TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
January 2, 2007
Approved January 16, 2007
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Bob Linck, George Munson, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and
Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Jeff Davis, Andre Robert, Lou Mulieri, Berthann Mulieri, Joe
Donegan, Rad Romeyn, John McEntee, George Bedard, Kris Perlee, David Newton, Richard
Lagasse, Launa Lagasse, Patti Drew, Kay Ballard, Tim Ballard, Mary Jane
Ballard, Marci Weishaar, Ron Derouchie, Gabe Bass, Adam Peterson, Ryan
Wuthrich, Bill Marks, Chuck Reiss, Collin Frisbie, Eric Spivack, Chris Murphy,
Ed Waite, Al Barber, Andy Rowe, Russ Barone, Bart Frisbie.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the December 19th,
2006 Meeting:
Greg MOVED to approve the December 19, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0, with Ted abstaining.
Conditional Use Review – Camp
Conversion – Shadow Lane – Applicants: Jeff and Jean Davis
**continued
from the October 3rd and October 17th meetings.
Jeff Davis and Alex discussed past DRB meetings, and the November 6th Selectboard meeting at which the Davis’ request for a waiver of road standards on Shadow Lane was denied. Alex recommended the Board close the public hearing and deny the Conditional Use Review request, allowing Jeff to pursue other options. Jeff understood other options to include suing the Selectboard or appealing the DRB decision.
Greg said the DRB decision should incorporate the Selectboard decision. There was discussion among board members about the relationship of the DRB to the Selectboard regarding such matters, and also how to incorporate input from town staff such as Mike Anthony (Town Highway Foreman). Greg felt the DRB did not have the power to overturn the Selectboard decision, and suggested the DRB decision reflect that. There was further discussion regarding the Environmental Board and how that entity would view this case.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft a decision (denial). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0, with Bob L. abstaining.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Lavigne
Hill Road – Applicant: Viola Goodrich
Staff Report Background Summary
Viola Goodrich, assisted by her
daughter Karen, and represented by George Bedard, are requesting Sketch Plan
approval for a 2-lot minor subdivision of a 33-acre parcel in the Rural
Residential II Zoning District that currently contains Vi’s house. This lot was formerly part of a parcel
co-owned with her brothers and created when the 61-acre portion to the east
(which abuts North Road and Observatory Road) was created as a transfer of land
solely for commercial forestry or agricultural purposes. The 9+-acres subject parcel (for her
grandson) would be accessed by an existing driveway that now serves Vi’s house
as well as the rest of the open land to the east. The proposed lot generally respects the former farming uses of
the land and the building locations appear to avoid the mapped (albeit not
accurate) ag lands. A mapped stream
forms the eastern boundary of this property and the new lot has a mapped
wetland on it in the eastern portion, separated from the building locations by
a fairly steep knob of land. There are
no known wildlife areas, mapped deeryards or other naturals areas on this
property.
George Bedard spoke on behalf of Viola Goodrich. He introduced a map of the parcel with the driveway and house site, and described septic plans proposed by McCain Consulting. He said the house site will be nestled into a hillside and will not protrude into the skyline. George Munson and Peter Erb agreed the house would not be visible. Ted asked about the topography of the land; George described contour lines, adding the road would end at the new lot with no need for access through to the neighboring parcel to the east (as that parcel is accessed otherwise). Tom asked about haying; George said the parcel is currently brush-hogged only. Board members agreed no site visit was necessary.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions for a minor subdivision. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.
Transfer of Land to Adjoiner –
Sketch Plan Review – Route 116 – Applicants: Tim and Kay Ballard
Tim & Kay Ballard are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a transfer of land to adjoiner. They would like to transfer approximately 5 acres from their main farm parcel (188 acres; 04-01-35.100) to their adjacent parcel (35 acres; 16-20-26.300) to the south. The receiving parcel is commonly referred to as the “Geprag Parcel”, and is 1 of 2 adjacent parcels on VT Route 116 owned by Tim & Kay Ballard. The receiving parcel was originally part of the Geprag farm, but was transferred to the Ballards when the Geprag estate was divided (also the genesis for the adjacent, Town-owned Geprag Park parcel). The 5 acres being transferred is to the east of the “Geprag Parcel” and abuts the Giroux parcel.
Tim Ballard described the 5-acre parcel. Alex clarified the parcel was a conforming lot and that the request did not fall under the merging provision reserved for non-conforming lots. David Carse presented a map. Tom asked for questions or comments from the audience (there were none.) Greg noted the review process for a transfer of land to an adjoining landowner is straightforward, as described in Sec. 2.2 of Subdivision Regulations. Tom asked if a new survey was required; Alex said no. Peter said a zoning permit with a clear sketch was needed and that one was already included in the submission. Tom suggested adding the zoning permit requirement to the order (as point #5). Ted thought this transfer had the affect of subdividing a farm; Alex said that would be addressed as part of the next request. Joe Donegan questioned whether the larger farm issue was eligible for discussion in the next request. Bob asked about soils; Tim said the 5-acre parcel was wet and less desirable as farmland.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0.
9-Lot, 8-Unit Subdivision/PRD –
Sketch Plan Review – Route 116 – Owners: Tim and Kay Ballard; Applicant: David
Carse
David Carse is
requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 9-lot, 8-unit subdivision and Planned
Residential Development (PRD) in the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject parcel is currently 35 acres,
but will be approximately 40 acres pending approval of the separate Ballard
Transfer of Land to Adjoiner application (see applicant letter & related
memo). It is located on the west side of
VT Route 116; parcel # 16-20-26.300.
The property is commonly referred to as the “Geprag Parcel”, and is 1 of
2 adjacent parcels on VT Route 116 owned by Tim & Kay Ballard. It was originally part of the Geprag farm,
but was transferred to the Ballards when the Geprag estate was divided (also
the genesis for the adjacent, Town-owned Geprag Park parcel). The subject parcel has a pole barn in the
southeast corner, but is essentially unbroken hay fields that dip down a slope
to the west toward the VELCO transmission line and a stream just west of the
property. Nearly ubiquitous prime and
statewide agricultural soil is the single natural feature that characterizes
the site. There are no mapped streams,
wetlands, trails, steep slopes, ledges, or other natural features.
The Applicant has submitted 3 sketch plan options for the Board to consider. In each option, lots 1-8 represent new building lots of approximately 2/3 to 1 acre in size, and lot 9 represents the remaining open space lot (includes the barn in each case).
David Carse introduced himself as the developer of the Subdivision/PRD plan. Bill Marks, representing a neighboring property, felt reviewing three options at once made the plan harder to assess. Alex said regulations encourage applicants to submit multiple options, although it’s not often done. Bob L. asked if regulations encouraged consultation with the Conservation Commission; Alex replied no. Greg noted this was the beginning of the subdivision process, with time for review of all proposals.
David said the intent of the plan was to help the Ballards maintain operation of their adjacent dairy farm by selling a small portion of their land to raise operating funds. Most of the 40 acres was to be kept in use by the Ballards as farmland (through an arrangement yet to be determined), with a small, concentrated development of homes elsewhere. David described the economics of purchasing the land and his desire to simply break even on the development project. He said he was very flexible and open to any ideas in addition to the three options being offered.
Alex suggested trying to keep the open land as part of the Ballard farm, not under ownership of the new development (as common land, for instance.). Greg thought easements could be put into place, deeding the right to farm the land to the Ballards. David said he would be open to any arrangement as long as it was economically feasible and the Ballards could maintain use of the land, particularly the Geprags Parcel.
Tom asked David for his understanding of other conservation efforts and/or steps other farming families have taken in order to continue operating. David spoke of the history of farming in Hinesburg; he said many farms are no longer in operation and that those remaining are not operating in a sustainable, commercially viable way. He said the Ballard farm was an exception, and that an injection of funds along with a plan to keep the Geprags Parcel in use could keep it going.
Bob noted there was no guarantee that the Ballard farm would be preserved, unless there was a conservation easement on the main farm property. Tim Ballard assured the group his farm would remain in operation by himself and his children. Greg felt the relatively high-density development in this district warranted looking at the larger issue of the main farm now. David said any future development was subject to DRB review. He felt it more appropriate to view this proposal as way to preserve the farm and the farmer, not farmland as open space as is generally discussed in other proposals. He discussed economic options (or lack thereof) available to the Ballards, and reiterated his offer to be flexible on the development plan. Ted asked about the current housing market; David gave his observations and described the economics of this plan.
The neighborhood was discussed. Although the proposed development is in the agricultural district, it is physically opposite and thus more similar to the cluster of houses on Route 116 and Place Road.
Alex noted a letter of support received from the Matthews, neighboring homeowners. Bill Marks suggested that in order to keep the farm in operation for perpetuity, it might be beneficial to involve the Town, the Conservation Commission, etc. Rad Romeyn suggested a Land Trust arrangement. Tim replied that his family was not interested in having a land trust involved. Kris Perlee, a neighboring homeowner across from 116, gave his support for the plan. Gabe Bass, an adjoining landowner, also gave his support for the plan. Joe Donegan said he supported the plan, particularly option #1. He felt that option worked best to preserve the integrity of the agricultural district, even if visibility of homes was higher. He noted the strong show of support from neighbors, the fact that the Town would not be burdened with additional road maintenance, and the easy commute to Burlington. He was also concerned about creating a precedent with a high density development in the agricultural district, and recognized the need, in this special case, for a thread to exist between this parcel and the Ballards’ large farm holding.
Greg asked Gabe Bass which option he preferred; Gabe said although the houses would be less visible if built on the ridgeline, he felt clustering them closer to Rte. 116 conformed better to existing development there. David reviewed contour lines and said houses would tuck in below the Girouxs’. Bill Marks said the Town has an interest in preserving the Geprags Parcel and the Town and the Ballards could work together. Rad Romeyn felt the views off 116 to the west were exceptional and worth preserving; he also questioned the precedent of density for a development in the agricultural district. There was discussion between David and board members about density calculations, types of eligible homes, lot sizes and expectations of new homeowners.
Alex pointed out that while discussion of the main Ballard farm was important, it was not technically relevant to this sketch review; David Carse would be developing a discreet parcel of land soon to be under his ownership, not the Ballards. Bill Marks said he felt ¼-acre lots were sufficient and environmentally friendly. David asked if Bill generally approved of the project;’ he responded that he did. Chuck Reiss gave his support for the project. He suggested the Town could enlarge Geprags Park by purchasing the Geprags Parcel with an agricultural easement. Such a plan could also help to buy down the # of homes needed in the adjacent development.
Tom MOVED to continue the hearing until January 16th. Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 - 0. A site visit was scheduled for Saturday,
January 6th at 9:00 a.m.
7-lot,
57-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant: Hinesburg
Hillside LLC
Russ Barone described the changes to the plan that had occurred since the last DRB meeting (July 11th):
1) Lot 1 has been re-designated; it is no longer part of open space.
2) Thorn Bush Road will now be 24 feet wide.
3) All trails have been located, including a trail connection to Lavigne Hill Road. Hinesburg Hillside LLC (HHL) is proposing to establish those trails.
4) Trailhead parking has also been located; the map shows where trails begin and how parking will be provided.
5) Signage will be in place to prohibit parking in areas that would have potentially blocked fire services.
6) Other signage, including a permanent sign identifying the senior housing area, was located.
7) Additional plantings on Mechanicsville Road, Lot 2 and Unit 4 were located.
8) An easement dedicated to the Town through Lot 7 to Lavigne Hill Road has been added to the plan (but is not yet on the map). It will meet Town requirements.
9) 3 trees behind each house on Lots 1-4 will be added to the plan (only 2 now shown on map)
Russ also reported on negotiations with the Selectboard (SB) regarding the Town taking over Thorn Bush Road, Thistle Hill Lane and Mulberry Lane. He said although the timetable for discussions and a decision is a little unclear, Russ felt his plan met with the SB’s requirements. Ted thought the SB wanted to introduce the issue at Town Meeting in March.
Greg asked if residents from Hawk Lane have been in contact with HHL; Russ replied no. Bob L. asked about a 4-way stop at the Mechanicsville Road/Thorn Bush Road intersection. Alex said the SB has not made a final decision, in part because a traffic engineer reported that a 4-way stop was not necessary, and also because traffic calming measures are being planned comprehensively for the area as part of the multi-use path project.
Tom asked about garages and setbacks, noting HHL’s waiver request for 2-ft. setbacks (regulations require 10-ft. setbacks). Russ said a waiver has been requested for all 25 lots. He described the contours of the lots (many hillside homes, some with walk-out basements), the facades (most are visible from front and back), and the architectural features proposed for front facades to minimize the presence of garages. Ted felt language in the draft decision did not require HHL to include those features, only that they try. Peter agreed that the language should not be open-ended, in part to avoid later appeals to the DRB. There was discussion in the group regarding how to more clearly denote within the draft decision when a house should be built with features, for instance, making it dependant on actual house setbacks, the garage measurements, etc. Members agreed that language should be clarified within the decision.
George asked about height waivers; Russ replied that he did not anticipate needing waivers for any of the homes. George also clarified language regarding the number of lots being approved in this stage (59 vs. 57).
Alex raised the issue of off-street parking, particularly on lots 5-16 as they are positioned closer to the road and their driveways are shorter. A discussion took place regarding the Town’s future ROW (assuming the Town takes over the road). Although parked cars would be off pavement, they would likely be parked in the ROW. Alex noted Mike Anthony found the plan to be acceptable; the group generally agreed.
Alex discussed his request for more landscaping, particularly on lots 1-8. He did not disagree with a plan that grouped trees rather than spacing them evenly apart, even if it resulted in more widely spaced trees (outside the 40 foot spacing requirement for street tree density). He is requesting an increase in the total amount of trees, in order to honor the intent of the density requirement. Bart Frisbie said that a total count has not been done, but he would add more trees at the DRB’s request. Bob L. pointed out a typo in order #10 of the draft decision (“utility service to shall be”...); Alex will remove the word “to”. Peter requested that some architectural variety also be considered for the backs of houses. Alex said order #8 would be revised to reflect that.
John McEntee of Hawk Lane said he would like to see a substantial buffer zone established at the north of the development, as well as restrictions on outdoor lights. Peter said floodlights would not be allowed, and that other types of outdoor lighting should be downcast. Chris Murphy of Mulberry Lane would like the DRB to endorse the placement of a 4-way stop at Mechanicsville Road and Thorn Bush Road. Alex noted where crosswalks would be placed (one crossing Thorn Bush Road and one crossing Mechanicsville Road).
Patti Drew of Thorn Bush Road felt that the siting and construction of houses should be done as aesthetically as possible, rather than strictly following setback regulations. She also inquired about landscaping; Bart said a trail had been moved, and that a berm with landscaping would be created between her house and the development. Eric Spivack of Mechanicsville Road asked how the crosswalks would be delineated; Alex said they would be painted stripes only. Bob L. added other measures could be contemplated as part of the larger traffic-calming plan.
Adam Peterson of Mulberry Lane raised the issue of a land swap proposed by HHL; common land previously established for the Mulberry residents Homeowners Association would be returned to HHL for the purpose of installing a stormwater retention pond there; in exchange, the Association would receive a new parcel of similar size, located further east. He did not feel it was a fair exchange due to the location and nature of wet soils found in and leading up to the parcel. Russ felt the parcel was similar and had the benefit of connecting to the Russell property through the trail system. He explained language found in the original declaration for Mulberry Lane and contended it was within HHL’s rights to make such an exchange.
Andy Rowe, an engineer working with HHL, explained that the placement of the storm water pond was done so to keep stormwater paths away from wetlands. Greg noted that the new common land parcel is 20 feet higher in elevation and outside of major wetlands. Chris Murphy discussed plans for a play area in the original common parcel and the difficulties of building the same in the new parcel. Alex felt the Board had limited ability to address this issue, and noted that no particular use was specified for the common land in the original Mulberry Lane project. He also said current regulations allowed for stormwater treatment areas to be included in open space. Adam said he felt it could not have been the intention of the DRB to designate common land to the Mulberry Land owners for anything but recreational use.
John McEntee raised the issue of a buffer zone again. The tree line was discussed, as well as the nature and expected growth rate of proposed landscaping. Adam thought safety concerns about traffic coming through Mulberry Lane had been left open-ended, and depended on whether the Town would take over the roads. Russ said guardrails were in place more to address the steep drop-off from Mulberry Lane, rather than the grade of the road itself.
The following list of outstanding issues were summarized, with some re-discussed:
1) Garage setbacks and language in order #8
2) Landscaping and tree spacing.
3) Off-street parking
4) Neighbor’s concerns, including common land, screening and lighting
Russ said the original Mulberry subdivision project set aside acreage for common land as a way of making up for acreage that would have been provided had the subdivision been divided conventionally; Alex said that was his recollection as well. Russ requested that board members review the Mulberry Lane project documentation; Alex said he would gather materials for review, but still felt the board should not be involved in the matter.
Bob L. asked about the 4-way stop and the timing of the SB’s implementation of other traffic calming measures in the area. Alex said the DRB could only dictate measures for private roads such as Mulberry Lane, not Mechanicsville Road.
Tom MOVED to continue the meeting to February 6th. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Other Business:
The Babbott subdivision project was briefly discussed. It was noted that a gravel turnaround, as an extension of the driveway, should be specified in the decision. A vote on the Babbott draft decision was then taken.
Greg MOVED to approve the final draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0, with Bob L. abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m.