TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

January 16, 2007
Approved February 20, 2007

 

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Joe Donegan, Clint Emmons, Lisa Godfrey, Bob Linck, Greg Waples.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Robert Gauthier, George Munson.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Kristin Abbott, Curt Alpeter, Kristen Anderson, Jon Anderson, Mary Baldwin, Matt Baldwin, Mary Jane Ballard, Kay Ballard, Tim Ballard, George Bedard, Doug Bicknell, Wayne Bissonette, Lenore Budd, Caroline Carpenter, David Carse, Carrie Chlumecky, Annemie Curlin, Mark Dillenbeck, Patti Drew, Inez French, Michael Hennessey, Dave Hirth, Marty Illick, Susan Johnson, Isaiah Kiley, Lisa Kiley, Pat Mainer, Ray Mainer, Bill Marks, Lee McIsaac, Jean Miner, Kathleen Newton, Dave Newton, Tom Nostrand, Joy Palmer, Steven Palmer, Kris Perlee, Jim Pulver, Rad Romeyn, Linda Samter, Bill Schubart, Kate Schubart, Stevie Spencer, Jonathan Trefry, Zoe Wainer, Marci Weishaar, Michael Wisniewski, Margaret Woodruff.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

 

Minutes of the January 2nd, 2007 Meeting:

Joe Donegan wished to add a statement to his comments in the minutes.  Greg MOVED to approve the January 2, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0, with Lisa abstaining.

 

21-Lot, 19-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Owner: Inez French; Applicant:  Vermont Land & Cattle Company, LLC

**continued from the December 19th meeting.

A site visit took place on January 13th.  The following people attended:  (DRB and Staff) Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Joe Donegan, Clint Emmons, Lisa Godfrey, Bob Linck, Greg Waples, Peter Erb;  (Public) Rad Romeyn, Isaiah Kiley, Mark Dillenbeck, Linda Samter, Bill Marks, Tom Hengelsberg, Michael Wisniewski, David Hirth, Carrie Chlumecky, Tom Nostrand, Zoe Wainer, Lenore Budd, Lisa Kiley, Jonathan Trefry, Patricia Mainer, Mary Baldwin, Matt Baldwin, Marty Illick.

 

Tom gave his observations of the visit, which started on Drinkwater Road and followed the proposed subdivision road.  House lots were located in wooded areas, or areas with only marginally acceptable ag soils.  Drainage areas in lots 12-15 were noted.  Visitors saw proposed sites for the arena and barns.  Septic sites were located near lots 5 and 13.  It was noted that there were exceptional views south of lot 9.  A swale was noted from lot 7 extending toward the Baldwin Farm.  Visitors finished on the western side or “lower meadow” where many wetland areas were delineated.

 

Lisa noted the slope along the west side of the proposed road, around lots 16 – 18, and thought it was very steep considering the road is supposed to hook around toward lot 15.  She saw the replacement septic area had been moved to the woods in the southwest corner in lot 15, where there was a drainage location, with additional drainage between lots 18 and 19 running down into the lower meadow.  She also noted the proposed driveway across lot 12 to access lot 13.  She noted a strip of woods between the long meadow and lower meadow.

 

Ted said all centers of building envelopes were marked with reflectors.  Greg said he got a sense for which building sites would be visible from Baldwin Road.  Bob L. thought the area of lot 16 where the road would be placed required much fill and blasting.  Joe felt there was a better location for lot 6; Rad responded that locations could be adjusted.

 

Members of the public gave their site visit observations.  Tom Nostrand felt more houses would be visible than had been described in the original presentation.  Lisa Kiley did not feel the home sites were well clustered; rather, houses were stretched out and in the middle of the property, fragmenting the forest corridor and wetlands.  Isaiah Kiley felt the forested section to the north would be totally, adversely transformed.

 

Bill Marks reviewed the Conservation Commission report on the visit.  The Commission felt home sites should be restricted to the lower section of the property near Drinkwater Road, and that the roadway going up the ledge led to a dramatic destruction of natural features.  He did not feel enough time on the site visit was devoted to exploring the lower lots as a main area for development.

 

Rad Romeyn commented that at least five to eight of the residents who attended the site visit were non-Hinesburg residents.  He wished to address public feedback following the initial DRB meeting and site visit on three main issues:  the site plan; visibility from public roadways; and density and compatibility of the surrounding area.

 

He introduced a new map, showing changes where the roadway followed the ledge through a soft pine forest around to the home sites to the north.  Lot 15 would be moved south.  The road would now be kept at an even contour, terminating as a driveway into a cul-de-sac; this would eliminate the road cut through the western forest and prevent access to the northern forest.  He felt the new plan did a better job of consolidating home sites and preserving natural areas.  Tom asked if there were still 19 lots; Rad responded yes, that sites as just been spread differently.  The septic site near lot 13 would now be incorporated into one of the lots, and a home site to the west side of the severe down slope lot 16 would be moved.

 

Ted asked for clarification of the road length; Rad said it was about ½ mile to the homes clustered to the north, then about 800 feet further, as revised.  He said the replacement septic area is still to the north, but has been shifted 50 feet to the west, out of the drainage area.

 

Regarding visibility from public roadways, Rad felt many natural features such as hedgerows, tree lines and slopes would backdrop and/or break up the home sites.  He thought the home on lot 1 would be visible from the Davis Farm, but that lot 2 was questionable.  He felt the house currently under construction in the area (the Budd residence) would be more visible than homes in the High Point development.  He described what he thought the experience driving west down Drinkwater Road would be, with the views to the south being more prominent than the development itself.

 

Rad addressed the issue of density, which he felt was very subjective.  He presented a study of Burritt Road, stating there were 27 homes served by 22 driveways off that road.  In comparison, Drinkwater Road has 8 homes served by 6 driveways.  Proposing to add 19 homes will result in the same number of homes as Burritt Road.  He felt a big difference between the two roads was that Burritt was a dead-end, with no current public connection to Garen Road (as it followed through to Charlotte).  Drinkwater Road is a thru road, leading to Prindle and Roscoe Roads.  Because residents in the proposed development would have more travel choices, traffic would be dispersed and have less impact on Baldwin Road.

 

He summarized by stating this 19-home proposed PRD as modified met all criteria for a permissible development as laid out in the Town Plan and Zoning/Subdivision ordinances.

 

Greg Waples asked if Rad would build the homes in the development; he also asked what the anticipated size of the homes would be.  Rad replied that he would build about ½ of the homes; the homes would be between 3000-4000 sq. feet in size.  Greg asked about the subdivision history of the French property.  It was noted that 2 parcels had been divided from the main French property, the Budd parcel and the Magic Hill parcel, which has now been divided into 3 lots, bringing the total subdivided lots to 4.  Greg asked about the road cut that swung severely east toward the Baldwin property; he felt it was situated unnecessarily close to the Baldwin home, with the potential for disturbance from lighting.  Rad said the road location, as established in the original subdivision of this parcel, had been discussed with the road commissioner, and depended on the location of the lot 1 home site.  He said the new lot 1 home site was in a similar location in this plan.  He said he discussed the road location as well as landscape/screening possibilities with the Baldwin family.  Greg stated he felt it put a severe burden on the Baldwins, and suggested the road be moved toward the French farm.  Peter felt the home site on lot 1 is now in a very different location 50-75 feet away, and is at a higher, more visible elevation.

 

Ted asked what alternatives had been explored in terms of clustering the home sites.  He asked if the overriding goal in planning the home sites had been to avoid agricultural areas.  Rad replied yes, the goal had been to concentrate development where the least viable agricultural soils were.

 

Kristen Abbott, an abutting property owner, said Drinkwater Road was very muddy and in generally poor condition.  She felt it was currently maintained only minimally due to the low number of residences on the road.

 

Lisa Kiley said the development of 27 homes on Burritt Road should be viewed as a mistake that that should not be repeated.  She clarified that Burritt Road is not closed through to Garen Road, that it is a class IV road that is passable under the right conditions.  She spoke of the effect increased traffic would have on wildlife, and that traffic would come not only from residents, but from other sources such as delivery vehicles, trash collectors, etc.

 

Greg asked if the new plan would clearly delineate the change in plans; Rad replied that a comparison overlay would be submitted.

 

Stevie Spencer, a member of the Lewis Creek Association and former Hinesburg Conservation Commission member, read from a letter submitted to the DRB, expressing strong opposition to the development based on environmental concerns.

 

Matt Baldwin, the adjacent property owner and speaking for his family, said the family discussed the road location with Rad and asked him to move it.  They were told by Rad that the road commissioner required it to be located there.  They would still like the proposed road location to be moved.  As one of the abutting properties, he stated his family had concerns about the agricultural soils, buffers and proximity of houses, but that they nevertheless supported Mrs. French  and her wishes to do some type of development.

 

Michael Wisniewski, a nearby property owner, said the decision to save the open space within the property put the wooded areas at risk.  He felt homes sitting on the edge of open fields would destroy the definition and character of the fields.  He felt there should be more of a balance within the development, and preferred to see home sites clustered to the south, with the entire area to the north left alone.  He also questioned what marketing the development as an “equestrian community” meant.  He pointed out that any commercial equestrian operation would increase traffic due to riding lessons, horse shows, etc.

 

Jon Trefry also suggested restricting clustered development to the south, near Drinkwater Road.  He felt Rad’s comment about non-Hinesburg residents attending the site visit was disrespectful, noting that Charlotte residents will be just as affected by visibility and traffic issues as their Hinesburg neighbors.

 

Bill Schubart, an abutting property owner to the southwest, suggested the DRB require one or all of the following: 2 or 3 examples of similar projects successfully managed and completed by the applicant; the build-out of the core infrastructure before construction of the homes; a post completion bond.

 

Lee McIsaac said her property off Prindle Road in Charlotte would be affected by increased traffic.  She also thought increased human impact on the surroundings would be significant, adding pet dogs would pose a risk to wildlife.  Mark Dillenbeck said he understood the French family position in wanting to receive a fair return for their land, but felt this project, as proposed, was not acceptable.  Annemie Curlin of Charlotte felt the project endangered the rural character of Hinesburg. 

 

Jean Miner read a statement in support of the project, noting that other developments in Hinesburg built on former open land had now reverted to forest, creating new wildlife habitat.

 

Alex offered a clarification of a density comparison with the Fletcher Farm Road area (between Charlotte and Burritt Roads).  The number of units per acre in that area is 1 per 12, not 1 per 8 as originally reported.  He said the rationale behind the comparison with this project is that the Fletcher Farm area is the most densely settled neighboring area.  He added he did not wish to see it used as a template for development; the DRB needs to use discretion as to what an acceptable level of density is for any project.  It was further noted that the Baldwin corridor with roughly 3200 acres and 85 units had an estimate 1 unit per 38 acres (note there are several large land holdings in that acreage).

 

Tom felt the “intensity” of a project should be also considered, meaning the implications of a high relative percentage of density being introduced at once.  He mentioned phasing; Rad said all infrastructure would be in place before any of the houses were started, and anticipated that the homes would be built over four to fives years in phases.

 

Carrie Chlumecky wished to see Baldwin Road remain a dirt road.  She also asked about the lot size of home sites, saying it was difficult to control tree-cutting by homeowners on larger lots.

 

Alex gave some instruction as to how the process could proceed.  Greg felt more time was needed to review the new sketch plan and new letters.  Joe felt that if some thematic issues were fatal flaws, the process should not be drawn out.  In his opinion, although some subjectivity was involved with density calculations, the Town Plan and Zoning Regulations provided clear guidelines as to acceptable levels of density; he cited sections 3.1 and 4.5 of the regulations.  He felt it was acceptable to approve only 6 units, those on lots 1-6; any number of units beyond that should have to fit inside the same footprint of those lots.

 

Rad requested a continuation of the meeting, and an up-or-down vote on the project at the March 6th meeting.  Joe felt a straw vote was appropriate for this evening’s meeting and asked that one be taken.  Tom said the process could remain open with time for public input, but that an additional site visit would not be scheduled.  Ted suggested the applicant work on alternatives that put development in the front area of the parcel; Bob L. and Lisa agreed.  Greg said development should be concentrated toward Drinkwater Road and away from the Baldwin property.  Ted supported a PRD, felt an acceptable number of home sites could be found and that town roads must be considered in re-thinking that number.  Clint supported development of the property but not in the form of the proposed plan.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing until March 6th.  Ted 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

**continued from the January 2nd meeting.

Joe Donegan recused himself from the Board.  A site visit took place on January 6th.  The following people attended:  (DRB and Staff) Tom McGlenn, Bob Linck, Peter Erb; (Public) Tim Ballard, Kay Ballard, Mary Jane Ballard, Andrea Morgante, Bill Marks.

 

Tom gave his observations of the visit, which started at the Ballard’s home and followed the proposed subdivision road.  It was raining and easy to see water flow.  The land was toured in the areas of the three proposed plans.  Option #1 – Tom noted that a well-defined natural delineation between home sites and the remaining farmland existed.  The Geprags barn was noted to be in good condition and still in use.  Visitors walked down to Gabe Bass’ property line toward Geprags Park.  Option #2 – it was thought that homes would be more spread out in this area.  Option #3 contained a “dry field”.

 

Back in Option #1 area - Bob L. noted where septic had been flagged.  He noted that home sites would be 500-600 feet away and substantially dropped down from the back of the Girouxs’ house.  Lot #8 was felt to be the lowest lot; the driveway was not yet flagged.

 

David Carse introduced a fourth option that condensed lots in Option 1 by 50%, bringing them to about ½ acre each, with a total development of 4 out of the 40 acres in the parcel.  He reviewed what he felt were the goals and benefits of this project.  Rad Romeyn asked for clarification of the overall density.  Tom agreed that this was a proposal for a 5-acre density in the agricultural district.

 

Various driveway locations on both sides of Rte. 116 were discussed.  David said the locations of the new driveway and access driveways for the Ballard Farm have been discussed with state officials (for the purpose of determining site distances).  He added that the new driveway would continue as a farm road, with deeded rights for the Ballards’ use.

 

Tom asked if some kind of development partnership had been discussed with Gabe Bass; Tim Ballard replied no.  Tim addressed concerns regarding the main Ballard farm, stating he felt the future of the farm operation and lands was a private family matter.  Tom felt such concerns were germane to the discussion.

 

Alex noted a previous approval for a 5-lot subdivision that created 1 unit per 6.6 acres.  He said the mitigating factor in the Ballard request is that property sits on the boundary between the agricultural and RRI districts, in an area already characterized by small residential parcels.  David said that it was natural for a highway to be developed on both sides, with agricultural lands sitting behind the road.  As for setting a precedent, David argued that this was a good precedent to set; to keep development concentrated in an already thickly settled area.

 

Ted asked about the Giroux lot; David said lot 8 was made slightly larger (about ¾ acres) to provide more buffers at the back of the Giroux home.  Wayne Bissonette spoke in support of the project, stating the Board should not be concerned with the rest of the property.  Bill Marks, representing the Conservation Commission, felt many opportunities existed here, such as multi-family housing and green building techniques.

 

Kris Perlee offered the possibility that this farm could survive financially into the future, and that no one could or should try to predict its future.  He did not like the idea of multi-family housing (condominiums) on farmland, saying they weren’t appropriate to the rural landscape.  David Carse agreed with that, and passed around photos of single-family homes he built, architecturally designed to fit into a similar rural setting.  Kathy Newton, an adjacent landowner gave her support for the project, and spoke to the quality of homes built by David Carse.

 

Joe Donegan asked whether the Board could tie the 40-acre parcel to the neighboring parcel if the subdivision were approved.  Board members felt it was valid to explore how that could be done, with easements, for example.  Joe continued by giving his support for the project.  Peter agreed that any approval of the project should proceed carefully with thought given to the precedent it would set for high density in an agricultural district.  Lisa asked whether additional land could be added to the 40-acre parcel to help ease the density.  David said the 4-acre piece being considered for development is not desirable farmland, and that the acreage behind it would be preserved.

 

Tom asked about access to Geprags Park; David said an easement to new homeowners and/or the town could be explored.  Ted asked if the Girouxs had been contacted.  Patty Drew, speaking for her parents, said they reviewed all options and have no objections.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Public Hearing –Building Envelope Revision – Boutin Subdivision – Shelburne Falls Road –Applicant: Shomit and Birgitte Ghose

 

Doug Bicknell of Trudell Consulting Engineers spoke on behalf of the Ghose’s.  He explained the request to change the building envelope location was time-sensitive due to an Act 250 permit deadline.  He said a soils engineer found the initial septic site to be unsuitable, with the original home site being more suitable for a septic location.  He said Peter Erb, Shomit and neighbor, Deborah Hines, walked the property and located the current proposed site in part to preserve neighbor’s views.  Peter agreed this was where the home site should have been located.  Clint asked about the driveway length and visibility; Doug explained it had been sited due to grade requirements, but could be re-visited.

 

Steve Palmer, an adjacent homeowner, spoke on behalf of the Palmer Family Trust (also an adjacent land owner).  He felt the change was unfair as he has already built his house, and the new home site would interfere with his views.  There was discussion about screening and likely elevation of the Ghose’s home.  Steve and Joy Palmer also said they did not have enough notice to prepare for tonight’s meeting.  Doug offered to tour the property with the Palmers and set helium balloons in place for judging elevations.  Joe suggested some large-scale landscaping to mitigate visibility of the new home.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing until March 6th.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 - 0.

 

Sketch Plan/Conditional Use Review – Approval for Drive up Facility – Commerce Park – Applicant:  The National Bank of Middlebury

 

Background Information from the Staff Report

The National Bank of Middlebury is requesting DRB Conditional Use and Site Plan approval to locate a branch bank on one of the remaining open lots in Commerce Park, parcel number 20-50-78_000.  The subject parcel is located next to the former Green River Chocolates building and across from Valley Print and Mail in the Commercial Zoning District.

 

Pursuant to section 3.5.3 (6) of the Zoning Regulations, if a bank has a drive up facility it must undergo conditional use review as well as site plan.  The narrative and site plan submitted by the applicant is very complete.  Briefly it will have XXXXXX employees, parking and traffic patterns that comply with the regs., a structure designed to be traditional and blend with the Vet clinic across the street and the lighting, parking, trash setbacks etc. all comply with zoning regulations.

 

Caroline Carpenter of the National Bank of Middlebury, and Jim Pulver of the Bread Loaf Corporation presented application details and a site map.  The building would be 2800 sq. ft. of enclosed space, with one exterior drive-up ATM and 2 drive-up teller lanes, all covered by a canopy.  The total lot coverage is equal to 36% of the lot area (31% as defined by the Town of Hinesburg, which does not include pedestrian walks).  Jim described traffic flow, business hours, expected number of employees (8 initially), signage and light sources and a stormwater plan.  Greg asked if an Act 250 permit was required; Jim replied yes, as an amendment extension of the existing permit for commercial development.

 

Jim gave details of the wetlands permitting process, as reviewed by the Army Corp of Engineers; a permit has been received to allow the filling of approximately 35,000 sq. ft.; Jim said within that area, 5200 sq. ft is proposed as a wetlands enhancement area. 

 

Jim discussed lighting specifics, such as the proposed types of lamps, foot candles, locations and hours of operation.  Caroline explained that customer security concerns warranted the lights as proposed.  Traffic flow in and around the lot was discussed.  The Vermont Agency of Transportation has accepted the traffic consultant’s recommendation for the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Rte. 116 and Commerce Drive.  Greg asked if another developer was responsible for the same area; it was confirmed that the Grabowski project is responsible for putting in a right hand turn lane off Commerce Street.  Lisa asked about pedestrian access to the ATM (located under the canopy) and the possibility of an additional walk-up ATM; Caroline responded there would not be an additional ATM machine inside but the lobby tellers would be available during working hours.

 

Parking spaces (total 16 as shown on the plan) were discussed; Greg asked about overflow.  Jim said only 14 were required (based on the building square footage), but that the current lot configuration could be adjusted to add more.  Sidewalks and landscaping were discussed.  Lisa Kiley asked about the energy efficiency of the building.  Caroline described some measures that would be taken. 

 

Tom asked about the canopy lighting.  Lisa asked if additional screening could be put in on the south east side to shield light.  Jim said conifers could be considered as part of the landscaping for that area.  Greg repeated his concerns about parking; Ted disagreed, suggesting there was a potential for shared parking with commercial neighbors.  Lisa asked if the building size could be reduced.  Caroline explained the square footage as planned was the minimum required by the normal operating functions of a bank.  Jim reviewed elevations and some changes that were being considered.  He also explained some time constraints for the project.  Board members generally agreed there were no fatal flaws under the site plan review, only details to be worked out.

 

Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval and also to continue the hearing until March 20th.  Tom SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6 – 1, with Joe voting no.

 

Other Business:

 

Requests to extend two subdivision projects, the Morrissey subdivision on Swamp Road and the Blittersdorf subdivision off Route 116, were considered.

 

Tom MOVED to extend both subdivision projects by six months.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

The Davis draft decision is not ready for review yet.  The Goodrich draft decision was circulated for review, but no vote was taken.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary