TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

March 20, 2007
Approved April 3, 2007

 

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Jim Pulver, Caroline Carpenter, Mac Rood, Judy Fritz, Rob Bast, Bob Stahl, Michael Sorce, George Bedard, Tom Hackett, Peg Montgomery, Patti Drew, Gary Mawe, Rob Farley, Gerry Livingston, Al Barber, Inez French, Rad Romeyn, Russ Barone.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.  Bob Linck and Joe Donegan were not present at the beginning of the meeting.

 

Minutes of the March 6th, 2007 Meeting:

Some minor corrections were made.  Dennis MOVED to approve the March 6, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4 – 0, with Tom and George abstaining.

 

Sketch Plan/Conditional Use Review – Approval for Drive up Facility – Commerce Park – Applicant: The National Bank of Middlebury
**continued from the January 16th meeting

 

Tom asked the applicants about lighting under the drive-up canopy, whether it could be dimmed when the area was unoccupied, and then brightened using motion detection.  He referred to wording found in order #6 of the draft decision.  Peter and Jim Pulver described the proposed lighting intensity and locations.  Caroline was concerned about using motion detection to brighten the lights, as opposed to leaving them on all night.  She felt people approaching the area might not know the lights would get brighter, and might not feel safe.  She said although some people would eventually learn how the lights functioned, many non-customers passing through town use ATM facilities.  Rob Bast cautioned that certain types of high efficiency lights did not work on motion sensors.  Tom was concerned about light pollution; he noted Hinesburg’s Merchant Bank location had bright lights that were left on all night under the drive-up canopy, and said he wished to avoid that with this building.

 

Jim Pulver said landscaping planned for the lot’s perimeter would help to screen canopy lighting.  He said the Bank wished to control the lighting so as not to go off the property.  Alex agreed there was a difference between light cast down on a separate object versus light that shines out beyond the property.  He feels this will be a brightly lit ATM area only.  Ted said it would be the only building in the area with lighting on all night.    Alex said dimmer lighting could be achieved either by dimming then brightening all the fixtures, or by having a fewer to greater number of lights turn on to achieve brightness.  There was more discussion about customers coming to use the ATM or night deposit services.  Caroline described scenarios in which someone with intent to harm could take advantage of the dim-to-bright lights.  Alex mentioned the security camera as a possible issue, wondering if it needed constant light to record activity.

 

Tom suggested the bank try the method first, with time to review the actual scenario before coming back to the board if it was not satisfactory.  Other branch locations were discussed.  Michael Sorce, owner of Dark Star Lighting, thought a motion sensor light going on and off may be more annoying to neighboring residents.  He described lamps of different color temperature as having varied perceived brightness.  He suggested using lower color temperature lamps throughout the complex, noting that dimmable fluorescents were available in a wide range of color temperatures.

 

Alex explained that George, although not present at the January 16th meeting, had reviewed the minutes from that meeting and was prepared to join the group discussion.  Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0, with Dennis abstaining.

 

3-Lot, 34-Unit (8 existing, 26 new) PUD Final Plan – VT Route 116 & Charlotte Road – Owner: Robert Bast & Laura Carlsmith; Applicant: Green Street, LLC

**continued from the March 6th meeting.

 

Alex explained that Tom and George, although not present at the March 6th meeting, would join the group discussion.  Mac Rood explained that a number of new plans had been submitted, based on feedback from the last meeting.  He summarized changes on the various plans:

 

- pathways for snow removal were created within the landscape plan

- trees were made denser near the commercial building

- apple trees were added near the apartment building

- one downcast light for each residence was added; these would be centrally controlled

- more detailed elevations of the commercial building were provided; a model of the building was also provided.  It was noted that the building’s porch faces east.

- a 100-foot buffer for the LaPlatte River was indicated

- an easement for a walking trail through the buffer area was added

- common gardens were shown; stalls within the relocated barn would serve as garden sheds

- five parking spaces were added for the apartment building residents

- a loop configuration for the electrical infrastructure was discussed. Mac said they were in talks with the Norris’s about an easement on their property to make this possible.

- wording was added within a document to the town regarding a 5-foot wide sidewalk, for the 116 frontage of the front two properties.  Rob said the Silver Street intersection redesign project was still on plan.  The group discussed the plan, particularly a crosswalk planned for students’ use, and expected project schedule. 

 

Bob Linck joined the group at this time (8:15 pm).

 

Mac described the tower location and dimensions (the tower is proposed to be 58 feet tall).  He said the intent of the building was to provide a visual focal point for the development, noting several ideas for its function such as a bell or clock tower, or gazebo.  He added that it would not have lighting in it.  Ted said he does not generally approve of waiving the height requirement of a structure without a good reason.  Mac and Rob described how the tower would be seen from the approach on Charlotte Road, as a focal point for the development, building up to it on the hillside.

 

An electrical distribution plan was discussed; Mac pointed out the main trunk line and transformer locations.  Tom Hackett, an adjoining neighbor, asked if blasting was required to lay in the infrastructure.  The location of the pole (into which the development’s electricity needed to be tied) and previous development was discussed.  Rob said it was conceivable that blasting could be avoided.  A sidewalk plan was also discussed, with a detail of the area where the Dameron tree is located.

 

Mac said they have changed the language within the town’s dedication document, about the town’s ability to accept their offer of improvements.  Alex passed out a note from Al Barber concerning building height.  Tom asked for clarification of the traffic study.  Mac said officials did not study the impact of the development if the traffic light were never put in.  Since he and Rob were fairly certain it would be installed, they are stating they will come back to do a study if it is not, as a condition of occupancy.  Rob confirmed there would be no sign for the development.  Rob described the proposed residential sprinkler system as an extra safety feature in the commercial building.

 

Tom asked about the timing for the sidewalk construction.  Mac said it should be in before the buildings are occupied.  Tom asked whether a condition for occupancy should be included that required the sidewalk as completed by the town.  Rob described access on both ends of the project, stating he was committed to putting in their portion of the sidewalk.  The town plan to move the crosswalk, along with the installation of the new streetlight, was discussed.  Tom Hackett asked about the town’s schedule to begin the project.   Ted said it was his understanding the sidewalk along the west side of 116 is a top priority for the town, but not yet begun.  The group discussed traffic before and after the installation of the streetlight, as well as whether the recent speed limit change had any noticeable effect at that intersection. 

 

Michael Sorce asked if this area had been rezoned as commercial; Greg replied it was in the village district, with permitted uses and conditional uses as defined by the Zoning Regulations.  Alex said the commercial building is allowed in general, but due to its size required a conditional permit.  Michael felt there were several commercial properties already available in the village and those were difficult to rent out.

 

Rob Farley asked about whether a VAST trail would go through the agriculturally conserved land to the west of the property.  Mac said yes, that they were giving the town an easement for a walking and VAST trail.  Rob F. asked if the town had studied water supplies, stating he was concerned about the impact on this aquifer.  Rob Bast explained that 1 ½ years ago, they approached the town to secure rights for water use.  He agreed the issue of the well is real and said the town has looked for other sources of water on different locations; he noted Geprags Well has 150 gallons/minute but would require a sand filter.  Rob B. said the town needed to look for and develop for source capacity, stating he did not want to see the town experience water quality issues.

 

Tom Hackett expressed his concerns about the development.  He feels it is too large and is concerned that the 5-unit apartment building will block views from his home.  He thinks the development, citing the 2nd story sidewalks and below-level parking, infringes on the historic nature of the village.  He suggested the barn be made into apartment units instead of being moved.  He also felt the open area behind the village homes should be preserved.

 

Joe Donegan joined the group at this time (9:50pm).

 

Rob responded by stating he and his partner had gone through considerable effort to show what the view from the east side would be.  He said he felt they have made an effort to be respectful of what exists now, and added that the Town Plan calls for an increase in density in the village.  Tom displayed photos of his view for the group, and then oriented his view on a Green Street elevation of the apartment building.  Dennis asked about regulations for blocking views.  Alex clarified there were none, neighbor to neighbor, but that architectural compatibility is in the regulations.  Michael Sorce felt a 2-story commercial building with a flat roof was not compatible.  Mac gave examples of other flat-roofed buildings in close proximity that were used to guide the design of this building.  Tom noted that the building’s design and how it compared to surroundings had been discussed at the previous meeting.

 

Peter offered a personal comment on the hook and ladder truck that had been recommended by the fire department in their letter about the development.  Rob discussed his understanding of the department’s request for such a truck, that it was required for other buildings in town with sides that were inaccessible.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Appeal of a notice of violation by the Zoning Administrator – 10383 Route 116 – Applicant:  Hinesburg Auto Sales/Paul MacCluskey

 

Alex explained there was an appeal, and also a revised site plan being submitted by the applicant.  George Bedard, speaking on behalf of the adjacent landowners (Giroux), explained the applicant’s site plan is under dispute.  The Girouxs feel the plan is based on land they own, not the applicant’s.  They do not wish the Board to address the site plan until the issue of the property line is resolved, explaining the reason the applicant is in violation is because they developed off their lot.

 

Tom MOTIONED to continue the appeal hearing until the April 17th meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Appeal of a notice of violation by the Zoning Administrator – Bittersweet Hill Road – Applicants:  Robert Burritt and Carlene Emmons

 

Tom MOTIONED to continue the appeal hearing until the April 17th meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road – Applicant: Judy Fritz

 

Staff Report Background Summary
Judy Fritz is requesting Sketch Plan approval of a three lot subdivision on property she owns located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Texas Hill road (1400 feet frontage), and the Bishop Road (650 feet frontage).  It is directly across Texas Hill Road from the Bedard property.  This lot was created as a free lot from the large parcel that was owned by David Lyman.  This property slopes increasingly uphill from the small “flood plain” in the southeast corner where Texas Brook crosses it to slopes of almost 40% in the northwest corner.

 

Judy Fritz gave a description of her property and project, reviewing a map.  She said only one curb cut off Texas Hill Road was necessary.  She said the Hinesburg Road Commissioner had reviewed and approved the site, recommending some clearing of trees for better visibility.  An engineer also visited the site to do a preliminary septic review; he felt the area was suitable for development, finding soils similar to those around the existing septic area.  Gary Clark also reviewed the site for the roadwork.

 

Tom went over the issues raised in the staff report:

 

-         Traffic; this was a concern in the Bedard subdivision hearings as well

-         The relative absence of other 3-acre lots in the area (the closest are ½ mile away) raises the question of compatibility with surroundings

-         Low-yielding wells in the area

-         Slopes where building sites were planned

-         Stormwater runoff

-         Wildlife corridor – many have noted this parcel be an important crossing for wildlife

 

Bob Linck, who is also an area neighbor, thought a wildlife corridor existed at the intersection of Bishop Road and Texas Hill Road.  Judy discussed her observations of wildlife types and their travel habits.  As for slope and stormwater issues, she said she thought that would be addressed in the next phase.  George Bedard spoke about the debate over whether to pave Texas Hill Road or not.  He said there is no monetary “tipping point”, either money is spent to maintain a dirt road or to pave it, depending on public opinion and preference.  He described the original property’s septic infrastructure, and agreed that soils were good for further development.

 

Bob Stahl, a neighbor at the end of Bishop Road, asked if there was a minimum site distance requirement.  Judy said the clearing of about 5 feet of trees on Texas Hill would address that issue.  Bob S. asked about septic setbacks; Judy said she checked those and found them to be within the requirements; Alex clarified that the town does not regulate how far a septic system can be from another property, but the state does (50 feet).  Peg Montgomery asked about the proposed type of housing.  Judy said although she was not planning on building the units, a set of covenants that came with her land would be reviewed and likely extended to the other lots.

 

Gerry Livingston, speaking as a member of the Conservation Commission, said a draft letter had been prepared noting several concerns, such as the availability of water, stormwater runoff and a state-protected deeryard immediately north of the Fritz property.  He would like to see the area remain forested.  Rob Farley, a Texas Hill resident, was concerned that the town may see an acceleration of 3-acre development, due to the prevalence of 10-acre lots in rural areas.  He feels it sets a bad precedent to divide 10-acre lots in this way, as it critically changes an area’s density.  Gary Mawe, whose home is adjacent to the Bedard property, said he was also concerned about the density issue.  He said upon looking at a satellite map of the area, he compared the location of the Fritz parcel to be like “the waist of an hourglass”.  He said that ½ mile frontage on Texas Hill (on both sides) is the largest stretch of unpopulated land in the area, connecting vast forest areas on either side.

 

Ted said his key concern was compatibility of surroundings, noting he was also concerned about the fragmentation of 10-acre lots.  Judy asked about 3-acre zoning; the group explained the unintended consequences of the ACT 250 loophole that created an abundance of 10-acre lots, something the 3-acre zoning had been put in place to avoid (by only allowing fewer, smaller parcels to be created in rural areas).  Joe felt a clear intuitive difference existed between RR1 and RR2 (where this parcel is located), that RR1 was meant for much denser development, as more of a residential district with interspersed areas of forest.  Joe felt RR2 was meant to remain more forested and developed in a slower, less dense manner.

 

Judy felt impact to the area would be minimal with the development of these lots, and she requested the group make a site visit.  She asked about the original Bedard subdivision approval for the neighboring land; George B. clarified that approval had lapsed.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing until April 3rd.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.  A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, March 31st, immediately following the Bedard site visit.

Other Business:

 

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

There was a brief discussion regarding seasonal screening along Route 116.   Tom MOVED to accept the O’Brien sketch plan decision (approval) as amended.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-1-1, with Joe voting no, and Dennis abstaining.  Joe wished to explain his vote, stating he felt it was important for the Board to review proposals for all parcels, large or small, with the same standards.  He feels it is important every time to encourage the preservation of contiguous natural resources, regardless of parcel size.

 

Request for an extension of Sketch Plan Approval – Place Road – Applicant:  Dennis and Jody Place

Tom MOVED to extend the Place sketch plan approval for an additional six months.   Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Dennis abstaining.

 

Tom MOVED to go into closed deliberative session to discuss the Thistle Hill and French subdivisions.  George SECONDED the motion.

 

The group discussed their views on whether the deliberative session should remain open, or closed to the public.  Joe noted previous meetings where members of the public had expressed interest in deliberative sessions remaining open.  Bob asked for clarification on his role in the sessions, as he would be recusing himself from the French decision but not the Thistle Hill decision.  Alex clarified that it was at the discretion of the Board as to whom they invited to be present at sessions.  Tom said that since there was no judicial or quasi-judicial deliberation, he felt not being under the eye of the applicant and other interested parties gave the Board a little more leeway to openly discuss matters.  He noted the Vermont League of Cities and Towns has encouraged closed sessions for that reason.  Greg said he was happy to speak in an open forum, but would support others who wished to discuss matters in closed session.  Ted agreed, stating he would also speak in an open forum, but would not want someone to feel stifled in that situation.  George agreed with Greg and Ted.

 

Rad Romeyn expressed for himself, and on behalf of Inez French, that they wished the deliberative session to remain open.  Russ Barone expressed the same, stating he felt the discussion should remain public as it was based on testimony given within the public process.  Alex clarified that Dennis and Bob could vote on the motion (to go into closed deliberative session.)

 

The motion PASSED 4-3, with Tom, Greg, Ted and George voting yes, and Joe, Bob and Dennis voting no.  Russ asked whether the session would be recorded for the minutes.  Alex replied no, but that the written decision would serve as the record of the deliberation.  The meeting then went into deliberative session.

 

The deliberative session was ended and a vote on the Thistle Hill project was taken.  Ted MOVED to accept the Thistle Hill final plat decision (approval) as amended.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0 with Joe and Dennis abstaining.  Tom MOVED to return to deliberative session.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

The deliberative session was ended and a vote on the French project was taken.  Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft a decision (denial).  George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Bob and Dennis abstaining.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:40 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary