TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

April 3, 2007

approved April 17, 2007

 

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Gary Mawe, John Berino, Kim Coates, Rob Farley, Diane Leary, Michael Leary, Tyler Radtke, Rick Marcotte, Bob Kort, Sue Hoeppner, John Veilleux, Mary Kohut, Bill Marks, Deborah Light, Bob Stahl, Gerry Livingston, Natasha Duarte, Scott Alexander, Danielle Latreille, Betsy Orvis, Charles Bush, Peg Montgomery, Jeff Washburn, Shane McCormak, Jeff Washburn.

 

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

 

Minutes of the March 20th, 2007 Meeting:

Some corrections were made.  Greg MOVED to approve the March 20, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6 – 0, with Lisa abstaining.

 

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

* continued from the December 19th and February 20th meetings

 

A site visit took place on March 31st.  The following people attended:  (DRB and Staff) Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Bob Linck, Dennis Place, Greg Waples, Peter Erb;  (Public) George Bedard, Debbie Light, Bret Golann, Gary Mawe, Sue Hoeppner, Tyler Radtke, Dave Hirth, Bob Stahl, John Veilleux, Betsy Orvis, Chelsie Bush, John Berino, Peg Montgomery, Rob Farley, Steve Clark, Laurie Parker, Mike Garavelli.  The following observations were made:

 

Bob gave his observations of the visit, which started on the driveway from the 1st proposal (the most eastern access point).  He noted ledge, evidence of deer or other wildlife and three drainage areas.  He said the forestland below was made up of hemlock and white pine; further up were more hardwood trees.  He noted a significant, intermittent stream between lots 12 and 13 that the access road would have to cross.  At the high point, there was more drainage that a driveway would have to cross.  Walking back down, the group traveled to the access point from the 2nd proposal.  There, crossing lot 4 and running over the access road, was a significant animal trail coming from the hemlock forest up into the property.

Lisa described the potential points of access.  She thought the first would involve blasting.  Beyond that point she described an area like a “bowl”, a very wet area that she felt would create runoff if developed.  She also noticed several crossings of small drainages that were shallow and wide that she felt would accelerate if put into a culvert.  She thought the second access point was also problematic, as it was next to a flood plain that would be compromised if filled.  Greg said the group walked the length of the road and saw where house sites were flagged.  Ted added the group got a sense for the proximity and size of lots, and also saw the steep elevations in the southwest corner of the lots.  Greg said the group visited the potential septic sites on neighboring properties where easements were reserved.

 

Tom gave a short explanation of how the review would proceed, and asked for public comment on the site visit.  John Veilleux noted that game trails were clearly in a previously snow-shoed area (feeling deer and wildlife would have followed any such path that was already packed down.); Jeff Washburn agreed.  Sue Hoeppner thought the challenging nature of driving up three miles of Texas Hill Road should be noted as part of the site visit observations.  Debbie Light said the group discussed drainage issues on-site, particularly how clearing for houses and septic might affect runoff and lead to water contamination.  Gary Mawe expressed concern about a swale that had been dug in the area, which he said had caused Hayden Hill Road East to wash out the following spring.  He was concerned more water would be added to it with this development, increasing its flow and affecting his property.  Rob Farley thought the site visit made clear the amount of clearing that would take place.  He felt the proposed development would be less wooded than he had envisioned.  Bob Stahl thought the original access point would require blasting, which he felt could have implications for neighbors’ wells. 

 

George Bedard then described differences between the original proposal (access point near the Mawe property) and the alternate plan (access point near Texas Brook).  He has made further revisions to the alternate plan, which he is now submitting as the main proposal for review.  He said he understood the concern about that plan’s flood plain, and that the access drive has been changed to go through a bank and not the plain.  The plan still has 16 lots; a road spur going uphill has been removed, with 3 lots now placed at the end of 1800 feet of roadway.  He described reserved septic sites for 13 lots, stating that if septic could not be found for the remaining 3 lots, they would be removed from the plan.  He addressed concerns about clearing, noting houses would have a footprint of 40ft. x 80ft., with minimal clearing around them.  He said clearing would not be done for views, and stated this would be a wooded development with no great disruption around the brook or hemlock forest (proposed as the screening area).  He said the alternate proposal’s access point would not require blasting.

 

He then presented a plan which showed how the parcel could be subdivided conventionally as a 12-lot subdivision, with a mix of 3-acre lots and (2) 6-acre lots for duplexes.  Greg asked for clarification on the plan, if it’s only purpose was to show how the lot could be divided conventionally.  George said yes, and explained how he arrived at its configuration.  Alex explained density rules of PRDs, and Peter confirmed that duplexes are allowed as a permitted use in this zone.

 

Deborah Light felt the February 20th minutes did not accurately reflect concerns regarding emergency services in poor weather.  She said this year’s Valentine’s Day blizzard was a good example when a fire truck or ambulance would have difficulty getting up Texas Hill Road, delaying services.  John Berino then spoke on behalf of a group of area residents, stating they had met and pooled their comments.  The group feels:

-         the size of the development poses serious septic, culvert and road problems

-         the development is completely out of context with current Texas Hill Road neighborhood

-         clear cutting would present a runoff issue

-         wildlife areas would be lost

-         a soils map indicates poor soils; they would like to know the specifics of the approved septic system(s)

-         a conservation easement should be in place for the land already developed from the original 200+ acre parcel

-         the time to travel up Texas Hill Road in poor conditions should be considered a safety concern.  (John noted that a 4-5 minute drive in good conditions can turn into a 15 minute drive under poor conditions.)

-         20 acres of the parcel are undevelopable, and should not be considered for measuring densities.

-         Concerns about wells and water supplies are significant. (John noted every surrounding neighbor has marginal wells.)

 

Greg asked if the road had been graded and/or was frozen immediately prior to the site visit.  Residents agreed that it had been.  Mike Leary said the land below the proposed development is as wet in August as it is now, noting significant surface water.  He suggested another site visit in July or August.  Bob Kort, a Huntington resident, asked about criteria for conventional subdivisions, whether only “buildable” land was considered.  Tom confirmed that a subdivision plan should not be a simple math calculation of lots to acreage; it had to be a reasonable fit.  Rob Farley asked about the DRB process; Ted explained the first phase (Sketch Plan Review) was a big-picture look at drawings of the proposed subdivision and also at the actual site.  If no fatal flaws are found in phase 1, more technical engineering issues are addressed in the second phase (Preliminary Plat).  Peter explained that members and staff refer to the Planning Standards in the Subdivision Regulations as part of the Sketch Plan Review phase. 

Sue Hoeppner said the road is challenging for school buses.  She said buses did not make it up Texas Hill Road during a four-week winter period in both the 2003 and 2004 school years.  Debbie Light asked the board to consider surrounding densities, noting a 9- or 10-acre existing density.  Gerry Livingston, speaking for the Conservation Commission, described the parcel as one of the last areas that allows a contiguous path connecting north and south parts of Hinesburg.

 

Greg said he would like an understanding of the history of development of the land.  George gave these highlights:

-         The 53-acre parcel under review was part of an original 210 acres, owned and farmed by David Lyman

-         In the early 70’s, two parcels were sold off by David

-         In 1986, George Bedard and David entered into an agreement to develop the remaining 190 acres of land

-         8 lots, between 10 and 12 acres each, were sold between 1986 and 1996.

-         In 1996, David divided the remaining land into 3 parcels, (20, 35 and 53 acres).  The 20 acres on Meadow Lane was divided into 4 lots.  An 8-lot subdivision sketch plan was accepted for the 53-acre parcel but was not pursued.  The 35 acres to the north was divided into 3 lots.  The 53-acre parcel is all that remains.

 

Greg requested a larger context map that would show lots to the east and west of the property.  Bob questioned the conventional subdivision plan, stating he felt the property had physical constraints whether considering the proposed plan or the conventional example.  Ted said the Board would decide if the conventional subdivision example is realistic.  Alex said a conventional example is typically drawn to meet the basic lot dimensional standards; the Board then reviews the plan against the Planning Standards.  George B. said each lot would have a buildable site.  Peter asked if the parcel would be logged; George B. replied that although some of the pine was ready to be cut, he felt the trees held more value for the land if they remained.

 

The group discussed whether the hearing should remain open or closed.  They agreed to continue the hearing for the purposes of receiving a new map from the applicant; once that map was received, the hearing would likely be closed at the next meeting with no further oral testimony taken.  Interested parties were encouraged to submit final comments in writing before that date.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to April 17th.  The applicant should work with staff to submit requested materials; verbal comments would not be taken at the April 17th meeting but written comments could be submitted before then.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

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

* continued from the March 20th meeting


It was noted that Judy Fritz was not present at this evening’s hearing.  A site visit took place on March 31st.  The following people attended:  (DRB and Staff) Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Bob Linck, Dennis Place, Greg Waples, Peter Erb;  (Public) George Bedard, Gary Mawe, Sue Hoeppner, Tyler Radtke, Bob Stahl, Betsy Orvis, Chelsie Bush, Rob Farley.

 

Lisa said the group walked along the proposed driveway, crossing through an old floodplain.  They saw where the road would split uphill to lots 2 and 3, and then viewed the house sites.  Walking east, they saw the existing house and existing well and septic area.  Lisa said her and Peter and the applicant walked along the Texas Hill frontage; she said it extended farther than they had thought.  They looked at alternate access points, up the hill and farther to the west.  The applicant pointed out where her property ended.  They reviewed sight lines, saw Texas Brook which ran through the property, and also saw the power line.

 

Bob said they saw where the trees would be cleared for the access point.  There were beech and oak there, with signs of deer.  A seasonal drainage between lots 2 and 3, along with another further to the east, was observed.  He said slopes were at 25% or more, reaching the limits of building sites.  Ted was unsure of the percentage, but agreed slopes were steep on Lot 2.  Tom said the group got an understanding of existing lot sizes in the area; the Fritz lots would be the smallest in the area.  Charles Bush, an adjacent property owner, said the land is very ledge-y where the two lots are proposed.  Bob Stahl, an adjacent property owner, described the wildlife corridor between lots 2 and 3, directly across from the Bedard property.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to May 1st; George M. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

2-Lot Subdivision/6-lot, 5-unit PRD Sketch Plan – North Road – Applicants:  Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

**continued from the March 20th meeting

 

George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants.   He described the original proposal as a 2-lot subdivision with a 16-acre parcel/6-lot PRD to the bottom, and the balance, a 136-acre parcel owned by the applicant, to the top.  He introduced a new proposal that retains the original subdivision plan but also establishes a 34-acre forest protection zone at the top of the parcel.  The protected area is approximately 1000 feet at the top and would represent about 25% of the 136-acre parcel.  George said the 5 lots created by the PRD would share septic, but each would have a drilled well.  The access road would be built to standards and would meet grade requirements.  He explained the wildlife and ag areas indicated on the map, and also described steep slopes.

 

Greg said the neighbors have expressed concerns about the proximity of the PRD development.  He asked if the project could be moved upwards and also if there were topographical constraints.  George B. said no, that the applicant preferred to reserve the plateau upwards of the proposed PRD for future development.  George then described the well locations and septic plan.

 

Ted asked for clarification of the proposal.  George B. said the 25% reserved land addressed the open space requirement for the 136-acre lot.  Alex said any future plan to subdivide the 136-acre parcel would be treated as a revision to the original PRD subdivision proposal.  Peter thought the proposal was best described as a 7-lot PRD.  George B. stated it was a 2-lot subdivision, with 5 lots being sold and remaining separate from the larger parcel.  If it was considered as a PRD, Lot 7 would be in the interest of the community, but is not for use as open space for the 5 lots.  He added if the 136-acre parcel were developed, the 34 reserved acres would similarly not become open space for the remaining 102 acres.  Greg asked about the Forest Conservation district.  George said the parcel is already in the state forest program.  Greg asked what would happen if the program were to end.  Alex suggested adding a forest management plan for the parcel.

 

Mary Ann Holcomb, an adjacent homeowner, understood from the last hearing that the location of the five houses would be changed to allow for more of a buffer area between her house and the development.  She expressed concern about the elevated position of the development, that is would pose problems with privacy and storm water runoff.  Peter felt the deer yard, adjacent to a large public parcel, was of importance as one of the last places in town where hunting was available.  George B. described the deer yard, with part in a deep hardwood slope area, and also the drainage issues raised by neighbors.  He said storm water and erosion permits would have to be obtained, with concerns addressed by an engineer. 

 

Ted asked if there were a natural change in topography that defined the agricultural land boundaries; George said no.  Greg asked about existing lots in the area; George B. confirmed that neighboring lots are pre-existing, non-conforming lots and he described the history of development in the area.  Dennis asked about potential home sites; George described lots and said neighbors’ concerns about a buffer area would be addressed.  Ted and Peter asked if septic could be in common land for the 5 lots (instead of on lot 7); Greg suggested extending the eastern boundary. 

 

Bob asked how lines were drawn for the forest protection area, feeling more analysis would address the characteristics of the land.  George B. said the line was there only to indicate the approximate size of the area; a more thorough analysis could be done in the next step.  The Holkums expressed concern about the buffer area again; George B. said house sites would not be moved, but that storm water and buffer issues would be addressed. 

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

7-Lot, 6-Unit Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Approval – Magee Hill Road – Applicant:  Deborah Gianelli

 

Greg Bombardier from Champlain Consulting Engineers spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He gave an overview of an existing conditions map.  The development is approximately 30 acres, with mostly open meadow, some existing shallow wells and an overhead power easement.  The proposed subdivision is (6) single-family homes, with a common lot #7.  He described the community wastewater disposal system, and also a storm water plan.  He said each lot will have roadside storm water collection and its own drilled well. 

 

Adam Beaudry explained details of a storm water plan designed to use roadside swales and a pond, situated on common land, for water collection.  Ted asked if a homeowner’s association would oversee pond maintenance.  Adam said yes, adding annual inspections would be performed, as required by the storm water permit.  Peter asked if the pond could be made to look natural.  Adam said yes, adding the pond would not be seen from the road.  He reviewed a wastewater plan, noting primary and replacement systems on common land.  He said although area wells had a range of yields; the wells closest to this parcel were in the range of 6-8 gallons per minute.  He then described the development’s main road, running at a 5-9% slope along the road length, and the hammerhead turnaround at the end, stating it met town highway standards.

 

Dennis asked if the swales would also be inspected annually; Adam said yes, the inspection covered the entire storm water system.  Alex clarified that private engineers inspect and certify the system to the state.  Bob asked if a conventional turnaround at the end of the road was necessary; Adam described the design and extension of the 20-ft. wide road into two driveways. 

Tom asked if a ROW could be extended from the road to the back of the parcel (to the adjoining land).  Adam said yes, but added that adjoining parcel already had access to Magee Hill Road.  Alex clarified that the homeowners association would decide on granting a ROW later; he suggested having the applicant and adjacent landowner discuss the ROW now.  Peter asked about footpath accessibility; Alex described potential issues with access easements, due to the near or at-minimum size of lots.

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

 

Other Business:

The group reviewed a recent minor site plan revision approval granted by Peter to Iroquois Manufacturing to change the type of shielding to be installed in the chain link fence.  Alex explained that because a final plat/survey had not been received for the Green Street project, the final plat hearing needed to be re-opened to receive the plat.  He did not feel there was a need to re-warn the hearing, but said he would consult town counsel on the matter.  Tom MOVED to reopen the public hearing and continue it to the May 1st meeting.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

The French draft decision was discussed.  Bob Linck recused himself from the matter.  Some revisions were proposed and a vote was taken on the matter.  Tom MOTIONED to accept the final draft decision as amended (denial).  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 5-0 with Dennis abstaining.  The group then discussed the Bedard and Dam subdivisions.  No action was taken on either matter.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary