TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
April 17, 2007
Approved
May 1, 2007
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, 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), Gunner McCain, Nick Nowlan, Robert Burritt, Carlene Emmons, Joe
Fallon, Micki Ketcham, Larry Ketcham, George Bedard, Peg Montgomery, Steve
Giroux, Tim Riggs, Bill Marks, Steve Redmond, Lori Hennessey, Michael
Hennessey, Val Beaudry, Steve Utter, Deanna Utter, Will Park, Jack Milbank,
Andrew Riggs, Gail Riggs, Patti Drew, Frank Twarog, Nicholaus Fay, Ching Chih
Fay.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the April 3, 2007
Meeting:
Greg MOVED to approve the April 3, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.
17-Lot, 16-Unit Subdivision/PRD
Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road – Applicants:
George and Jan Bedard
* continued from the December 19th,
February 20th and April 3rd meetings
George Bedard presented a context map showing property boundaries along Texas Hill Road. He also presented aerial photographs of the same area. Alex passed out several letters that had been received since the last hearing. Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Appeals of notice of violation
(stormwater) by the Zoning Administrator – Bittersweet Hill Road – Appellants: Robert Burritt and Carlene Emmons
* continued from the March 20th
meeting
Joe Fallon, representing Carlene Emmons, asked whether the Zoning Administrator (Peter Erb) would be offering more proof regarding the violation. Peter said he had no further information and did not wish to make a presentation. Joe asked Nick Nowlan and Gunner McCain of McCain Consulting (the project’s stormwater engineering firm) to respond to Peter’s comments found in the January 19, 2007 notice of violation.
Nick addressed two main points of the violation, the first level spreader and the first retention pond. He said the level spreader was built late in the year and that the applicant should be allowed until June of this year to perform normal maintenance on it. He said although the ground around the spreader is not level due to some earth settling, he felt it was close to level, with only some reshaping required. He felt the spreader was working as designed and is slowing water. Greg felt the group did not have a good sense of what was happening hydrologically in the area. Alex reviewed the violation notice. Regarding the retention pond, Nick felt groundwater made up an insignificant portion of the pond. He discussed the specific design and function of the pond’s standpipe and also the source of the groundwater. He felt the retention pond was also working as designed.
Joe Fallon questioned the purpose of the stormwater design. Nick responded that the system was designed to knock down the peak of a 25-year flood event. Joe asked if Nick felt the system was effectively designed to meet that purpose; Nick responded yes. Joe asked if Nick felt the system was in substantial compliance with Zoning Regulations; Nick responded yes, but that it needed some touch up. Joe asked if there was any other system to deal with stormwater runoff other than what was designed; Nick responded that he believed this system to be the best.
Ted asked about the flood flow this spring. Nick said it was not close to the 25-year flood level, citing rainfall statistics reported in Burlington this spring. Ted asked if the pond was filling up now. Nick said no, that water goes out the outflow (pipe). Ted asked if the pipe was sized so that when rainfall reaches a certain level the pipe constricted the flow. Nick said yes. He said although it has been a wet year, it has not been close to a 25-year event. He described a “time of concentration” calculation, stating this catchment area was designed for a 1-hour storm.
Lisa asked if the pond was designed to stay full, specifically what part of the design capacity started at the standpipe. Nick said there was no water in the retention pond in the standpipe; that the pond was staying full to the standpipe but not above it. Lisa asked if it was redirecting water. Nick said the intent of the level spreader is to spread the water back out again. He explained a culvert was taken out. Peter gave some background history on various actions taken since the first subdivision in the area. He said when he looks at the system now, he observes water flowing on the ground toward the Utters in a fairly concentrated manner, and that the first level spreader is working now only because hay bales have ameliorated the situation. He confirmed that the tree planting issue had been resolved through an agreement with the Emmons to plant trees by the end of May.
Lori Hennessey, an adjacent property owner, introduced Will Park, an engineering intern representing the Utters. He noted what he felt to be a discrepancy on the engineering plans, that they stated the system to be designed for a 24-hour rain event (as opposed to a 25-year event.) He talked about a pre-development rate comparison, proposing a common point of interest for comparison’s sake. He suggested using the Hennessey’s backyard and marked the plans with the proposed pre-development drainage area for analysis. Lori said rain events in December and January caused the Utter’s basement to flood. She said there was now a stream of water that gets concentrated from the first spreader and hits the side of the Utter’s house. She said they have lived there for 10 years and have never had water in their basement. Mike Hennessey said that the spreader is full all the time, adding neighbors monitor it constantly. Lori showed photos of the pond, the Utter’s property; Dena Utter added comments regarding the photos.
Alex asked Lori if she observed water being directed from the Burritt property or via conveyance of other ditches on other properties. He cited a ditch on the plans but was unsure of property boundaries in the area (i.e. who owned the ditch). Lori and Will described their observations of water flow. Peter said the ditch is on the Burritt’s side of the fence. Dana said they recently dug a different ditch in order to keep water out of their basement. Representing area neighbors, Lori said they feel excess stormwater is coming from the newly developed hill. They feel the ponds and spreader trenches are not handling it. They question the numbers of the design and believe a spring that was not taken into consideration is feeding the pond. Mike Hennessey said he performed a study of impervious land in the development and believed it to total over one acre (although the plan states .78 acre). Alex said although impervious areas over one acre needed a state permit, the DRB did not review the issue. Tom asked if there had been any building on the Burritt lot. The answer was no. Valerie Beaudry, an area neighbor, showed more photos of runoff. She said she is affected by it, that her lawn is constantly wet. Brad Parker, a property owner adjacent to the Utters, responded to Alex’s earlier comment, stating he was not sure whose property the ditch was on. He said he has lived there twenty years and this was the first time water was running down the side of his garage and washing out his driveway. Steve Utter showed a photo along CVU road and described a grind station (community sewer system); he feels runoff is affecting that system.
Alex said Lori faxed a letter to him from Trudell Engineering, a firm hired by the Utters to review the engineering plan. Alex said he received the fax yesterday (April 16th) and he passed out copies to the Board and to interested parties. Joe Fallon asked how the hearing would proceed. Greg said he felt the Board needed an independent engineering consultation. There was discussion about how that expense would be covered. Joe said that the Emmons had already spent $17,000 on the stormwater system, and did not want to spend any more since they felt the system was adequate and functioning properly. Peter asked whether anyone could suggest a solution to the water problems. Joe said McCain Consulting recommends a curtain drain.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to May 15th and to take the matter of the independent consultation up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Dena Utter expressed her desire for a resolution, stating the situation has been a problem for three years and that she feels her family is now in hardship. Tom said he understood but also needed to provide McCain Consulting a chance to review the Trudell letter.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan –
Shelburne Falls Road (north side)– Applicants:
Larry and Micki Ketcham
Background Information from the
Staff Report
Larned & Micki
Ketcham are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the
Agricultural Zoning District. The
subject parcel is approximately 93 acres, and is located on the south
side of Shelburne Falls Road; parcel # 04-01-40.110. This is 1 of 3 adjacent parcels that the Applicant owns along
Shelburne Falls Road, but separated by the road and by O’Neil Road. This parcel is essentially undeveloped with
the exception of a barn on the corner of Shelburne Falls Road and O’Neil
Road. It is dominated by agricultural
soils and is primarily in agricultural use, except for a small forested hill
and adjacent wetland/floodplain area in the southeastern corner. This southeastern corner is the area where a
previous subdivision was approved for this parcel in 2003 to create a 2.2-acre
lot around the Applicant’s daughter’s home (Jeannie Ketcham).
Larry Ketcham described how the subdivision boundary had been conceived. He said the top portion of the parcel (nearest Shelburne Falls Road) has been hayed (although not currently). Below is more pasture without much use. He said the proposed lot is isolated. He said a right-of-way would serve two lots plus the rest of the farm. Steve (an adjacent neighbor) asked if a border of trees separating the new lot and his own would be removed. Larry replied no, that it provided good screening. Ted asked about the remainder of the farm; Larry said the adjacent 83 acres would remain as farmland.
(The discussion then focused on the Ketchum’s 7-lot subdivision sketch plan; see below for a motion pertaining to both plans.)
7-Lot/6-unit Subdivision Sketch
Plan – Shelburne Falls Road (south side)– Applicants: Larry and Micki Ketcham
Background Information from the
Staff Report
The Applicant has
proposed a conventional 7-lot subdivision with 6 new building lots on the
western most side of the parcel. The 7th
lot would be the remaining land of approximately 215 acres – including most of
the forested hill and the rest of the parcel to the west. Each new lot would be approximately 2 acres,
and would be sited to take advantage of the mid-portion of the hillside. A new road of approximately 2,000’ would be
constructed to provide access to Shelburne Falls Road at a road cut location
previously approved by the Selectboard in 1990. On-site septic disposal and water is planned. In 1989 the Planning Commission granted
sketch plan approval for a 15-lot conventional subdivision for this portion of
the parcel. The Applicant did not
pursue the project, and the sketch plan approval expired long ago. From the June 7, 1989 meeting minutes, it
appears that there was only a brief discussion of project with no site
visit. Conditions from that approval
noted that special consideration would be needed for the road location,
building envelopes, significant vegetation, and topography.
Larry said this subdivision would border on Geprags Parks and would require a long road. He considered the access point off Shelburne Falls Road to be the best one, stating the Select Board had given prior approval for such an access several years ago. He felt the biggest challenge would be getting the road situated on the steep grade. Tom said the staff report commented on the potential visibility of a hilltop development, and included a suggestion to cluster houses lower to the road. Larry agreed that would potentially cut road costs down. Micki said their goal was to put homes back in the pine trees to reduce visibility. Alex clarified that Lot 7 would be undeveloped acreage to the west of six home sites. Larry said there were no plans for the adjacent 200+ acres of farmland. Ted asked if the Ketchams would retain a ROW access across the development’s road; Alex suggested they should, to retain access to the adjacent property.
Ted felt lots could be reconfigured to minimize how far they spread out. Larry agreed that the lines could be redrawn but would like a site visit before doing so. Nicholaus Fay, a neighbor adjacent to the proposed subdivision, mentioned current water runoff. If a road were put in, he requested water be directed so as to avoid his spring. He also said there is a lot of flooding on Shelburne Falls Road in that area, often requiring the road to be closed. Larry felt there were a few feet that typically remained unaffected, where an access point could be located. He said soils were tested in 1990 and previous approval was obtained for conventional septic.
Bill Marks, representing the
Conservation Commission, agreed with suggestions to place home sites nearer to
the road to avoid the invasion of rural forested land. He thought there was potential for green
building with south-facing lots. Tom
MOVED to continue the public hearing for both sketch plans to May 1st. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
A site visit to both properties was scheduled for May 1st at 5:30
p.m.
Appeals of Notice of Violation by
the Zoning Administrator/Site Plan Revision – Route 116 – Applicant: Paul MacCluskey
Background Information from the
Staff Report regarding Notice of Violation
Paul Maccluskey is appealing a notice of violation issued by the Zoning
Administrator (ZA) regarding compliance issues with the Hinesburg Auto Sales
site plan that was approved by the DRB on December 9, 2005. The subject parcel is approximately 0.33
acres, and is located on the east side of VT Route 116 in the Commercial zoning
district; parcel # 20-50-03.000. The
notice of violation was issued on January 4, 2007, and the appeal was received
on January 17, 2007. The notice of
violation was issued on the grounds that the business is not in compliance with
the approved site plan.
Background Information from the
Staff Report regarding Site Plan Revision
Paul Maccluskey is requesting
approval for revisions to the Hinesburg Auto Sales site plan, which was
approved by the DRB (combined site plan, illuminated sign, conditional use
approval) on December 9, 2005. The
subject parcel is approximately 0.33 acres, and is located on the east side of
VT Route 116 in the Commercial zoning district; parcel # 20-50-03.000. A notice of violation was issued to Mr.
Maccluskey by the Zoning Administrator on January 4, 2007 for compliance issues
with the original 2005 approval. This
notice of violation has been appealed to the DRB, and is a separate but related
matter. One of the ways the Applicant
hopes to remedy the violations is to get approval for revisions to the site
plan.
Alex explained the applicant was here to appeal the notice of violation and also to submit a revised site plan for review. Paul MacCluskey presented a revised site plan and described the driveway location and the tree border. He said his lawyer told him he would be speaking with Joe Fallon, the lawyer representing the Girouxs (with whom he is in a boundary dispute). Greg asked if any complaints had been received regarding the auto sales business when it was in its previous location. Ted said there were none that he knew of.
Paul said he would like to take care
of the boundary dispute before planting trees.
He also said his lot was now down to the permitted number of cars. He said he decided against installing a
center island with greenery as required by the plan approval when he later considered
snow removal. He would like to move the
plantings to the front of the lot. Greg
asked about the dumpster location, suggesting it be moved to the northeast
corner of the lot (near the building).
Paul noted it was hard for a truck to get to the back of the lot. He noted garbage pick-up occurred every 2
weeks at 7:30 a.m. and said he could arrange to have the cars moved at that
time if the Board required it. Tom
thought moving the dumpster nearer the building was closer to where garbage was
collected. Paul said the bulk of the
garbage from his business was from the car interiors. Paul talked about having to wash the cars as a necessary business
requirement Alex described order #10 of the approval decision that required
off-site car washing. Paul said he has
paid $600 in six months to wash cars offsite.
He is now requesting to use a power washer with soap and water on site.
Ted said he felt the site was clearly not in conformance with the plan that was
approved. George Bedard, speaking on
behalf of the Girouxs, gave a history of the land now occupied by the auto
sales business, stating it was defined as a separate parcel in 1849. He said the lot to the south was defined in
1837 and has been in constant ownership by the Girouxs. George said gravel has been laid in the
disputed boundary area with cars parked entirely off the property. Greg asked if there were competing
surveys. George said he knew another
surveyor had been to the property but that nothing was recorded yet. George said the Girouxs are requesting the
operation to fit on the approved site plan.
Greg asked Paul if he owned the land and if he bought it recently. He said yes, that there was a survey done but
no pins. George said he met with Paul
two years ago around Thanksgiving on a Sunday.
He said there was one surviving pin in the back left corner and the
house was still standing. He said
measurements were taken and he advised Paul to set pins before
construction. He said stakes were
driven in the ground that day. He said
he told him at that time that the piece in question belonged to Vic Giroux.
Greg noted that the Board could not decide the boundary dispute, as it was a
civil action. Steve Giroux, Vic’s son,
felt there was no dispute but that the appellant was simply using the Giroux
land by filling in the ditch with gravel.
Patti Drew, Vic’s daughter, felt the matter was tied to the
tree-planting violation, that if the trees were there, the cars would not be
there. Paul explained how moving the
trees would affect the access driveway.
Alex asked if approximately four cars would have to be removed. Paul thought that was correct. Alex clarified on the revised plan where the
actual driveway is (not where it was shown on the plan). He said the first car was required to be
moved anyway.
Ted asked about the state’s position regarding the access point. Paul said state officials questioned why the existing access needed to be moved. Ted said that if it were left the way it was, the position of the cars would have to be changed. Alex described the B71 access drive standard, that an access has to be at least 24 feet wide and flared wider where it meets Route 116. He said the decision referenced only that point. Alex said he spoke with someone from the Agency of Transportation, who said additional sidewalk engineering would be needed in order to modify the driveway. It was his understanding that a future sidewalk would be put in, and told Alex he did not feel engineering should be done if additional improvements were coming.
Ted said the revised site plan does not reflect the driveway where it actually is. Paul agreed, but did not think that was an issue. Alex said he didn’t realize the submitted drawing was inaccurate. Ted said he felt the business was in clear violation of the previous site plan approval.
Ted MOVED to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s conclusions (denying the appeal). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion passed (DENIAL) 6-0.
Ted then requested a revised site plan. He said he felt the island was something that made the intense use of the small lot more palatable. He felt the applicant should put the island in, as well as put the dumpster in the back. Tom asked about the surface area of the lot; Paul said the whole corner has been cut off and the planted area is now larger than the required five feet. On-site car washing was discussed again. Peter said detergent pollutants should be taken into consideration. He also felt a new configuration could allow for 27 cars on the lot. Ted added he felt the site plan should reflect the land as described in the property’s deed.
Tom MOVED to continue the site plan revision hearing to June 5th. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Patti Drew asked about the violation process; Alex described the formal process, stating the Select Board had to enforce the violation, decide a fine, etc. Alex said violations are not issued lightly and that a remedy should be expeditious. Patti asked if there was a time frame for such a remedy. Peter clarified that he could enforce a violation. He said for the record he intended to pursue this as a violation but hoped Paul could come back with a solution that worked for his business. Paul said again he feels the island is problematic. Lisa said she thought the island was there to minimize the presence of the parking lot situated in front of the building. Alex clarified the history of the approval. The group talked about the island and how it had helped to get the project approved.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan –
CVU Road and Route 116 – Applicants:
Andrew and Gail Riggs
Background Information from the Staff Report
Andrew & Gail
Riggs are requesting Sketch Plan approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the Rural
Residential I District. The subject
parcel is approximately 4.1 acres, and is located basically at the intersection
of 116 and CVU road on the North east corner with the driveway approximately
300 feet from the intersection, parcel # 16-20-44_000.
Dennis recused himself from the Board, as he is an abutting landowner and co-worker of the Riggs. Jack Milbank spoke on behalf of the Riggs. He presented plans for a 2-lot subdivision, describing sewer, screening and driveway access. Tom said he has observed the driveway’s culvert washing out. Andy Riggs said it has since been replaced and enlarged. Jack said there was an intermittent stream in the area. He described watershed from CVU Road and said there is an unmapped wetland in the area, but noted again the culvert had been resized and replaced. Tom asked about the building envelope; Jack explained the radius lines are 75-foot setback lines from the stream. He said the house would be at the same elevation as CVU Road. Ted asked if the vegetation to the south and west would remain; the Riggs replied yes. Lisa asked about wetlands; Jack said there is no national indication but that other wetlands may be Class III. Greg asked if the home was on town facilities; the Riggs replied yes.
Tom asked about the proposed recreation path, which is
planned to run in front of the property along CVU Road. Jack pointed out where it was noted on the
plans, stating he received the information from Rocky Martin. Peter said if a right-hand turn lane were
created on CVU Road at the intersection, it would be done within the town’s
easement line. Jack talked about
additional drainage improvements to add a culvert under the driveway.
Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of sketch plan approval for a 2-step subdivision. George SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5-0. There was further discussion about the recreation path. Alex said details would be outlined in the draft decision. Greg asked about a homeowner association. The group discussed sharing language.
Other Business:
Gianelli 7-Lot, 6-Unit Subdivision
Greg suggested amending conclusions #1 and #4. Tom MOVED to accept the draft decision as amended. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Dam 2-Lot Subdivision/6-lot, 5
unit PRD Sketch Plan
Greg said he thought although
setbacks were being met, given the topography and that a cluster of houses was
proposed he felt there would be more activity from the development than a
conventional subdivision in this area of town.
He suggested revised language that encouraged the applicant to set
houses further up the hill. Peter
mentioned the possible encroachment of the deeryard. Tom was concerned about visibility if the houses were moved up
slope. Existing vegetation was
discussed. Ted felt the 200 feet buffer
was adequate. Shallow wells in the
area, as well as stormwater, were discussed.
Ted raised the question about the open space configuration. Peter clarified the space at the bottom of
the development can serve as a buffer but does not have to be used as the open
space requirement. The group discussed
having boundaries follow natural features.
The group discussed the location and size of the proposed open
space. No action was taken on the matter
at this time.
Bedard 17-Lot, 16-Unit
Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan
The group discussed issues of compatible surroundings, the conventional subdivision calculation, and whether duplexes could be used in a conventional plan to demonstrate density in a PRD. The group discussed the wildlife corridor and water supply. No action was taken on the matter at this time.
Burritt/Emmons, Appeals of notice
of violation
The nature of the independent engineering work and costs were discussed. The history of complaints and appeals was discussed. No action was taken on the matter at this time.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary