TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

August 7, 2007
Approved August 21, 2007

 

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Susan Miners, Rob Jones, Richard Elkins, Carol Emmons, Francis Emmons, Jeff Padgett, David Carse, Landon Dennison, Alison Dennison, Mark Talbert, Paul MacCluskey, Patty Drew, Richard Jordan.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.

 

Minutes of the July 24, 2007 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the July 24, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4 – 0, with George abstaining and Tom voting with the majority.

 

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

**continued from the July 24th meeting

 

Observations from the August 7th site visit were recorded.  Tom said the group started at the access road, walked up to the building site on the west side, went further up through the woods to the building site on the east side.  The saw some test pits, walked up through the woods to the end of access road to the 3rd building site, which had western views.  The group then walked close to the northern boundary to a hemlock stand, then circled around to the woods on the lower west side of the property line.

 

Greg said he saw the site line to the left, facing east going up Texas Hill Road, where there is an S-curve; he noted that part of the curve is obscured when pulling out of the driveway.  Tom noted a deer stand on west side of the property, and hemlocks on the north and west sides.  Greg said he saw and existing power line that went along the length of the proposed lot.  The group also saw the existing drilled well.  Dick Elkins noted there was a septic tank and old leech field that have never been used.

 

Peter and Susan Miners thought a VAST trail might be on the parcel; Dennis thought not.  The group noted the northern boundary was posted.  Greg asked about the above-ground power line, whether it was put in before or after the town first required underground utilities.  Dick did not know but thought it was installed when one owner owned the lot.  He said electric utilities would go off from each pole underground.

 

Dick said he wished to develop 3 lots on the parcel, but is waiting for septic designs to see if 2 or 3 were possible (if only 2, the eastern or western lot would disappear).  Peter passed out a statement from John Gobeille from VFWD regarding deer wintering areas on the parcel.  Sight distances were discussed; Alex read from Vermont State Standard B71 which stated that a road with a posted speed of 35 mph would require a minimum sight distance for stopping of 225 feet, and for cornering, 385 feet.

 

Greg asked about proposed grades of roads, as he thought they might be steep. Dennis asked whether the Select Board would have to approve the removal of ledge.  Alex said yes, that road cuts and any related work on a town road are subject to Highway Department approval (overseen by the SB).  Dick thought about 3 feet of ledge needed to be removed.  Susan Miners said she felt the ledge cut would be appropriate due to speed of cars on Texas Hill Road.  Richard Jordan expressed concern about the western lot due to a steep slope there and also the small size of the lot.  He is also concerned about the water supply, stating his own well does not fill at a rapid rate.  He noted his well is 500 feet deep and has never run out but felt that was due to low water usage.

 

Zoë asked whether a driveway coming on to a private road needed to be flat before joining the road.  Alex said yes; the requirement is 20 feet of a grade less than 3% prior to intersection.  Zoë thought that might be an issue on the western road.

 

Tom MOVED to close the sketch plan hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Greg SECONDED the motion, but with the recommendation that the draft decision not necessarily be an approval.  The group discussed whether the application should be treated as a minor (a 2-step process) or a major (a 3-step process) subdivision.  Greg expanded the motion to direct staff to draft a preliminary sketch plan approval within a 3-step process.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Subdivision Revision – Final Plat Review – Hollow Brook Road – Applicant: Henry Carse

 

Alex explained this was a revision to a previous subdivision decision (rendered earlier this year on the Abbey Farm parcel, then owned by Rad Romeyn).  David Carse explained his father has since bought the property from Rad Romeyn and has a different plan for it.  He wants to erase the multi-lot subdivision lines previously approved within the parcel, and then combine the parcel (less one 4.1 acre lot) to land owned by the Carse Family to the north side of Hollow Road.

 

Alex explained this decision would be a 1-step process for the Board, and gave sample language for how a decision could be written.  David explained that one 4.1 acre parcel would be created to include the original farmhouse.  He said lot lines coincided with some of the lines from the Romeyn plan but now follow more natural points.  Alex said the decision should be written as a condition that the remaining land is transferred to an adjoiner.  David recognized it was a complicated process.  Alex said once the subdivision of the 4.1-acre parcel was approved, the transfer of remaining land could be done at the same time.  David noted the transfer would be done after the 1st of the year.

 

Greg asked about plans for the existing house.  Dan (the proposed buyer of the parcel) said he is going to rehab the house.  Greg asked whether a building envelope would be created.  David said one had not been proposed.  Jeff Padgett of Engineered Solutions (ESI) reviewed a map of the parcel.  Tom asked about another parcel in the area; David said Henry Carse had purchased a separate 22-acre parcel.  He said there are no plans to cut trees.  Tom asked about a certificate of occupancy.  Dan said it would not be occupied by first of the year, nor was he doing any addition(s), so a building permit would not be required.  The group talked about the order in which the various pieces of the proposal need to be completed.

 

David asked about a building envelope.  The group discussed the rationale for including an envelope; Greg thought one should be sited on a plan in case the existing house was removed, moved or destroyed, to ensure the best house site on the parcel.

 

Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions for approval. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5-0.

 

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

**continued from the April 17th, June 5th and July 24th meetings.

 

Observations from that evening’s site visit were recorded.  Tom said the cars on the south side had been moved and placed where they are shown on both the approved and proposed site plans.  He said the group saw the proposed car washing and drainage sites; the area proposed for drainage is currently gravel-filled but would be converted to a grassy area.  They saw the proposed dumpster site in the NE corner.  The group walked around the back of the lot where it was noted there is still some dispute over the lot line.  They said Paul pointed out where there would be additional landscaping (in the front NW corner). 

 

Greg spoke to the current boundary line dispute, stating that the Board could only render a decision based on the information provided by the applicant.  He warned that a boundary line adjustment resulting from a civil case could drastically change any Board decision.  Greg then pointed out conditional use criteria for motor vehicle facilities from Zoning Regulations, section 3.5.3, condition #12a, which states:

 

“Entrance and exit driveways shall be located not nearer than fifteen (15) feet to any property line unless the driveway is designed for shared access between two lots, and shall be so laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle leaving the property to back out across any public right-of-way or portion thereof.

 

Greg said there was no 15-foot setback to the edge of the driveway, that measurements taken at the site visit effectively put a setback line right on the existing driveway.  He felt that would affect the layout of the vehicles in the front.  George agreed, stating he felt the cars on the south side should be moved.  He explained how the site had been measured that evening, explaining if the required setback were sited to the back pin in the SE corner, the row of cars at the front of the lot would be in violation (effectively “cut” with a line down the middle), and would have to be moved to the north in front of the building. 

 

Greg asked about the boundary line dispute, whether any more clarification on the matter was available.  Paul explained that a formal mediation would take place on August 13th.  If the matter was not decided then, it would be taken up in court.  The group speculated that the worse case scenario for the applicant (as a result of court proceedings) would be the relocation of the 6 cars to the front.  Alex then reviewed both the previously approved and proposed revised site plans.  He said the lot lines are the same but the drive as shown was different.

 

The car washing area was discussed.  It was noted the wash area was low and would not naturally drain.  Paul agreed, stating it would require re-grading.  Tom asked if the lot could be resurfaced to minimize dust.  Paul said the dust was in part from Route 116, but he could pave the lot.  He added the washing products he would use would be biodegradable.

 

Patti Drew asked for clarification on the revised site plan, addressing items that were new to the plan such as car washing and the removal of the island.  She understood the property lines on the new site plan to be the same line as the old plan, and if that were the case, she felt there would be insufficient room for car washing, a dumpster, etc.  She asked how the second plan could be approved if the first one had the exact same boundary lines.

 

Tom said he felt the Board should wait to approve any new site plant until there is a decision on the civil dispute.  Patti Drew noted that if the 2nd plan were approved, the applicant would again, immediately, be violation of the site plan.  Greg felt the Board should take stock of what happens on the 13th, continue the revision request, and take some action if the matter goes out too long, with the understanding that any decision could be changed with new information.  George described the matter as a moving target.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to September 18th.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  Peter noted landscape plantings would be delayed if the matter were not resolved soon.  A vote was taken; George and Zoë voted NO.  Tom, Greg and Dennis voted YES.  The motion FAILED due to lack of a majority vote.

 

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.  Greg asked the applicant to keep he Board informed of any events.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Leavensworth Road – Applicants: Landon and Alison Dennison

Landon Dennison reviewed a map of his 24-acre parcel on north side of Leavensworth Road, pointing out an existing house and barn.  He is proposing to cut the parcel into two 12-acre parcels.  He said a building envelope of approximately 3 acres would be in the SE corner of the new lot, set back from the road to allow for some solar gain.  He felt the envelope would also allow enough space for the building of a barn or other outbuilding outside the envelope to the back.  Alex said the parcel was mostly meadow with no hedgerow, just open field.  Greg asked about the subdivision history of the property.  Landon said they bought the entire 24-acre parcel 35 years ago.

 

Tom said the main issue in the agricultural district is to preserve farmland.  The group discussed solar exposure, the difference between siting a house for active or passive solar and also other factors contributing to energy savings such as shade trees.  Alex noted deciduous trees in the south side.

 

Greg thought the 3-acre building envelope should be smaller.  Landon said he was flexible with how the envelope lines were drawn.  Tom noted that order #2 of the draft decision required the envelope be re-drawn to incorporate fixed points.  He suggested bringing the edge of the envelope closer to the road and clarified that did not mean the house site needed to be close to the road.  Greg asked if there was any issue regarding access.  Alex said the parcel was very level with good sight distances.

 

George MOVED to close public hearing and accept the draft decision as written (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

 

Variance and Conditional Use Approval of a Home Occupation – Richmond Road - Applicant: Mark Talbert

Greg stated he has used Mark’s vehicle repair service and asked if the applicant had any issues with Greg’s participation in the hearing.  Mark Talbert replied he did not.

 

Tom suggested reviewing the variance request first, which was based on a request to reconstruct a structure with a larger, non-complying footprint.  Mark explained his vehicle repair business, operated since 1995 in a 32 ft. by 28 ft. structure.  There was 960 square feet the 1st floor used for vehicle repair, with slightly less on 2nd floor used for storage.  A fire on April 11, 2007 destroyed the structure; the applicant is not requesting to rebuild it at 2000 sq. ft. in size.  He feels the building is the smallest size he can use to meet insurance requirements and also meet the requirements of his business.  He described front and side setbacks, stating the building needed to be at least 600 feet from other buildings other than his own (effectively impacting all homes in Triple L and about 10 other houses nearby).  .  He noted he would not meet either the front or side setbacks if a larger building were placed in the original location.  He wished to proceed in that location in order to use the existing foundation and because screening was already in place.  He said a location in the center of the property would come closer to meeting setbacks but would be more visible. 

 

Tom asked if he considered locating the business in any other area in town.  Mark said he had but described the economics of such a change as being unfavorable.  He was asked if any complaints had ever been received from neighbors regarding noise.  Mark replied no, noting he operated with the doors closed.  He described one major improvement of the new structure, with the addition of a paint booth that would be filtered and also contain a sprinkler system.  He said the extra space on the structure would be on the side of his house, to minimize setbacks.

 

Greg explained the Board could grant a variance only if strict conditions, as set forth by state statute, were satisfied.  Tom explained the Board would address each condition separately.  He confirmed if one condition failed, the variance as a whole would fail. 

 

Review conditions #s 1-5, set forth by state statute, Title 24, Chapter 117, Section 4469:

 

For conditions #1, #2, and #5, the group registered a unanimous “NO” vote.

For conditions #3 and #4, the group registered a unanimous “YES” vote.

 

Tom MOVED to deny the variance request.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed (denial) 5-0.  The request for a conditional use was withdrawn.  Peter explained that because this is a commercial use, the matter is not given the same terms of a request to replace a pre-existing residential building.  Mark Talbert said he felt the new design would be safer and less impactful, with the same intended use.

 

Other Business:

Hinesburg Land Trust LaPlatte Headwaters Conservation Initiative

**see July 10th  and July 24th meetings.

 

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

Alex passed out a request submitted by Kate Daly regarding the Bissonette project.  Her group would like the 4-lot subdivision hearing re-opened and continued, to facilitate the changes indicated in the request.  Tom MOVED to reopen the sketch plan hearing on Parcel #2 (the 4-lot subdivision to the north) for the August 21st meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – “South Parcel”, Gilman Road – Applicant: Trust for Public Land, ESNID LLC., Hinesburg Land Trust – Owners: Wayne and Barbara Bissonette

The group then discussed the 3-lot subdivision to the south, noting some corrections to the staff draft decision.  Greg questioned Order #3g regarding indoor lighting.  Peter explained it concerned the potential for greenhouses that might cast light at night.  Alex said he felt it was a moot point, as the state regulates farm buildings.  This also applied to Conclusion #6; the group agreed to drop the language in both places.

 

Greg questioned Order #2b; the group discussed views of buildings.  George felt the DRB did not have jurisdiction over this issue, as it was a farm building.  Conclusion #3 was discussed.  George disagreed with the idea that the barn had limited potential.  The group discussed whether the seller should put covenants on the barn indicating future approved uses.  The applicant has indicated that the Hines Barn will be used for agricultural uses only.  Alex clarified the Board has to decide if they want the barn to be used for anything other than ag uses. If they don’t, they have to describe why.  Peter feels the building needed to be included in the building envelope, as an envelope governs allowable uses.  The group discussed and agreed it would be taken up in later hearings.

 

Greg MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

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

 

The group discussed a potential vote on the sketch plan, and whether substantial conditions should be added to it (as an approval).  The issue of density was discussed, as were public comments and the previous application.  No action was taken on the matter.

 

Zoning Administrator term

Alex explained the Zoning Administrator position is a 3-year term as nominated by the Planning Commission.  He said the PC was looking for input from the DRB on whether they feel Peter Erb should be re-nominated.  Greg recommended Peter’s re-nomination and a majority agreed.

Hinesburg Auto Sales –

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the MacClusky matter.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0. 

 

The next DRB meeting is August 21st.

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

 

Respectfully Submitted:  

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary