TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

September 19, 2006

Approved October 3, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: Robert Gauthier, Ted Bloomhardt.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Sherman Sprague, George Bedard, Dorothy Pellett, George Dameron, Mac Rood, Dennis Place, Nick Nowlan, Michael Hennessey, Steve Utter, Deanna Utter, Robert Wyatt, Suki Flash, Polly Quinn, Sara Quinn.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of the September 5, 2006 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the September 5, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0 with Lisa abstaining.

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

**continued from the August 15th meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing on the Place subdivision had been continued from the August 15th meeting in order for a site visit to be completed. A site visit took place prior to the meeting at 6 pm, attended by: Lisa, Tom, Alex, Peter, Dennis Place, Everett Marshall (Vermont Fish and Game Dept.), and George Bedard. The following observations were made:

· Walked from the Northeast quadrant of the property along the 1 acre boundary around the existing home. The boundary followed along the edge of the field and wrapped into the woods.

· Viewed the site where an endangered species of fern grows on High Rock. It grows on the face of limestone cliffs.

· Looked down on 116 from High Rock.

· Noted that High Rock comes to an arrowhead formation that points South.

· Viewed a ravine to the east of 116.

· Observed the houses in the surrounding neighborhood that are 1 acre or less in size. Lisa noted that the lots were well vegetated and did not feel crowded.

· Walked along the field and saw that it had been plowed. Noted that a 3 acre house lot would significantly encroach on the field.

· Everett Marshall, of the Vermont Fish and Game Department, said that the fern was very site specific and that this plan for development would not endanger its existence. He also said sugarbush would be an appropriate use to protect this natural area.

George Bedard said that the applicants would much prefer to see the area classified as protected and kept from becoming a destination spot. He noted that the area would be signed as protected. Tom asked what the field is used for. George B. said it is currently used for haying. Tom reiterated that minimizing the house site to 1 acre would protect more of the prime agricultural soils. He also asked if the field would have access via Place Road West. George B. said yes. George B. also said that there will be space reserved for two mound replacement areas on lot 2. They also plan to identify private use trails, the protective zone and provide legal language. Lot 1's replacement area will be on lot 1 and there will also be an easement along the property line to allow construction access if the replacement field needs to be constructed. George B. said that the rest of the land will likely be merged if this plan is approved.

Alex asked the board if they thought this plan was acceptable as a PRD. Greg said that his initial concern was in regards to the definition of a PRD and whether this development would fit the definition given that there is no new development. After re-reading the regulations he no longer had this concern.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion of the Place Sketch Plan, advise the applicant that the process will be treated as a major subdivision that will be reviewed in three steps, and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

3-lot, 35-unit (8 existing, 27 new) Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat - Route 116 and Charlotte Road - Applicant is Green Street LLC

**continued from the September 5, meeting.

Tom explained that the Preliminary Plat had been continued from the September 5 meeting to review a few outstanding issues. The board began by discussing the usage of the commercial building. Mac said that there will be 2400 square feet of space that they intend to have it used as professional office space. It will probably be split up among several different office uses. Tom asked if there will be any retail space in this building. Mac said they plan to use the space only for professional office space. Alex noted that if a professional office is over 1000 square feet in size it would require a conditional use approval in the village district. Each proposed office would need to request site plan approval unless global site plan approval is granted during this review process. Alex added that retail is a permitted use in the district. Mac said that they would like to request conditional use approval for the professional offices during this review process but they are not sure of exactly what space will be needed for each office.

Greg asked about the setback from Charlotte Road. Alex said that the regulations require a 50' setback. Mac said that they are requesting a waiver of this regulation as they would like to lessen the impact on the wetlands behind the development by extending farther towards Charlotte Road. Their hope is to mimic the building arrangements in the town of Hinesburg. Tom asked if there is room between the Commercial building and Charlotte Road for the sidewalk. Mac said there was. Alex said he thought it would work well to keep the buildings close to the road since it would help to calm traffic coming into town. George felt the north and west sides of the building would need to interact with the sidewalk to create the appropriate look for the area.

Alex said that the conditional use approval for the professional office space in the commercial building could be granted during the final review but that the board members should discuss any outstanding issues now. He asked Mac how many parking spaces are available for this building. Mac said there are 20 spaces for 4800 square feet of office space. Alex noted that based on the zoning regulations 1 space is required for every 200 square feet of floor area. Mac said that this use would involve low traffic flow and that they would be requesting a waiver on this regulation as well. He noted that his office (which they plan to relocate into this new building) currently employs 6 people and is 1200 sq ft in size. Peter noted that if any parking problems do arise it will be a condition that the applicant return to the board with a resolution for the problem.

Tom asked if the street is 20' wide through the whole development. Mac said that it is. Greg asked if there will be any curbs. Mac said that they will blend the sidewalks with continuous paving into the walkway area. The sidewalk will be separated from the street by a grassy buffer area with no curbs. George asked what the dimensions of the commercial building will be. Mac said it would be 60' long (north-south) and 40' wide. George asked how close the building will be to Charlotte Road. Mac said it will be 22 ft from the road. Peter asked if this will allow room for a sidewalk. Mac said it would. He added that they are willing to create the sidewalk but that they are also concerned that it will be a sidewalk to nowhere. A gazebo has been suggested to the west of the end of the sidewalk to provide for some sort of destination. Mac added that they have every intention of constructing an attractive building since this is where their business will be located.

Peter asked what will happen with the area between the parking lot for Ben's Sandwich shop and the driveway for this development. Mac said that it would remain as an artificial wetland created by an existing swale. Peter suggested that trees be added to this area to fill in the open space.

Tom said that he has a serious concern about the pedestrian traffic in this area. He noted that there is more dense development on the southern end of Green Street and asked if any sort of pedestrian traffic study could be done to create models relating to possible pedestrian traffic issues. Tom added that the problem is intensified by the lack of a sidewalk on the west side of 116 and the dangerous intersection with Silver Street. He noted that this intersection is slated to be changed in 2007 but he was not sure this would rectify the problem. Alex explained that the area will be changed into a T-shaped intersection but that they are unlikely to create an actual crosswalk without an accompanying sidewalk. It is a top priority of the town but they need to design and pay for the sidewalk before it can be installed. Alex noted that based on how the timetables occur the development could potentially come online before the sidewalk is complete. He said that he would get additional information about the town's plan for this area of sidewalk from the Selectboard.

Peter asked how many pedestrian bridges are incorporated into the design. Mac said there were 3. He noted that there will be more vehicular interaction with pedestrians in the lower area. Greg asked how the road merges into adjacent spaces. Mac presented an architectural drawing of this area and explained that there will be a pedestrian arcade on either side of a plaza drive that is designed to encourage very slow traffic movement. Peter asked if they had considered any sort of speed control for this area. Mac said they plan to use signs but that the general design of the windy road in close proximity to pedestrian usage will also play a large roll in controlling traffic flow and speed.

Tom asked if they are requesting a garage setback waiver. Mac said that the face of the garage is flush with the face of the building if the brick pedestrian arcade in front of the garage is not included. This area jets out 20' from the face of the building and garage. Tom asked about the garage design on building K. Mac said that there is no pedestrian arcade on this building and that the garage is flush with the face of the building. Mac said if they needed to, they could recess the garage 10' back. The garage setback is also an issue with another building in the development but Mac noted that this building's garage doors face into the development. Greg asked if Mac could provide a sketch of the elevation of the 1st building and building K at the next meeting. Since the first building will have a 3 story facade, he would like to see how the design will be handled.

George Dameron said that as chair of the Village Steering Committee, he is in support of the development in principal but he also sees many challenges with the infrastructure surrounding the development. He noted that the sidewalk along the west side of 116 from Charlotte Road to Silver Street will probably not be completed for another 5 - 10 years. Its estimated cost is $433,000. He suggested that the town and the developer should plan for the worst case scenario; that the sidewalk is not completed prior to the development's completion. He added that he supports constructing the sidewalk along Charlotte road but that as an individual landowner who owns a house on this road that was built in 1840, he is very concerned that the sidewalk will take away almost all of his front yard. It will also probably result in the removal of one of the nicest Ash trees in town. George D. thought that he would probably work with Peter and Alex to work out the best solution for his home if a sidewalk is installed in this area.

Sherman Sprague said that he had the same opinion about the pedestrian traffic issue on 116 and Silver Street. He was very concerned about the safety of school children given the lack of a sidewalk and crosswalk in this area.

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

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan - CB Road - Applicants are Sherman and Jacqueline Sprague

Sherman explained that he and Jacqueline were requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 2 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 17 acres, and is located at the end of CB Road (off of Lincoln Hill Road); parcel #09-01-82.000. The parcel is currently developed with a house and a separate accessory structure with a garage below and an accessory apartment above. The parcel is uniformly forested with the exception of the developed area near CB Road. The parcel slopes up from the road to the eastern side of the lot. To the south and east is an expansive and undeveloped forest area comprised of large parcels including the 50 acre Larcy parcel, 140 acre Dam parcel, and the 600 acre Fish and Wildlife parcel (Fred Johnson Wildlife Management Area).

Lot 1, of the proposed subdivision, comprises 6 acres on the north side of the parcel including the existing house. This lot will have direct access to CB Road with an existing septic system and water source. Lot 2 comprises 11 acres on the south side of the parcel including the existing garage, accessory apartment. This lot may need a short right of way across lot 1 to provide access to CB Road. The Applicant would like to put the house and the garage, accessory apartment on separate lots so they can be sold independently.

Greg asked if CB Road is maintained at 18' in width as written in the 1985 subdivision approval. Sherman said that it is not currently, but that there is area where this can happen on the lower section of CB Road. George said that he had driven down CB Road and seen that there is a steep ditch on one side of the road and a steep hill on the other side. He noted that there is not room for two cars to meet but that there are pull-offs and good visibility in most areas. He suggested that the board members should conduct a site visit as this is an awkward space for a road. Alex noted that the road regulations call for a turnout every 500' if the road is not wide enough to allow for two cars to meet. Clint asked how wide the ROW is. Alex said it is 50' wide. Clint suggested that they attempt to cut into the bank to widen the drive. George added that there are no signs that the road had been washed out and that perhaps it could be 14' wide if the road were dug into the bank.

George Bedard said that he had done some work for Carol Berry during her subdivision process. He explained that the uphill side of the drive runs along that side of the ROW. Any additional cutting on this side would require land easements outside the ROW.

Sherman said that currently both buildings are occupied. Peter noted that if the subdivision is approved the second lot could allow additional accessory uses and in-home occupations which would generate additional traffic. George said there is more than 40' between the buildings. Tom asked if Alex could get some feedback from the fire chief about the safety of this road for emergency vehicle access. Alex said that the Selectboard would need to issue a waiver for this road width since the DRB cannot approve anything less than 14' in width.

Tom MOVED to continue the Sprague Sketch Plan to the October 17th meeting so that board members could conduct an informal drive-by site visit of CB Road. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

Alex said he would talk to the Selectboard to get the Sprague's on their schedule for a road width waiver request.

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan - Burritt and Baldwin Roads - Applicant is Suki Flash

Suki explained that she is requesting Sketch Plan approval for a minor subdivision approval on property owned at the northwest corner of Burritt and Baldwin 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." This property is to the north of the Hoke Quackenbush project and this portion of the AG district has almost entirely been subdivided into ten plus acre lots. That being said the area to the north of this property is actively being farmed. While this property appears to be one lot containing her house in the field and the barns, horse complex and two living units near Baldwin road, the property is actually divided approximately in half, (via the free lot process on October 2nd 1989) with the barns and riding rinks, two living units and a six acre undeveloped portion of prime AG soils on the eastern half and the applicants house on the other. This application is for the subdivision of the lot containing the house and it has approximately 750 feet of frontage on Burritt Road and is approximately 13 acres in size.

Greg asked Suki the purpose of the 3rd undeveloped lot. Suki said her intention was to create more options for the farm and anyone who may wish to purchase it while also allowing options for her own personal land needs as well. Alex added that the 1st design is a conventional subdivision and that the 2nd is a PRD. Suki would like to have a house with enough land to allow for horses. She noted that she does not mind keeping the open lot undeveloped as long as she can have it subdivided as its own lot that can be merged with any of the other lots in the future. Tom noted that keeping this land open as a viable agricultural use would be beneficial.

Suki said that she would offer the existing house to the future owner of the farm lot first if she chooses to sell but currently she needs to sell the farm, house or the lot just to stay afloat. She added that she would be willing to reconfigure the 2 acre parcel and would dedicate 8 acres to remain undeveloped as long as she doesn't have to commit to who the owner of that lot will be in the future. George said that treating the subdivision as a PRD would enable a mechanism for keeping the 3rd lot undeveloped and not creating another buildable lot.

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the October 17th meeting and to have staff work with Suki on developing a workable PRD layout. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

Clint recused himself from the board.

Subdivision Compliance Issue - Revised Stormwater Plan - Bittersweet Hill Road - Applicant is Clint Emmons

Nick Nowland explained that Clint has submitted a revised stormwater runoff plan for his 2004 2-lot subdivision pursuant to condition #1 of the approval. The issue at hand has to do with the subdivision's stormwater runoff control measures; however, the subdivision approval clearly puts the responsibility for this with the owner of lot 5. The original subdivider (Clint Emmons) still owns lot 5. 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 1 Zoning district; parcel #16-20-56.350.

Condition #1 of the 2004 subdivision approval stated, "The drainage swale improvements (see Finding #9) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for new structures on lot 5. The owner of lot 5 shall be responsible for the maintenance and proper functioning of this drainage ditch/swale. Furthermore, if the Zoning Administrator determines that the drainage ditch/swale is not effectively handling stormwater runoff, the owner of lot 5 shall immediately return with a plan to solve this and obtain approval of a revised plan." Pursuant to the Board's ruling (8/31/2006) on the recent Hennessey, Utter appeal of the Zoning Administrator opinion of the stormwater system function, the swale was found not to be effectively handling stormwater, nor functioning as intended/described in the original subdivision application.

Nick explained that the drainage on the west side of Bittersweet Hill Road will stay on the west side of the road and will be directed into a culvert that passes under CVU Road. He has also added three stormwater detention ponds on the east side of Bittersweet Hill Road. Nick sized the culvert under CVU road for a 25 year storm and determined that it is 2 1/2 times larger than is needed. The road swale along Bittersweet Hill Road will be able to handle 7.6 cfs (cubic feet per second) where 4.6 cfs is predicted during a 25 year storm. The road swale along CVU road will be able to handle 15.56 cfs where 9.92 cfs is predicted during a 25 year storm.

Nick designed the stormwater detention ponds based on the town and state standards for 10 year and 25 year storms. He directed the audience to the summary analysis section of his report which showed that the post development stormwater flows will be less than the pre-development flows (2.7 cfs vs 2.18 cfs). This is true for all three stormwater detention ponds. There will also be a 70' and two 100' trenches that follow the contours of the land that will direct sheet flow out of the ponds. Nick added that this has been an extremely wet year and areas that usually don't have water problems have run into issues. Although he can't make the water go away, he can make it flow at a slower rate.

Nick then explained the different hydrographs that result from typical stormwater runoff, runoff after development occurs and runoff in conjunction with the usage of a detention pond. He noted that although the total flow is the same, the rate of the flow will slow with the use of a detention pond. Nick added that the chance of a 25 year storm happening in any given year is 4%. Greg said that perhaps this was an indicator that current stormwater projections are unrealistic. He asked how many 25 year storms have occurred this year. Nick said he did not know but could find out. He explained that to create this design and perform the necessary calculations he utilized a software program that is based off of the National Resource Conservation Commissions TR55 program. It is an accepted standard software for this purpose and is accepted by the State of Vermont.

Michael Hennessey said that when the culvert at the top of Bittersweet Hill Road is removed water will still run in this direction. Nick said that they would regrade the area in which the culvert is removed to ensure that water is not directed to the east. Peter asked that the increased water in the town ditch not create erosion problems. He also asked whether the stretch of ledge on this property was included in the stormwater calculations. Nick said that it was.

Lisa asked if Nick is proposing the use of check dams in the ditch. She noted that she has seen check dams in areas where fast moving water is found. Nick said that he is not proposing the use of check dams and that the ditch will be stone-lined for the whole length. Alex said that he would like to a see a schematic added to the plans for a grass-lined ditch. He added that it would be helpful to indicate which portions will be grass-lined vs. stone lined.

Greg suggested that the design should be functional and that the appellants should be able to return to the board if the design does not function as intended. Deanna Utter asked if Nick's calculations took into account another possible home on lot 5. He said that he did. She also asked if the areas in which the ponds are proposed have been checked to ensure that there is enough soil in this area to dig the ponds. Nick said that he has checked these areas and that there is adequate depths for the ponds.

Steve Utter said that there had been a 30' no-cut zone issued on either side of the property line as a condition of the previous subdivision approval. He noted that the construction of the detention ponds will interfere with this no-cut zone. Tom asked the appellants what was more important to them, the buffer or handling the stormwater runoff. Alex reviewed the previous subdivision approval and noted that there is no reference to the 30' buffer zone. Rather a variety of trees was supposed to be planted along the neighbors property. He suggested that perhaps these trees could be planted prior to the pond construction to offset the necessary cutting.

Steve asked about the maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Greg said their maintenance would be a condition of approval for the updated stormwater plan. Michael Hennessey asked that a condition be added which requires that an engineer certify the construction of this stormwater plan. Greg said that this is often added as a standard condition of approval.

Sara Quinn said that there had been no runoff problems prior to this development being constructed. She added that when the road changed from being straight to curved she noticed increased runoff. Sara said that there used to be a ditch on both sides of the road which seemed to handle the runoff more effectively. She also questioned the viability of any additional construction on lot 5.

Deanna asked why they should have to sacrifice their buffer zone to solve a water issue that is not their fault. Alex explained that in the original approval there was no mention of a buffer. A condition of approval was that 4' - 6' cedar trees would be planted along the neighboring property lines and that the forested area on lot 5 shall be maintained as a healthy forest after all construction is completed. Alex said that the wording of this approval was flexible enough to allow for the installation of the detention ponds. Sara suggested that the landscaping should be completed first; perhaps the trees will help to absorb some of the water.

Peter asked if there was any capacity in the plan to direct more water down towards the culvert under CVU road. Nick said this would simply be transferring a problem to another location. In addition, ledge would need to be removed for this to happen. Greg noted that this is a very contentious issue and he urged Clint and Nick to seriously consider the adequacy of the plan before any money is spent on its construction. Nick said that he was not comfortable with the implication that his design was not well thought out and calculated correctly. Lisa noted that Nick's calculations were based on volume over a length of time for outflow from the detention ponds. She asked if it was possible for there to potentially be more water runoff post-development just flowing more slowly. Lisa felt Nick had addressed the issue of the speed of runoff but that the overall volume of runoff may still be more than pre-development levels. Nick said that he had addressed the state and town stormwater runoff regulations and that perhaps there may be a slight increase from pre- to post-development runoff but it was quite small.

Alex said that it looked like the contours on runoff areas 3 and 4 would not allow the flow to be directed anywhere else. However, in area 2 he asked if the contours would allow for the discharge to be redirected slowly into a culvert that ran from east to west. Clint said that this is where the sewer line and manhole are located. Michael Hennessey suggested pushing the road to the east to allow room for a ditch to be dug along that side. Clint said that this area was all ledge.

Tom summarized that all of the issues had been addressed by Nick's stormwater plan. He noted that it was the DRB's hope that the plan will lessen or eliminate the problem. Although the board could request that the plan be reviewed by another engineer, he felt that this was not necessary and that if they wished to get this issue resolved prior to another spring thaw, they would need to move quickly.

Sara asked why the driveway was changed. Clint said it was changed for safety reasons. Deanna asked if the following stipulations would be added as conditions to the approval: design is certified by Nick to be built according to his plans, ditches are either grass or rock-lined, and the 1st ditch is filled in. Sara said that her family is looking at a 10-year plan for development of their property and that they don't want these stormwater issues to limit the development potential of their land.

Alex said that he thought this was a comprehensive proposal and that the applicant would not pay to have the plan installed if he and the engineer were not convinced that this will help to alleviate the stormwater issues. He noted it is the board's prerogative to get another engineer's input but that personally he felt comfortable with the plan. Nick added that if another engineer recommended an alternate method he would not necessarily feel comfortable certifying work on a design that was not completely based on his calculations.

Tom asked if there is an installation plan for the new design. Clint said he hoped to get it completed either this month or he would have to wait until June or July of next year. The board briefly discussed allowing Nick the flexibility of altering his plan, if he so chooses, to send more water towards CVU road. Alex said he did not think this was a good idea as any alterations would not be reviewed or approved by the board. He noted that Clint could always return to the board with a new plan if issues arise.

Sara asked where the responsibility for stormwater falls if Clint moves. Clint said it would stay with the new owner of lot 5. George said he thought an acceptable condition would be to not allow any building on lot 5 until this plan is installed and the runoff problem is solved. Clint said that was fine with him.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session at the conclusion of the meeting. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0.

Nick suggested that metrics should be used to determine if the plan is functional. He also asked whether all professional work is now being reviewed by outside engineers or if it just a function of the number of people in the audience.

Clint returned to the board.

Other Business:

Sketch Plan for 2-lot Subdivision - Review Draft Decision - Applicant is Mark Ames

Greg asked to add a line to the order that requires the applicant to return before the board if new home construction is proposed. Peter said that he will add some language in regards to this issue as well as the different access options from the new driveway. Alex added that a new ROW may be needed based on what situation takes place and that deed language to this effect may need to be submitted.

Tom MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0 with Lisa abstaining.

6-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen and Joanne Hoke

The board determined that they did not have an adequate number of board members to vote and render a decision on the review draft decision. The board decided to wait until the next meeting on October 3 to obtain more input from other board members.

Clint recused himself from the board.

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the updated stormwater plan for the Emmons subdivision. Greg SECONDED the motion. the motion PASSED 4 - 0.

George MOVED to come out of deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0.

Tom MOVED to accept the revised stormwater plan for the Emmons subdivision as presented and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0.

The board decided that George or Tom would stop into the office this week to sign the review draft decision once it was prepared in an effort to expedite the necessary construction. Alex briefly reviewed the conditions discussed during the meeting. Lisa suggested that ditches in which grass will not grow be lined with mulch. Greg asked that a date be added which dictates when the landscaping should be completed. He felt it should be completed ASAP since it was a condition of approval in 2004.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary