 1. Peter said that the grade on the back section of this lot is very steep and at present can only be used for forestry purposes. Greg asked if the proposed drilled well and well head protection zone will fall entirely on the new lot. Sandra said that it would.

Ted asked about the change Peter noted in his staff report regarding adding a culvert. Sandra said that she spoke with the engineer on the project who did not feel this culvert was necessary. Robert suggested that the board request a statement from the engineer confirming this concept.

Peter added that there is no proposed homeowners association for the lots and that the deed language deals with the sharing of the drive. He noted that the board could add a condition that the two lot owners would need to create a homeowners association and join it if any further development takes place on the shared drive. Ted asked if the road will be improved to the required width up to where Sandra's driveway cuts off. There was some discussion by the board regarding how wide the drive should be in this area. Greg asked how steep the driveway is where it forks off to Sandra's proposed lot. Nathan said that from the plans it looks like it is less than 10%. Greg asked about the approach from the drive to Lincoln Hill Road. Peter said the drive is uphill to Lincoln Hill Road. Ted asked staff to include a condition that the drive will have a minimum traveled width of 14' and that this width is confirmed by the engineer for the project.

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the May 16^th meeting and directed staff to draft conditions of approval in the interim. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

Camp Reconstruction – 145 Wood Run Road – Applicant is Vickie Diane Langevin

Tom Campbell explained that Diane is applying for several modifications to her home and a minor relocation of a very small accessory structure, some of which will require conditional use approval, while others may not, however all are part of the total picture and should be mentioned. Her property is on the south east portion of Lake Iroquois, accessed by Wood Run Road and is one of the larger lots in the area bounded by the Hart property and Kay property, both reviewed previously by the board. Her home received approval for conversion from a camp in 1984, which later proved to be redundant since it actually met the definition of a residence in the regulations. It is, however, a noncomplying structure, not meeting the 75 foot lakeside setback, which is the issue in these approvals, and possibly not meeting the sideyard setback to the north, which is not an issue with this application. There is an existing deck on the lakeside of the house which is being removed and being replaced with a ground level patio, which does not require a building permit or approval. This project consists of two changes which will require your approval and one which probably does not. It must be reviewed under Section 5.10.3 (4) which stipulates that a Conditional Use Permit (Section 4.2 of the Bylaw) be obtained.

The main part of this application is for an addition to the house on its southern end. This addition is lower than the existing house and set back further from the lake, however it is still within the 75 foot setback zone. The applicant will eventually be changing the white stucco siding on the existing structure and will side this addition with a natural wood siding from the beginning.

The second portion of this project is the replacement of a 4 x 4 x 8 foot high storage shed with a new, more innocuous structure at a nearby location, however further from the lake. They would also like to construct a small second floor deck, extending out from a new dormer (which does not need conditional use approval). This balcony, however, will not extend closer to the lake than the deck that is being removed, which would actually keep the balcony within the existing noncomplying structure footprint and probably not require conditional use approval. The deck will be fenced with minimal tension wire cables and basically invisible.

Tom said that the intention of the addition is to get more living space for the owner. He added that natural cedar clapboard siding will be used and that 200' – 250' from the back of the house is a mound septic system that will not be affected by this renovation plan.

Elaine Hart asked if the height of the roof will be any different from the rest of the house. Tom said that both the dormer and addition will be lower than the existing roofline. Elaine also wanted to know where runoff from the property will be directed. She added that she was representing her daughter, a neighboring property owner that just heard of this hearing two days ago and she lives in Boston and was unable to attend the hearing. Elaine was concerned with the short notice given to her daughter and felt that more time should be granted to allow the neighbors to review the project. Alex said that as far as he knew, the hearing had been properly warned as dictated by Vermont Law.

Tom said that the drainage will be directed past the new addition towards the lake or the southern part of her property. He noted that drainage for the old system was directed between the Langevin and Hart properties. He added that they plan to add landscaping with bushes and trees around the addition and plantings by the top step leading onto the stone patio.

Greg asked if any houses will have their viewscapes affected by the addition. Tom said they would not. The board briefly discussed the percentage of increase that the addition will cause on the total home. Ted determined that it would be approximately a 33% increase. Joe said that he had some concerns regarding the impact on public recreation on the lake due to the increased visibility of the home which is already very visible. Tom said that the applicant was looking for space to live in while reducing the home's visibility through removing the deck and using muted colors. Randall Kay added that by removing the deck the applicant will be reducing her encroachment on the lake.

Ted asked how much square footage is in the upstairs of the home. Tom said that there is one bedroom and bathroom upstairs.

Joe referenced the minutes from the May 18^th 2004 meeting of the DRB when a camp expansion was requested by the Hart's. Diane had voiced several concerns about the expansion which seemed in conflict with her current application for reconstruction of her home. Joe asked what the difference was between that expansion and her request. Ted noted that the Hart expansion was a much larger increase in size (approximately 200%). Tom added that they had gone through the process at the time for voicing their concerns about the proposed expansion on a neighboring property. He said he did not think it was fair to compare different applications and that a major concern had been the proximity of the enlargement to Diane's property line. Ted said it was up the board to review this proposal as they would any other application for construction on the lake.

Alex reviewed the previous application and result and explained that the application had resulting in a denial due to the small size of the lot, constraints due to existing ledge, and the large increase in size.

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the June 6^th meeting with a site visit to precede the meeting at 6:00 pm. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

7-Lot, 6-Unit Subdivision Sketch Plan – Magee Hill Road – Applicant is Deborah Gianelli

Greg Bombardier from Champlain Consulting Engineers explained that Deborah is requesting sketch plan approval of a 7-lot, 6-unit subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 29 acres, and is located on the south side of Magee Hill Road; parcel #05-01-09.200. This is an undeveloped parcel that is primarily open meadow with an interesting pattern of stone walls and shrubby hedgerows that serve to divide the meadow. The parcel contains no mapped streams of mapped wetlands. Significant natural features include the hedgerows and the open fields/meadows themselves. Only the western most portion of these fields is mapped with agricultural soils (see map). The parcel gently rises from Magee Hill Road to the back of the parcel. Front portions (especially lot 1) have excellent views of Mount Mansfield to the east and Lake Iroquois and the Adirondacks to the northwest. The parcel is not highly visible from surrounding roads. Only the front portion can be seen from the immediate section of Magee Hill Road, and from a very limited section of Pond Road near the Williston town line. The surrounding context of this parcel is interesting but split between low density residential development along Magee Hill Road, and extensive, undeveloped forest land to the south that is characteristic of the RR2 district.

Lots 1 – 6 are building lots. Lots 1 – 4 are approximately 3 acres, lot 5 is a larger 6 acre lot at the back (south side) of the parcel, and lot 6 is approximately 4 acres. Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 are generally framed by the existing hedgerows. Lots 1 and 6 comprise portions of the more contiguous open hayfield that spans the western and northern sides of the parcel. Lot 7 is not a building lot, and is intended to be owned in common. The bulk of this lot sits in the open hayfield on the western side of the parcel, between lots 1 and 6, where the community septic system is planned; however, lot 7 also includes 2 thin 'arms' going north and south to include the shared road. The shared road divides the parcel, and provides single access to Magee Hill Road at the same location as the existing farm access. Building envelopes are indicated on the sketch plan for all 6 building lots. Individual drilled wells and a community septic system are planned.

Greg B. began by addressing the issues raised in the staff report. Alex had raised a concern about lot #1 not meeting Hinesburg's Rural Design Standards since it is “...highly exposed (no summer shade or shelter from winter wind), and in the middle of the open hayfield.” Greg B. said that they would combine lots 1 and 7 and leave this lot as open agricultural land to ensure that the meadow stays open.

To address the irregular shape of lot 7, Greg B. suggested that they follow Alex's suggestion in the staff report and create a 50' private ROW for the road. Ben Hunt, the applicant's brother said that he spoke with Mike Anthony about the existing access point and he did not see any issues with it for a development of this size. Greg B. said that they would need to do some selective clearing along the ROW and noted that the hedgerows do a good job of keeping the lots separated and provide natural landscaping.

Ted asked if he was correct in his understanding that the majority of the land is not mapped as agricultural soils. Alex said this is correct.

Jim Brown, a neighbor who has property that abuts Magee Hill Road was concerned about the size of the development and all the increased traffic this will cause as well as the additional runoff that spills onto his property. He added that this development will increase the number of homes on the road by 50% and he questioned whether the ditching on the road is adequate to handle the existing runoff.

Brian Tebo lives adjacent to the property's proposed driveway. He noted that drainage has washed out the road in the past and that water in this field has washed into the new ditch.

Ted Graff, an abutting property owner, was concerned about the treatment of wastewater. His property lies downslope of the proposed wastewater mound system. He was also concerned about general runoff from the property.

Greg B. said that he would be happy to respond to all of these concerns. He explained that his obligation is to control, detain and treat runoff from the development and that he cannot increase the amount of runoff onto any other property based on VT State Law. The runoff may be handled through the use of swails and a detention pond although this system has not yet been designed. Jim asked how a benchmark is established for determining the current amount of runoff. Greg B. explained that they use a modeling program to map the land, calculate soil types and the amount of runoff generated based on the topography and soil types. He added that if the mound system is designed and built correctly there is no runoff. In this area the soils are conducive to a performance based design which means that each home will have a septic tank and treatment system before getting to the mound system. Greg B. also said that they had tried to push all development on their site away from the Graf residence to provide a buffer around their property.

Greg B. said that the existing curb cut location was selected because it optimized the site distance for the drive and they did not want to disrupt the existing hedgerow at the side of the road if possible. Greg W. said that in the past they have required that developers provide screening for headlights through the use of creative landscaping. To address the traffic issue Greg B. provided a conservative estimate that the development will generate 4 new peak morning trips and 4 new peak afternoon trips.

Ted G. asked what types of homes will be built on the property. Ben said they would be traditional post and beam style homes. Greg W. asked if they will set design standards for the builders. Greg B. said that the septic system dictates that homes may have no more than 4 bedrooms and that they do plan to use design standards.

Ted MOVED to continue the Sketch Plan review to the June 20^th meeting with a site visit to precede the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

**Note: Lisa left the meeting prior to discussing Other Business but left her vote on the Hollow Brook Review Draft Decision with Alex.

Other Business:

Alex noted that he would collect the decisions of the other board members for the following Review Draft Decisions and email the results to the board members.

Conditional Use for Expansion to a Non-Complying Structure – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Andrew Burton

Clint, Robert and Greg voted in the affirmative for approving the review draft decision (approval) as written. Ted, Joe and Nathan abstained. Alex will follow up with Tom McGlenn for his vote and to finalize the decision.

Sign Approval for Unit 7 in Firehouse Plaza – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Grace Amao

Preliminary Plat for 6-lot Subdivision and PRD – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Vineyard Harbor LLC and Abbey Trust

George, Robert and Clint voted in the affirmative for approving the review draft decision (approval) as written. Lisa, Greg and Joe voted against the review draft decision. Nathan and Ted abstained. Alex will follow up with Tom McGlenn for his vote and to finalize the decision.

**Note: George submitted his vote on the Hollow Brook Review Draft Decision prior to the meeting since he would not be able to attend.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary