TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

August 15, 2006

Approved September 5, 2006

 

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

**Note: Joe Donegan joined the board after the Abbey Family Trust hearing.

 

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey, Robert Gauthier.

 

Also Present:  Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Gary French, David Carse, Inez French, Dennis Place, Rad Romeyn, Jeremy Farkas, George Bedard, Michael Wisniewski, Lenore Budd, Alan Belcher, Beth Quackenbush, Bob Quackenbush, Joanne Hoke, Stephen Hoke.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

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

**continued from August 1st meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing on the Hollow Brook Subdivision had been continued in order for the applicant to submit a detailed list of requested waivers to the staff. Rad noted that the waivers had been submitted. Ted asked if trees would be added to the front of the subdivision. Rad said that they were adding one additional tree and reducing the tree spacing on lot 2 as suggested by Alex in his staff report. In addition, they had moved the trees on lot 4 closer to the house site. Rad said he had no problem with utilizing silt/snow fence to protect the locust trees during construction.

 

Peter asked about the definition he should use for 'agricultural' in reference to Order #2. Rad said that it was their intention to allow horses on this lot. Jeremy noted that in their legal language they had referenced the state legal definition for agricultural purposes/buildings.

 

Ted asked for clarification regarding Order #8 in regards to the land being transferred to Ronald and Connie Abbey. Peter explained that he thought Alex was attempting to waive the requirement that the Abbey's return before the board prior to using this land for any purposes.

 

Ted asked if the two locust trees at the entrance to the development were still going to be removed. Rad said that they were hoping to only have to remove one tree but that they need to examine how the roots will be affected by the drive. Ted suggested that if the apron were moved to the side it would allow room for reconfiguration to preserve the entrance. Peter said that the applicant should make sure that on the final plat there is enough room in the ROW to do this. Rad thought the 50' easement would allow enough room.

 

Peter added that he thought another condition should be added to the approval which guarantees that the infrastructure for the development is in place before a CO is issued for each home. Rad agreed that this was an acceptable condition for approval. Jeremy noted that he would like to add that the engineer will be the individual who will certify that the infrastructure is in place.

 

David Carse expressed concern that in the provisions of the declarations and covenants the agreed upon ROW across lot 5 to access the Carse property was mentioned, but that it made reference to VT Land and Cattle Company. He said that their agreement had been with Vineyard Harbor LLC and he wanted to know why a different company was now named. Jeremy Farkas explained that once the sale of this property is complete, a new company will be created which will be called VT Land and Cattle Company. By using the new company title they were planning for the future when VT Land and Cattle Company takes title of the property. David was still concerned that his agreement for the ROW was now with a company that will not exist. Greg noted that as a condition of approval the easement must be satisfactory to both parties. Otherwise the applicant would be in violation of the condition. David asked that wording be added to the Review Draft Decision which referenced the agreement between Carse and the applicant. Tom asked staff to add this information to order #10.

 

Greg asked if the ROW had been surveyed. Jeremy said that in the agreement they had decided the ROW would be surveyed with pins prior to the closing date.

 

David Carse said that his other concern was in reference to the notice of agricultural operation. He asked that since the property adjoins land that is actively forested, a notice of an on-going forestry operation be added as well. He added that in a letter from the Carse's attorney Joe Fallon to Jeremy Farkas written in November of 2005 a condition of the agreement for the ROW was that a notice of forestry operation would be included in the covenants. Jeremy said that this was an agreement they had made and that he thought that Mr. Fallon had already drafted language as such to add to the deeds. Greg thought that adding this notice was a very good idea. Rad agreed and said that the more they can do to alert homeowners to their surroundings, the better.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Jeremy asked if Alex would share the Review Draft Decision with the applicant. Peter said that he can, but that since the public hearing is closed he cannot discuss it with him. The board asked that staff return to the September 5th meeting with an updated review draft decision. The board will vote on the decision at that meeting. Peter added that he would like to see the documentation dates added to the final approval so that it is clear which drafts of each document are conditions of approval.

 

Minor 2-Lot Final Plat – Drinkwater Road – Applicant is Inez French

George Bedard explained that this is the final plat application for a two lot subdivision in the agricultural district (AG) on the north side of the Drinkwater Road near Charlotte. Inez French (referred to as the applicant) wishes to create a 10 acre parcel containing the house and farm structures and sell the 100 acre remainder with one building envelope on it. The staff report noted that the sketch plan was approved on February 3, 2006 and while this application appears as a simple request to separate an already developed lot from a larger parcel which would have only one approved building site, the parcels created from this farm thus far have inefficiently utilized the developable land leaving the remaining land with increasingly fewer development possibilities which would comply with the regulations. The purpose of the Agricultural zone is “To promote the continuation of agricultural and open space uses on land so suited and to allow low density, rural residential development primarily on land less suitable for open space and agricultural uses. Development that conserves agricultural lands and prevents conflicts between residences and farming operations is encouraged.” This farm has been slowly parceled off until basically this lot (and the one across the street) containing the best of the agricultural lands, interior open spaces, or land that is adjacent to active farming operations is all that remains.

 

Greg noted that during the winter he had often seen road crews working to try to clear out culverts so that water does not flow over the road and freeze. Gary French said that he thought the culvert had been scheduled to be replaced in this area and upgraded from 15” to 18”. George B. said that water will be directed off from the driveway and into the roadside ditch. He noted that Mike Anthony had approved the driveway cut and that whatever suggestions he makes regarding the driveway will be carried out. Greg said that he was concerned about this area because it is a shallow basin shaped space in which water tends to collect. George B. said that he thought replacement of the culvert could solve problems in this area. Peter suggested that a condition of approval could be added that if the runoff design does not function the applicant will need to return to the board with a solution. George B. said that the French's engineer would be happy to work closely with Mike Anthony to accomplish this. Peter noted that the road foreman is not an engineer and is not able to determine possible stormwater runoff issues.

 

Greg said that he had heard this land will be sold to a developer who plans to reconfigure and further subdivide the lot. He noted that if the land is further subdivided in the future he would not necessarily approve this building site. George B. said that any further plans for the lot would need to come before the DRB for approval. The state has approved a wastewater and well location but they are not as concerned with the house location. George B. added that this house site is nicely screened by a large amount of brush and trees outside the building envelope. There is also a tree line between this site and Peter Baldwin's property. The house is also set back farther from the road than many of the surrounding homes. The applicant would agree to limiting clearing within the building envelope if the board feels this is needed. George B. added that they would like a condition added to the final order that the building envelope will be staked, and viewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. He asked if the board might consider allowing the maximum housing height to be determined by the average elevation around the home. George B. noted that this had been agreed to in the Ayer subdivision approval and that it is a more simple means to keep track of. The board agreed that this was an acceptable compromise.

 

George B. said that the utilities will be brought in from the existing pole to serve a single residential connection. Green Mountain Power does not provide plans for single residential connections and did not wish to provide documentation to this effect.

 

Michael Wisniewski, an adjoining landowner, asked about the location of the proposed septic location. George B. pointed out the septic location and noted Mr. Wisniewski's two well shield protection zones; one for a drilled well and one for a shallow well. Tom asked if Michael is using his shallow well. Michael said that it is hooked up for them to switch to, but that they are not currently using it.

 

Ted noted that the house location and driveway may eliminate access points to the rest of the land. Joe questioned the validity of separating agricultural structures from the usable agricultural land. He noted that this situation is unique since the Frenchs still own land on the other side of the road that can be farmed. Peter added that the Frenchs are preserving agricultural land but they are also creating a residual parcel that is the best of the agricultural soils. There has been no master plan completed to concentrate development on the best land.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

2-Lot Subdivision & PRD Sketch Plan – 190 Place Road – Applicants are Dennis and Jody Place

George Bedard explained that Dennis and Jody Place are requesting Sketch Plan approval for a 2-lot subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres, and is located on the south side of Place Road West; parcel #16-20-21.000. The Applicant actually owns 3 separate but adjoining parcels in this area. The 'Erika Place' parcel is the subject parcel of approximately 10 acres. It is developed with a house in the northeast corner, relatively close to Place Road West. The 'Geprags' parcel (approximately 17 acres) is directly to the south, and is undeveloped with an active sugar bush with a significant State designated, natural area (limestone cobble/cliff called 'High Rock') with a related rare plant species occurrence. The Applicant's 'House' parcel (approximately 13 acres) is directly to the east, and is developed with the Applicant's home and accessory buildings. The State designated natural area ('High Rock') includes the cliffs facing Route 116 as well as a portion of the hill top. It is primarily on the Applicant's 'Geprags' parcel but also includes a small portion of the subject parcel ('Erika Place' parcel). There are some agricultural soils on the northern side of the subject parcel, but the primary natural resource is the High Rock area and the associated forest, which the applicant uses as a sugarbush.

 

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 1 acre in the northeast corner of the parcel around the existing house site. Access to this existing house site from Place Road West would remain the same, and a small easement on lot 2 would be granted for the necessary replacement septic system area, which is shown in the southwest corner of lot 1. Lot 2 comprises the remaining 9 acres of the parcel. No development is planned for lot 2 at this time, and the applicant may be interested in simply dissolving this as a separate lot by absorbing it into their adjacent 'Geprags' or 'House' parcel. The Applicant's intent is to utilize the forested portion of lot 2 for the sugar operation, and the meadow portion for hay for their horses. The required open space for a subdivision and PRD of the subject parcel is approximately 2.5 acres (25% of 10 acres). The applicant has not specifically delineated an open space area. Instead, they propose that lot 1 would have pedestrian access/use of a designated trail that crosses lot 2 and the 'Geprags' parcel.

 

The subject parcel could be reduced to 3 acres (minimum lot size for this district) through a simple transfer of land to adjoiner procedure. This PRD was proposed because the Applicant would like to reduce this lot to only 1 acre, in order to keep the meadow intact (on a single parcel), and be consistent with other nearby parcels that are also smaller than the minimum lot size.

 

George Bedard noted that several of the surrounding lots are 1 acre or less in size so this design would fit with the surrounding neighborhood. It is their intention to keep as much of the fields and woods on this land functioning as it is for as long as possible.

 

Greg asked if the state designation as a Natural Area protects the area from development. Peter said it does not. Ted asked what prevents easements and covenants from providing the same thing as this lot layout. George B. said that this was an easier way to deal with this situation and would offer more appeal to a future owner. Ted said he was not sure that creating a single lot PRD is the best option for an already complying single lot. Tom asked why the dog leg section of land on the former Erika Place parcel does not show up on the survey. George B. said this is because the tax map is old and has not caught up to the current lot lines.

 

George B. said that McCain Consulting has located an adequate replacement septic area and has tested the current septic system and found it to be functioning. Tom asked if the open space area is being declared. George B. said that they would do what the board wants. He added that they felt that the open space requirements were being dealt with by having the remainder of the land used for agriculture and forestry. If the board asked them to designate an open space they would probably use the area designated by the state as a Natural Area.

 

Ted asked if it makes sense to allow the neighborhood to have access to CVU via the existing path. George B. said that this path is in rough, wet territory and that other homeowners should use the unofficial access up the road. Ted asked George B. to trace around the merged property on the survey map. He then asked how many total acres are involved. George B. said there are approximately 39 acres. Joe noted that at this size the lot could be entered into the Current Use program. Dennis said that they are looking into this option.

 

Tom noted Alex's reference to the the open space in the High Rock Natural Area and how it could be beneficial to all those involved. Dennis said that he is worried about safety issues in making this area an open space. Ted clarified that this is for preservation purposes and would not result in public access. Ted also felt the board needed to discuss the PRD applicability of this lot layout. Greg said that he did not think this qualifies as a PRD and asked the applicant if there was another option that he would find viable for this project. George B. said that the strengths of the PRD are what it preserves. If they cannot use the PRD layout, there would have to be a boundary line adjustment that would destroy the use of the front field portion which is the most visible to the public. The applicant strongly felt that this would take away the mechanism to maintain the way in which the land is functioning now. Greg asked what the applicant would like to do if the board will not approve this design (flat denial or a continuation to rework the plan). Peter said it would actually be a transfer of land to adjoiner as opposed to a boundary line adjustment and this would require a sketch plan hearing.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the application in deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

5-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Burritt Rd/Baldwin Rd- Applicants are Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen and Joanne Hoke

George Bedard explained that Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen and Joanne Hoke were requesting Sketch Plan approval for a major subdivision and Transfer of Land to Adjoiner approval on property individually and jointly owned at the southwest corner of Burritt (2000 feet of frontage) and Baldwin (1700 feet of frontage) roads in the Agricultural Zoning District. The purpose of the agricultural district is as follows: “To promote the continuation of agricultural and open space uses on land so suited and to allow low density, rural residential development primarily on land less suitable for open space and agricultural uses. Development that conserves agricultural lands and prevents conflicts between residences and farming operations is encouraged. “ Four of the lots are proposed to be accessed by a new road off of Baldwin Road and the fifth from Burritt Road. The subject parcel is approximately 90 acres in total, with the jointly owned lot 66 acres, to reconfigure the boundaries of their individual lots to fit more logically within this subdivision but would keep the current acreages basically the same. This property is at the northern end of the agricultural lands along Baldwin Road that have not been developed and adjacent to the Baldwin farm land, currently being cropped.

 

George B. said that they planned to modify the lot line between the Hoke lot and lot #5 so that the pond is contained entirely on the Hoke lot. A shared mound septic system as well as replacement septic areas for the Hokes and Quackenbushs will be located on lot #6 which is the retained land. George B. explained that the main access will follow the edge of the fields and the contours of the land. They would like to use a 100' setback from the rear year which adjoins with the Baldwin property as opposed to the standard 200' buffer zone from land used for agricultural purposes. He noted that the wells could be set 200' away but that moving the house that far off the rear yard lot line would require a new road placement that would not work as well with the contours of the land.

 

Joe asked how large the total field area is on the three lots. George B. said it is about 15 acres. Ted said he thought it was important for the board to conduct a site visit of this property.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review of the Hoke/Quackenbush Subdivision to the September 5th meeting with a site visit to be conducted prior to the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The board briefly reviewed the areas that should be staked for the site visit and decided to meet at Robert Quackenbush's home to begin the site visit.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – 3012 Baldwin Road – Applicant is Mark Ames

Mark explained that he was requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 105 acres, and is located on the west side of Baldwin Road, in the south west corner of town. The existing home site is the former Davis farm house and barn and the property has approximately 1000 feet of frontage on Baldwin Road and extends to the west and then to the north where it ends on the banks of Lewis Creek. The majority of the land is mapped as either prime or state wide agricultural soils and the western hillside is part of a valuable wildlife corridor and denning area.

 

Mark is proposing to separate this existing house site, Lot 1, on a separate 4 acre parcel and construct a residence on the remainder. As proposed this new house site would be on a small knoll approximately 500 feet from the road, out of the agricultural soils, in an area that contains possible screening.

 

Mark noted that he had reserved two replacement septic areas on the adjoining property to the south and that the existing mound system as well as a design for a mound system for the new house are/will be located on lot 2. Mark has a deeded ROW to the replacement septic areas on the subdivided land to the south. Tom asked how big each lot is. Mark said lot 1 is approximately 4 acres and lot 2 is 101 acres. He noted that he would like to have flexibility with the orientation of the building envelope on lot 2 so that he can re-orient his house depending on whether new construction takes place on lot 1. Greg noted that a new owner may wish to tear down the existing home and barn on lot 1 and asked if the applicant would like to outline some building restrictions for this lot. Mark said he did not wish to constrain potential future owners of lot 1. Peter suggested that a building envelope be placed around the existing building on lot 1 so that any future construction would need to take place within the building envelope or come back before the DRB before proceeding.

 

Greg said that there has been significant development in this area. He asked if Mark has any plans for future development of this land. Mark said that he would probably develop another house site in the future but currently any other house sites would disrupt deer stands on his property and he does not wish to do that at this time. He noted that he had not been a part of the previous subdivision of this farm land and that he does not plan to do any major development. Mark currently has a commitment with a farmer to keep the back fields open for haying. The board briefly discussed how subdivisions may affect a parcel's future subdivision possibilities.

 

Tom said that in the staff report it was noted that due to the definition of a major subdivision; “Any residential subdivision containing four or more lots, including all lots created from a single parcel within a period of ten years.” this subdivision should be defined as a major subdivision and therefore subject to the three-step review process. The board agreed that this subdivision should be handled in two-steps and that the requirement for a 3-step process should be waived. Greg was concerned that the development may be subject to Act 250 review. George noted that subdivision needs to take place within 5 years with the same developer and that is not the case in this application.

 

Joe noted his concern with separating agricultural structures from agricultural lands. Tom asked about the condition of the barn. Mark said it is not very sound and that the perimeter is rotting and the roof is leaking. He felt it would need a good deal of work to be usable for agricultural purposes. Tom asked if that meant that Mark has no inclination to lease the structure. Mark said it would be easier to build another barn.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the September 5th DRB hearing with a site visit to be conducted on September 5th at 5:30 p.m. prior to the Hoke/Quackenbush site visit. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The board briefly discussed the size of lot 1 (4 acres) and that it could potentially be subdivided since zoning in this area allows for 2 acre lots. Greg noted that Mark could add text to the deed which would not allow further subdivision. Peter said that he could also work with the layout of the lot to ensure that it is just under 4 acres in size. Mark said he would probably add this language to the deed regarding further subdivision.

 

Other Business:

Sketch Plan for 3-lot Subdivision – Applicant is David Carse – Review Draft Decision

Ted MOVED to approve the Review Draft Decision as written (approval). Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Sketch Plan for 3-lot Subdivision – Applicants are Jan and David Blittersdorf – Review Draft Decision

It was noted that since this subdivision contains 4 lots that have been created within 10 years it should be treated as a major subdivision (3-step process). The board did not wish to waive this requirement and would like the application to proceed through the 3-step process. Ted asked to change order #1 to read 'Preliminary' instead of 'Final'.

 

Greg MOVED to approve the Review Draft Decision (approval) as amended. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

Clint recused himself from the board.

 

Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision – Applicants are Lori and Mike Hennessey and Deanna and Steve Utter – Review Draft Decision

The board asked that the following wording be added to conclusion #3: “based on stormwater engineering”

 

Greg MOVED to approve the Review Draft Decision as amended (uphold appeal). Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0 - 1 with Joe abstaining.

 

Clint returned to the board.

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Place Subdivision/PRD. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The board came out of deliberative session.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the Place Subdivision Sketch Plan Review to the September 19th meeting and requested that more information be provided by staff and the applicant regarding the High Rock Natural Area. The board specifically asked staff to speak with someone from the state about this area. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

 

 

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary