TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

July 11, 2006

Approved July 18, 2006

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Greg Waples, Joe Donegan.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Clint Emmons.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Russ Barone, Collin Frisbie, Bart Frisbie, David Blittersdorf, Bill MaClay, Patti Drew, Rob Bast, Brad Brainard, Patrick Hollick, Shawn Hollick, Gerry Livingston, Leslie Morrissey, Richard Palmer, Cathy Fortz, Donna Liebert, Greg Liebert, Steven & Robin Stockwell.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

Minutes of the June 20, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the June 20, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Tom abstaining.

 

Conditional Use – Removal of Well Monitoring Provision – 95 Pike’s Point Road – Applicant is Sid Pike

Peter explained the application since Mr. Pike was unable to attend the meeting.  The Board agreed to hear the application without the applicant present.  Sidney Pike is requesting an amendment to a conditional use approval granted on May 1, 2001 for a Camp Conversion near Lake Iroquois on Pikes Point Rd. The approval contained the condition “The on-site well shall be tested annually for potability and the results submitted to the Zoning Administrator”. On February15, 2004 the DRB gave approval to Steve Lidle & Nancy Wright to amend a permit they had received with a similar condition with the stipulation that they receive three consecutive passing water tests. Our records contain the last five years of testing for this Pike well and all are perfect.

 

The Board reviewed draft decision/approval language provided in advance by staff.  Greg noted a couple grammar corrections, including changing the well description from “driven” to “drilled”.

 

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the decision/approval language as amended.  George SECONDED the motion.  Tom clarified that the applicant had been required to monitor the well due to the location of his own septic system.  He wondered if testing should be required in the future if problems arise.  Alex said the State will require adequate safeguards if problems arise in the future, pursuant to the State’s wastewater and potable water regulations.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

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

**continued from June 20th meeting.

 

Joe recused himself from the board.

 

Tom explained that the Hinesburg Hillside Preliminary Plat had been continued from the June 20th meeting to allow further discussion of any issues while staff drafted decision language.  The Board reviewed the draft decision/approval language.  Alex listed the waivers necessary to include in finding #10.  Peter pointed out that a waiver would also be needed to allow parking in the front yard on lot 2 (specifically in front of building D), pursuant to section 3.4.5 #5 of the Zoning Regulations (village design standards).  Greg suggested that the applicant could provide further justification for this waiver at the final review.  Alex said it should be considered now as removing this parking area would require a substantial redesign of the project.  Peter also mentioned that the applicant should look into the lot coverage maximums for the portion of the project in the RR1 district to determine if a waiver was need on this front.

 

Tom asked the applicants if all the development roads would be paved, and which ones were proposed for Town ownership.  Russ Barone clarified that all the development roads would be paved, and that only Hillside Drive, Thornbush Road, and Mulberry Lane were proposed for Town ownership.

 

Bart Frisbie asked if the approval included a recognition of the need for conditional use approval for the multi-family dwellings on lot 2 (due to number of units in each).  Alex explained that this conditional use decision would be wrapped into the final decision for the overall project.  Board members understood the need for the conditional use approval, and felt comfortable that the project does meet the conditional use review standards in this regard.  They felt a reflection of this in the meeting minutes was sufficient, and that it didn’t need specific mention in the preliminary plat approval language.

 

Joe Donegan felt that a pedestrian easement was needed across/over the roads in order to assure public access to the proposed public trails and trailheads.  He felt the legal language should be modified to specify this.

 

Patty Drew asked for clarification on the road association that will be managing Thornbush Road as long as it remains a private road.  Peter asked if the legal language allows other landowners to join the road association in the future.  Alex said that the legal language does not specifically allow for this, and the Board agreed that it should be modified to address this.  Patty also asked about parking on Thornbush Road, and what the difference would be if it were a Town road versus a private road.  The Board recommended that Patty discuss this further with the applicants and the Selectboard.

 

Joe felt this project was a good example of why it was important to bring up affordable housing goals and ideas early on at the sketch plan review.  He said citizens expressed concerns about the lack of an affordable housing component to this project, but that these concerns were raised at the preliminary plat review.  George agreed that this was too late to raise such issues, and that affordable housing advocates need to participate earlier in the review process.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take up any additional changes to the decision language in closed deliberative session at the end of the meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion, but noted he would be happy to have the further discussion in open session.  The motion PASSED 4-0.

 

Joe returned to the board.

 

Conditional Use & Site Plan Review – 110 Riggs Road – Applicant is Wind NRG LLC

**continued from June 20th meeting.

Tom explained that this review had been continued from the June 20th meeting to allow further discussion of any issues while staff drafted decision language.  The Board reviewed the draft decision/approval language.

 

Greg asked about the tree sizes specified in #6a of the Order.  Peter clarified that the 2” caliper listed here refers to “fill in” trees to be planted around trees to be retained to provide growing stock in case these retained trees die from too much stress.  Peter noted that the Board needs to make a ruling about the required size of the new trees proposed on the site plan (#6c of the Order).  Bill MaClay clarified that a revised landscaping plan was submitted and presented at the June 20 meeting, and that this plan calls for new hardwood/shade trees to be 2.5” to 3” caliper.  He showed a copy of the most recent plan and pointed out that it shows more trees than the material the Board received with the draft decision.  Joe recommended making the required tree caliper 2.5” to 3” for the canopy/shade trees.  George instructed Peter to change #13 of the Order to reflect the most current landscaping plan.

 

The Board and the applicant also discussed #6b of the order, which required that prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant submit, “A yearly inspection and maintenance plan for the care of the trees specifically identified for retention.”  David Blittersdorf was confused about just what this entailed, and whether it required annual reporting to the Town.  Peter clarified that the intent was that this plan would be submitted only once, and that it would simply detail the planned annual inspection and maintenance for the trees that would be the responsibility of the applicant.  Greg suggested that the condition language be changed to specify that this yearly inspection plan be for a limited time period of approximately 3-5 years after planting.

 

Peter said that #14 in the Findings was mistakenly included and should be deleted.  The Board also discussed the proposed parking area surface.  David clarified that it will be gravel, and that he feels this is more environmentally sound and just as efficient.  Tom MOVED to close the hearing and approve the decision language (approval) as amended.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Conditional Use for Accessory Apartment in Accessory Structure – 228 Crow Hill Road – Applicants are Brad & Andrea Brainard

Brad Brainard explained that he owns lot C in the Boutin Subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District (AG), and is requesting approval for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. As the zoning is now worded this conditional use approval would not be necessary, however they missed the deadline by a day or two for the structure to be considered “existing” and thus will have to receive conditional use approval. The accessory apartment is actually where they have been living while constructing the house. It is within the building envelope, which was previously expanded by the DRB in order to accommodate it.  He showed the Board a copy of the State approved septic plans for the house and proposed accessory apartment.

 

The Board discussed the 30% maximum area rule for accessory apartments, and the origin of this rule when the State statutes were modified last year.  Tom raised a concern about the storage area indicate on the accessory structure plans.  Brad said this would be used by them as a hay loft and storage area, and would not be living area for the apartment.  Tom was concerned about it becoming living space for the apartment in the future, especially since the plans show a door from the apartment into this space.  If this were to happen, the apartment square footage would be more than 30% of the house.  The Board agreed that any decision should clearly specify that the aforementioned storage area could not be used as living area for the apartment.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take up the decision in deliberative session at the end of the meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Conditional Use for Demolition of a Pre-1940 Barn – 10792 VT Route 116 – Applicants are Rob Bast & Laura Carlsmith:

Rob Bast explained his application to demolish a barn that sits behind the primary structure (mixed commercial/residential building) at 10792 VT Route 116.  He described the extremely poor condition of the barn, and the potential safety hazard that it poses to the property and the neighboring property.  He said his intent is to reuse the good components.  Tom asked if there was any relationship to the Green Street project that Rob is proposing, which is primarily on the abutting property, but also involves this property.  Rob said there is no connection.  He said the reason he would like to take the barn down now is because it poses a real safety hazard, and because he’s been in contact with a person that does salvage work on old buildings, and this person is interested (same person who took down and salvaged the old house on the Hinesburg Auto Sales parcel).  Peter said this project application was well publicized, but he has received very little feedback to date.

 

Greg asked Rob what kind of conditions he thinks the Board should include in order to require recycling of the materials.  Rob said he doesn’t want a recycling requirement at all.  He said that this is his intent, but given the safety issue, he doesn’t want to be bound by such a requirement since the building really needs to come down soon.  Greg wondered if Rob would be agreeable to the decision stipulating salvage and recycling of materials if the project is completed soon (e.g., within a few months), and no such requirement if Rob is unable to arrange for the salvage work to be done in this time frame.

 

Peter suggested the Board develop findings and conclusions that distinguish the demolition of this building from other old structures that may have more historical/aesthetic value – e.g., noting the fact that this barn is not part of the streetscape, and is not readily visible from the public road; noting its extremely poor condition and the safety hazard posed, etc.  Joe Donegan agreed that the decision should clarify this.

 

Shawn Hollick said it appears that the building may fall down soon anyway, even if the permit is not granted.  He said it seems like the building is not structurally sound.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

2-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Richmond & Swamp Road – Applicant is Leslie Morrissey

Leslie Morrissey is requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District.  The subject parcel is approximately 13 acres, and is located on the corner of North Road and Swamp Road; parcel # 01-01-06.000.  The parcel is currently developed with a single family home and detached garage near the southeast corner of the lot.  The parcel is largely forested with extensive forested wetland areas in the northwest corner as well as along both the Swamp and Richmond Road frontages.  Essentially, forested wetlands (most class 2; protected by the State with a 50’ buffer) dominate the lower areas, with upland areas along the south side and extending into the center of the lot.  The Applicant has had a wetland delineation done by Cathy O’Brien, and has had the State’s District Wetland Ecologist visit the site.  The delineation showed that the extent of this wetland area is quite a bit larger than indicated on the sketch plan.  It wraps around to include most, if not all, of the Richmond Road frontage.  Apparently, this parcel is a receiving area for quite a lot of the water flowing down the hillside to the south and southeast.

 

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 3.2 acres on the northwest side of the parcel along Richmond Road.  This new building lot will share access to Swamp Road via an easement over a portion of lot 2 and its existing driveway.  The likely building location would be in the southeast corner of the lot in an attempt to minimize the impact on the wetlands.  This new building lot would be served by individual, on-site water and septic (location of septic system to be determined).  Lot 2 constitutes the remaining 10.1 acres with the existing house, which has direct access to Swamp Road as well as an existing well and septic system.

 

Gerry Livingston explained that due to the wetlands and water flow across the site, that the proposed new building site is really the only new buildable area on the parcel.  Richard Palmer expressed concern about the power line that would feed this new house.  He said that the power for the Morrissey house comes from a VT Electric Coop line that runs across his property.  He said that as new homes are added to this line, the Coop adds additional infrastructure to the line crossing his property – e.g., more guy wires, phone lines, cable, broadband.  He’s worried about this impact, and says that when he gave the VT Electric Coop a right of way for this line back in 1970, he only intended it to be for 1 house – i.e., house that currently belongs to the Stockwells on Swamp Road.  Steven Stockwell explained that he allowed the previous owners of the Morrissey house to get power from his pole the VT Electric Coop didn’t indicate that Mr. Palmer had wanted restrictions on how many houses could get power from the line crossing his property.  Robin Stockwell said there is another pole (with power originating from a different direction) further down Swamp Road that might also work.  Joe asked Mr. Palmer if the VT Electric Coop had violated the right of way agreement they had with Mr. Palmer.  Richard said not really, since the easement language didn’t specify a limit on the number of houses that could be connected.

 

Robert asked if this would be a corner lot.  Alex said not really, since the corner of Swamp and Richmond Roads is in Richmond.  Greg reminded the applicant that a septic design would be needed with any final plat application, and that this will need to include the identification of a replacement wastewater disposal area for the existing house.  He also noted that Board will expect the location of any new well on lot 1 to be placed so that the required isolation area (to buffer from septic systems) does not encumber other properties.

 

Gerry asked if the Board was aware that the wetland area in their neighborhood has been expanding over the last 10 years, possibly due to drainage problems.  Board members were not aware of this, and recommended Gerry and Leslie contact the Road Foreman if they felt there was a problem with roadside drainage and culverts.

 

Tom MOVED to close the sketch plan review and instruct staff to draft approval language.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Conditional Use & Site Plan Review for Press Box at CVU track/football field – CVU Road – Applicants are CVU Highschool (Chittenden South Supervisory Union):

This is an application for a football press box, which could be used for other events on that field or the track. It will be located to the north of the track and football field, behind the school, across a swale that carries stormwater from above. It has been located there to allow for the possibility for bleachers in front of it in the future, not included in this application.  The Zoning Administrator felt that this was not a “minor” application that he could approve as zoning administrator, and furthermore decided to warn it as a possible conditional use just to cover the bases.  Patrick Hollick, who is the driving force behind this application, and hereto referred to as the “applicant”, is doing this as an Eagle Scout project.  Any decision would be an amendment to the existing site and conditional use approvals.

 

Patrick explained the application.  He said people will not be able to see the press box from hardly anywhere on Pond or CVU Roads because it is being tucked in along the trees and because of the topography of the overall CVU parcel.  Peter disputed this, and said it will be visible from some limited areas.  Patrick distributed pictures taken at the site (outward, at ground level, from the press box location) to demonstrate the low visibility.

 

Tom asked for clarification about a possible PA system for the press box, as mentioned in the application cover letter.  Patrick clarified that the application was amended, and that there will be no PA system or announcer.  Tom asked for more information about the windows.  Patrick said there will be openings on the front side of the press box (to view the field) and on the back side (to view the wetland area), but that none of these will be glassed, and that any coverings will be wooden or cloth or some other similar combination.

 

Greg Liebert from Shelburne said that there is a power plan for this structure and that the building will be wired for electricity.  He said that Patrick’s eagle scout project will not involve electricity per say, but that the intent to have electricity at the structure.  He recommended that the project be approved with proposed power plan.  Patrick said that the only lights on the structure will be for illuminating the stairway for safety, and that all lights will be sharp cutoff and downcasting.  The Board felt the power issue was not a problem.  Robert asked Greg Liebert again if a PA system is part of the application for this press box, and Greg Liebert said it was not.

 

Tom asked if there will be any signs or school logos on the press box.  Patrick and his father Shawn said that the eagle scout project doesn’t include any signs or logos, but that CVU would like the option of putting up the school logo, project recognition plaques, and other similar school signs.  Tom clarified that CVU is not interested in the option of putting up advertising or corporate logo/signs (e.g., Coca-Cola), and Patrick confirmed that this was not planned.

 

Tom said his preference for press box color was a green, brown, or darker red – essentially a darker color that would not stand out.  Patrick said that CVU is interested in having some options here, including barn red, which he feels would blend in nicely.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft approval language.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Other Business:

 

2-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval Extension Request – Pond Road – Applicant is Paul & Peggy Stanilonis:

Alex shared a letter with the Board from George Bedard, which asked for an extension to the 2-lot subdivision sketch plan approval the Board granted to Stanilonis in January of this year.  Apparently, more time is needed to prepare the final plat application.  Tom MOVED to grant a 6-month extension of the sketch plan approval.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

The Board then entered into closed deliberative session to discuss the following applications:

 

·        Gianelli 7-lot, 6-unit Subdivision Sketch Plan

·        Hinesburg Hillside 7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision and PRD Preliminary Plat

·        Wind NRG LLC Conditional Use & Site Plan Review

·        CVU Press box Conditional Use & Site Plan Review

 

Tom MOVED to approve the Hinesburg Hillside decision (approval) language as amended.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0 (Joe had recused himself).

 

Tom MOVED to approve the NRG Addition Conditional Use and Site Plan decision (approval) language as amended.  Joe SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:20 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Alex Weinhagen

Director of Planning & Zoning