TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

August 1, 2006

Approved August 15, 2006

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent: none.

 

Also Present:  Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Steve Utter, Deanna Utter, Ron Lavallee, Sue Johnson, Michael Hennessey, Michael Charney, David Carse, Peter Lazorchak, Rad Romeyn, Jeremy Farkas, Lori Hennessey, Sara Quinn, Polly Quinn, Peg Montgomery, Jeff Washburn, Michael Charney.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

**Clint recused himself from the board.

 

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

**continued from July 18th meeting.

Tom explained that the appeal was continued from the July 18th meeting to allow the board members to conduct a site visit of the properties. The site visit was conducted prior to the August 1st meeting and was attended by: Lisa, Ted, Greg, Tom, Peter, Michael Hennessey, Lori Hennessey, Steve Utter, Deanna Utter, Sara Quinn, Polly Quinn, Peter Lavallee and George Bedard. The following observations were noted:

·          Viewed the southeast corner of the Utter property and walked up along the drainage ditch.

·          Observed a 20' hand dug portion at the lower end of the ditch. The rest of the ditch had been dug using excavation equipment.

·          Noted springs at the upper end of the ditch.

·          Saw that on the west side of the access road drainage flows into a culvert and passes under the road to the east side.

·          To the south of the access road on the eastern side members noted that gravel had washed into the woods.

·          Observed that the culvert under the access to the garage was partially restricted.

·          Viewed water from the drainage ditch spreading onto the Quinn property resulting in very wet soils. The water sheet flows to a ditch behind the Dickerson's property.

·          Saw older ditches behind the Fortin and Daggett properties that direct water toward the Utter property.

·          Noted a ditch that the Utters had dug to the North towards CVU road to direct water away from their foundation.

·          Observed underground channels flowing heavily into the drainage ditch at the southwest corner of the Dickerson property.

·          Viewed a culvert on the road to the Emmons property that was blocked to only allow water to run into a swale that runs east to west onto the Quinns property.

Tom added that Clint had indicated that McCain consulting has been hired to work on a stormwater plan for the area. Lisa said that since the swale is located in the shade it would be more difficult to get grass to grow here. Tom said he did not see any evidence of slowing measures taken for water in the swale.

 

Tom briefly explained the process regarding the appeal hearing and Peter reminded all interested parties that any evidence discussed at the site visit must be mentioned at this meeting in order for it to be recorded in the official record. Michael Hennessey noted that in a letter written by George Bedard when the subdivision was going through the approval process he had mentioned a ditch behind the Fortin and Daggett properties that reached to CVU road. Michael noted that this ditch does not go all the way to CVU road. Clint said that this ditch is on the Daggett property and is therefore not relevant to this hearing.

 

George Bedard said that there were several ditches in this area. He noted that at the time of the subdivision approval the applicant had proposed connecting ditches around the Utter property that would daylight 20' – 30' from the Quinn property. George said that the proposed ditch directs surface water as it was proposed to. He noted that there had been a record wet May that had caused issues but that the ditch works as it was described. In order to get the ditch to be grass-lined they will need to open up the surrounding brush so that sun can reach the grass. George added that Clint has asked McCain consulting to come up with a solution to slow the water down in this ditch.

 

Polly Quinn said there was originally no ditch onto her land and the resulting runoff is causing erosion and issues with dampness that did not previously exist. Deanna Utter said she did not believe the ditch would function as proposed during the time of approval and it is not functioning. Steve noted that the original plan resulted in all water being directed towards his property. He added that certain kinds of grasses will grow in the shade with a little extra time and effort.

 

Sara Quinn shared a photo that the board determined was taken in 1999 or later which showed that that section of their property was dry. She explained that this field had been used for pasture land as well as hay fields and that it used to be the first field hayed each year. Lisa said that during the site visit she noted moss growing in this field now. Sara said that her parents purchased the property in 1949 and that she is very familiar with the hillside and used to play in caves on the hillside as a child. She feared that drilling has opened up underground channels and springs that had previously not reached the surface of the hillside. Sara added that they have never had these issues with runoff; not even during the flood of 1996.

 

Steve Utter said that he believed that all the footing drains from lot 5 were directed into the drainage swale and that this is new water that is directed onto his property. As a condition of the approval no new water was supposed to flow off from this property.

 

Tom said that lot 5 was approved in September of 2004. He then read condition 1 of the order from the Review Draft Decision and asked the board if they felt the ditch is handling the water. Lori Hennessey read a portion of Alex's staff report which disputed the Zoning Administrator's finding that the ditch was functioning as proposed.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and uphold the appeal of Hennessey and Utter. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 1 with Tom, Ted, Lisa and Greg voting in favor, Robert voting opposed and George abstaining.

 

Lori Hennessey asked if the corrected plan will need to be built to the 2003 or 2006 runoff standards as outlined in the town's regulations. Both the Hennesseys and Utters believed the corrected system should be built to 2006 standards. The board was not sure of the requirements and asked staff to research this issue.

 

**Clint returned to the board.

 

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

**continued from the July 18th meeting.

Peter Lazorchak distributed a revised plan as well as a narrative on the documented changes. He noted that they had moved the house further down the hill and that the replacement septic area prohibits them from lowering the house location further. In addition they included a road profile which showed a maximum grade of 13% for 180'.  Mike noted that the existing road (Texas Brook Road) has a traveled width of 14' with 1' grassed in shoulders on either side. Mike shared measurements that he had taken of the road at 10' increments. Ted asked if the sections that are 13' wide are narrow due to physical constraints. Mike said it was just due to the road construction that took place. Ted asked what the grade is where the drive meets the road. Peter L. said that it is 4.6% and that this is where the drive crosses the ditch. Ted noted that there is a requirement that the drive must be level for 20' when meeting the road and that this will change the slope of the first section of the drive.

 

Peter L. said that they had added an extension to the existing culvert on the uphill side and that none of the drainage will change on the existing road so they did not evaluate this section of culverts. Mike added that the culvert at the end of Texas Brook Road just prior to the entrance of Peg Montgomery's property has a headstone which has fallen and is currently blocking most of the culvert. Peter L. said that they plan to use level spreaders to allow for sheet flow out of the culverts on the drive. They also added a new culvert between culverts 3 and 4 on the new driveway to break up the flow and send water to the other side of the drive. Jeff Washburn said that he felt there would be additional water flowing towards at least the last culvert on Texas Brook Road since the land slopes in that direction. He added that water is currently flowing underneath this culvert. The area below this culvert is a riding area that could be negatively affected by increased runoff. Jeff W. added that culvert 3 is still directed into Peg's well shield area and that they do not want any water from this drive directed onto their land. They are concerned that runoff will flow into a pond which is used as a water supply for their livestock. Greg agreed that culvert 3 is a real problem and that it drains too close to the property line and towards the Montgomery home. Ted added that as water is collected and concentrated it will cause bigger runoff issues down the hill. In addition, since this area is currently wooded, construction and removal of trees will further increase runoff.

 

Peter L. said that culvert 3 is located at a 13% grade. He said that perhaps a detention pond could be used to slow down the concentrated flow but that there is not really a large enough impervious area to justify a pond. Peter E. said that the force main should be constructed very carefully to ensure that its grade does not serve to further direct water down the hill. He thought a condition should be added to the approval to this affect to ensure that the force main does not serve as another drainage ditch down the hill.

 

Jeff W. said that the replacement field is only 150' away from his honey house and that this will result in more trees being cut which will increase runoff and decrease privacy between lots. Peter L. said that a suitable life expectancy of a septic system is approximately 20 – 30 years and that once that time passes, what is designed here may not necessarily be what is built due to advancements in wastewater technology.

 

Peg Montgomery said she did not want the Charney well shield area on her property. Mike said that he spoke with his other neighbor, Randy Kaiser, who was willing to grant Mike an easement for his well shield area. He said he would have legal language drawn up to this effect.

 

Greg said that he felt culvert 3 needs an alternative plan. Lisa added that she felt the culverts on Texas Brook Road would be affected by runoff from this subdivision. She was especially concerned with the last culvert on Texas Brook Road and felt that it should be resized to accommodate for additional water flow. George did not feel culvert 3 on the drive should be only 20' from the Montgomery property. Peg asked if the board would be willing to do another site visit of the property to further clarify these issues. The board felt comfortable with their observations at the previous site visit and Tom noted that board members could conduct their own site visits if they felt further review was necessary.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing of the Charney Subdivision to the September 5th meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 1 with Clint voting opposed.

 

Peter E. asked if any forest management had been discussed outside the building envelope. He suggested adding wording to the effect of maintaining a continuous canopy on the property and not allowing clear cutting. Ted said this was important as the site is constrained with several houses nearby. Tom said the board has to be careful when reviewing subdivisions of these lots. Ted added that he would like to see the house placed down below the replacement area. Jeff Washburn said that he felt this subdivision will affect the character of the area since all the surrounding lots are much larger in size. People are accustomed to their privacy and purchased their lots for this purpose. Subdividing the lots takes away from neighbors privacy.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Baldwin Road – Applicant is Henry Carse c/o David Carse

David Carse explained that his father is requesting sketch plan approval of a 3-lot subdivision, in the Agricultural (AG) Zoning District. This is the southern portion of approximately 515 acres that the applicant owns south of Charlotte Road and east of Baldwin Road. The subject parcel is approximately 335 acres, and is located on the east side of Baldwin Road, near the Burritt Road intersection. Although there is an existing house the bulk of the parcel is undeveloped. The southern portion of the parcel contains the 'Carse beaver pond', which has been identified by the State's Natural Heritage Program as a natural area of regional significance. This expansive wetland complex was also identified by the State Department of Environmental Conservation as 1 of 5 priority wetland areas in Hinesburg.

 

David said his father would like to subdivide the house off from the larger lot and separate the former Fletcher Farm and Leonard Farm areas. They do not plan any development and have been actively researching conservation options for the Leonard Farm area which encompasses the beaver pond. Peter Lazorchak said that the other two lots will be handled under a deferral process which will require that the applicant return before the board before any development takes place.

 

Lisa asked if the replacement well on lot 1 will require an easement from lot 2 for the well shield area. Tom said that it would not need the easement since both lots are owned by the same person. If someone else were to purchase lot 2 they would be notified of the encumbrance of the well shield from lot 1. Ted added that the well shield area should be clearly defined on the plat.

 

Tom asked the board if this should be handled as a two step process and whether a site visit was warranted. The board thought the subdivision could easily be handled in two-steps and that a site visit was not needed.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Ted MOVED to handle the Carse Subdivision using a two-step process. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Home Occupation Conditional Use Review – 767 Baldwin Road – Applicants are Ronald and Constance Lavallee

Ronald Lavallee explained that he and his wife Constance are requesting DRB approval to operate an art and framing studio home occupation from a portion of a barn on their property in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at 767 Baldwin Road (across from Burritt Road); parcel number 08-01-70.000. The parcel is already developed with the applicant's home, cottage (separate accessory apartment/structure) and barn. The barn sits approximately 150' to the northeast and down hill from the house and approximately 120' to the southeast of the cottage. It is further from the road (approximately 160') than the other two structures. It is served by its own access to Baldwin Road, separate from the driveway access to the house. The barn is approximately 40.5' x 28' (1134 square feet) and the Applicant proposes to use only ½ the barn, or 600 square feet, for the art and framing studio.

 

The home occupation would involve the creation and sale of art and custom framing. It would be open 5 days a week or less with hours of 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. A small 3-car parking area in front of the barn is shown on the plans. No outside employees are anticipated, only the landowners. A sign is anticipated; however, the location and design has not been submitted. The applicant is aware of the sign allowances in the regulations, and feels these will be adequate. No wastewater disposal will be necessary for the studio. The applicant anticipates a quiet and clean operation with minimal traffic.

 

Greg asked if this is a non-conforming lot in respect to the rental cottage. He thought Holly had told him it was a non-conforming lot and was concerned that if this is the case then issuing a conditional use permit could increase the degree of non-conformity. Peter said he thought the lot was in conformance and that perhaps the cottage is not properly permitted but he thought it had been on the lot long enough to be grandfathered. Ronald said that when they purchased the property they were told that the cottage was a grandfathered permitted use. Peter thought any possible violation of the rental cottage should be handled separately from this application.

 

Tom asked how the board can be assured that the applicants will not utilize the entire 1134 square feet available in the barn for their business. Ronald explained that this type of business requires a great deal of storage and that is how the remaining square footage will be used.

 

The board reviewed the Review Draft Decision prepared by Alex. Ted asked that Order #6 be added in reference to the residents being the only employees of the business. Peter thought the order in regards to lighting sounded off from the typical language used. He said he would check with Alex to make sure that he had used the standard wording.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the conditional use permit. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Greg abstaining.

 

6-Lot Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – 1515 Hollow Road – Applicant is Radcliff Romeyn

Rad Romeyn explained that he is requesting Final Plat approval of a 6-lot subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The proposal also includes a minor boundary line adjustment with the Ronald Abbey parcel to the east. The subject parcel is approximately 23 acres, and is located on the north side of Hollow Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the VT Route 116 intersection; parcel #13-01-04.100. The subject parcel is a portion of the land owned by the Abbey Family Trust, who also owns 3 other nearby or adjacent parcels: Parcel #1, south side of Hollow Road; Parcel #3, east of the subject parcel and separated from it by land owned by Ronald Abbey; Parcel #4, a landlocked parcel to the northeast. This portion of the Hollow Road is quite different from what leads up to it from the west (from Route 116). The viewscape opens up substantially here, allowing expansive views of the dramatic topography, including rocky ledges and forested slopes as well as a large wetland complex around Hollow Brook and the agricultural fields on the subject property. The parcel is currently developed with the original farmhouse and a number of barns and outbuildings, all clustered on the southwest side of the lot. The rest of the parcel is primarily open field with few trees on the west side, but more located along a short, steep hillside that occupies the eastern half of the lot's frontage along Hollow Road. The parcel is encumbered by a Vermont Electric Cooperative utility easement and a separate access easement for the abutting Carse property to the north.

 

The applicant proposes to cluster the development on the western side of the parcel. Lots 1 – 4 and 6 will range from 1.07 to 3.3 acres, while lot 5 will retain the 13 acres of primarily open field on the western side of the parcel. The required open space for this PRD will be provided on lot 5, in the area noted as 'Open Space' on the preliminary plat (approximately 11.5 acres, including Carse and utility easements). A community septic system will be located on the northwest corner of lot 6. Lot 3 will retain the existing farmhouse, which the applicant plans to restore to serve as a focal point for the development. Lot 3 will be served by the existing driveway off of the Hollow Road. The other 5 lots will be served from a new private road that will access Hollow Road via an existing farm access just to the east of the farmhouse.

 

Rad said that they plan to cluster indigenous trees around the development to help it blend into the surroundings. They will use Apple, Ash and Maple trees. In addition they hope to retain 90% of the Locust grove at the entrance to the development. Rad said that Mike Anthony had visited the property and asked them to remove the two locust trees on either side of the proposed drive. He noted that the cores of the trees were starting to rot and that the distance between the trunks (14') would not be adequate to allow for a drive. He also asked for a 20' wide blacktop apron at the same level as Hollow Road. Tom asked staff if they could get a copy of Mike's report for review.

 

Tom asked Rad if he would be willing to add another tree in front of lot 2 as recommended by Alex's staff report. Rad said this would be fine. He also agreed to move the proposed trees on lot 4 back closer to the building envelope to more adequately screen the home.

 

Rad said that the home on lot 6 will be built on a steeper grade than the other lots. He asked where the board would establish a height measurement. Peter said that in similar situations to this they have used the average grade of the footprint to measure heights of structures. Rad felt this was acceptable and also considered building this home into the hillside.

 

Tom asked if there will be views of Camels Hump from this location. Rad said views will be of the foothills along Hollow Road. The dominant views are east and west up the valley.

 

Jeremy Farkas explained that the legal language written for this subdivision allows the south parcel across the road to utilize the shared septic system for this development. This is a separate lot on the other side of the road on which another house could be built. Tom asked if this other lot would follow the same architectural standards. Peter noted that this lot is not a part of the subdivision being reviewed and should not be included in the discussion as it was outside the scope of this project.

 

Peter thought the lines on the plat were confusing; in particular the easement lines and lot lines were difficult to distinguish. He added that there should be some language to protect the owner of lot 6 (where the septic easement is located).

 

Peter asked if a list of waivers had been submitted. Rad said he had submitted all items requested by Alex and thought they had been submitted at preliminary. Tom suggested that they continue the hearing to allow staff and the applicant to discuss the waivers if needed.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing until August 15th and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 2 with Tom, Ted, Robert and Clint voting in favor and Greg and Lisa voting opposed.

 

Other Business:

Conditional Use to Demolish a Barn in the Village Zone – Review Draft Decision – Applicant is Rob Bast

George thought that the hours of construction were too lenient for being so close to apartments. The board decided to change the hours of construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

 

Greg MOVED to approve the review draft decision (approval) as amended. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 with Lisa, Clint and Ted abstaining.

 

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

Alex requested via his memo that the board discuss this application to give him clear guidance as to further action to be taken. Tom said that he agreed with Robert and would approve the subdivision sketch plan if the view corridors were removed from lot 1. He also felt the development would be very visible on the hillside. Ted thought that a condition should be added that the house on lot 1 will be lowered 15' by digging into the hillside as indicated by the applicant. Clint said he had no objections to the subdivision but that he wished the applicant would bring the houses further down the hill. Lisa said she felt the houses were too high on the hill and that there was much more appropriate areas for development on this parcel. In addition she was troubled by the length of the driveway to access these homes. Tom said he felt the tree line could extend further back towards the homes without interfering with the solar trackers.

 

Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval including removal of the view corridors as a condition. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Clint said he thought clearing limits should be discussed at preliminary plat.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:10 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary