TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

June 20, 2006

Approved July 11, 2006

 

DRB Members Present:  Ted Bloomhardt, George Munson, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, Joe Donegan.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Tom McGlenn, Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Liz Weir, Debbie Gianelli, Greg Bombardier, Ted Graf, Maureen Leahy, Matt Vinci, Russ Barone, Collin Frisbie, Bart Frisbie, Dennis Patricio, Howard Russell, Donna Constantineau, Sarah Murphy, Chris Murphy, Andy Rowe, Patti Drew, Larry Winters, Robin Winters, David Blittersdorf, Jan Blittersdorf, Kevin Worden.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

Minutes of the June 6, 2006 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the June 6, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

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

**continued from the May 2, 2006 meeting.

Ted explained that the sketch plan review had been continued from the May 2nd meeting in order for a site visit to take place. The site visit was completed prior to the June 20th meeting and was attended by Clint, Ted, Joe, Greg, Alex, James Brown, Ted Graf, Greg Bombardier, Deborah Gianelli and Ben Hunt. The following observations were noted:

·          Walked along the center line of the proposed road.

·          Viewed the lot configuration.

·          Observed each proposed house site location.

·          Walked along and observed several hedgerows in the field.

·          Viewed the common septic area.

·          Took note of the surrounding views.

·          Observed the culvert on the neighbor's property (Brown).

·          Viewed the existing road cut location onto Magee Hill Road.

·          Took note of the existing drainage off from the road cut onto Magee Hill Road.

·          Saw where the proposed drive will cut through some of the hedgerows.

·          Observed isolated patches of wetlands grass.

 

Greg Bombardier, the engineer for the project, explained that the only changes which had taken place since the last meeting with the DRB were that they combined lots to create a larger open space area and keep the area fronting on Magee Hill Road open. In addition, they split the back lot into 2 lots. Greg said that the orientation of the building envelopes will change as they move forward with the project. At preliminary plat they intend to show the house locations with a closer proximity to the hedgerows and stone walls.

 

Ted asked if drainage engineering will be presented at the preliminary plat stage. Greg B. said he would provide a storm water and erosion control plan at the preliminary plat hearing and he reiterated that they are obligated to control storm water runoff by the state.

 

Peter asked if they had thought about any potential future use of the open space area. He suggested combining the space with a house lot so that it could be used as a horse farm. Greg B. said that any future usage of the lot could certainly be written into the covenants but that since they plan to treat the space as common land, they do not want it linked to one owner. Ted agreed that attaching the common land to one owner might not be a good idea.

 

Joe said he was concerned with the reference in Article 5 of the subdivision regulations in regards to Cultural Features protection and specifically 5.1.5's reference to a subdivision's compatibility with its surroundings: “Whether the proposed density, building sizes, pattern of development, and configuration of lots is compatible, within the context of the Town Plan goals and the Zoning Bylaw, with the surrounding properties, the natural environment and the built environment.” Since there is not a lot of development on Magee Hill Road, he was not sure what to compare the subdivision to, to determine its compatibility. He also expressed a concern with this subdivision becoming the new standard for development in this area. Ted said that based on current zoning regulations in the Rural Residential 2 district, low density lots of 3-acres in size are required, except in the case of a PRD.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing for the Gianelli subdivision and to take the matter up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision and PRD Preliminary Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Hillside LLC

**continued from May 16th meeting.

 

Joe recused himself from the board.

 

Ted explained that the Hinesburg Hillside Preliminary Plat had been continued from the May 16th meeting in order to work out a few remaining issues. Alex distributed a letter that he had received from the Mulberry Lane Homeowners Association in regards to this application. The board then proceeded to review the outstanding issues from the previous meeting.

 

Density Bonus Request

Alex explained that it had taken some time to determine the allowable density for this project because it encompasses areas in three different zoning districts as well as multi-unit and single family homes. After performing all the required calculations, Peter and Alex determined that the project was short two single-family units which they wish to retain the rights to develop on lot 7. The zoning regulations give the DRB the ability to allow up to a 25% housing density bonus based on their own discretion. In this situation the applicant would be requesting a

4% density bonus when considered over the whole project, or a 17% bonus when considered for the portion of the RR1 district outside of the sewer service area. The zoning regulations do not list any criteria for when bonuses are allowed, so Alex suggested that the board review whether this project does a good job of addressing what a PRD is intended to do as outlined in the zoning regulations. Clint asked if he was correct in his understanding that the applicant would not be able to retain the rights to build on the back lot unless he either 1. received the density bonus or 2. reduced the density of the project in another area. Alex said this is correct. He added that he was not aware of a situation in which the board had granted the density bonus on a PRD yet. George said he felt this was something which needed to be determined tonight by the board.

 

Russ asked if he could address this issue. He explained that he and Bart had worked hard to make this project meet many of the goals expressed within the zoning regulations for a PRD as well as within the Town Plan. In section 4.5.1 of the Zoning Regulations in regards to Planned Residential Developments and Planned Unit Developments, purpose #1 states that one objective of a PRD should be to “cluster development to accommodate new housing and conserve energy,. . .” Russ felt that this development definitely accomplished this goal by clustering all the units to the front of the parcel nearest the village. Objective #2 is to “facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities in a cost effective manner”. Russ said they had worked hard to reduce the infrastructure required by the roads in the development to meet this goal. By building within the village growth center, Russ felt they had also accomplished objective #3 to “accommodate new development in a manner that maintains the town's historic settlement patterns and protects significant natural, cultural and scenic features as described in the Hinesburg Town Plan.” By introducing a senior housing living component with two different living options (multi-unit, vs. single family) into the village center the applicants felt they had “provided opportunities for a diversity of housing types,” (objective #4). Finally the development is compact and incorporates several different sidewalk and trail connections between the village, housing developments and rural areas. Russ felt this feature of the project accomplished objective #5 to “allow for compact, pedestrian oriented mixed-use development within Hinesburg Village...”.

 

In addition, Russ explained that the development also met several goals expressed in the Hinesburg Town Plan which included: “to develop and expand a sidewalk network; and to encourage development of alternative systems such as trails, bike paths and greenways” (3.4 Town Plan), “to encourage a pattern of development that maintains open spaces and scenic resources” (4.6), and “to preserve significant natural areas such as wetlands, ...”(4.2).

 

Donna Constantineau asked if the applicants had included any affordable and sustainable housing alternatives in this project. Russ said they had not for the standard definition of 'affordable'. They had looked into receiving tax credits to allow them to provide this option, but found that the density and size of the development that they would need to build to meet this goal would not be found suitable in the project's location. Donna suggested that the applicants contact Joss Besse at the State for more information and that they might be able to layer the concept of affordable housing with a land trust to make it possible. Donna explained that she works for the Burlington Land Trust and would be happy to discuss this concept further with the applicant as she feels there is a way to make it work for this development.

 

Ted suggested that they should move on to the next outstanding issue.

 

Mulberry Lane Responsibility and Sharing Provisions

Russ explained that he has had several conversations with the Mulberry Lane residents and had been in contact with Matt Vinci, the President of the Mulberry Lane Homeowners Association. Matt had told Russ that the association was not prepared to discuss the issues at that time. He understood that the homeowners had outlined their concerns with the assistance of an attorney and noted that he had not had time to review the prepared document but felt confident that they would be able to work together to resolve any issues with the Mulberry Lane residents prior to the Final Plat review. Russ added that they will be asking the town Selectboard to take over the ownership of the Hinesburg Hillside roads as well as Mulberry Lane.

 

Matt Vinci said that the Mulberry Lane residents have been trying to keep up with the process and that they apologize for not being able to get the letter completed earlier. He noted that these concerns have been presented verbally to the applicants at previous meetings.

 

Ted asked if there were any changes to the design from the previous hearing on May 16th. Russ said that they had received the remaining sewer allocation needed for the project so that they are able to move forward with final development. He added that a street tree had been added along Mechanicsville Road (2 – 2.5” caliper). Clint said he has noticed that there are two large poplars on Mechanicsville that do a good job of screening the hillside. He was concerned that when these trees are removed the hillside will be much more visible. Clint suggested that perhaps they could add a larger tree in this location to provide more screening. Other changes included:

·          Adding a concrete sidewalk in front of building D and connecting it to the sidewalk on Hillside Drive.

·          Adding an additional retaining wall to allow for a gently sloping walking path parallel to Silver Birth Lane to provide a connection to the Open Space behind Unit A.

·          Adding a walking path from the front of Unit D to the open space behind Unit A.

·          Changing the landscaping within the Green between Units A & B to allow a grassed walking path for accessing the Multi-family open spaces.

·          Moving the two handicap parking spaces between Units B & D to the parking area toward Thorn Bush Road allowing for more green space between the buildings.

·          Shifted the parking area beside Unit C toward Thorn Bush Road to gain additional green space by the Unit C patio.

·          Reclassified the brush and small trees behind units 17, 18, & 21 to show limited disturbance only behind unit 17.

·          Adding landscaping at the top of Thorn Bush Road to provide screening of the trail connection.

·          Providing an alternative Hammer-Head at the end of Hillside Drive.

·          Labeling two temporary construction signs and one permanent sign for the Age Restricted Housing component.

 

Russ further clarified that there will be 9 parking spaces below each building as well as 14 accessory spaces and 4 handicap spaces. This meets a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit in addition to the 4 handicap spaces. The board asked how wide the roads in the development will be. Andy Rowe said that Hillside Drive will be 24' wide and will narrow to 22' wide. Silver Birch will be 22' wide as well. Andy added that both Thorn Bush and Mulberry Lane are 22' wide as well. Clint asked if they were going to provide any parking area for the trails. Russ said that if the town takes over the road they could use on-street parking but no designated parking area is planned. Bart said that off-site parking was discussed for the trailhead. Ted asked if there is a shoulder on Thorn Bush. Andy said there is a 3' shoulder on this road.

 

Greg asked what happens when one of the residents has a large get-together that requires more parking. Russ explained that during the Sketch Plan Review the board had expressed concern that they were proposing too much parking for the multi-family housing units and that is why they had paired down the parking to meet the suggested 1.5 spaces per unit ratio. Bart added that cars could be temporarily parked along a 22' road and still allow space for cars to get by and meet. Andy said that the drives into the multi-family housing units are 24' wide and can accommodate several temporary parallel parking areas. Alex asked if Andy thought Thorn Bush would lend itself to designated parallel parking spaces during non-plowing seasons. Andy said it would work temporarily, but it would be tight to get two cars by.

 

Peter asked if it would be possible to widen the roads with gravel shoulders which can be used for the occasional overflow parking situation. Bart said this could be possible for temporary use.

 

Garage Setbacks

Russ showed the board a streetscape design for units 9 – 11. They showed a 20' separation between houses with garages placed under the homes. Russ added that these are conceptual designs and not necessarily what will be used in the development. Peter asked if the spacing on the picture is accurate. Russ said it was drawn to scale. Ted asked the applicant to clarify the setback waiver that they are requesting. Russ explained that they would like to be able to set the garage a minimum of 2' back from the front of the home. On the up-hill side of the development they would probably set the garage back 8 – 10' from the face of the home.

 

Alex referred to section 3.4.5 (4) of the Zoning Regulations in regards to Garage Setbacks; “Garages or other accessory buildings attached or unattached to the primary building shall be placed at least ten (10) feet farther back from the front property line than the principal structure.” It was noted that on the design porches were drawn above the garages which allowed the applicant to measure the setback from the front of the porch. Alex said that porches may allow the applicants to meet the setback regs or come closer to meeting them. Bart explained that the reason for their request is that each of the lots is different and how they will be handled is largely based on the surrounding grade. Bart showed a sketch of a potential house design on lot 3 and noted that the farther the garage is set back, the more foundation will be visible from the back of the home. Since the downstairs portion of a garage will be gravel and cement, there will be no windows to break up the facade. They can try to side this portion of the garage foundation to camouflage it, but being able to keep the garage closer to the front of the house will help to reduce the view of the back of the garage.

 

At this point Ted opened the general discussion up to the board to review any outstanding issues they may have. Robert asked the applicants to support why they think there is enough open space in this project. Russ said that the development includes walking paths around the detention pond area, an open space behind Building A that can be used for garden or play space, areas between buildings can be used for varied recreational purposes, the green area in the center of buildings A, B and C can serve as a central gathering spot, or a quiet spot to sit outside. In addition, the development as a whole is not far from the High School fields, as well as the field behind Lantmans. Bart added that they hope to allow the residents of the development to determine the usage of the different green spaces. Peter suggested that they should draft legal language that will allow residents to use the space as they wish without having all plans disallowed by one dissenting individual.

 

Ted opened the meeting to the public. Robin Winters, a resident of Hawk Lane, expressed her concern that the increased traffic on Mechanicsville Road will make it difficult to get on and off from Mechanicsville Road. She noted that at present it is difficult to make a right hand turn off from Hawk Lane onto Mechanicsville Road. She also inquired as to whether there will be any upgrades to Mechancisville Road to fix its current condition. Robin was also very concerned about the visual impact of the development on the residents of Hawk Lane. She said her view would be ruined by this development and that they will no longer have any privacy in their backyard. Robin felt the board needed to be fair to all surrounding residents and provide screening to everyone who is affected by the development. In addition, Robin noted a concern related to the water and sewer lines that will be serving the Hinesburg Hillside project. She explained that she lives at the end of that line and was told that it would be upgraded. That upgrade has never occurred and now she is concerned about the status of the line if so many new units are being added to it.

 

Howdy Russell said that he thought the board should look at their ruling in regards to garage setbacks for the Creekside subdivision to ensure that they are being consistent. He added that public easements to the trails can't be contingent on the town taking over the roads. The easement means nothing if people can't access the trails.

 

Sarah Murphy suggested that perhaps a stop sign should be added at the end of Thorn Bush, Mechanicsville Road and Commerce Street to slow traffic and make it easier to get off of and on to Commerce Street. Donna Constantineau thought that the board should be consistent in their traffic calming measures throughout town and that if speed bumps are added on Mechanicsville Road then that traffic calming method should be added to other surrounding streets as well. Ted noted that since this development encompasses senior living housing studies have shown that the traffic burden should be less. He suggested that when the applicants discuss the concept of the town taking over maintenance of the roads with the Selectboard, they should also mention the idea of adding a stop sign at the discussed intersection.

 

Patti Drew asked who would maintain parking areas that are used for trail access. Howdy said that there are no designated parking areas but that either the town or the road association would maintain the parking area depending on who maintains the road. Patti said she was concerned about where people will park when they come to use the trails because the trailhead is very close to her home. She asked if there was any space to allow parking near the other trailhead in the Hinesburg Hillside development. Bart said that there are wetlands and steep hills in this area and that parking is intended to be off-site. They do not want to encourage parking in this area. He suggested that perhaps plantings on a berm could be added to provide more privacy for Patti's home. Bart said he would be happy to further discuss this issue with Patti. Donna suggested that complete environmental screening should be provided by the applicant for all surrounding homeowners. Alex noted that this development is primarily in the Village zoning district and that it would be a shame to entirely fence lots off with large landscaping plans. He noted that visual impact in this zoning district relates more to public spaces. Alex said that the context of the location of the development needs to be taken into account when visual impact is discussed.

 

Larry Winters noted that the village district had been expanded twice towards the RR1 district in which he resides and that they have an expectation of living in a more rural residential neighborhood based on this zoning district distinction. Ted noted that there will be little further development to the back of the parcel. He added that the Town Plan and Zoning Regulations speak to this clustering concept and they have both received support from the townspeople when they were adopted.

 

Peter suggested that perhaps some plantings could be added behind lots 2 – 4 and a no-cut zone to attempt to blend these homes into the landscape and provide some screening while plantings (perhaps evergreens) are allowed to mature.

 

The board briefly discussed what steps they should take with the application. Ted suggested that the hearing should be continued so that staff can continue to communicate with all interested parties while ironing out the few remaining outstanding issues. George added that he felt the hearing should remain open due to the submission from Mulberry Lane so that those issues can be worked out.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the preliminary plat application to the July 11th meeting and to take up the matter further in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Joe returned to the board.

 

Conditional Use & Site Plan Review – 110 Riggs Road – Applicant is David Blittersdorf

**continued from June 6th meeting.

Ted noted that the application had been continued from the June 6th DRB meeting in order to conduct a site visit of the property. The site visit was completed on June 13th and was attended by Ted, Clint, Lisa, Greg, Tom, Peter, Alex, David B, Bill McClay, and Kevin Worden. The following observations were noted:

·          Viewed the proposed road into the subdivision.

·          Observed the location of the proposed house sites.

·          Saw the grades of the drive.

·          Viewed the proposed clearing area.

·          Took note of the proximity of the addition to the rear and south property lines as well as the cliffs.

·          Walked along the location of the proposed addition.

·          Observed the western elevations and the landscape perspective.

·          Viewed the present tree line on the west side of the property as well as the trees that are proposed to be removed.

·          Took note of the location of the new solar collectors.

·          Saw the view from the proposed house sites from which the fire station roof, cheese factory and Hardscrabble Mountain are visible.

 

Bill Maclay explained that they had created a computer generated design to address the board's concerns regarding the visibility of the white roof on the addition. They determined that there was just one location traveling south on 116 where the roof would be visible. Bill suggested that more plantings could be added in this area to screen this potential view.

 

Clint said he was worried about the visibility of the solar collectors and asked if they will extend closer to 116. Bill said that they will not extend closer to 116 and that the existing collectors will probably be more visible than the new ones due to their placement in the field. He added that they were presenting a revised tree planting plan that included planting larger (2.5 – 3” caliper) trees. The new plan included 3 additional oak trees, 3 crab apple trees and 6 new pines. Joe noted that at the previous meeting Terry Boyle had stated that smaller caliper trees will catch up to larger calipers due to the increased stress transplanting imposes on larger trees. Ted noted he felt there was some distinction in transplanting nursery trees vs. trees on site. Liz Weir said that most anything is available for transplanting at a nursery, but cost increases with size and viability decreases.

 

Greg asked if the new parking area near the addition will be paved or gravel. David B. said the existing parking area is gravel in an attempt to handle drainage, but that the gravel used does not allow the water to disperse. He added that they would like to pave the new parking area. Peter noted it would be easier to designate spaces on a paved area.

 

The board then discussed an email that was sent by Al Barber in regards to concerns regarding the new addition. Bill said this email troubled him because he has had several discussions with Al regarding the loop road as well as access to the building. He noted that the height of the building meets the town zoning regulations and that if there is a problem with this height it should be addressed in the regulations and not at this stage in the development review process. Alex said he was concerned because he thought the geometry of the building and the ability to reach the 2nd floor of the new building was discussed with Al at the last meeting. Peter asked if labor and industry has any issue with the building as designed. Bill said they do not and that it is extremely safe with sprinklers and a town water hookup. Peter said he did not feel the ISO will apply to this structure after speaking with the applicant as well as the ISO. Bill noted that in terms of the fire code the addition is treated as a totally separate structure. David B. said that if the loop road is not needed, they do not want to  build it as it is a terrible waste of resources.

 

Greg suggested that perhaps the applicant should correspond with Al and determine if having a large turnaround at the end of the new parking area is desirable. Alex said in the past a 40' hammerhead had been a recommendation from Al. Kevin W. said that there would probably be space to add a turnaround at the end of the new parking area near the addition. He noted that this will be used as the construction entrance and that a turnaround in this area may result in them losing a few parking spaces. He added that the construction road could be graded out with plantings added over it when construction is complete. Then this road could be used in an emergency situation. Clint said he felt that if they were going to use the loop road location as a construction entrance, then they might as well build the permanent road.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing for the Conditional Use and Site Plan review to the July 11th meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

3-Lot, 3-Unit Subdivision Sketch Plan – East of Route 116 – Applicants are Jan and David Blittersdorf

**continued from June 6th meeting.

Bill Maclay showed the board members a photograph taken from Charlotte Road to show a view of the proposed development area. He also presented a clearing diagram of the sites which displayed vegetation remaining between and behind the house sites. Bill said that the tops of the trees in front of lot 1 are level with the 2nd story. Lot 1 is the western-most site and is the farthest down slope. Ted asked what the elevation is of 116. Bill said it is 335'. Joe asked the elevation of the house site on lot1. Bill said it is 500'. Bill also noted that in front of lot 1 is mostly hardwoods while lot 2 is fronted by softwoods.

 

Alex said that he felt the houses would be very visible, especially from Charlotte Road. Joe asked if they wanted to put the houses higher on the slope to achieve more solar gain. Kevin said this was the primary purpose. Joe asked if it would be possible to get the same sustainability from house sites lower on the hillside. David B. said they need to have this much southern exposure to maximize their solar gain. Clint suggested that perhaps they could use smaller building envelopes as well as clearing limits to control the visibility of the houses on the hillside. Greg said he liked the idea of solar gain but was not sure that this was the right area for development. He suggested that they may be clearing 3 to 4 times what is necessary to accommodate a 100' by 100' building envelope.

 

Bill said that the reasons they placed the houses in these locations was to achieve solar gain, to leave open land for the homeowners to use, as well as to preserve pasture space that could also be used for recreational purposes. Dave and Jan expressed that they were frustrated by the board's reaction to their proposal. They explained that they would like to stay in town,  however they can't build a sustainable home without the southern exposure. In addition, they noted that the north side of the hillside is already developed with cleared areas.

 

Alex explained that the board is concerned with the placement of the homes because of the town plans' goal to preserve the rural character and scenic vistas in town. He noted that this goal takes precedence over the utilization of alternative energy resources. Dave said that they were trying to be thoughtful of the environment which they thought the town was supportive of, but were deeply concerned that the regulations do not allow more vigilant support of utilizing alternative energy resources.

 

Bill noted that if the board is looking at the project retaining the rural character of the land he thought it was important to consider the rural significance of the fields, and their willingness to preserve the ag soils in this field. In addition, he pointed out that they are talking about developing just 3 houses on 46 acres. Ted said he understood this viewpoint, but that this development will take place in a very visual location in town and that a viewscape of houses on a hillside is very different from trees on a hillside. He felt the board and the Blittersdorfs needed to work together to make sure the development is more compatible with the rural character of this area and is protective of the natural features of the land.

 

The board briefly discussed the original project design for a 7-lot, 9 Unit Subdivision. Joe asked if it wouldn't make sense to reserve the maximum solar gain location for more housing as opposed to just three homes. Bill thought that dense development on the hillside would not be acceptable by the board. He added that due to the site's constraints (steep grade, good ag soils in field areas, flood zone) as well as the board's lack of interest in developing the hilltop they were not sure where on the 46 acres would be a good place to build. Kevin noted that from the proposed access drive up the hillside is approximately 4 acres, so building on this section of land should not adversely constrain the remaining area for any additional development.

 

Alex suggested moving the houses down into the clearing which would make them less visible, but would also lessen the solar gain. Jan explained that these are the locations in which they wish to place their home as well as two others and that they won't build in this location if they can't achieve adequate solar gain. Kevin added that moving the building envelopes forward would move them into the ag soils in the pasture. Ted said that it seemed some sort of compromise needed to be worked out.

 

Alex asked if the applicant had considered building on land closer to 116, tucked into the hillside. Jan said she thought this was a beautiful viewscape and would not think of disrupting it. Bill added that there are good ag soils in this location, and it will disrupt a beautiful pasture.

 

Clint asked if the proposed drive is the only workable access for the three house sites. Bill said this option had the least impact on the land when compared with the other location options. Clint asked if it was common for people to access a residential neighborhood through an industrial park. Kevin said it is a common situation but usually occurs in the reverse order of what is happening here.

 

Dave and Jan said they felt they were being penalized for sharing their master plan and that they felt there was little room for compromise in the location of the house sites. Dave added that they are created a walking trail to Commerce Park to benefit the town and it is extremely frustrating to find that they may not be able to build their home where they wish.

 

Robert asked the maximum grade of the proposed drive. Kevin said it varies from 6% - 15%. Alex explained that the board has the ability to approve a road grade of up to 16% if it can be proven why the 10% road grade standard can not be reached. The applicant must demonstrate this need through driveway engineering.

 

Ted suggested that the board members should give the Blittersdorfs an idea of their thinking on the application. George said he felt he needed more specific information about why the houses have to be in their proposed locations. He wanted to know how much open area is needed to achieve the amount of solar energy needed. Robert said his feelings were similar to George's in that he needed more information as to why the board should approve something outside the norm. Joe said he did not feel the houses sites were in the best location due to slope constraints and visibility issues. He felt there were other areas on the site where 3 house sites would address these issues more effectively.  Ted asked the applicant what action they would like to take. Bill Maclay said they would like to continue the hearing.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the Blittersdorf Sketch Plan to the July 18th meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Other Business:

 

Conditional Use for Expansion to a Non-Complying Structure – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Vickie Diane Langevin

Ted asked that the reference to the Pine Tree in Order #3 be re-worded to read 'the pine tree shall not be removed' and that the tree be identified using landmarks. Greg asked that his name be removed from the attendance list in Finding of Fact #4 since he joined the meeting after this application was discussed.

 

Clint MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 1 – 1 with Ted, George, Clint and Robert voting in the affirmative, Joe voting against and Greg abstaining.

 

Conditional Use for Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure (Decks) Review Draft Decision – Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

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

 

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

Ted felt that the runoff issue should be addressed as a part of the order of the review draft decision. He added that the existing drainage issue should be included as well. Greg asked if they will require engineering reports that show that no additional runoff is generated. Alex said that they will request that evidence is submitted and assessed. The Board sometimes hires an independent engineer to review the applicant’s engineering plans, but only if staff and the Board have concerns about the veracity or complexity of the plans submitted by the applicant.  In this case, the appliclant’s engineer seems very adept and forthright about handling this issue effectively, so Alex doubts this will be necessary.

 

Ted asked that deed language in regards to sharing provisions be added prior to the primary plat submission.

 

Alex asked if the board would like to address Joe's concern regarding the development's suitability with its surroundings. He noted that there are few constraints on the property. Greg added that the development will not be very visible. George felt he should look at the zoning district as a whole to see if there are similarly sized lots in this district. Joe asked that it be documented in the review draft decision that this lot has few constraints and is able to  accommodate the allowable density without causing undue impact on its surroundings. Clint noted that the applicant is saving a lot of open space.

 

7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision and PRD Preliminary Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant is Hinesburg Hillside LLC

Ted suggested that in the review draft decision staff should mention the addition of landscaping behind units 1 – 4 with reference to large evergreens. George said he did not think the 8' garage setback waiver was out of hand and that a compromise could be worked out. Clint asked what the street setback is. Alex said they are requesting a waiver of the front yard setback from 50' to 35' (as measured from the building envelope).

 

The board then addressed the concerns raised in the letter from the Mulberry Lane Association's attorney. Ted thought that adding traffic calming speed bumps on Mulberry Lane is a good idea. The board did not have any concerns with the storm water detention pond as it is offset by all the other common land and trails, etc. Alex noted that the developer has not proposed to clear any trees on the common land. The board agreed that the sidewalks need to be completed and connected with the new development.

 

Alex asked if the board is comfortable allowing the requested density bonus. He noted that if the board does not want to allow a bonus in this location (village district) he is not sure where they would want to allow it. Peter said he felt the only reason to deny the density bonus is if the board thinks the open space in lot 6 is needed for another purpose. The board agreed to allow the density bonus.

 

Alex asked if the board finds the streetscape design acceptable. Ted said he thought that could be dealt with in the covenants, but that he would like a better idea of the applicants' intention for house-styles. He thought that using porches above in-ground garages would work well to break up the building facades.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:45 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary