TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

October 3, 2006

Approved October 17, 2006

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

DRB Members Absent: none

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Nick Nowlan, Mike Charney, E. O'Brien, Berthann Mulieri, Lou Mulieri, Brenda Robert, Andre Robert, Munar Szwaja, Gerald Newton, Mike Marte, Denis Mortel, Jeff Davis, Allen Ward, Jeff Washburn, Peg Montgomery, George Bedard, Butch Holcomb, Marion Holcomb, Tom Ayer, Joe Donegan.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of the September 19, 2006 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the September 19, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0 with Ted and Robert abstaining.

2-Lot Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat - Texas Brook Road - Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

**continued from the September 5th meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing on the Charney subdivision had been continued from the September 5 meeting in order for a site visit to be completed. A site visit took place prior to the meeting at 6 pm and was attended by: Greg, George, Robert, Tom, Mike Charney, Nick Nowlan, Jeff Washburn, Peg Montgomery, and Peter Erb. The following observations were made:

· Walked along the proposed driveway.

· Crossed a ravine and passed by the location of culvert #3.

· Walked back to the west along the side of the property that borders the Kaiser's property.

· Viewed the proposed house site, building envelope and two septic areas.

· Walked to the end of Texas Brook Hill Road.

· Observed a culvert between the Charney and Montgomery properties where a stone had fallen on the uphill side to partially block the flow through the culvert.

Tom said that at the September 5 meeting the board had requested that an independent engineer review Mr. Nowlan's calculations regarding stormwater runoff on the property. Erik C. F. Sandblom, PE of ESPC reviewed Nick's plan and agreed with its calculations. He also concluded that Nick's plan meets the town regulations and reflects the objectives as outlined in the town plan. Nick said that he had no problem with constructing the timber wiers at the culvert outlets as recommended by Erik.

Peter asked if the size of the rip rap was specified in his plans. Nick said that they would use 6" rip rap and that the key is to spread the flow from the culverts. Peter then asked how the roadside ditches will be handled. Nick said that they will be cleaned out and that this information is specified on the plan.

Mike said that power may be brought up the road if the Kaiser's decide that they don't want the power line buried across their property. They are still deciding what they want to do. Tom said that he had done some research on the surrounding lots in this area and determined that this is the only lot that is divided by a ROW or common road. All other lots in this area are serviced by a private drive.

Peg noted that a boundary pin was missing from the area that accesses her riding area and garden patch. Mike said that the pin was there when they had done their measurements so he would check on this. Peg said that water currently flows onto the farm road towards her riding area through the culvert at the end of the road and she wanted to know what provisions would be made for this area. Nick said that there will be a very minimal increase of flow to this area. He did not think that Mike should be held responsible for an area that currently has a drainage problem that is not the result of his development.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

Conditional Use for Camp Conversion - Shadow Lane - Applicants are Jeff and Jean Davis

Jeff Davis explained that he and Jean are requesting conditional use approval to convert an existing camp to a full-time residence in the Shoreline Zoning District. The subject parcel is located at the end of Shadow Lane (north side of the road); parcel number 14-21-10.000. This is a small parcel along Lake Iroquois with a large camp that was renovated and expanded by the Applicant in 2003. The Applicant received a conditional use approval in February 2003 for this expansion to the pre-existing, non-complying camp. Shadow Lane is an area of mixed year-round homes and camps, several with a similar design and elevation to the Davis camp.

This is the second time the Applicants have sought approval to convert this camp to a full-time residence. Earlier this year (April 7, 2006), the Board voted to deny the Applicant's first request, largely on issues related to the conditions of Shadow Lane and uncertainties about how it would be managed going forward. The applicant has sought to address the issues discussed in the first denial.

Pursuant to section 5.15 of the Zoning Regulations, camp conversions must be reviewed and approved under sections 4.2 (conditional use), 4.4 (development on a private right of way), and 5.15 (camp conversions). Section 5.15 includes a requirement that the wastewater disposal system be designed and constructed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer or certified site technician. It also requires that the registered professional engineer or certified site technician certify in writing that he/she supervised the design and construction of the system, and that it was installed as designed, all in accordance with the 'Camp Conversion Septic System Review Policy' adopted by the Hinesburg Selectboard on June 21, 1999.

Alex distributed written correspondence from two other residents on Shadow Lane (Eileen Crawford and Louis Mulieri).

George Bedard explained that the applicant had attempted to address some of the issues in regards to the safety of Shadow Lane. Using 1.5' of fill, the Davis propose to change the grade of the first 20 feet of Shadow Lane from 16% (current) to 8%. They contend this change will significantly improve the safety of the Shadow Lane/Pond Road intersection. The next 30 feet of road will have a grade of 22%. For 30' more feet the grade will be 18.7%. At this point on Shadow Lane the Bushey and Crawford properties are bordering the road. The Davis' propose to add .5' of fill which is what would be needed to correct this area of Shadow Lane regardless of this plan. Eileen Crawford has expressed opposition to the plan since she has already had drainage issues on her property and would like to avoid any changes that might further complicate this issue. George B. felt confident that the road reconstruction could take place without negatively affecting drainage on the Crawford property.

The plan also calls for widening the road surface to 18' wide at the top of the drive, and tapering down to 16' for the remainder of the Lane. The road would be paved and crowned for 170' which is the length that is currently paved. The new design will accommodate a wider radius at the edge of Pond Road. George B. spoke with Mike Anthony at the site regarding their concept for the road and Mike said that he felt comfortable with the road radius.

Greg asked who owns Shadow Lane. George B. said that all the landowners on Shadow Lane have a right to use the road and that there is an informal association that maintains the road. Shadow Lane has a 26' ROW. George B. said that they were trying to be considerate of other homeowners' concerns and wishes during this process. He added that the road has an assortment of different sized culverts and that a 16' wide road will fit on the existing gravel. During the road re-construction they hope to open up existing culverts and reset more culverts on the north side. Jeff plans to create a road association if this plan is approved but he cannot force other homeowners to join the association.

Greg asked about the bylaws for the road association and whether it requires everyone to pay an equal share of the maintenance. Jeff said that that is the way that it happens now. Tom asked if the maintenance paid is proportional to the length of the road used by the homeowners. Jeff said it is not proportional. George B. said that the road also accommodates for a 20' pull off area in front of the Thibault property.

At this point Tom opened the meeting to the public. Berthann Mulieri said that during the original subdivision in 1932 the Simpsons did not transfer ownership of the ROW to anyone. Berthann said that she is a resident of Shadow Lane and that she felt the area had reached its carrying capacity for three reasons: 1. traffic levels and parking, 2. water management and 3. psychological overcrowding. She pointed out that a denial of this request would result in no balancing hardship since the applicant purchased the property as a seasonal camp. Berthann added that in the 34 years that she has lived on Shadow Lane there has been only one fender bender. She felt that the proposed platform area at the top of Shadow Lane will make the lower part of the road steeper, thereby making it more dangerous. A wider and steeper hill will increase the danger on the road due to increased speed and less tolerance for people walking or playing on or near the road. Berthann asked if the plan is approved, if the board will assure the homeowners that adequate alternative access will be provided.

Allen Ward, a resident of 70 Shadow Lane, was concerned about how the creation of a formal road association will affect the residents. He noted that widening and adding pulloffs to the road will result in increased maintenance costs. In addition the association would need to purchase a liability policy which individual owners do not currently need to hold. Alan also noted that this road association would obligate the residents to maintain the road up to town standards.

Andre Robert, another resident of Shadow Lane, said that driving down the Lane is a lot harder in the winter. He said that he did not like the concept of the road association and did not want to feel threatened by his ability to participate or not. In addition, if the road width increases it will increase the area of his property that is affected by road setback regulations thereby making less of his land usable.

Louis Mulieri, a resident of Shadow Lane, expressed his concern with changing the road association from being consensus-based to voting based. Ted clarified that Jeff cannot force anyone to join the road association unless they need to come before the DRB for a request of their own. Louis went on to read from a written statement in regards to the unique development issue that he feels is occurring on Shadow Lane. Louis explained that on Shadow Lane there is 5 acres of property that services 15 septic systems. He noted that in this small area interactions between the systems must be considered. Louis said that based on studies in 10 other states a development of this size would require a minimum size of 7.5 acres. He said that effluents from the systems could raise the water table in this area which could result in the eventual failure of septic systems. Based on Louis' calculations he felt an additional 2 or 3 year-round residents will cause the area to reach its saturation level on a year-round basis.

Jamie Carroll, a resident of Shadow Lane said that what Jeff was really requesting was only to change the use of his camp from 7 months per year to 12 months per year. Legally he could access his camp every third day of the year. As a community, Shadow Lane residents expect fuel and trash trucks as well as emergency and town vehicles to be able to navigate Shadow Lane. Realistically the road needs to be improved for this service to occur. He hoped that if this proposal is approved that the new association could work in parallel to the informal road association.

Jeff Davis said that based on the number of residents and period of residency per year, his request would result in an increase of the current use by 2.7%.

Greg asked how long construction on the road would take place and if residents would be allowed continuous access to their properties during this process. George B. said that the construction would be done in pieces so as to allow residents continuous access to their properties. Jeff said that the construction would take approximately 2 weeks and that 2 culverts by the Fairbanks property would need to be moved.

Gerry Newton, another resident of Shadow Lane, said that the board should be aware that if this conversion is approved there will probably be at least three more requests for camp conversions to year-round use. Jeff D. said that this would constitute a 8% increase of the overall current use of the property. Berthann said that seasonal camps are not typically occupied for the full 7 months they are permitted for use. Louis clarified that Jeff's calculations in regards to comparison to current use do not take the septic calculations into account as these numbers are based on the number of occupants in a home. He added that the town standards require a 3% grade at the location where Pond Road and Shadow Lane intersect. This new plan will increase the steepness of 67% of the road. Homeowners will need to approach the plateau at a higher rate of speed. He questioned the philosophy of the road plan since it still does not meet town regulations.

George B. said that in the new plan, no part of the road will be steeper than the steepest part of the hill right now. Greg asked how this new plan will impact the driveways of homeowners on the road. George B. said the change will be negligible on both sides of the road. Peter asked if the whole road will be redone. Jeff said it will be. Peter also asked if failed culverts will be replaced. Jeff said they would be. He added that he did not think that the septic system was of concern as it is a state of the art system that utilizes a pre-treatment system.

Ted said he thought a site visit should be conducted by the board members. Andre asked if the town will be a member of the road association. Ted said that he doesn't believe that the town is using this lot. Lisa suggested that the bylaws be reworded so that it clarifies that all homeowners on Shadow Lane do not need to become members of the association. Alex added that he felt the bylaws should also recognize the interaction between the formal and informal road associations.

Jeff added that the Bushey residence is in favor of the modifications to the road. Peter noted that the road must be maintained and asked if Jeff would be solely responsible for maintaining the road if the other homeowners do not choose to join the road association.

Tom MOVED to continue the conditional use application to the October 17th meeting with a site visit to proceed the meeting at 6:00 pm. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

7-Lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan - North Road - Applicants are Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

George Bedard explained that the same parcel received sketch plan approval on November 22, 2005 for three building lots as a conventional subdivision and this approval was extended for six months, until November 22, 2006. There were several issues raised during the original sketch plan approval and the applicant feels that approaching this development as a PRD albeit with more lots, is the best way to resolve these issues. While this is a large parcel and it can certainly accommodate development on it, there are large areas where development may not be possible. A PRD, which addresses the total property, offers the best chance to identify the areas most appropriate for development, as well as those that should be kept open and conflicts between these issues could be resolved or mitigated.

This new proposal includes six smaller lots in the general vicinity of the 3 previous lots, however further removed up the hill and to the south away from the property boundary. The lot sites slope to the west on a slope of approximately 13% and the area is a mixture of abandoned fields with young trees, forest and open fields. The seventh lot is the remainder, presently developed with a mobile home and building envelope around it. Unless a new building lot is identified for lot 7 this will remain as the only approved building location on the lot.

George B. then distributed a written response to the issues raised in the staff report. George said that this subdivision/PRD will consists of 6 building lots ranging in size from .96 - 1.56 acres. All lots will have individual drilled wells and will share a conventional common septic area which will be located on the remaining land (lot 7). They have not yet determined if the pipe line to the septic system will be across yards or in the ROW.

George B. said that 5 acres of the open space will serve to provide a buffer between the new and existing lots. This space will also be used to deal with drainage and runoff issues. Homeowners will be given deeded access to pedestrian trail connections on the remainder of the property. In addition, the balance of the property will be maintained in the Forest Use program.

In response to affect on prime ag soils, George B. pointed out that the total area covered by structures could range from .34 - .55 acres and that this is a very small part of the overall 152 acres that will have a focus on Forest protection. He added that the access road will need to be changed to achieve a flatter entrance to North Road but that he was confident they could achieve a drive with an average grade of 10% with grades no steeper than 15%. The applicants will also need to apply for a state stormwater and erosion permit which will ensure that these issues are addressed. Gravel deposits were not significant enough to trigger the interest of Hinesburg Sand and Gravel.

Tom asked if there will be covenants written for the open space that will dictate how the space will be used. George B. said that these will be written. Tom added that during the previous review visibility of these lots had been an issue. George B. noted that these lots are pretty well screened and that they are at a lower elevation than in the previous proposal.

Marion Holcomb, a neighboring property owner downhill from the property was concerned that these homeowners would be looking down into her backyard. George B. said that landscaping could be used to solve this issue if it becomes a concern. Tom asked how the shallow wells will be protected. George B. said that the engineer would address this issue during the preliminary plat review. Butch Holcomb asked if there is a stormwater plan for the development. George B. said that this issue will be worked out to the state's satisfaction.

Tom Ayer said that he was not opposed to the design and layout but that he did not understand why the lots were not required to be 3 acres in size as his lot had been required to be. George B. explained that in a PRD the lots are smaller with an accompanying open space that can be used jointly by all the other members. Typically the listers divide the value of commonly owned land among all the other owners. George B. noted that his first presentation to the board included a layout with 3 acre lots but that the board had encouraged him to better utilize this area of the property. George B. further clarified that the impact of this subdivision will be comparable to a conventional subdivision - approximately 18 acres.

The board discussed the open space requirement. Peter felt the issue had to be resolved and should at minimum be addressed at the preliminary plat stage. He quoted from Section 4.5.9 #6 of the Zoning Regulations in regards to Open Spaces: "At a minimum, designated open space shall be indicated with appropriate notation on the final plat." George B. said that currently they intend to designate 5 acres as open space in addition to deeded access to pedestrian trails and woods roads. He added that 100 acres of the lot is managed via a woodland function and that this area also meets the requirements for open space. Peter asked if identifying another open space would force the applicants to go through Act 250 review. George B. said it would not. Ted noted that the open space needs to have value for the homeowners. Greg asked when the additional open space would be designated. George B. said this would happen when any additional development occurs. Greg asked how the lot owners will know what they are buying if this has not yet been determined.

Alex read from section 4.5.6 #2 of the PRD regulations which states: "The project shall be an efficient and unified treatment of the development possibilities of the site, . . . " He added that the 25% figure is the minimum amount of open space required for a PRD. He felt there were two outstanding issues in regards to this application: 1. the future development potential of the land and 2. the appropriate amount of open space to set aside.

Ted asked if there are deer yards on the property. Alex said that there are a lot on the state map and that they run right down to the top of the lots. Butch Holcomb asked if the lots could be pushed farther up the hill to allow for more privacy and to slow runoff. George B. said that based on the proposed design the houses would be 200' away from the back line of the property. The current rear yard setback is 35'. He suggested that landscaping could be used to provide additional screening if needed.

Joe D. said that he did not think that the open space needed to be in immediate proximity to the residences. He added that having a larger lot in the forestry program was beneficial to the town and that the walking trails would provide additional recreational alternatives for people living on smaller lots. Joe also asked if the provision for setting aside 25% of the land as open space would be dealt with on a lien deed basis. George B. said that at the time of future subdivision the owner would be obligated to define the open space for the whole parcel. As long as there is one house on lot 7 and the remaining land is enrolled in the forest use program this development meets the open space requirements.

Ted asked if the back area of the lot could be developed. George B. said that he did not think the topography would easily lend itself to further development. Ted suggested that this area be designated as open space. George B. said that the intention of the owners is not to designate open space at the back of the lot at this time. Tom said he would like to see a building envelope on lot 7. George B. said that one already exists and pointed it out on the map.

Tom MOVED to close the public discussion of the Dam sketch plan and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

Other Business:

Continuation of Burton Conditional Review for Expansion of a Non-complying Structure

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing of the Burton conditional use review to the November 21st meeting. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

Final Plat Technical Correction for Ayer Subdivision on Gilman Road

Peter explained that due to the discovery of archaeological sites on the property the applicant had to make some changes to the final plat. The changes involved moving the driveway slightly and reconfiguring the wastewater disposal area. Peter reviewed the changes and did not find them substantive enough to warrant a warned public hearing.

Ted MOVED to accept the revised mylar. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Dennis and Jody Place

Peter suggested that perhaps the area below High Rock should be protected as well. Alex said that the applicant had not intended to protect this area and he added that this area should be focused on protecting the fern. He noted that Everett Marshall of the VT Fish and Wildlife Non-game and Natural Heritage program had said that no buffer space is required to protect the fern. Alex said he could alter the wording to include a larger space at the base of High Rock which followed the natural topography of the land.

Tom MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0 with Robert abstaining.

3-Lot, 34-Unit Subdivision/PRD Preliminary Plat - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Green Street LLC and Rob Bast and Laura Carlsmith

Tom asked what section(s) of the decision link the developer to the installation of sidewalk. Alex said that Order 2c addresses this: "Cost sharing options for the above sidewalk improvement project and for sidewalk along Charlotte Road from the new development road to Route 116."

The board then discussed the proximity of the commercial building to Charlotte Road. Clint felt that if the building is too close to the road, it will not blend into its surroundings. Lisa said she would like to see the building design before she decided if the setback waiver should be granted. Alex said that he could add wording to Conclusion #3 that states that the front yard setback waiver along Charlotte Road would be dependent on the board's approval of the building design. Peter suggested that a sidewalk should be installed on the east side (or east and west side) of Green Street.

George MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

6-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Hoke and Quackenbush

Lisa recused herself from the board.

Greg MOVED to approve the review draft decision as written (denial). Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 1 with Clint voting against.

**Note: Since Lisa recused herself from this vote, Joe Donegan voted on this item only.

Lisa returned to the board.

Tae Kwon Do and Fitness in the Village Center - Peter Monty

Alex explained that this business is planning to relocate into the Village Center from the Dark Star building. A conditional use permit was granted for a fitness center in this location in 1999 and for a Tae Kwon Do center in 2000. Since the current application is more modest than either of the two previous applications Peter requested the board's permission to issue Peter Monty a zoning use permit which would permit him to operate his business in the Village Center under the conditions of the previous permits. If the business outgrows these limits Peter M. would need to return to the DRB.

The board agreed that it was acceptable to allow Tae Kwon Do and Fitness to function under the previous approval.

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Charney Subdivision. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary