TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

October 17, 2006

DRAFT

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples, Robert Gauthier.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), Mike Martel, Denis Martel, Larry Telford, Jean Davis, Jeff Davis, Jamie Carroll, Berthann Mulieri, Lou Mulieri, Jerry Newton, Jay Robinson, Andre Robert, Karen Cornish, Sherman Sprague, Bob Wyatt, Suki Flash, Eric Martin, Suzanne Martin.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

Minutes of the October 3, 2006 Meeting:

Ted MOVED to approve the October 3, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

Village Steering Committee Update - George Dameron

George explained that the Village Steering Committee was established by the Selectboard and consists of 7 members - George Dameron, Tracy Applin, Brian Busier, Donna Constantineau, Rolf Kielman, Karla Munson, and Dona Walker. The committee meets on the 2nd Monday of each month for approximately 1 - 1 1/2 hrs. Their primary focus is on walkability in the village and connectivity. The committee plans to assist the planning commission with a master plan for the village and hopes to have documented the master plan within the next year. Karla Munson has been working extensively on transportation issues and has recently mailed a survey to Hinesburg residents on this topic.

George then reviewed the recommendations list that was compiled by the VSC. He pointed out several items that were of specific interest to the DRB.

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

**continued from the October 3rd meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing on the Davis Camp Conversion had been continued from the October 3 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: Tom, Ted, Lisa, George, Peter, Alex, Jeff Davis, George Bedard, Andre Robert, Jamie Carroll, Jerry Newton, Berthann Mulieri and Louis Mulieri. The following observations were made:

· Walked up the road and noted the 16' width as marked by George Bedard.

· Viewed the ditching along the road.

· Observed the existing culverts. Board members were told that some culverts would be reset or replaced.

· Saw the proposed pull-off area in front of the Thibault property.

· Viewed the grade change at the top of the hill which was staked with tie lines.

· Jeff pointed out the nine existing year-round homes on the road.

· Observed how stormwater is deposited in the lake via ditches along the road.

· Viewed the neighbors proximity to Shadow Lane.

· During the site visit a UPS truck made a delivery on the lane and drove to the bottom of the lane to turn around before exiting Shadow Lane.

Ted said that while the proposed improvements may increase runoff he also thought they were probably warranted for the existing 9 year-round homes on the lane. He added that he would like an engineer's input as to whether this design is better than what currently exists. Ted added that he would like more specific direction about what will be done with each culvert. George B. said that they could inventory the culverts and submit this information to the DRB to provide more details. He then reviewed the proposed grade changes and noted that while the grades are still outside the existing road ordinances, it is an attempt to make the drive better within the constraints imposed by the area. Tom said that he felt an engineered road design would be needed in order for the board to move forward. Jeff said that he could do this, and that he has been in touch with an engineering firm about this plan. Before he involves the engineer, he would like to know if there are any fatal flaws with the proposed plan. Alex asked if the engineer will develop their own plans or sign off on George's plan. Jeff said that he would be working with Civil Engineering Associates and that it could be done either way.

Tom said that there is a strong likelihood that granting year-round residency to Jeff and Jean Davis will open up the possibility for other owners on the road that would like to live there year-round. He added that he felt stormwater runoff should be addressed as a part of the lane's engineered plan. Ted noted that improvements to the road will probably increase stormwater runoff.

George B. asked the board if they felt the proposed grade change for the road is an acceptable resolution to the problem. Ted said he felt the board would need an engineer's opinion on road intersection standards, the steepness of the road and maintenance. Jeff said that most residents on Shadow Lane have either all-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive vehicles. The road is maintained very well and is plowed and sanded regularly in the winter. In addition, salt from Pond Road helps to take care of clearing the pavement at the top of the drive.

George B. noted that in order for Shadow Lane to meet the current road ordinance regarding the area approaching an intersection ( a grade of 3% of less) another 1' of fill would need to be added which is not feasible. Lisa asked if the Selectboard will need to grant a waiver for this project. Alex said a waiver would be required for a new development but since this is not new he was not sure. Alex thought it would be best for Jeff to speak with the Selectboard about the road grade issue before moving forward with the road engineering. George B. clarified that based on the proposed plan the applicant would need to request a waiver for the grade over the top 80' of Shadow Lane. The rest of the lane as well as the width of the entire road is acceptable.

Lisa said she was still concerned about the prospect of the other homes on this road all converting to year-round residences if this request is granted. Jeff noted that there are 5 remaining camps that could convert but they would need to meet very stringent standards to do so. In addition, Jerry Newton has indicated that he does not plan to pursue year-round residency of his camp.

Jerry Newton asked about the road being moved closer to the power pole in front of the Bushey property. He noted that the proposed road sideline is within inches of the existing pole and he was not sure if the power company would approve. Ted said that they may end up having to move the pole. George B. said that they will discuss this issue with the power company.

Tom MOVED to continue the Camp Conversion hearing to the December 5th meeting to enable the applicant to speak with the Selectboard regarding a waiver for the grades on the road, and to provide engineered plans for the proposed Shadow Lane improvements.. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

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

**continued from September 19th meeting.

Tom explained that the hearing on this subdivision had been continued from the September 19th meeting so that the applicant could request a road width waiver from the Selectboard and the board members could conduct informal site visits of the road. Lisa said that she had conducted a site visit with Alex earlier in the day. Lisa and Alex measured the road working back towards Lincoln Hill Road. They found that there was no problem fitting a 14' wide road into the space available except at one point where the concrete headers over a culvert would impede this width. They also found a good spot for a pull-out which is towards the Sprague property from the culvert.

Ted asked how many houses are on the road. Alex said there are 7-lots and 8 dwellings (one accessory apartment). Sherman clarified that he is not planning to change his property at all other than dividing the property. He added that he spoke with the Selectboard and they ruled that the road needs to be 14' in width with a pull-out area in the middle of the road to allow a space to pass. George noted that the road condition was much better than when he had previously visited a few weeks ago. Tom asked Sherman if he thought his neighbors would be amenable to joining a road association. Sherman said he was not sure. In the past members have disagreed over how to prorate the road maintenance fees. He added that the Selectboard had discussed adding an ordinance which would give the town more power over these types of issues.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

Sherman expressed some concern about who would maintain the pull-off when he is no longer involved in the road association. Alex suggested that the road association language could be crafted such that it indicates how the new road association interacts with the more informal existing association. This would be one way of attempting to hold all residents accountable for the maintenance of the road. Ted said that the board would like to see the applicant's plans for the pull-off at the preliminary plat stage. Peter suggested that the applicant indicate building envelopes around the two existing buildings; he referred to condition #5 on the staff report at the September meeting.

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

**continued from September 19th meeting.

Tom explained that the Flash Subdivision had been continued from the September 19th meeting in order for the applicant to more clearly define a lot layout and to enable the board members to make an informal site visit on the property. Lisa said that she drove down the driveway and viewed the area. She also took note of the possible access to the residential lot in the back which did not appear to be wet. In addition, Lisa looked at the alternative access and found the site distance to be acceptable. George agreed that he did not see anything detrimental about the plan after visiting the property.

Ted noted that the new plan leaves more open land. Tom asked if the access road will bisect the agricultural lands. Suki said that the alternative access would lessen the impact on these lands. Alex suggested that perhaps Suki could share a driveway with the neighboring landowner. Suki said that she had not discussed this with her neighbor, but that she would speak with them to see if they could reach an agreeable arrangement. Tom asked about the lot lines around the existing home lot. Suki said that the lot lines would follow the contours of the land and would not have the square corner as depicted on the plan.

Suki said she would like to see the existing home have 5 acres with it to enable someone with horses to purchase the property. She felt 5 acres would be needed in order to adequately rotate fields for the animals. Clint noted that a 5 acre lot would have the ability to be further subdivided. Suki asked if there was a way that she could control this. Ted said that she could indicate no further subdivision is allowed in the deed for that property. Lisa suggested that she could also allow the owner of the 4 acre lot to utilize the common land. Suki said that she would not like to encumber the open space since she would like the flexibility to sell this lot in combination with another lot if that is what the buyer needs.

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

Peter asked the board if they would like to combine steps 2 and 3 of the subdivision process. The Board said they would like to wait to see the information that is provided at the preliminary plat stage.

3-Lot Subdivision Final Plat - Magee Hill Road - Applicants are Jay and Carol Robinson

Jay explained that he and Carol are seeking final plat approval for a three lot subdivision and in the Rural Residential II Zone (RRII) to the east of Magee Hill Road approximately two tenths of a mile from the intersection with the Richmond Road. The applicants purchased lots #2 and #3 of the Palmer Family subdivision which was approved on October 2nd 1996. Although they now own two separate lots, this application will remove their common boundary as it now exists and replace it with new internal boundaries to create the three lots, one of which will contain the existing house and accessory apartment. This was originally reviewed as a four lot proposal, however after some concern was expressed about the location of the fourth lot (D) they removed it from their application. The sketch plan identified certain issues which were to be addressed in this application. The staff report only includes those issues that either were not sufficiently addressed or remain an issue.

Jay said that they had moved the building envelope on lot C behind the trees to better incorporate it into the topography. Lisa asked if the building envelope is even with the existing house height. Jay said it is but it will still be hidden by two islands of trees and a row of trees between lots B and C. Tom said that the staff report expressed a concern with the house on lot C being visible from Pond Road. Peter distributed a photo he had taken of the property from the Stanilonis' property on Pond Road. Clint said he did not think the house would be visible from Pond Road. Peter said the board needs to confirm that the house site complies with section 6.0.8 (3c) of the subdivision regulations (Design Standards for Rural Areas). Peter read from the regulation "The subdivision shall be designed and lots and/or building envelopes shall be laid out, to the greatest extent feasible, to reduce the impact of development by achieving the following objectives (listed in order of priority, as it is recognized that some may conflict with others on any given site): . . . Shall be within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of the open fields adjacent to any woodland (to reduce impact on agriculture, to provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features);. . . ' Jay said that he had designed this building envelope with this concept in mind. George asked if the house site sits close to the hedgerow. Jay said that it does. He noted that the suggested lower location would eliminate any views from this home site. Clint said he did not think that a house in this location would be visible from Magee Hill Road or Richmond Road. George agreed with Clint.

Larry Telford, a neighbor at 324 Cattail Lane, said that from Pond Road you cannot see his house until the dead of winter. He noted that there are a large number of trees between his lot and Jay's lot and he did not think this lot would be visible at all.

Tom asked if the existing home is a single story house. Jay said that it is, with a 2-story addition on one end. Tom noted that the board had discussed how the visual impact of the homes could be reduced by utilizing the height and colors of the proposed homes. He asked Jay if he had considered this option any further. Jay said he did not wish to restrict house sizes or colors. He added that if Hinesburg wants to regulate house heights and colors any further, then they should have regulations to this affect. Peter noted that if the house site is not on the edge of the field the board can enter into negotiations regarding using other factors to mediate the visibility of the homes. Lisa asked about the current height regulation. Peter said that the house can be 35' tall. This lot has a 12% grade which would easily accommodate a walk-out basement on the downhill side.

George said that lot B currently meets the town's zoning regulations. He felt that moving the building envelope as proposed would move it farther into the field. Jay added that the driveway would have to be longer if the envelope were moved. George said that space needs to be allowed for a yard and space for trees to fall. Lisa said that the building envelope on lot B is 175' x 150' and that the corner of the envelope is 75' from the sideyard boundary. George thought that 75' was not a very large distance in a rural area. Ted asked if the dashed line on the engineered map was the building envelope. Jay explained that this is incorrect and that the building envelopes on the map prepared by Ronald LaRose should be used for reference. Ted suggested moving the northern edge of the building envelope towards the treeline to the south by 50' to create a building envelope 100' x 175' in size. Jay agreed to do this.

Tom MOVED to continue the final plat hearing to the December 19th meeting to allow the applicant time to submit an engineered road plan. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

3-Lot Subdivision Final Plat - Richmond Road - Applicants are Eric and Suzanne Martin

Eric and Suzanne Martin explained that they were requesting Final Plat approval of a 3-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately 11 acres, and is located on the south side of Richmond Road, between Enos Road and Piette Road; parcel #17-22-19.100. The parcel is already developed with a 3-bedroom home along the Richmond Road frontage. The parcel also contains a Champlain Valley Telecom inclusion/parcel in the southeast corner (circular area shown on the plan), which is not currently used. The subject parcel is primarily forested with the exception of an open area around and to the west of the house, a portion of which is a wetland. At least 2 streams traverse the property, both of which converge on the western side of the open area, where the wetland lies, before proceeding through a culvert under the Richmond Road. There is a small area that maps as prime agricultural soil on the southern side of the parcel, but this is of no consequence due to its small size and the surrounding residential land use. This parcel is in an area representing Hinesburg's highest residential density due to the 2 nearby mobile home communities (Sunset Villa & Triple L) as well as the Sunset Villa and Piette Meadows housing developments.

Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, comprises 3.09 acres on the western side of the parcel. Lot 2 is a 3.4 acre lot adjacent to lot 1. Single-family dwellings are proposed for both of these lots, with septic systems located on lot 1 (lot 2 will have an easement) and a shared driveway and road cut on Richmond Road. Lot 2 will require a stream crossing to get to the proposed building site. Municipal water is available and assumed for lots 1 & 2. Lot 3 comprises the remaining 5.51 acres, and includes the existing residence, which is served by an existing well and on-site septic system. Lot 3 may connect to the municipal water system in the future.

Alex noted that there were three minor issues outlined in the staff report. Issue #3 in regards to the municipal water hookup, had been discussed and resolved with Rocky. Tom asked about the stone check dam in the stream. Suzanne said that this will be eliminated. The engineer is aware of it. Finally, the Martins had no objections to the proposed easement language in the staff report. Clint asked if the applicants had received their water allocation from the town. Alex said that there was actually no formal water allocation system and that the Martins just needed to apply for a hookup. He added that condition #3 and conclusion #4 of the review draft decision should be removed since the Martins had already completed this step.

Tom moved to close the public hearing on the Martin Subdivision and accept the written review draft decision (approval) as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

Other Business:

7-Lot Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

Peter explained that George Bedard had written a letter stating that the Dams would like to re-open the sketch plan review of their application with some minor changes employed to accommodate new uses of the property. They plan to reactivate the sugarbush on the property and use another area as pasture land that will present conflicts with the plan presented to the board.

Ted MOVED to re-open the Dam Sketch Plan Review and continue it to the December 5th meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.

2-Lot Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat - Review Draft Decision - Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

Ted thought that Order #4 should include a reference to having the applicant fix the culverts on the existing drive. Tom said that he was not sure if the finding regarding the property being divided by an existing road is highlighted enough for future boards to find this reasoning for this subdivision. Ted asked if the applicant should be required to fix the last culvert on the shared road. Clint said he thought Mike said he was going to. Peter said he would tie this into the other wording for the culvert repair. Alex suggested that some reasoning should be added for why the board decided to combine the preliminary and final plat review phases of development. Perhaps a notation can make reference to the number of meetings held in which this subdivision was reviewed.

Ted MOVED to approve the review draft decision as amended (approval). Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 1 with Lisa voting against.

Suggestion Regarding Town Lighting

Tom suggested that as a part of the capital budget selection the Selectboard should consider replacing the old street lights with sharp cutoff downcast high efficiency lighting. Tom felt the town should set an example and since the board has been requesting this of developers, the town should utilize the same standard.

Tom MOVED to suggest utilizing sharp cutoff downcast high efficiency lighting on street lights in town as a capital budget selection made by the Selectboard. Ted SECONDED the motion. the motion PASSED 5 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary