TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

July 18, 2006

Approved August 1, 2006

 

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

**Note: Clint Emmons left the meeting after the Blittersdorf hearing.

 

DRB Members Absent: George Munson.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Dir. of Planning/Zoning), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Bill Maclay, Brian Leet-Wrap, David Blittersdorf, Jan Blittersdorf, Jeff Washburn, Peg Montgomery, Mike Charney, Lori Hennessey, Michael Hennessey, Steve Utter, Deanna Utter, Shannon Dickersen, Val Beaudry, George Bedard, Sara Quinn, Polly Quinn, Susan Smichenko (CCMPO), Polly McMutry(VTrans).

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 pm

 

Access Management Presentation – Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) – Susan Smichenko and Polly McMutry

The CCMPO is a organization on which each member community has an appointed individual that sits on the board to set transportation policy for the county. All federal transportation funds flow through the MPO before going to VTrans for dispersement.

 

Susan and Polly explained that the Northwest Vermont Project is sponsored by VTrans and is looking at specific counties (with the 5 regional planning commissions) to help communities deal with growth issues along major state growth corridors. One of the tools used to manage these growth corridors is Access Management. This is an important component of development. Access Management consists of vehicular access such as driveways, median openings, interchanges and street connections.

 

During the presentation Susan and Polly explained that some of the elements of Access Management include: landscaped medians, intersection spacing, rear parking, lot interconnectivity, shared driveways, and aligned driveways. Strategies which can be used to reduce conflict points include: adding left turn lanes, shared driveways, access easements, shared parking, accessing via a minor street vs. a major street, combined development, appropriate driveway angle, rear parking, and adequate throat length (at least one to two car lengths). The benefits of utilizing positive access management measures are: reduced traffic congestion, improved safety, shorter travel times, economic benefits, more attractive roadways and the ability to preserve the road capacity.

 

To implement access management at the local level Susan and Polly suggested: 1. Initiating a public process, 2. Establishing access management regulations, 3. Implementing access management regulations and 4. Fostering a cooperative spirit between state officials, local officials, business owners and the public. Susan added that the state is trying to encourage developers to request a letter of intent for a proposed development's access point prior to engaging in the development review process. This is an effort to simplify the process so that a developer does not have to return to a DRB if their proposed access point is denied by VTrans after the DRB has made approvals based on that access.

 

Polly added that all state and class I town highways are classified into 6 categories by VTrans. Guidelines for each category are outlined in the access management Program Guidelines. In Hinesburg all applicable roads are either classified at category 3 or 6. VTrans' goal for the rural part of 116 is to minimize curb cut access in order to maintain the routes mobility in rural areas.

 

Susan added that the CCMPO is willing and able to review individual development applications for towns to determine if the access point is acceptable. For more information, interested individuals can see Alex to review a printed copy of the presentation or visit www.vtaccessmanagment.info.

 

Minutes of the July 11, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the July 11, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Clint, Lisa and Ted abstaining.

 

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

**continued from the June 20th meeting.

Tom explained that the subdivision sketch plan had been continued from the June 20th meeting to collect more information and allow the applicant to provide further support for the placement of their building envelopes. Bill Maclay provided an aerial photo of the location that was taken in 1962 which displayed an open meadow in the proposed location of the house sites. He also reviewed the agricultural soils mapping and pointed out that no prime ag soils are mapped in the proposed house site locations. Since the June 20th meeting they moved the three homes down 15' in elevation. The majority of the open area in this location will be used for agricultural purposes (apple trees). They have also added two view corridors in front of lot 1 that will be filled in with some apple trees.

 

Bill then addressed the viewscape issues that had been raised at the previous meeting. To determine the areas of potential concern they took a photo from the rooftop of NRG. They determined that the house sites will be most easily visible from Charlotte Road, Town Hall and Mechanicsville Road. He noted that the house sites will be approximately 80' higher than the roof of the NRG building. In a clearing diagram Bill designated both building envelopes and house sites. The houses will not be larger than 2500 sq. ft with a 2 car garage. The footprints shown on the clearing diagram used the maximum space if all square footage was on one floor. In the retained areas there will be no clearing of trees with a diameter greater than 6”.

 

Greg noted that on this diagram the area cut near lot 1 falls farther down the hillside than it had in the original proposal. Bill said this is true but that they had compensated by lowering the house elevations by 15'. On lot 1 the home will actually be dug into the hillside to incorporate the boulder in front of the home. He explained that their intent in this clearing is to preserve some trees in the middle as well as to provide some sort of view corridor.

 

Bill then reviewed site section views prepared for each building envelope. The following conclusions were made by the applicant based on these site sections. From Town Hall the roof of building 1 may be visible, building 2's roof will be at the same level as the softwoods and will probably not be visible, and the roof of building 3 will be visible. From Charlotte Road buildings 1, 2, and 3 will not be visible as the trees in front of the homes will be taller. From Mechanicsville Road the roof of building 3 may be visible as it will be at the same level of the trees in front of it.

 

Tom asked if the clearing can be moved back to attain adequate solar gain. Bill explained that they will be using solar trackers to make up some of the solar gain lost by allowing less clearing around the homes. He added that the intent of the clearing is to allow for some solar gain, agricultural use of the land, as well as some views. Ted noted that if the houses aren't visible, then the field won't be either. Bill said people will probably be able to see a gap in the trees where the field is located but not the actual field. David Blittersdorf clarified that the trackers used will be the same as those at NRG. He added that he felt they had made compromises to the development to balance the different issues.

 

Tom asked if the applicant would be open to utilizing designs, colors, and textures for the homes that will help them to blend into the natural landscape. Bill said they would be willing to do this. Tom asked if the reflection from the windows will make the development more visible. Bill said that they had minimized the sizes of the homes to minimize the impact on the hillside. The tracker collectors will not be visible and the window glass will be below roof level which they had shown to be the only possible visible points on the buildings. Solar collectors on the roofs of the buildings will be painted black and will not be visible from down slope.

 

Lisa said she was concerned about the long driveway to the three houses. She noted that the precedent this could set could be detrimental the town of Hinesburg. Lisa added that the amount of energy expended into building the road up this slope may far outweigh any solar gain they may ever achieve. Kevin Worden said that the drive is a little over 1000' long and that it is located in the shortest method possible to reach this point. Alex added that this might be a different issue if NRG were not already existing at the bottom of the slope. As it sits now, over half of the drive is already constructed. Jan Blittersdorf added that two of the homes are being looked at by employees of NRG which would result in employees walking to work vs. driving which is another method in which this development would save energy.

 

Lisa said that she was having an issue with the development because she felt there were other places the three houses could be placed to lessen the impact on the hillside. Bill noted that the home on the other side of the hillside has a driveway at least as long as the one proposed for this property.

 

Tom asked if the applicants would consider limiting the house designs to one story to lessen the visual impact on the hillside. Ted said he felt the applicant had proven that the visual impact was negligible and that asking them to further reduce visibility did not make sense. He said that the applicants had already compromised on elevation and that although you will probably be able to see a gap in the trees and possibly more during the winter months when the hardwoods are without leaves, he did not feel visibility was a large concern. Bill added that the applicants would like to allow some flexibility in selected house design. Ted said that this application is also setting a high bar for future applicants to prove visibility issues are not substantive on a hillside development. Alex said that if the board is concerned with the precedent this development sets for other possible hillside developments in Hinesburg, they should keep in mind that this location is in the RR1 district and RR2 generally consists of the higher hillsides in Hinesburg. In addition, the development is within the designated growth area of Hinesburg which makes visibility less significant due to the context of the development. Although he felt the first two houses will probably be somewhat visible on the hillside, he did not feel this point was necessarily bad due to the other concessions the applicant has made as well as the development's location. Bill said he felt the development was reasonably in balance and appropriate for this area.

 

Alex asked if the garages and outbuildings will fit in the building envelope. Bill said that the garages will but that future owners would need to come back before the board for any other outbuildings.

 

Lisa wanted to ensure that the runoff from the proposed drive does not result in additional gravel being deposited into streams and rivers in town. Joe said he did not like the concept of a no-cut zone. He felt this concept was very difficult to enforce on a town-wide scale and that trees eventually get thinned and cut down within no-cut zones by present or future lot owners. Joe said he felt house sites should stand on their own merit regardless of vegetation. He also noted that there might have been some confusion at the last meeting regarding his feelings about the master plan. Joe said he did not want the applicant to think that the board was penalizing them for sharing their master plan, but he felt it was easier to justify placing these lots farther back on the lot when there was more development in other locations on the lot. He added that he had really liked the concept presented regarding socially responsible development and the idea of more integrated and interspersed housing options.

 

Bill addressed Lisa's concerns regarding the long driveway by pointing out that theoretically since the drive services three homes, the development is equal to approving three lots with 333' drives which is not uncommon in Hinesburg.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion and take the issue up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

**Note: Clint Emmons left the meeting at this point.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Preliminary (Final?) Plan – 85 Texas Brook Road – Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

Nick Nowlan explained that Mike and Meri Charney are requesting approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential II (RRII) Zoning District. During sketch plan approval the DRB concluded that this subdivision was sufficiently complicated to warrant a three step process, which requires preliminary plat and final review. The applicant is requesting that the board not require the preliminary review and treat this application as the final plat application.

 

The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres, and is located on the south side of Texas Hill Road, above Texas Brook rising steeply to the south, and contains the home of the applicant in the northern portion, between Texas Hill Road (and Texas Brook) and Texas Brook Road, the right of way which crosses this subject lot and leads to one additional lot to the east. It is one of a series of narrow, steep lots created by the subdivision of this land by O'Brien in 1979. At that time ten acres made it possible to avoid having to acquire a Wastewater permit and the narrow 'railroad' configuration was the cheapest layout possible.

 

Alex distributed a letter written by Peg Montgomery, an abutting landowner.

 

Nick Nowlan explained that the proposed house location had been moved down the hill to minimize the impact on the hill while still retaining Peg's privacy as much as possible. Mike spoke to the fire chief who said a 16' driveway is sufficient for emergency vehicle access. In addition the driveway now curves its way up the hill to prevent erosion issues.

 

Ted asked about the condition of Texas Brook Road. Mike said that in the deed language it is described as a 12' wide road and the road's actual width varies from 12'+ - 14' wide. Jeff Washburn, Peg Montgomery's son, said that culverts on Texas Brook Road need to be reset and/or resized to handle the appropriate flow of water. Ted asked if there had been any discussion of widening Texas Brook Road. Alex said the board had not requested this at sketch plan and that the driveway had received the majority of the attention because of the steep hill. Mike noted that the road bed for Texas Brook Road is actually wider but is grown in with weeds and would need to be cleared. The board thought that the individual driveway for the new lot could be less than 16' wide, but that Texas Brook Road may require some widening and other improvements.

 

Several issues were noted with culverts on Texas Brook Road as well as proposed culverts on the new drive. Jeff Washburn said that the first culvert on Texas Brook Road does not function at all. He also expressed concern with culvert #3 on the proposed drive that drains directly towards Peg's home. Nick said that he only evaluated the culverts that would be directly impacted by this subdivision. Ted said that Texas Brook Road was of concern as well however, because it would be servicing this new lot. Lisa noted that sheet flow off the slope will be concentrated by the driveway and consequently the speed will increase as well. Nick said that according to his calculations there will be less than a 5% increase in flow down the hillside. There was also concern about culvert #3 draining near Peg's well. Jeff Washburn calculated that there is approximately 800' – 1000' of ditch that is all draining to one location towards Peg's home and well.

 

Tom asked how power will get to the site. Mike said that they plan to get power from the pole on the Kaiser property where a ROW has already been granted for this purpose. They also plan to remove the Kaiser pole and dig all power in underground. Power will not follow the new drive completely but will cut across a treed area before connecting with the driveway.

 

Mike said the replacement area for the existing Charney home's septic system will be placed on the back lot with a straight-line easement. Greg noted that the board does not allow encroachment of well heads onto neighboring properties and that the well would need to be located in another location or Mike and Meri would need to acquire an easement from a neighboring property owner. Mike said he would speak to the Kaisers about a well head easement area on their property. Jeff Washburn said that his honey house is not located on any of the maps for this subdivision and he was concerned that Mike's proposed well encroaches on this area. He noted that if he ever wanted to convert this structure into an accessory apartment he would need to place a leach field in this area.

 

Tom asked if legal language for a road association had been written. Mike said that it was in the deeded language and had been written by Joe Fallon. Tom said that it seemed that there were several outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. He suggested that perhaps the applicant should continue to work with Peter on resolving these issues while the application is being continued. Alex noted that at the sketch plan review meeting the board had wanted to consider this application a major subdivision because of the many issues. The applicant has requested that it be handled as a two-step process. Alex suggested that the board continue the hearing as opposed to asking the applicant to prepare a final plat submission.

 

Greg felt there were significant issues regarding the impact of culvert #3 on Peg Montgomery's property. He asked for additional input from the public about this. Jeff Washburn said that there was also an issue with the accuracy of the boundary between the two properties and the 'dog-leg' section. He noted that certain sections are not located with pins. Ted said this issue does not have anything to do with the improvements being proposed on this lot. Jeff said he questioned the validity of the survey. Tom noted that any changes to the lot line in this area will not affect the location of the replacement area. Nick said that he would take another look at the impact of culvert #3 onto the Montgomery property. Ted noted that the same amount of water concentrated at one point will not have the same impact.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the Preliminary Plat/Final? 2-lot Subdivision Review to the August 1, DRB hearing. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Ted asked Mike about moving the house site farther down the hill. Mike said then there would be privacy issues with Peg. Joe noted that the lower the house is placed on the hill the more the runoff will be diminished. The less road is built, the less runoff will be produced. Peg said she did not want the house placed closer to her home.

 

Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision – Appellants are Lori & Mike Hennessey and Deanna & Steve Utter

Lori Hennessey explained that they are appealing a decision by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) regarding enforcement of condition #1 of the 2004 Emmons 2-lot Subdivision approval. Both appellants filed appeals of the ZA's decision on the same day, so a single hearing was scheduled to deal with both at the same time. The subject parcel is lot 5 from the 2004 Emmons 2-lot subdivision, which is approximately 1.5 acres, and is located on Bittersweet Hill in the Rural Residential I zoning district; parcel #16-20-56.350. The issue at hand has to do with the subdivision's storm water runoff control measures; however, the subdivision approval clearly puts responsibility for this with the owner of lot 5. The original subdivider (Clint Emmons) still owns lot 5.

 

On September 10, 2004, the DRB approved the Emmons 2-lot subdivision with a condition (#1) that the owner of lot 5 (1 or 2 lots from the subdivision) would have to return to the DRB to get approval of a revised storm water plan if a particular drainage ditch/swale is not efficiently handling storm water runoff. After neighbors expressed concern this spring, the ZA did a site visit with various interested parties (including the appellants and the property owner) on May 22, 2006. On May 23, 2006 the ZA circulated his decision that the owner of lot 5 (Emmons) was not in violation of condition #1 of the 2004 subdivision because the ZA felt the ditch/swale was functioning and was effectively handling storm water runoff. It is the ZA decision that is the subject of this appeal.

 

Lori explained that on May 18th 1” of rain fell, on May 19th almost 2” of rain fell (1.99”). They noticed that the water was flowing fast and high in their ditch. Michael Hennessey walked up the hill to see where the water was coming from. He noticed that water was veering out of the ditch across the Utter property and down onto their property. According to the proposed drainage plans the ditch was supposed to daylight and disperse before getting to the Quinn property.

 

Deanna Utter presented photos that had been taken of the different areas of concern. Lori noted concern that several footing drains tied into the ditch and that if the water gets too high they are worried that the water will flow through the footing drains into their basements. In addition the banking of the ditches is being eroded and tree roots are becoming exposed. Deanna noted that this is a constant runoff issue and does not just occur during rainstorms.

 

Steve Utter said that the southwest corner of his house was raised 3 – 4” by blasting during development of the Emmons subdivision. A steep privacy shield around his basement window was dislodged and two posts from his above ground swimming pool have been lifted due to winter frost in the channels running below the ground.

 

Sara Quinn said that this drainage issue is causing a wetland to be created on the Quinn property. She noted that this area used to be one of the first areas that was mowed and did not used to be wet. Now she is losing her land due to runoff. In addition, Clint hand dug a drainage ditch behind the Utters which crosses onto her property.

 

Greg suggested that the board should do a site visit. Mike said they would like to see calculations done to determine what needs to be done to handle a 25 year storm. Lori added that the existing ditch is not seeded or lined with stones and is eroding.

 

George Bedard appeared on behalf of Clint to explain the history of the plans. He explained that McCain consulting had created the site plans and completed all the surveys. George said that the first section of ditch was constructed and then, while digging test pits for septic behind the Utter property Clint asked if they would like him to dig a ditch along the back of their property to collect runoff. It was an attempt to correct the problem at that time. The Utters agreed that this would be helpful and Clint had a ditch dug that daylighted prior to entering the Quinn property. He said that Clint has attempted to seed the ditch twice and it has not taken. George also added that there is an impressive amount of ground water making its way to the surface in this area but that any storm water plans addressed handling runoff not additional ground water. He apologized on Clint's behalf for digging a ditch onto the Quinn property.

 

Sara provided some historical information about the hillside and noted that during her childhood it was never wet and that there were several caves, holes and springs. She suggested that during the site visit the board members should take notice of existing rock formations to determine if water is coming from particular areas. She added that they may work with the watershed group to determine what is happening to the watershed in this area.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the appeal hearing and schedule a site visit for August 1st at 6:00 p.m. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Lori asked if storm water calculations were presented at the time of the application. Alex said they were not. He said the applicant presented a storm water engineering plan but no calculations on flow or pre and post conditions were submitted.

 

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

·          Blittersdorf 3-lot, 3-unit Subdivision Sketch Plan

·          Brainard Conditional Use Approval – Review Draft Decision

·          CVU Site Plan and Conditional Use Amendment – Review Draft Decision

·          Giannelli 7-lot, 6-unit Subdivision  Sketch Plan – Review Draft Decision

 

Greg MOVED to approve the Brainard Conditional Use review draft decision as amended (approval). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Ted abstaining.

 

Tom MOVED to approve the Morrissey 2-lot subdivision sketch plan review draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Ted abstaining.

 

Greg MOVED to approve the CVU press box site plan and conditional use review draft decision as amended (approval). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Ted abstaining.

 

Additional members of the board will need to be polled to complete the vote on the Gianelli subdivision review draft decision. Ted, Greg and Robert voted to approve the decision as amended (approval). Joe voted against and Tom abstained since he missed the relevant meetings. Alex will poll George and Clint via email and report back with their votes at the August 1 meeting to finalize the decision.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary