TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

July 24, 2007
Approved August 7, 2007

 

 

DRB Members Present:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Tom McGlenn, George Munson.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Frank Twarog, Richard Jordan, Nancy Dunlap, George Bedard, Steve Hoke, Bob Quackenbush, Steve Palmer, Carol Palmer, Beth Quackenbush, Joanne Hoke, Tanya Jones, Steve Giroux, John Kiedaisch, Andrea Morgante, Kate Daly, Elizabeth Ross, Susan Miners, Bill Marks, Patti Drew, Richard Elkins.

 

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

 

Minutes of the July 10, 2007 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the July 10, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5 – 0.

 

Hinesburg Land Trust LaPlatte Headwaters Conservation Initiative

**Continued from the July 10th meeting

 

Two applications were presented for review:

 

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

 

Lisa Godfrey recused herself from the board for this discussion.  Observations from the July 24th site visit were recorded.  Greg said the group started from Gilman Road between lots 4B and 4C, cut south to the proposed access site to 4B and 4C near a ledge/rise.  2 potential house sites had been marked and were visited.  The proposed 6-acre farmstead on 4C was visited; Greg noted the two alternate house sites were not delineated.  The group saw northern views along Gilman and also noted how house sites might be visible to the east and west.  They saw a proposed tree line buffer to the east of lot 4C.  Zoë said they observed the old barn foundation that may need buffering according to ACT 250.  Ted noted a buffer of trees to the south and the adjoining property. 

 

Ted said the group then went to lot 2B and saw the two proposed lot alternatives off Hines Road.  They were made aware of recent archeological digging that may constrain development on the western site.  They noted views to the south from each site.  They visited the cemetery and looked east toward farmland on parcel 2B.  Ted saw that wetlands drain over the south side to a gulley that ends up in the LaPlatte River.  He noted the area was fairly dry at this point. 

 

Ted Godfrey, an adjoining neighbor, said he felt everything should be done to maintain the views along Gilman and Hines Road looking south towards 4A and 4B.  He said there are options to place a site on southern side of hill.  Ted B. said the existing trailer was observed on the 6-acre farmstead.  Peter noted that Missy Ross was present for the site walk and would like to submit written feedback in the morning.

 

Kate Daly of VLT explained the archeological digging that would likely require additional analysis or avoidance.  She said there would be some sort of buffer to keep away from the dig site.  She said they would receive more information from the state in a few days with details on how the site can be developed.  She reviewed contours of the site on either side of a ravine.

 

As for lot 4A, she said her group did not wish to specify a building site in order to give the new owners some flexibility.  An existing barn is on the corner.  Ted clarified what is happening with the north parcel, that it is a transfer of land to the town requiring a zoning permit only.

 

Ted asked if the 2B building envelopes go back into the woods and if so, whether that area was buildable.  Kate said the area drops off to the north, that part is buildable on west side.  Ted asked about the stream buffer, wondering if the yellow line indicated a 75ft buffer.  Peter said yes, approximately.  Lisa G. thought building should be 100 feet away from the edge of the stream, and asked Kate if the buffer determination was tied to funding.  Kate said the Clean and Clear River Buffer funding involves 1 and 2A.  Ted asked about contour lines and suggested not to include the area that drops off in the building site(s).

 

Alex asked whether the group was amenable to approving two alternate building sites on one lot.  Zoë asked about precedent.  Alex said in concept there is nothing different between this and showing it as one big lot.  Kate said that feedback from farmers received following open house visits indicated more people preferred the west site as a potential farmstead location.  Ted noted views from the west site.  Lisa G. recommended keeping building sites away from streams by 100 feet, especially if land was in agricultural use.  More buffer is recommended.  Kate clarified her earlier statement – she does believe the northern stream buffer on lot 2B should be 100 feet. 

 

Ted summarized by stating he felt the  building envelopes for sites 4A-B-C should be defined.  Greg asked about the land held in the middle of 4A.  Alex said it is owned by the Russell Family, with no ROW to access it.  Peter noted curb cuts off as a potential issue.  Ted noted the town could not limit the placement or size of farm buildings.  John Kiedaisch asked about remodeling a barn; Ted said the DRB would not be involved.  Kate said an easement will define those buildings on the 6-acre farmstead.  Susan Miner suggested placing an evergreen buffer to the north.  Ted says visibility of sites on these parcels will be discussed at later meetings.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing with the understanding that Missy Ross’s feedback will be accepted at a later date.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0.  The group discussed whether the 3-lot application should be a minor or major subdivision.  Ted MOVED to proceed with the subdivision as a major (3-step) subdivision.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0.  Lisa rejoined the board at this time.

 

6-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Baldwin and Burritt Roads – Applicants: Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush

**continued from the June 19th meeting

 

Alex summarized the application and explained that the Conservation Commission had submitted written testimony at the end of the last hearing, as well as a second document after that.  The applicant wished to respond to those documents and also to staff comments.

 

Steve Hoke explained this proposal had been updated from one submitted last fall.  He said this version kept land open on Lot 1, allowed for contiguous forested areas and placed house sites on the least productive soils.  He said sites had been moved more than 200 feet away from the Baldwin farm.  He felt this proposal was a good balance between landowner and town interests.

 

George Bedard explained the positioning of the house sites and the road in relationship to the Baldwin Farm.  He said the applicant is flexible about road location and explained 2 alternate locations.  He noted the septic could not be in the field as opposed to the woods due to poor soils.  He also felt pulling houses out of the woods conflicts with the desire to keep houses screened.  Zoë asked if the lot 6 house site could be moved.  George said the area to the north is not practical as it is lower and wetter.  He said he would define the building envelopes for the preliminary hearing and that there was still some flexibility.  Zoë said Bob (an applicant present at the previous meeting) noted that the house site on lot 6 may move to the replacement septic area; George said it was true the second septic area was no longer required by the state and moving the house site was a possibility.  The house site on lot 5 and the road placement was discussed.  Steve said the road could be 400 feet less if moved north.  George offered to show two alternate road locations on a map for the preliminary hearing.

 

George said he felt they had addressed all the CC’s concerns.  Greg said he felt density was still a major issue.  The proposal would put 6 lots on 66 acres; the group discussed densities in the area.  Zoë gave these density statistics:

-         Overall agricultural district  is 1 unit to 29.4 acres

-         Baldwin Road Corridor is 1 unit to 37 acres

-         Fletcher Farm Road area (from Burritt Rd. north to Charlotte Rd.) is 1 unit to 12 acres

 

George said the applicant was dealing with density by the placing the homes out of site.  Lisa felt that recent discussions regarding density in other areas of town have shown that if more room is wanted for individual sites, then density needs to be lowered.  If more density is wanted, then the homes need to be clustered.  George said this plan takes into consideration land forms; he described the area and contours.  He feels this is a clustering of a sense; the fields are kept open and forest management can continue on a larger piece.

 

Bill Marks asked about the northwest quadrant, whether there was a suitable area for septic.  George said no, that a pipe would have to be run through a wetland to accommodate that, nor could it have its own septic due to space issues.  Bill felt the issue of preserving an area’s character and wildlife habitat did not only concern visibility of homes.  He felt the issue of preserving the wooded corridor on the south side of the lot, as a unique connecting piece of land, was more important.  He felt keeping house lots out of the woods left them less vulnerable to clearing by landowners.  Frank Twarog of the Hinesburg Trails Committee said Baldwin Road was an important recreational source for the people in that area, used for foot traffic, bicycling and horseback riding.  Dennis said he felt the applicant did a good job with the road placement along the contours of the land, and also with the placement of house sites.  He liked the idea of putting lots in the woods so they can’t be seen. 

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  Greg asked if the hearing should be left open as 2 other members of the board were not present at this evening’s hearing.  The group discussed this and felt enough public testimony had been submitted for all board members to continue to participate in a discussion/vote.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Conditional Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure –Shadow Lane Road– Applicants: James and Patricia Carroll

**continued from the July 10th meeting

Ted explained the applicant could not be at tonight’s meeting.  Ted MOVED to continue the hearing to the August 21st meeting.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Site Plan Revision – Route 116 – Applicant:  Paul MacCluskey, Hinesburg Auto Sales

**continued from the April 17th and June 5th meeting

 

Alex explained that the zoning violation appeal had been rejected by the DRB.  Tonight’s hearing was to address the violation issues which Paul MacCluskey addressed as follows:

 

Car washing – He explained he investigated this with a State compliance department.  Referring to an Environmental Fact Sheet, he said the State was not concerned with washing cars in any number lower than 30 (he is permitted for 27 cars).  Alex said he also reviewed the sheet and pointed out the guidelines were for discharging to surface waters, with the expectation that the discharged water will receive some kind of treatment.  Paul explained a plan in which cars would be washed near the back of the lot with water planned to run off into a grassy area approximately 10 feet by 12 feet.  He said it flow there for treatment, then move to ditches on either side of the area, running back toward the front of the lot.  Steve Giroux commented that the southern ditch had been filled in with cars parked on top.  Lisa asked if all 30 cars would be washed in one day.  Paul commented about dust.  He said the cars come detailed (well cleaned) to his lot.  He said currently they are washed at Hart and Mead and once they get to the lot, the dust is cleaned off occasionally.  Lisa was concerned about the frequency of washing.  Ted asked for clarification on whether the cars are rinsed for dust only or if they would be washed there (the question was not clarified.)

 

Landscaping – Paul said the island previously planned for the middle of the lot would be removed; only 27 cars would be on the lot with no additional parking spaces.  He showed a reconfiguration of the cars as well as new landscaping near the front (NW corner).

 

Dumpster – Paul said a dumpster would be placed in a screened area at the back of the building, with enough access for a truck.

 

Additional landscaping – Paul is requesting to wait to put in additional landscaping until the boundary dispute is resolved.  Dennis asked if cars were parked in the disputed area now.  Paul said yes.  The dimensions of the lot were discussed, as was the driveway entrance location.

 

Ted asked for clarification on the disputed area, as he believed no plans have ever shown the area to include parked cars.  The group commented on both the approved plan and the new plan and agreed that both showed no cars in the area under dispute, but the cars are parked there in reality.  Alex pointed out that there is more landscaping shown on the approved plan than is now on the new plan, due to where the State ROW begins.  Steve Giroux did not feel any plan could be approved until the boundary line dispute could be settled.  He said the current lot configuration may be deceptive as a visual indicator of a future configuration, as cars are currently parked in a disputed area.  Peter added that if a new plan was approved and the cars never moved out of their current location, it would result in an instant violation.  George Bedard felt a site visit to the lot was appropriate.  Zoë asked that cars be moved into their planned location(s) for a site visit.

 

Lisa asked about the grassy area proposed for water treatment, noting the state document specifically says water has to stay in the grassy area.  She asked if the applicant was essentially proposing a “bowl” for the area, so the water never goes into the ditches.  Paul said the water would not be specifically contained but felt it would naturally seep down into the grassy area.  He now said it would not likely travel into ditches as they were uphill.

 

Paul raised a new issue regarding a request to do light mechanical work at the site.  Alex explained this as a request for a conditional use change.  The group discussed and agreed the request should be submitted separately from the present hearing.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the hearing until August 7th, with a site visit to occur on the same date.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.  The group requested that the cars be moved to the location indicated on the revised plan for the site visit.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road – Applicant: – Richard Elkins - Owner: Mark Giroux

Background Information from the Staff Report:

Mark Giroux is requesting Sketch Plan approval as a 3-lot subdivision in the RRII Zoning District.  The subject parcel is approximately 18.5 acres, and is located on the North side of Texas Hill Road (THR).  This first hill on THR extends to the north through this property, effectively dividing it lengthwise into two areas, one to the west and below some steep ledges, where a mapped stream and wetlands are located, and the other eastern portion, with much gentler grades of 10% or less and another mapped stream near the eastern side boundary.  Issues covered in the staff report are density; road access; and the presence of a deer yard.

 

Richard Elkins pointed out land features including stream buffers and a small cedar stand.  He described a logging road/trail and also a gravel based road, with power running along it to within 100 feet of a well.  He described the three proposed house sites.  Two would be smaller and wooded.  The third would be more open, with Adirondack views.

 

Susan Miners, an adjoining neighbor and Richard talked about the trail location.  House sizes were discussed; Alex explained the DRB had no control over housing types or sizes that were constructed on a site.  Richard Jordan, another area neighbor, discussed traffic and noted wildlife areas.  He said he was concerned about his well; he and Richard E. discussed the ledge area(s) and test perk holes that had been dug.

 

Ted MOVED to continue the hearing until August 7th, with a site visit on the same date.  Interested parties should meet at 5:45pm.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

Other Business:

Thibault Subdivision

Greg MOVED to approve the draft decision as written (APPROVAL).  Lisa SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Hoke/Quackenbush Subdivision

The following items were discussed by the group:

-         The forested areas, specifically how best to preserve contiguous areas for both an east-west corridor and north-south corridor.

-         The CC correspondence

-         The road location, driveway locations and possible alternatives

-         Dropping the proposed number of sites from 6 to 5

No action was taken; the group agreed to continue deliberations at the next meeting.

 

LaPlatte Headwaters Project (both applications)

Building envelopes for lots 4A, 4B and 4C were discussed.  It was agreed agricultural separation language should be added to documents concerning the lots, as well as tightening the building envelope for 4A.  The group discussed lot 2B and the alternative home sites.  They agreed to allow for the two sites to remain in the plans, but also that the lot(s) should have the envelopes tightened to the back (north) where the land slopes off.  No further action was taken.

 

The next DRB meeting is August 7th.  Site visits to the Giroux property on Texas Hill Road and also to the Hinesburg Auto Sales location will also take place on August 7th, at 5:45 p.m. and 6:45 p.m., respectively.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:  

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary