TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
November 21, 2006
Approved December 5, 2006
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt, George Munson.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and
Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Richard Thibault, Ethan Thibault, Sara Thibault, Dennis Place,
Scott Gover, Andrew Burton, Jamie Carroll, John Wilson, Alan Norris, Nancy
Norris, Bob Reid, Julie Reid, Frank Babbott, Diana Borie, Chris Borie, Jean
Davis, Jeff Davis, Paul Marchelewicz,
Jeff Nelson, Joslyn Wilschek, Jonathan Wolff, Ray Curtis.
The meeting began at approximately 7:45 p.m.
Minutes of the November 7, 2006
Meeting:
Re: NRG Review, paragraph 1: Greg asked to strike the words “within 100 ft.” as the current tower is more than that distance away from the building. Greg MOVED to approve the November 7, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0.
Lisa joined the meeting at this time.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan/PRD
Sketch Plan – Aube Ridge Road – Applicant: Richard Thibault
**continued
from the November 7th meeting.
Tom explained that the hearing on the Thibault Subdivision Sketch Plan had been continued from the November 7th meeting in order for a site visit to be completed. A site visit took place on Saturday, November 18th at 9:00 a.m. and was attended by Tom, Greg, Robert, Peter, Dick Thibault and Ethan Thibault. The following observations were made:
- observed that the road frontage on Aube Ridge Road was not much wider than the driveway
- walked down the proposed driveway to the flagged building envelope
- walked to the southwest to view the ledge areas
- viewed the proposed open space area to the southeast
- looked at existing homes in the area
Ethan Thibault stated he would be amenable to making the proposed open space larger than the minimum 25% required by a PRD. He then displayed new configurations of subdivisions if the lot was divided conventionally. He felt an east-to-west division would create an odd-shaped lot to the south, and a north-to-south division would require a long driveway that would impact the landscape. He re-stated his desire for a PRD subdivision as it would preserve the most open space and added he had not found anything in the subdivision regulations that precluded a small lot from being divided as a PRD.
Frank Babbott asked for clarification on what type of subdivision was being requested; Ethan clarified. Bob suggested dividing the lots by including the existing house within a triangle (to make a more regular shape); Ethan responded it would cut through the proposed building site, which had been carefully chosen to minimize blasting and to avoid building a long driveway. Peter stated that for this proposal to be considered a viable PRD, it must address PRD purpose requirements from Zoning Regulations, section 4.5.1. Addressing those by number, Sarah Thibault felt this proposal facilitated clustered development (#1) and a cost-effective project (#2). Peter responded that although many requirements are satisfied, a regular “3-acre by 3-acre” subdivision was possible. Ethan pointed out that with either type of subdivision, there would only ever be 2 houses; he felt this was the best way to preserve open land for both.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
Home Occupation Conditional Use
Review – Place Road – Applicants: Dennis and Jody Place
**continued
from the November 7th meeting.
Tom explained that the hearing on the Place Home Occupation Conditional Review had been continued from the November 7th meeting in order for a site visit to be completed. A site visit took place on Saturday, November 18th at 9:45 a.m. and was attended by: Tom, Greg, Robert, Lisa, Peter, Dennis Place and Scott Goven. The following observations were made:
- attendants stood at neighboring property lines to assess the impact of noise emitted from the proposed shop
- woodworking tools including a chop saw, compressor and nail gun were turned on one-by-one (but not simultaneously)
- insulation of the workspace was inspected
- Peter Erb used a decibel meter to assess sound
Board members commented on the level and nature of sound they experienced at the visit. Most agreed that although the compressor emitted a low hum comparable to the sound of traffic from Rte. 116, the nail gun was quite loud and distinctive. Peter said no change in decibel readings on the meter was registered. Tom found that one room was insulated and paneled, while another (where most work would take place) still needed the same insulation. Dennis assured Tom at the visit that the insulation would be added.
Scott Gover voiced his concern that the nail gun could potentially be operated from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., 6 days a week, and felt operating multiple machines at one time would add up to more noise than was experienced at the visit. Tom reviewed other home occupations that have been approved recently.
Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
Conditional Use Review – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure (Deck) – Shadow Lane – Applicant: Andrew Burton
Andrew Burton is requesting DRB approval for an expansion to a non-complying single-family dwelling. The Applicant would like to add a deck on the east side of the house facing Lake Iroquois. The current house is 24’ wide by 40’ long (960 square feet) with an average height of approximately 16’2”.
The current house and lot are non-complying on a number
of fronts, including:
The proposed deck would increase the degree of
non-conformity with regard to #2 & #4, but will not change #1 &
#3. The deck will decrease the front
yard setback to the center of the shared right of way to the east from 56’ to
48’ (8’ wide deck). It will increase
the lot coverage from 24% to 28% (additional 355 sq. feet for deck – 8’x40’
plus 5’x7’ extension on south side).
Pursuant to section 5.10.3 #4 of the Zoning Regulations, expansions of
this sort may be allowed via conditional use approval if certain specific
conditions are met.
Andrew Burton presented his request to build a deck measuring 8’ x 40’ that spanned the entire front of the house. He planned to build the deck 3 feet above the septic clean out as well as an access door in the deck to facilitate septic maintenance. He feels the 8 foot width is the minimum viable deck width and that its span across the front of the house lent the architectural feel of a camp, a common sight in the neighborhood.
Alex noted an error in the staff report regarding current lot coverage. The back parking area had not been considered in the report’s coverage calculation; a 15’ x 40’ parking area, rather than a 15’ x 24’ area would put the total lot coverage area over 24%. Andrew stated he would be willing to re-seed some of the gravel parking area in order to decrease the current lot coverage.
A conversation regarding the current 13’ x 14’-6” patio feature took place, mainly regarding the lowering of the patio to bring it into compliance and to eliminate its area from the lot coverage calculation. Jamie Carroll, an adjacent property owner, wanted to discuss the patio matter at this meeting. It was agreed that it was a separate matter not covered in this proposal.
Andrew then presented a new proposal for a smaller, 8’ x 26’ deck. Robert said adding back some of the parking area to the calculation sounded reasonable. Alex suggested adding a condition stating the re-seeded parking area could not be turned back into gravel parking in the future. Alex explained that an earlier minor expansion approval for this property resulted in the parking area being added to, unwittingly increased lot coverage. Suggestions for the parking area were discussed further. Peter said he could check the Applicant’s property to see that the parking area had been adjusted at the same he issued a certificate of occupancy for the deck.
John Wilson, an adjacent property owner, wanted clarification of ROW locations, specifically whether they were part of the Applicant’s property shown on the plan or simply bordered them. Andrew stated his lot was 80’ x 100’ and that all ROWs started at the edges of his property. He brought up a parcel of land that held a ROW that existed between his property and his neighbor’s. He said the details of its ownership were confusing and had been difficult to research. John believed the ROW existed at one time to provide access to the lake. He stated his only request was to see all ROWs, as well as the foundation drain, delineated on the Applicant’s map and added he had no general objection to the proposal. Alex further explained his understanding of ROWs that existed in the Shadow Lane area, stating he believed the ROW in question was a separate parcel whose owner could not be identified.
There was a short discussion of the small, L-shaped piece connecting the deck to the patio. Greg wanted to verify that this piece did not intrude into any ROW; it was agreed that it did not.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
2-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat Review – Postiche Lane – Applicants: Alan and Nancy Norris
The Applicant is
requesting Final Plat approval of a 2-lot subdivision. The subject parcel is approximately 15 acres
and is already developed with the Applicant’s home and barn in the northeastern
portion of the lot. The remaining
portion of the lot is a mixture of forest and open fields with an area of
Christmas trees in the southeast corner.
The parcel is lot 3 from a previous 3-lot subdivision that was approved
by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1994.
The Applicant plans to restrict building to the western side of the lot to take advantage of the west-facing slope without going so far as to require climbing the steepest section. Lot 4 will be served by an individual, on-site well and an individual, off-site septic system within easement areas on lot 3. Lot 4 will have direct access to Postiche Lane, which leads to Route 116 within an established 50’ wide right of way that was created via the 1994 subdivision. Lot 3 will retain the existing house and outbuilding along with the remaining 12.8 acres of land. Lot 3 will retain ownership of a strip of land extending along Postiche Lane to Route 116.
Alan Norris presented a revised map. He stated the number of building envelopes had been reduced from 2 to 1, and that its shape had been altered slightly. He addressed visibility and screening concerns, and noted that tree and shrub management language had been added to the proposal. Tom said the width of the proposed shared driveway had been measured and it was wider than the required 18 feet. Alan explained his decision not to form a road association for his parcel and the new parcel. He said language regarding road maintenance and use was already in the deeds of the 3 existing parcels, and that the same deed language would be added to this new parcel. Peter asked if the septic systems required curtain drains; Alan replied no.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as written. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
3-Lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review – North Road – Applicant: Julie Reid – Landowners: Robert and Mary Reid
Robert & Mary Reid, represented by their daughter Julie, are requesting Sketch Plan approval for a 3-lot minor subdivision of vacant property they own to the east of North road, approximately 1/3 of a mile north of Hayden Hill road, in the Rural Residential II Zoning District. The ten plus acre subject parcel would be accessed by an existing driveway that utilizes a Right of Way across the Reid property and accesses the property to the north, the home of the Tuckers.
According to the Staff Report, “while it appears that there is sufficient area for three lots, even with the entire ROW area taken out, it may not be possible to do a 3-lot subdivision.” The report cites Section 2.5.6 of the Zoning Regulations regarding continuous area requirements, and says that while all lots in the proposed Reid subdivision would presently comply with these standards, it would not be possible for the Tuckers to subdivide and still have lot #1 of the Reid subdivision remain in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
Julie Reid, representing her parents Robert and Mary Reid, presented their subdivision plan. Greg addressed the issue regarding the Tucker’s ability to subdivide in the future. Julie said they had just learned of this, but said it was her understanding that should the Tuckers subdivide, it would put the new Reid lot #1 out of compliance, not the Tuckers’. Alex clarified, stating that if this application was granted as proposed, the current ROW could serve the house on proposed Lot 1 and only one other house, which would be the Tuckers. This would prevent the Tuckers from using the ROW to access more than one house on their property. Thus, any new parcel in a Tucker subdivision would have to be accessed from a new road cut off North Road. Peter suggested the Reids could do a 2-lot subdivision to avoid this issue. Tom suggested a site visit, but the group agreed that this was more a matter of zoning requirements rather than the topography of the land. Alex said what needed to be decided was whether the possibility of restricting a neighbor’s ability to subdivide mattered, feeling it may be a legal issue.
Bob Reid wondered if this was a moot point, since the ROW ended at the Tucker house site now; adding a second house site there would be improbable. Alex noted that the Tuckers have a lot of road frontage on North Road to use for possible access for a future subdivision.
Greg stating he was not averse to the proposal but felt more communication to the Tuckers was necessary. Alex said the Tuckers had been sent a general notice of the meeting but were probably unaware of the proposal’s implications for their land.
Greg MOVED to continue the hearing until December 5th to ensure the Tuckers are informed of the issue. He suggested it was the Applicants’ responsibility to communicate with the Tuckers. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
2-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat Review – Pond Road – Applicant:
Frank Babbott
Staff Report
Background Summary
Frank Babbott is
requesting Final Plat approval of a 2-lot subdivision. The subject parcel is located on the south
side of Pond Road, across from Maple Tree Lane. The parcel is undeveloped, and landlocked with access to Pond
Road via a 50’ right of way (approx. 500’ long) across the Borie and Curtis
properties. The parcel is almost
entirely forested and of varied terrain with wetland below an area of ledge on
the western side.
Lot 1A comprises 5.9
acres on the western side of the parcel, with a building envelope and a
slightly larger clearing envelope in the middle. Access to lot 1A is from a proposed shared right of way leading
to Pond Road, shared with lot 1B and the Applicant’s abutting property to the
south as well as 2 abutting properties (Borie and Curtis) closer to Pond
Road. Lot 1B comprises the remaining
4.1 acres on the eastern side of the parcel, with a building envelope and
clearing limit identified in the southeastern corner of this lot. Access to lot 1B is from the proposed shared
right described above for lot 1A. This
lot will be encumbered by substantial amount of right of way, the initial
portion shared with lot 1A, and the remainder shared with the Applicant’s
abutting property to the south.
Frank Babbott explained that he has two separate 10-acre lots, accessed from two locations, both off Pond Road. He explained he has worked out plans for phasing in development on both lots, to include 2, 3, and 4 sites (the 4 total on both lots); the first phase would be a 2-lot subdivision of the parcel to the north. Since the last review, the road to the north has been engineered to town specifications; it will now include a 36” wide by 30-foot culvert (incorrectly noted as a 4’ wide x 30‘ long on map). Frank said the plan has been qualified as a low risk site by Llewellyn Howley Inc., a civil and environmental engineering firm.
Alex said that lot 1B does not meet the contiguous road requirements, encumbering the lot to the south by preventing more than one house site there, accessed from the same ROW, in the future.
Joslyn Wilschek introduced herself as a representative for Diana and Chris Borie. She questioned whether this was considered a major or minor subdivision. Alex replied this was a major subdivision, with a three-part application process and clarified that the criteria for both major and minor subdivisions are the same. Joslyn felt this application was incomplete for the following reasons:
1) The application did not include a soil and erosion plan, as ordered by the Board’s preliminary approval.
2) The site plan did not identify wetlands
3) The site plan did not include topographic lines
4) The site plan did not identify wildlife pathways
Ms. Wilschek re-stated her general concern that this application, incomplete in her opinion, could not be considered fully at this time. She introduced Jeff Nelson, hydrologist and owner of Pioneer Environmental Associates, LLC. He explained he had visited the site and passed out photos taken on proposed Lot 1A. In reviewing the photos, he referenced sections 5.1.1 “Suitability for Development” and 5.1.2 “Natural Features Protection” of the Subdivision Regulations, stating he felt many natural features, as well as wetlands features including seeps, are present on Lot 1A that are not adequately noted on the site plan. He questioned groundwater resources, particularly due to exposed bedrock areas in the building lots. He referenced section 5.1.7 “Soil Erosion and Storm Water Run-off”, stating erosion plan details are provided on the access drive plan but not for the rest of the subdivision. He summarized his concern that the information provided for the subdivision plan with regards to natural and wetlands features was, in his opinion, incomplete or inaccurate.
Frank responded that seepage is noted on the map and that the wetlands are known and declassified. He introduced a water quality report that, along with the Llewellyn Howley document and the engineering report, he felt addressed Mr. Wolff’s concerns. Alex noted that two of those documents were new and not available prior to the DRB meeting for review. There was discussion regarding communication between the Applicant and the neighboring landowners (Frank Babbott and the Bories). Frank stated that the water quality report was created after two site visits at the state level. He explained that he was told he would received further communication from officials only if there were a problem, and assured that water quality at the site was investigated nevertheless. Jeff reiterated his concerns, stating that as most of the wetlands found on the site are class 3 wetlands, they are jurisdictional under town and federal law. Frank said the engineering report addressed the issues, stating the bulleted items from the report have been reviewed and are required to proceed with a General Construction permit.
Alex asked Jeff to clarify where seepage areas were located, specifically whether they were inside or outside the building envelope on Lot 1A. He responded as follows:
(NOTE: photo title; feature location; location relative to the building envelope)
1) “Class Two riparian…”; bottom of hill; outside
2) “Perennial stream channel…”; bottom of hill; outside
3) “Small groundwater seep”; bottom of hill; outside
4) “Intermittent stream…”; fence at top of photo shows envelope boundary; outside
5) “Area of seepage/wetland…”; seepage location is adjacent; outside
6) “Exposed ledge…”; seepage location is adjacent; outside
Tom mentioned a site visit that took place during the preliminary review phase, noting building envelopes were set back from the western ledge and well away from the identified wetlands. Joslyn Wilschek noted her concern that actions inside the building envelope can impact those outside. She would also like to see an erosion plan as a “check and balance”. Alex responded that it is standard practice for contractors of small projects such as this one to utilize the Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites. It provides guidelines in lieu of delineating every stormwater detail within an erosion plan. He also stated that although the Subdivision Regulations require an erosion plan, it is up to interpretation as to the level of detail necessary, adding the State of Vermont does not require a run-off permit on projects that disturb less than 1 acre. There was more conversation within the group on this point; the lack of topographic lines on the site plan was also discussed.
Ray Curtis, an adjacent landowner, inquired about Lot 1B not having sufficient acreage in terms of the ROW and future development implications for the parcel to the south, also owned by Frank Babbott.
Tom MOVED to continue the meeting to December 5th. Greg SECONDED the motion.
Other Business:
Conditional Use Review – Route 116
– Applicant: NRG Systems Inc. and Owen Clay
Greg asked that Conclusion #2 of the Notice of Decision be amended to read “72 hours”, not “48 hours”.
Tom MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 1 with George Munson voting in absentia and Clint opposed.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan –
Richmond Road – Applicants: Richard and Flora Palmer
George Munson submitted a request to Alex that Conclusion #1 include the statement that the Applicant did not want to build a house on the subdivided parcel that included the home occupation. The draft review decision was amended to include this statement in both Conclusion #1 and Finding of Fact #6.
Greg MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (denial). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0 with George Munson voting in absentia.
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Thibault and Flash subdivisions, the Place home occupation and the Burton conditional use review. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
The deliberative session was ended and a vote on the Flash draft decision was taken. Tom MOVED to approve the Flash sketch plan decision (approval) as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Robert abstaining and George Munson voting in absentia.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary