TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
July 10, 2007
Approved
July 24, 2007
DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
DRB Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator),
Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), George Dameron, Andrea Morgante, Katherine
Cooper, John Kiedaisch, Rolf Kielman, Elizabeth Ross, Dorothy Pellett, Bob
Linck, Wayne Bissonette, Steven Palmer, Carol Palmer, Gerald Newton, Jamie
Carroll, Ethan Thibault, Sara Thibault, Richard Thibault, Colin McNaull, Earla
Sue McNaull, Jonathan Trefrey, Andrew Burton, Jean Davis, Jeff Davis, Lou
Mulieri, Berthann Mulieri.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the June 19, 2007
Meeting:
Tom MOVED to approve the June 19, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0. Ted Bloomhardt and Greg Waples were not present for this vote.
Ted Bloomhardt joined the meeting at this time (7:40 p.m.)
2-lot Subdivision Final Plat Approval – Lavigne Hill Road – Applicant: Viola Goodrich
**continued from June 19th
meeting
George Bedard spoke on behalf of Viola Goodrich. He passed out a document containing new sample deed language, explaining revisions regarding lots 1 and 2 joining a future homeowners association. He pointed out changes to the building lot/envelope on a map. He also addressed Al Barber’s comments regarding the pullout from the single family driveway, stating the Goodrich’s would widen the driveway at the 16’ wide mark (where the bump-out begins) if the DRB required it as a condition of approval. He questioned #11 of the draft approval, and asked that it be deleted; Peter agreed. George M. asked if George B. was OK with #3; George B. said again the driveway could be widened at the bump-out as a condition. The driveway extends about 600 feet from the shared point to the new lot’s yard.
Zoe MOVED to close the public hearing and vote on the draft decision (approval) as amended. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0, with Ted abstaining. Greg Waples was not present for this vote. Lisa asked about Order #5, whether lot #1 had adequate water; George B. said yes, the source was a drilled well that has been in use for years.
Hinesburg Land Trust LaPlatte
Headwaters Conservation Initiative
Background Information from the
Staff Report:
A consortium of conservation
organizations spearheaded by the local Hinesburg Land Trust and the Trust for
Public Lands is working together to purchase a large parcel of land from Wayne
and Barbara Bissonette for conservations purposes, partially funded by limited
development on portions of the land.
The area of the Bissonette farm ownership (they will continue to own
land surrounding their farm complex) is separated by Hines and Gilman Roads and
this has created three parcels requiring separate applications, although all
part of the Initiative. Note that
formal applications have been submitted only for the 3 and 4-lot plans; the
8-lot “West Parcel” subdivision is being presented as part of the master plan
and for context only at this time.
3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan –
“South Parcel”, Gilman Road – Applicant: Trust for Public Land, ESNID LLC.,
Hinesburg Land Trust – Owners: Wayne and Barbara Bissonette
4-Lot Major Subdivision PRD Sketch
Plan – “North Parcel”, Gilman Road – Applicant: Trust for Public Land, ESNID
LLC., Hinesburg Land Trust – Owners: Wayne and Barbara Bissonette
8-Lot Major Subdivision PRD Sketch
Plan – “West Parcel”, Gilman Road – Applicant: Trust for Public Land, ESNID
LLC., Hinesburg Land Trust – Owners: Wayne and Barbara Bissonette (no
application at this time)
Katherine Cooper of the Trust for Public Land gave an overview of the conservation efforts proposed for the various parcels in the project. She referred to a map entitiled “Future Conservation Ownership of LaPlatte Headwaters” (the map that had been distributed to DRB members in their packets). The map divides the Bissonette land into three plans as follows:
“North Parcel” - 4-lot subdivision (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D); 179 acres
“South Parcel” - 3-lot subdivision (4A, 4B, 4C); 123.67 acres
“West Parcel” - 8-lot future subdivision/PRD plan (1, 3A, 3B, 3C); 324 acres
Katherine said the entire project was comprised of 628 acres, 577 of which would be protected by conservation easements, and turned over to the Town of Hinesburg, through the Vermont Land Trust. Some development may occur on the remaining acreage. Wetlands to the north will be restored; forested areas, habitat areas (including one for an endangered species) and a deer wintering yard to the west will be protected. A strip of the LaPlatte River will also be restored. A 1.6 acre parcel will be sold to the town as a cemetary.
Lisa Godfrey recused herself from the discussion at this time, as she is an abutting landowner and involved in a land transfer proposal related to the project. Ted noted that the DRB can’t give any indication of approval on the West Parcel area that has no formal application. Katherine said the land being conveyed to the town for conservation purposes required a zoning permit for the transfer only.
Rolf Kielman described plans for the South Parcel, the 3-lot subdivision. Tom asked why this area was chosen for development; Rolf said an extensive look was taken at the natural attributes of land in the entire project. This site lends itself to house sites. The area is rocky and not valuable farmland, and it sits adjacent to Southwind Road, an already developed area.
Rolf then described plans for the West Parcel. Lot 3B is proposed to be a single house lot with 2+ acres; 3A is proposed as a 5-house PRD, with common land and access trails. Peter clarified a stipulation that both parcels be connected by a 100 foot strip.
Katherine described the North Parcel. 2A will include a 21-acre zone limited by covenants; the remainder in this parcel may be developed, limited to 8 house sites but likely to be closer to 4. 2B is proposed as a farmstead, and 2 alternative house sites have been located. 2C is a conveyance to an abutter and 2D is the town cemetary land. Wayne Bissonette said the house site on 2B will be accessed from Hines Road, along a ravine. The group agreed proper setbacks would be in place for the development.
Greg Waples joined the discussion at this time (8:20p.m.)
Colin McNaul, an abutting landowner on Southwind Road, wished to state he and his wife Earla Sue were in favor of the project. Lisa Godfrey spoke of the views near her house, from Gilman Road. She felt that a farmstead placed on the east side of the ravine would preserve views. A house site on the west side of the ravine would be direct in views. George M. suggested having balloons in place for the site visit. Rolf said houses, with respect to their materials and designs, are planned to be integrated into the landscape. He feels they should be models of good development.
Katherine gave background information on the Trust for Public Land (TPL); it has a 35-year history, is a national organization, with a regional office in Montpelier. Peter noted that his daughter works for TPL, but is not involved with this project. Ted noted he had given a donation to this conservation project but that he did not feel that this created a conflict of interest; most others in the group noted they had donated as well.
Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to July 24th, with a site visit to occur at 6:00 p.m. on proposed lot 4B (park near the red barn). Zoe SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0. (Lisa had recused herself from this matter.) George M. suggested flagging the site boundaries and access points. Ted asked for a more detailed map of lot 4B.
2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Aube Ridge Road – Applicant: Richard Thibault
Background Information from the
Staff Report:
This is the second application for
this property; the first was for a PRD that the DRB denied with the suggestion
that a conventional development might be possible. The proposed location of the single house is basically the same,
however they are now proposing two lots that will qualify as conventional lots
for this Rural Residential I district (3 acres).
Ethan Thibault, Richard’s son and the future homeowner, presented his family’s proposal. He said the homesite would be kept in the same area as the previous PRD, preserving nearby hardwood forest. He said his family is flexible in exactly how the 6+ acre parcel could be divided into (2) 3-acre parcels.
His lot will share the first 15-20 yards of his parent’s driveway. He discussed driveway grades. Peter reminded the applicants that a shared ROW is a “take-out” of property and lot lines may have to be shifted. Ted asked about the condition of Aube Ridge Road. Ethan said about 18-20 houses are currently accessed off that road. Peter said the DRB must find, as a procedural point of this application, that the condition of Aube Ridge Road is suitable for additional development.
Tom suggested the applicant define a cleared area for the home site. Ted said he felt the proposal generally worked, that he had no major concerns. Andrew Burton, an audience member, agreed. Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval, and to also find the conditions of Aube Ridge Road suitable for this development. The motion passed 7-0.
Conditional Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure –Shadow Lane Road– Applicants: James and Patricia Carroll
Background Information from the Staff Report:
The Applicants would like to
replace the existing 33’x8’ trailer with a new and larger camp. Conditional use approval is required because
the lot is non-conforming with regard to the maximum lot coverage (10% for this
zoning district; the proposed addition may exacerbate this situation. The camp is also non-complying with regard
to the front yard setback (60’for this zoning district), and the new camp will
encroach further into this setback area.
The applicant proposed to remove the trailer and construct a new camp further west on the lot. A new septic system sized for 3 bedrooms is proposed, comprised of a 1000 gallon septic tank, a SeptiTech pre-treatment system and a mound disposal area. The footprint and the overall size of the new camp will be much larger because the new camp will be a stick built structure rather than a trailer. 3 major issues to be addressed are 1) lot coverage; 2) building height and mass; 3) Shadow Lane stormwater runoff.
Jamie Carroll reminded the group of previous site visits to the area. He reviewed plans for his proposal, stating he is looking for conditional use approval for front and rear set back requirements and also for a 28% lot coverage. He said his plans had been revised from a previous submitted version. The drive and parking area has been reduced and the average height of the building will now be 26 ½ feet, with the lake side being a few feet taller to accommodate a walk-out. He explained that a stone filled curtain drain on the western boundary was in place to take sheet run-off. A drainage system was installed on the northern boundary that ran to daylight. He said water flowing off the property goes into a stone filled ditch.
Tom asked if this house was proposed as a camp (a seasonal residence); Jamie replied yes. The group discussed existing houses in the area and the change in footprint. Jamie said although the new design had a larger footprint, the basic use as a camp was still the same. Alex thought the septic system that was proposed was adequate; Tom asked if it could be argued whether the “public good” was served by installing such a septic improvement.
Alex clarified that the proposed camp will not comply with rear yard setbacks. Greg asked about views; Jamie said neighboring lots were about 7-9 feet taller than his, and that their 2nd floors would clear the new structure. He added that an existing tree line was already blocking lake views, and that the house would not rise above the tree line.
Lou Mulieri, an adjacent landowner to the west and uphill of the lot, said a
helium balloon he put up blocked the lake views at 32 feet, but lower was
OK. He was concerned about the new
driveway up against his property and asked how the driveway had been
reduced. Jamie said it would be more
narrow on the lakeside, and also be shortened.
Lou also had a concern that cars and trucks would compact earth,
creating a storm water area that would fill with water. He was also concerned about the mound
location. Jamie said the location had been chosen for its good soils by a site
technician. Lou described an annual
attempt by neighbors to clean ditches.
He feels culverts have replaced many of these stone-filled community
maintained ditches. Both neighbors
discussed stormwater issues further.
Ted raised the setback issues.
Peter explained that when an addition is requested for a mobile home,
typically an applicant can take the home it out and replace it with another; in
this case, the mobile home being replaced with a stick-built structure. Alex referred to Section 5-10-03/04 of the
Zoning Bylaws, asking whether this application would qualify as an expansion to
an existing non-complying structure.
Greg felt a relocation of a residence is permittable per regulation
5.10.03/04. Ted asked whether a new
non-complying structure could be permitted.
The group discussed; Alex felt it was consistent with other area
properties, in terms of the front setback.
Tom asked about reducing the house side from 30 to 25 feet. Lisa asked about the placement of decks. Ted noted that the building floor area was
increasing by 260%.
Lisa MOVED to continue the public hearing to July 24th
meeting. Zoe SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Other Business:
Town Hall Site Plan Revision
Tom said he looked at lighting in the Town Hall parking lot. He recommends that trees be trimmed. Alex reviewed the changes in the draft decision. A correction was made to Conclusion #4. Tom MOVED to approve the Draft decision as amended (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0, with Greg and Ted abstaining.
The group discussed the history of non-complying structures and expansions. The next DRB meeting is July 24th
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary