TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
December 5, 2006
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: Clint Emmons.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and
Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), David Carse, Andrew Steinman, Bob Reid, Julie Reid, Greg Tucker,
Frank Babbott, Shane Mullen, Dorie Barton, Joslyn Wilschek, George Bedard, Tate Jeffrey, Minton Jeffrey, Mike
Potvin, Marion Hokem, X
Hokem, Mike Driscoll, Wayne Bissonette.
The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.
Minutes of the November 21, 2006
Meeting:
George MOVED to approve the November 21, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0, with Ted abstaining.
Davis Camp Conversion –
Conditional Use - Applicants: Jeff and Jean Davis
**continued from the October 3rd
and October 17th meetings.
The applicants have requested a continuance of their hearing to the January
2, 2007 meeting.
3-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat Review – Baldwin Road – Applicant: Henry Carse
Staff Report
Background Summary
Henry Carse is
requesting Final Plat approval of a 3-lot subdivision, in the Agricultural (AG)
Zoning District. This is the southern
portion of approximately 515 acres that the Applicant owns south of Charlotte
Road and east of Baldwin Road. The
subject parcel is approximately 335 acres, and is located on the east side of
Baldwin Road, near the Burritt Road intersection. Although there is an existing house, the bulk of the parcel is
undeveloped.
David Carse, representing
his father Henry Carse, presented a new engineering plat. The new plat is configured differently and
was prepared to include a septic system design for the existing residence. Peter said the draft decision could be
amended to include the new plat.
David gave a brief
history of the land and review of the subdivision proposal. He explained the proposal’s main objectives:
1) to create a 2.5-acre lot around the existing, non-complying residence. A state septic permit was recently obtained
for the lot, which will bring it into compliance; and 2) to re-divide the
Fletcher and Leonard Farms. David said
the new division line is very close to the original line.
Ted asked if the Board
was approving any development; David responded no. Greg asked about a replacement leech field for the
residence. David responded that one had
been identified, adding that a permit had also been obtained for a drilled well
in case a new well became necessary.
Peter asked if a surveyor had certified the plat; David said McCain
Consulting had certified it. Ted inquired
about boundaries; David said his engineers had used the South Mountain Survey.
Greg noted minor changes
to be made in the draft decision, in Findings of Fact (complete info in
paragraph 3) and in the Order (#1, first sentence, “shall be appropriately
titled to indicate…”). Peter
added that the new engineering plans would also be cited in the draft decision.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.
3-Lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review – North Road –
Applicant: Julie Reid – Landowners: Robert
and Mary Reid
**continued from the November 21st meeting.
Julie Reid, representing her parents Robert and Mary Reid, passed out a new proposed subdivision plan. Tom reviewed the contiguous area provision of the Subdivision Bylaws, as it was an outstanding issue from the last meeting. Peter said that Alex and he had reviewed the original plan and thought lots may have to be reconfigured to meet frontage requirements. They developed and passed out a new, suggested plan (un-reviewed as yet by the Reids) that addressed frontage.
Mary said she and her parents had met with Greg and Sue Tucker. The Reids’ new plan proposes to provide the Tuckers with a new right-of-way (ROW) easement. A new road would be built, one that cut over after the existing culvert; the Tuckers would have access to their property over this road. Moving the ROW would allow for more acreage to the side of the ROW on the Reid lot(s), thus addressing the contiguous area provision as it relates to future development on the Tucker property. Mary then noted that the ROW on her map was off by 25-30 feet due to an issue that arose years ago during the subdivision of neighboring property. The Reids contend Roger Kohn had told them during that subdivision process that a discrepancy involving 50 feet would be resolved.
Robert Reid stated he felt the Tuckers were in agreement with this new proposal. He proposed that the future owners of Lot #1 satisfy the conditions regarding the new ROW/road before being granted a building permit, emphasizing that the responsibility of building the new road would fall to those future owners. Peter reminded the Reids of the need to delineate wetlands in determining where a road can be placed. He also said subdivided lots needed to meet general subdivision guidelines.
Greg Tucker asked for guidance in the process. Alex said the state would provide wetland information and a list of consultants, adding that a wetlands designation would show where any road(s) could be built. Greg Tucker asked for assurance that he could subdivide later, referring to the contiguous area issue that had been raised. Alex said if that issue were successfully resolved, it would not limit the subdivision but that other issues may (in other words, any proposed Tucker subdivision would be subject to all other town Subdivision Bylaws.) Ted noted that the Tuckers might be required to improve the new road in the future, for instance, as multiple houses are added. The dimensions of the current culvert were discussed (16 feet wide at the culvert, with 14-16 feet of gravel on top elsewhere). Greg asked if any power easements needed to be adjusted; Alex responded no.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.
2-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat Review – Pond Road – Applicant:
Frank Babbott
**continued from the November 21st
meeting.
Frank Babbott introduced Shane Mullen, an engineer with Llewellyn-Howley, Inc, a civil and environmental engineering firm. Shane wrote the report that had been submitted at the November 21st meeting. He explained that Frank Babbott had asked him to explain the project’s responsibilities related to stormwater. Shane said the state had instituted a new erosion permit process for 1+-acre developments that included a risk assessment rating system (results being low, moderate, or high). He reviewed the Babbott site plan and declared it to be a low risk site, requiring the applicant to adhere to erosion guidelines set forth in the Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites, and also to submit paperwork.
Tom asked what the requirements were for a moderate risk site. Shane replied that a moderate risk site would have to produce a site-specific erosion control plan and follow an inspection regime, requiring an on-site inspector to document adherence to the plan. Ted asked for clarification of a 14-day requirement regarding the disturbance of earth. Shane said once a section of earth is disturbed, the contractor has 14 days to stabilize that section. A traveled course is graveled, ditches are mulched, etc. He said a contractor usually works in sections, stabilizing in phases.
Joslyn Wilschek, appearing on behalf of Chris and Diane Borie, neighboring property owners, asked if Shane had visited the site to further map the wetlands. Shane introduced a new map showing wetlands and other changes from the previous proposal. He said Dorie Barton, a wetlands consultant with Arrowood Environmental, had been asked to walk the property and delineate wetlands.
Joslyn contended the Board had not ruled on a motion she had submitted. She felt the requirements of a construction general permit were different from those of the town of Hinesburg, which required a soil erosion and control plan with slope markings. She noted town regulations requiring that all implications for the area of a proposed development be considered. She stated her opinion that the application had been submitted piecemeal and past the 1-year deadline for submittals.
Tom asked her to clarify which motion she was describing. Joslyn said she called Alex to see if the DRB could rule on her motion to determine that the original plat was null and void, and that she had not heard back from him. Greg said the Board would address that issue within this process, that it should not be construed that the issue was neglected or that the Board has prejudged it.
Dorie Barton was introduced; she stated Frank had called her last week and they had not worked previously together. She walked the property with Frank and Shane on November 28th. She reviewed the areas, noting it was not the best time to delineate wetland boundaries (due to lack of viable vegetation). Because of this, she overstated the wetlands delineation, adding the lines Frank had identified were not inaccurate. She explained the wetlands were seeps. On Lot 1A, she found a significant Class II wetland (Wetland A) to the west, outside the building envelope. Her recommendation was to provide a 50-foot buffer at the edge of that wetland.
She also she noted Wetland Areas E and C, both Class III wetlands, stating they are hydrologically connected, but not contiguous on the map. Her recommendation was to re-figure the building envelope on Lot 1A so that the ROW avoided either of those wetlands; the ROW was moved lower as a result.
Ted asked why the building lot still encompassed Wetland Area E. Shane said it was included to allow for yard area around the house. Dorie explained Class III wetland restrictions, stating up to 3000 square feet may be impacted without triggering a permit process. She explained that “impacting” included the de-stumping of trees and mechanized dredging (land disturbance). There was no square footage restriction for activities such as cutting trees, brush hogging, etc., only for those activities that disturbed or filled the land. Shane said that Wetland E is approximately 3000 square feet. Alex noted the building envelope had moved southward and asked if the clearing envelope had changed. Frank responded no, that the only change to this plan was to move the Lot 1A building envelope southward.
Tom explained that the Board allowed submittals at hearings. Alex explained the in-office submittals process; applications are stamped when they are received, then stamped again when they are complete. The received date is to determine whether an application has gone past the one-year deadline; the complete date is used for scheduling purposes. He said Frank submitted all necessary materials by his application’s deadline. Alex later advised him to improve some of the materials, which is why submissions came in after the deadline. George added that applications may meet the one-year deadline, but it does not necessarily mean their materials have had a technical review, which may be weeks later.
Tom said the Board could close the public hearing, or continue the discussion and keep the hearing open. Greg felt all new materials should be reviewed. Joslyn offered that her clients would like to move forward with the process, to the final review phase. Alex asked Joslyn if her clients wished to take the matter to Environmental Court regardless of how this process proceeded; Joslyn responded yes. Alex said the only outstanding item was a revised survey, noting it also brought up the legal change of a ROW location. Ted recommended that Lot 1A not include Wetland E; Frank agreed to that change.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.
2-Lot Subdivision – Final Plat
Review – Hayden Hill Road East – Applicants: Michael Potvin and Minton Jeffrey
George Bedard, representing the applicants, reviewed the subdivision
details and introduced a revised plan.
He said Hayden Hill Road East is a Class III road leading up to the
lot(s), then a Class IV road after that.
The proposed subdivision includes a 3.1-acre lot in front and a 4-acre
lot in back. A conventional septic
system for the back lot is located on the front lot. The well location was moved after meeting with the Select Board,
who did not wish it to be on adjacent town property. Culvert and stabilization details, as well as sloping marks, were
provided on the new map. The back lot
is wooded; a small amount of clearing will be done around the house and the
well, but generally the applicants wish it to remain wooded. Tom said order #1 of the draft decision
addresses clearing and forest management.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.
2-lot Subdivision with concurrent PRD Sketch Plan – North
Road – Applicants: Anup and Sanghamitra
Dam
Tom explained that the sketch plan hearing phase of this project had been
re-opened to review a new plan for a 152-acre parcel on the east side of North
Road. The previous plan was last
reviewed at the October 3, 2006 meeting.
George Bedard,
representing the applicants, explained they are seeking sketch plan approval to
concurrently divide their parcel into two areas: a 6-lot PRD development of
approximately 16 acres to the south and a separate lot with the balance of the
acreage to the north. The PRD proposed
in the last review would change from a 7-lot to a 6-lot plan, with five
residential lots clustered to the east and one shared lot to the west. The land to the north would be kept open,
with a forest management plan in place for the sugar bush there, as well as
plans for managing a pasture. George
felt this PRD plan offered a better buffer zone for existing houses to the
south and accommodated five houses in less space, leaving more wooded land to
the west.
Marion Hokem, a landowner
with property to the south of the proposed PRD, asked about the distance
between the new development and her house.
George said the buffer strip is 75 feet wide; the house site on PRD lot
#2 is 200 feet from the Hokem line. He
noted this was a preliminary plan only that could be made more restrictive when
final plans are drawn. X Hokem expressed concern
about water runoff; George said stormwater would be addressed within a required
stormwater permitting process. X Hokem said he preferred to
see development in the wooded area to the west, with land to the east (nearer
existing residences) kept as open space.
George responded that objections to cutting are also a consideration in
subdivision proposals.
George noted that at the
October 3rd meeting, the Board had approved a 7-lot PRD with 6
houses. Now the proposal is for a
concurrent subdivision (first into two lots, north and south) and a 6-lot PRD
(on the newly-created lot to the south), both of which the applicants wished to
pursue within the same process. Greg
asked whether the previously approved plan had now been removed for
consideration. George responded yes,
that the applicants no longer wanted to pursue that plan. Greg asked if there was any planned easement
that would burden the remaining land to the north. George said no, there were no development restrictions for the
larger parcel, and added that a ROW through the PRD would continue northwards
to the border of the larger parcel.
Ted asked if the 152
acres connected to other large parcels in the area. George noted a few, including Bissonette land to the south and
state land (the Johnson fish and game land) to the east. Greg asked whether the applicants would
pursue a 2-lot subdivision if a PRD were not approved. George replied yes. Peter felt it was difficult to approve a PRD
when a lot did not technically exist for it.
Ted felt the Board needed to consider whether it was appropriate to
divide this parcel in half, with a subdivision on one end that held no easement
to state land.
Marion Hokem expressed
more concern about proximity of the new lots to her own. George responded lot size, configuration and
screening would all be addressed.
Mike Driscoll, a neighboring landowner, felt the Board should not dictate whether the Dams should have a ROW through the property to the north, as access for the newly created lots to the south. If people wanted access across land, he felt it was more customary to ask permission rather than have a deeded right to it. Wayne Bissonette, a neighboring landowner, noted the Dam property to the north could also be accessed from Hinesburg Hollow and Lincoln Hill Road. He mentioned the VAST trail there, which has been approved by the Dams for use this year. Ted said his view of PRD guidelines was that applicants should be looking to do something innovative with open space, in exchange for being given development rights for multiple 1-acre lots. Peter said the more appropriate open spaces on this parcel are to the north. The earlier draft decision addressed land to the north, but did not have easement language in it.
George described the details of the proposed PRD development again. Robert asked if the number of lots in the PRD could be changed from five to four, to accommodate a bigger buffer between existing houses to the south. George said that could be considered. He described some existing land features such as wetlands and a stone wall. He also noted the need for 35-foot setbacks if the southern lot were divided via regular subdivision rather than a PRD. Ted asked if the leech field included more land than is normally required. George said yes, it indicated where testing had been done and would be drawn smaller.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.
Other Business:
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to review the Thibault subdivision, the Place home occupation and the Burton conditional use review. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.
The deliberative session was ended and a vote on the Thibault draft decision was taken. Tom MOVED to approve the Thibault sketch plan decision (denial) as written. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-.0 with Ted abstaining.
A vote on the Burton conditional use review was taken. Tom MOVED to approve the Burton draft decision sketch plan decision (approval) as amended to include language requiring the south stairs to be part of the deck. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 - 0 with George and Ted abstaining.
The Board will continue deliberating on the Place home occupation
application at the December 19th meeting.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary