TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

May 1, 2007
Approved May 15th, 2007

 

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Larry Ketchum, Micki Ketchum, Mac Rood, Rob Bast, Judy Fritz, Tom Hackett.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.  Zoe Wainer was introduced as a new board member.

 

Minutes of the April 17, 2007 Meeting:

Dennis MOVED to approve the April 17, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5 – 0, with Zoe abstaining.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Shelburne Falls Road (north side)– Applicants:  Larry and Micki Ketcham

** continued from the April 17th meeting

 

Tom explained this application is now the only one being reviewed (the Ketchum’s 7-lot subdivision application has been withdrawn).  Larry Ketchum described the land within the building area noting the white electric fence passed through the southern portion of the area, roughly dividing the hayed field and possible wetland.  He said the wetland area has always been dry.  Board members gave comments on individual visits to the site.  Lisa noted the front field as a suitable building area.  George felt several good locations could be found in the front and questioned whether the road needed more gravel.  Zoe thought the area near the electric fence would be suitable for a building site.

 

Alex said an approval decision had been drafted and gave a copy to the Ketchums.  He said the only item needing more investigation was the wetland delineation but if the building envelope were pushed towards Falls Road, the delineation process could possibly be avoided.  Larry said he would have wetlands identified.  Alex explained a state wetland coordinator can assist with the process but a consultant is needed for the work.  He said wetland boundaries are not recorded on the plat but the building envelope needs to be designed with them in mind.  Ted asked about the driveway.  George thought it was adequate in size; Larry confirmed it was built to regulations.  Ted MOVED to accept the review draft decision as written (approval). George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

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
** re opened from April 3rd meeting

Alex said the final hearing was re-opened in order for the applicants to submit a revised plat, which Alex reviewed and found in order.  The group reviewed changes to the draft decision:

 

Open space for the development was clarified as being 8.06 acres on Lot 1 and part of Lot 3, making up 57% of the total parcel.

 

Alex reviewed garage setback language as it applied to two structures for which there are not yet specific designs; the decision states the 10-foot setback has not been waived for these structures and the applicants needs to come back to the board if they need the waiver later.

 

A clarification of the phrase “clear and easy access” was made (as it pertains to the main road).  Ted asked if Green Street would be a town road; Alex said no.

 

Alex explained the language regarding financial assurance agreements for the project and said the applicants were in agreement with the language.

 

Ted asked whether the decision language was clear regarding the location of the sidewalk (committed to be built by the applicant in association with this development).  Alex said it is indicated on the plans but he will clarify its location in writing.

 

The language requiring the planned traffic light, as well as the sidewalk, to be installed in order to receive the certificate of occupancy (C/O) was discussed.  Alex said the requirement is in place for new residential structures only, i.e. the commercial buildings may receive a C/O even if the light and sidewalk are not installed.  Ted suggested tying the sidewalk to the C/O of the residential buildings and tying the traffic light installation to the commercial building permit(s).  Rob Bast said he was in agreement with that proposed change and added they would come back with a traffic study if necessary.

 

Building architectural features over 35 ft. requiring a conditional use permit were discussed.  Alex said conclusion #4 simply states that such features have been proposed but no waivers have been granted since no designs have been submitted yet.  Rob said they would consult Alex about the appropriate permit process when the design work for those features is finished.

 

Ted asked about landscaping plans; Alex said full plans have been submitted but that the specification plans are outstanding.  Ted asked about planting installation and continuous maintenance out into the future.  Alex explained the Select Board works this out with the applicant in the escrow agreement.  He said there has been no specific language for that in past applications and reviewed language in order #9 which ties landscape work to the last unit completed.  Ted suggested adding language requesting that landscaping be maintained into the future; Alex said he would modify order #9 to state the submitted plans are a minimal requirement and that additional landscaping can be added.

 

Greg Waples arrived at this time  (8:10 p.m.)  Tom MOVED to closed the public hearing.  Zoe SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.  Ted MOVED to accept the final draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Zoe abstaining.

 

 

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

** continued from the March 20th and April 3rd meetings

 

Tom said site visit observations were entered at the April 3rd meeting.  Judy Fritz wished to respond to staff comments she had received.  She read from Peter’s letter and explained she went back to the beginning of the process to address his observations and suggestions.  She presented the original map of the proposed subdivision, as well as an area showing current property boundaries in the area, and addressed the following:

 

Rural character – Judy said she is proposing only one driveway cut off a 1344-foot stretch of road frontage.  Looking at other lots in the area, she said the 1344 feet is over 10 times the frontage of 5 nearby lots and over 5 times the frontage of another 14 lots.  She feels the proposal situates houses in such a way so as to preserve the rural character of the area.

 

Wildlife corridor – Judy agreed there is a corridor near her home but noted her plan leaves much of that area wooded.  She felt deer would not be stopped from traveling even with development.

 

Slopes – Judy said grades have not yet been determined.  She would employ a surveyor to keep within the guidelines.  She passed out photos of the three proposed sites.  She feels the best sites were utilized and said driveways in her plan do not cut away into the hillside.

 

Judy felt staff comments were overstated.  Judy said that regarding neighboring parcels, re-subdivision on most of them was unlikely or impossible because of road frontage.  The Board noted that road frontage is not necessary for small subdivision that can provide access via a private right-of-way.  She doesn’t want to cluster homes near her home due to existing infrastructure there.  She said the existing well has provided water for 18 years without being dry or with low flow.  She said the Texas Hill Road paving issue has been discussed for many years and did not feel her subdivision would add significantly to the debate.  Judy noted adjacent neighbors by name and said those closest to her (and in the best position to object) do not disapprove of the development.  She is proposing to include protective covenants in the deed and follow required construction standards.

 

Ted said the proposed lot sizes are smaller than the average lot size in the area.  He said his biggest concern is changing density in the area, relating his concerns to the compatibility with surroundings requirement, not road frontage requirements.  He felt approving smaller lots from this 10+ acre parcel would open the way for development on other 10+ acre lots.  Judy said she felt each 10-acre lot was different.  The group discussed the varying lots in the area and road frontage.  Lisa said the study done for the Bedard proposal indicated there was an average of 1 unit per 9 acres in the area.  Judy said she put a lot of thought into the character of the development and felt hers would be attractive and non-obtrusive.

 

Dennis said he thought the plan was well thought out.  He said he hunts in the area and felt wildlife would adjust to the development.  Lisa thought the access and development of the middle lot looked challenging.  Judy thinks the group went up too high on the site visit, that the house site could be at the bottom of the slope.  She thought surveying would be crucial. 

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

 

Minor revision to a final plat – Upper Access Road – Applicants: Steve and Lisa Carlson

Lisa Carlson noted what she felt was a conflict between the zoning and subdivision regulations.  She said a conflict arose over a boundary line that had been moved 5 feet due to a surveyor’s mistake.  She went to mediation with a neighbor, Jodi Ciano, and they came to this agreement.  Alex explained the amendment request and said the Mylar is already filed with the change correctly indicated and that the board’s approval would make it official.  He said several neighbors came to talk to him and didn’t feel they needed to be at tonight’s meeting.  Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft a decision (approval) on the amendment.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business:

 

Dam 2-Lot Subdivision/6-lot, 5 unit PRD Sketch Plan

Alex reviewed revisions made by Peter.  The group discussed the placement of the development, specifically proximity of house sites to neighbors, the deeryard and the visibility of hillside homes.  Forest management was discussed.  The right-of-way at the end of the road was discussed.  Alex said a finding could be added to the final decision regarding the ROW and applicant’s future use of the land beyond the ROW.  The group discussed the open space requirement language; Alex said he would revise Conclusion #2.  Tom MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (approval).  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Zoe abstaining.

 

Riggs 2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan

Energy efficiency measures, the recreation path easement and proposed turn lane were discussed.  Tom MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (approval).  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0, with Dennis and Zoe abstaining.

 

Bedard 17-Lot, 16-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan

The group discussed safety implications for pedestrians.  Tom MOVED to accept the review draft decision as amended (denial).  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 6-0, with Zoe abstaining.

 

Hinesburg Auto Sales/Paul MacCluskey Appeal of a Notice of Violation

Greg MOVED to accept the draft decision as written (denial of appeal).  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Reid/Sprague Sketch Plan extension requests.

Tom MOVED to extend the Sprague subdivision sketch plan approval for six months.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Tom MOVED to extend the Reid subdivision sketch plan approval for six months.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Fritz 3-lot Subdivision Sketch Plan

The group discussed the compatibility with surroundings issue, density, road frontage, driveway length and location, and the possibility for a 2-lot subdivision as an alternate plan.  Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft decision language (denial) for the Board to consider.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-1, with Dennis opposed and Zoe abstaining.

 

Alex said the Planning Commission was working on stream setback language for zoning regulations and he asked the DRB group for their feedback.  The Burritt/Emmons issue was briefly discussed; Alex said he had obtained three estimates from engineer consultants.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:   Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary