TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

February 20, 2007
Approved March 6, 2007

 

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent: none.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Mike Leary, Diane Leary, John Berino, Rad Romeyn, Deborah Light, Ellen Foster, Peg Montgomery, Betsy Orvis, Charles Bush, Bob Chalifoux, Shane McCormack, Nancy Wright, Steve Lidle, Scott Alexander, Natasha Duarte, Charles Abry, Susan Hoeppner, Jeffrey Washburn, Michael Hopwood.

 

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

 

Minutes of the January 16th, 2007 Meeting:

Comments by Greg, Joe, Rad Romeyn and Jim Pulver were added and/or clarified. Greg MOVED to approve the January 16, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Minutes of the February 6th, 2007 Meeting:

Some minor corrections were made. George MOVED to approve the February 6, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0, with Joe and Greg abstaining.

 

 

17-Lot, 16-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road – Applicants:  George and Jan Bedard

* continued from the December 19th meeting.

* A site visit is planned for Saturday, March 31st, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.  Open to the public.

 

Tom explained that the February 17th site visit was cancelled due to snow conditions, and that it will be rescheduled.  George Bedard reviewed the original site plan, noting concerns he had heard at the last meeting.  He then presented a revised plan, still a 17-lot, 16-unit subdivision but with a different access location and road configuration.  Lots now ranged from ½ acre to 1.1 acres in size.  Lots 1-3 would be visible from Texas Hill Road but others would be tucked into wooded areas.  He felt the access location was better due to grades and visibility.  Access to the common forested area will be provided at two locations, one near lot 4 and the other at the end of the cul-de-sac.  Greg confirmed the number of homes and asked about the septic plan. George noted septic easement areas on neighboring properties (3 different properties, with space reserved for a total of 13 units); the remaining 3 units will have dedicated systems.  Water will be shared.  Tom asked about minimum capacity for a single lot; George replied 450 gallons of water per day and/or storage.  Greg asked if the first plan was being withdrawn; George said the new plan should be the working plan.

 

Bob noted areas on Texas Hill Road with wildlife activity.  He felt the new access location would be less disruptive to that activity, but questioned generally where wildlife would go.  George felt wildlife would adjust to the development.  He reviewed the plan, stating the area to be developed was small with modest grades good for building.  More forested area would remain open in this plan.  Lots would be wooded and small; he described some clearing that would occur, but also that buffers would be maintained to respect deeds of neighboring properties.  Ted asked about a previous sketch plan for the same parcel.  George B. said an 8-lot plan with lots ranging from ¾ acres to 12 acres had passed sketch plan review in April 1999.

 

Debbie Light, an area neighbor, asked about density allowances.  She felt 16 units were too many for this location near the end (of the Hinesburg portion) of Texas Hill Road, and not consistent with the rural character of the area.  She asked about the process of approving densities and noted a personal experience with a subdivision request.  Betsy Orvis noted section 3.4.2 of the Town Plan, agreeing with Debbie’s comments.  Mike Leary, speaking to the Baldwin Road and Texas Hill Road proposals, felt both were high-density developments that would set precedents for more if approved.

 

Ellen Foster, an adjacent neighbor, said she was told when she bought her property that 7-9 houses would be built on the Bedard parcel.  She disagrees with the current density proposal and feels she knows more about the area having lived there.  She described wildlife crossings and habits.  She said her 1000-foot well had to be hydrofracted.  She said another neighbor’s 900-foot well was also hydrofracted, and that neighbor also had a secondary artesian well due to low supply.  Sue Hoeppner noted two other neighbors (Havilland and Spinelli) whose wells also had to be hydrofracted.  Ellen requested two site visits, one as soon as possible and another in the spring.  She asked if the wildlife corridor had been made wide enough.

 

Jeff Washburn said he was concerned about water supply and his apiary.  He asked about a 3-acre minimum subdivision regulation for the district.  Alex explained the regulation had no tie in with septic permits.  He explained a PRD proposal couldn’t contain more lots than the number that would have been allowable under a conventional subdivision in this district.  George Munson said septic, water, stormwater and erosion control had to be approved at the state level.

 

Lisa asked if an applicant has to show how this could have been divided conventionally.  Alex said no; George B. explained how the parcel had been divided into 16 lots with more than sufficient acreage for roads.  Lisa and Ted felt it would be useful to see how the land could have been divided conventionally, stating allowances for buffer areas, setbacks, etc. had to be considered.  Chelsea Bush asked about the original 210-acre Lyman parcel.  Greg felt it would be useful to see the subdivision history of the parcel.  Debbie White asked about legal obligations regarding the deeded septic areas.  George reviewed the existing deeds.  Debbie asked what the timeline was for the site visit and sketch approval process.  John Berino pointed out how remote the area was, noting conditions during the recent snowstorm.

 

Tom asked Peter to highlight points from the staff report.  Peter had the same question about showing how the plan could have been done conventionally.  Alex thought it would be helpful to hear board comments about density.  Ted said he appreciated the PRD concept but feels the number of units should be around 8.  Greg would like a site visit before commenting on density.  Peter explained how he studied density in the surrounding area, which he found to be approximately 1 unit per 9 acres.  He noted the cleared areas of individual houses.  He felt the clustering of houses in the proposal helped but did not address traffic concerns.  George M. pointed out that Texas Hill Road is heavily used by pedestrians.  Sue Hoeppner asked about the total number of houses on Texas Hill and its tributaries; George said it was in the high 70’s in the Hinesburg portion, and the same in the Huntington portion.  A traffic study at the Richmond Road/Texas Hill Road intersection was discussed.

 

Rad Romeyn felt density calculations in rural areas were subjective.  Ted said Peter’s finding was not a density calculation, more a cleared land observation.  Peter and Alex explained that for both the Baldwin Road and Texas Hill proposals, they looked for the densest possible neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed developments.  Bob did not feel a 16-unit plan was compatible with the surroundings; he felt a 5-unit plan was better.  Joe thought it was important to note that Peter studied only the closest dense neighborhoods; if larger tracts of land in the area were included, densities would go lower.  He also felt 16 units was too many; he thought it may be the highest density development in a rural district to date.  Speaking to the Town Plan, he felt a major subdivision should be in the town center.  He commended the clustering of houses in the plan and the intent to offer affordably priced land.

 

Jeff Washburn asked if a covenant would keep the 38-acre open space undeveloped; Greg answered yes, that it was a requirement of a PRD.  Sue Hoeppner questioned the affordability of living on Texas Hill Road, stating it was a difficult area that required major expenses such as 4-wheel drive vehicles and also led to loss of work income when the road could not be traveled.  Joe clarified he felt the intent was to make lots more affordable in comparison to current land offerings.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing until April 3rd.  George M. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7 - 0.  A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, March 31st at 9:00 a.m.  Interested parties should meet at the site on Texas Hill Road.

 

 

4-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – North Road – Applicant:  Everett O’Brien

 

Background Information from the Staff Report

Everett O’Brien is requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 4-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District.  The subject parcel is approximately 15 acres, and is located on the west side of North Road at the VT Route 116 intersection; parcel # 09-02-34.000.  This is an undeveloped parcel dominated comprised of a large open field bounded on the north, east, and south by streams and drainage areas, and on the west by a narrow but distinct band of hardwood forest.  

 

The Applicant proposes lot lines running west to east to create 4 regularly shaped, rectangular building lots of approximately 3-4 acres each. In the original submittal, lots 1 & 2 would utilize a shared drive with access to the North Road at the point of an existing farm access, and lots 3 & 4 would utilize their own shared drive with access to Route 116 via a right of way across a parcel owned by Wayne & Barbara Bissonette.  In the alternate sketch plan submittal, lot 3 would share access to the North Road with lots 1 & 2.  Individual on-site septic systems and drilled wells are assumed for each new lot (details to be provided at preliminary plat stage).

 

Nick Nowlan, an engineer for McCain Consulting, appeared on behalf of the applicant.  He introduced an alternate sketch plan dated 2/16/07 that had been revised following staff feedback on the original application.  He explained that all frontage and depth requirements for the subdivision had been met, and that no waivers were being requested.  He explained access points to the subdivision; three lots will be accessed from North Road; one lot will be accessed from Route 116.  Lisa asked why the one lot is not also accessed from North Road; Nick replied that it was to avoid a stream crossing.  Nick reviewed building sites at the edge of the meadow and reviewed septic plans.

 

Bob and Carol Chalifoux, whose property borders the subdivision to the west and is accessed by the same road off 116, asked about upgrades to the access road.  They have concerns about snow removal and also a steep bank built of clay soil that has required maintenance in the past.  Nick agreed the driveway would have to be upgraded; he said Wayne Bissonette and Everett O’Brien would approach neighbors about deed language.

 

Carol was concerned about the proximity of the building site on lot #3, stating it was close to their well.  Nick confirmed the building site to be about 100 feet from the stone wall, and explained septic for that lot will have to be 200 feet from the Chalifoux’s well.  Bob asked when the Chalifoux’s parcel had been developed, and about sight distances off Route 116.  The Chalifoux’s said their home was built 14 years ago.  As for visibility, snow banks were an issue, as was keeping plant growth down.

 

Nick said power would be underground.  When asked about housing types, whether they would be mobile homes or conventional stick construction, Nick said he would talk to Everett; Alex clarified that Board could not discriminate between the two types.  Nick said houses would be visible from North Road, but that summer growth would shield them somewhat.  George M. thought the plan did a good job configuring the houses.

 

There was a discussion about the surrounding area (Alex pointed out the string of small subdivisions across North Road) and also the former O’Brien farm.  Joe asked about ag soils; he felt this land was viable farmland as was the Crimmins subdivision across 116.  Alex questioned its viability, stating it was always a small parcel (15 acres) cut-off from main ag fields.  Peter asked whether homes could be configured in less of a “railroad” pattern, noting that once homeowners did typical clearing, that pattern would be more obvious.  George M. did not feel that was a concern, since lot lines are often not distinguishable from one another.  Nick noted this parcel is not in the agricultural district, is characterized by diverse soil types and grades, and bisected by swampy streams.  He said the applicant only ever brush-hogged it.  The group agreed not to plan a site visit as this parcel is extremely visible from North Road.

 

Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of sketch plan approval and also to continue the hearing until March 6th.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6 – 1, with Joe opposed.

 

 

Conditional Use Review – Camp Conversion – Wood Run Road – Applicants:  Michael and Kimberly Hopwood

 

Background Information from the Staff Report

The applicants are applying for the conversion of an existing camp into a full time residence.  This camp has been occupied full time and is now for sale, and the owner desires to bring it into compliance with the regulations.  Many of the original camps served by this road, Wood Run, have been converted into full time residences. This camp is not on the lakeshore and will not be undergoing renovations as part of the conversion. A wastewater system has been installed and reviewed by the town consultant, Spencer Harris. The property is directly adjacent to the brook leading from Lake Iroquois and gets their water supply from it.

 

This application is solely for the conversion of the existing camp into a full time single family residence and is reviewed under section 5.15 Conversion of Camps, review for Development on a Private Right of Way, and Conditional Use Approval.

 

Michael Hopwood explained his camp conversion request.  He has installed an AdvanTex wastewater treatment system per Spencer Harris, the town-appointed consultant that reviewed the site.  Michael described the mechanics of the system, and said several other neighbors have installed the same system.  He also spoke with Al Barber, Hinesburg Fire Chief, who said the camp conversion would have no impact on the road.  Tom asked how many other year-round residences were at the same location.  Michael responded at least 4; the group recalled visiting this area previously.  He said he belongs to a road association that maintains the road; snow plowing costs are extra for those residents who live there year-round.

 

Steve Lidle and Nancy Wright, adjacent neighbors, expressed concerns about the proposal.  Nancy felt the Board needed more information before voting, and requested a site visit.  She said the Hopwood’s previous septic system had failed and felt that although the replacement system was an improvement, she felt its installation had been somewhat problematic.  She questioned whether it was appropriate for a 3-bedroom house and for year-round use.  She noted the high groundwater level, the proximity of a stream, and water availability.  She added that the new system has not been used (the house is currently unoccupied) and its capacity is untested.

 

Peter explained Spencer Harris’s role in the process; he was a site technician (consultant) representing the town, hired at the applicant’s expense.  Tom described the camp conversion process/checklist that had been created to deal with previous requests.  Joe asked whether the house had ever been lived in year-round.  Steve said yes but not legally.  Greg explained the non-conforming nature of the home (due to an insufficient stream setback) is not being questioned since no expansion is being planned.  Michael said although the consultant approved a septic system for a 3-bedroom home, it is currently a 2-bedroom home unlikely to be expanded.

 

Nancy described the home as “floating on water”.  She said the new system has gotten closer to the stream and is now 60 to 70 feet from her well.  She also spoke of low water flow and ledge conditions in the area.  Alex said the board has no purview over a certain system, only whether this can be a six-month or year-round residence.

 

Nancy described her understanding of the Zoning Board camp conversion policy before the checklist guidelines were adopted.  George M. asked Peter about #7 from the list re: public welfare and protecting the stream.  Yearly testing of the water supply in addition to a maintenance contract is required.  Michael said the system is on the southeast corner of the house, with the leach field in another location.  He described the AdvanTex monitoring system and service contract.  Peter asked about parking; Michael replied there is parking for two cars as well as a two-car garage.  Alex asked if a UV light water filter system (as is installed) was state-approved.  Michael said other neighbors are using it and explained permits are issued based on water samples.  Alex asked about a replacement septic area; Michael said it is to the west of the current leech field, toward the stream, about 40 feet wide.  He pointed out the location on a map.  Ted felt the camp conversion checklist guide did not require a replacement system location.  Nancy and Steve felt the plan was in error.  They felt it was inappropriate for the Board to approve the conversion, questioning whether a best-fix solution was adequate.  The nature of the stream and location of the septic system was discussed further.  Tom gave some historical perspective on camp conversions.

 

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

 

 

Public Hearing – Minor Plat Revision – Buck Hill Road – Applicant: Chuck Reiss

The applicant was not present at the meeting.  Ted MOVED to continue the hearing to March 6th.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0, with George M. and Joe abstaining.

 

Joe Donegan left the meeting at this time.

 

Other Business:

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session.  Bob SECONDED the motion.  The motion was DEFEATED 4-2, with Bob and Tom voting yes.

 

7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant: Hinesburg Hillside LLC

Several items from the draft decision (last discussed at the February 6th meeting) were reviewed:

- Alex clarified wording for Order #8 regarding treatments to minimize the appearance of garage doors.  The group agreed with the wording as amended.

- Order #6 regarding landscaping was discussed.  The group agreed on wording requesting an additional 26 trees (rather than a range of 17-26).

- The group discussed Condition #9 regarding rear elevations on units 1-4.  It was clarified that part of the foundations to the rear supported the garages and part are walkout basements.  The height of the units to the rear, and horizontal features to break up that elevation, were discussed.  Tom suggested using the same treatments recommended in Order #8.  Peter suggesting creating berms to minimize the exposed area of concrete foundation, as well as adding plantings.  The landscaping plan was reviewed.  Ted suggested a total of 5 coniferous trees to the rear of each of these units.

- The group discussed Condition #17 regarding lighting.  They agreed with the wording that all lights will be downcast and shielded; the word “lots” was changed to “units”.

- The landscaping on the hill adjacent to the parking lot was discussed; the group agreed to leave the wording as-is.

 

The group asked to see all revisions in the draft decision before voting on it.

 

9-Lot, 8-Unit Subdivision/PRD – Sketch Plan Review – Route 116 – Owners: Tim and Kay Ballard; Applicant: David Carse

The draft decision was briefly discussed.  Ted MOVED to accept the review draft decision as written (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

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

 

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary