TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
August 21,
2007
Approved September 4, 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), Gerald Newton, Lou Mulieri, Jamie Carroll,
Harold Sachleben, Wayne Sachleben, George Bedard, Jan Bedard, Kate Daly, Andrea
Morgante, Jeff Davis, Bob Stahl, Jeff Washburn, Peg Montgomery, Deborah Light,
Bob Kort, Bud Allen.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Conditional Use – Expansion of a
Non-Complying Structure –
**continued from the July 10th
meeting
Jamie Carroll said the lot’s address
should be
Stormwater issues were discussed. Alex explained his understanding of how a catch basin worked and felt this solution, if regularly maintained, would probably be sufficient. Tom felt the front yard setback was the main issue. Ted said he felt the footprint was still too large as compared to the original structure (a 280 sq. foot trailer versus a new 2000-sq. foot home) and felt setbacks were the main issue. He asked if the home had two stories; Jamie said yes but noted footprint size, not square footage, is mentioned in standards.
Jamie explained his rationale for the
house design, stating it was based on neighboring structures and lot sizes,
some of which had received conditional use and variance approval. He viewed those structures as indications of
what the DRB would approve. He noted
that the 20% rule had been eliminated since his application of 6 years
ago. Alex said that was correct and
explained guidelines including one requiring minimal modification to a
structure (although Alex believed this to be a new build). He said he felt Jamie was correct in his
findings regarding neighboring properties and their setbacks. Zoë asked if the camps started out with
larger footprints. Jamie said yes, but
noted he had the biggest lot, with the exception of the
In response to a reference about his deck (adjacent to the Carroll lot), Jerry Newton explained the deck was changed to go toward the road, but not expanded. He also said he was concerned the applicant’s leach lines would be too close to his. He said he is a seasonal resident and did not want to incur additional costs for septic improvements.
Lou Mulieri said he feels the proposed driveway may compact crushed stone and soil above the curtain drain. He is concerned about a house foundation acting like a dam, and also does not agree with using culverts instead of well-maintained ditches. He described conditions after a recent storm and thought water moved too fast through culverts. He would like the house site closer to the rear, as moving it forward (south) impedes on his lake views. Jeff Davis said he did not agree with Lou’s comments; he did not think crushed stone would compact and also thought the perimeter drain system around a new house would provide drainage around the foundation. He felt this house plan would be an improvement over the existing trailer.
Jamie said a site technician had located the best site for the leach field, which will be a raised mound. Jerry Newton did not feel it was the best location with regards to his property. Jamie agreed with Lou, stating he preferred to move the house back but said he had been led to believe that location would require a variance that would not be approved. He said he is looking for direction from the Board. Ted MOVED to close public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
4-Lot Major Subdivision PRD
Sketch Plan – “North Parcel”,
**reopened at the August 7th
meeting
Lisa Godfrey recused herself from the
board. Kate Daly of the Trust for
Regarding the artifacts found on site, authorities said a 10-meter buffer around the area must be established that allowed farming but no buildings or septic. She also pointed out how the building envelope had been tightened by pulling it forward away from the stream. She said her group still wished to apply for two potential lots but their hope was that the lot would be determined before the preliminary and final approval hearings. Ted felt the western site is now constrained; Kate said there is room to both the east and the south for a barn and a house and that restrictions would be relayed to potential buyers. Tom asked about the shape of the lot proposed to be 7.6 acres with a 15-foot strip. He asked whether a deadline for that subdivision should be established. George suggested making the 15 feet strip part of 2C now. Kate replied that it was, but will eventually join the Godfrey’s property. Tom would like to see that subdivision written as a condition of this application. Alex said the strip could be handled as a boundary adjustment right now. Andrea Morgante agreed that could be done. Ted felt an irregular lot should not be created, even temporarily. Peter agreed and noted you can approve an irregular-shaped lot but not a non-conforming one. He said a transfer involves a zoning permit, a deed and a sketch. Kate said they would pursue a land transfer now.
Ted felt the west building lot is the most visible due to its high elevation and is now irregular. He felt the Board should decide whether the western lot even works. Kate said she could indicate a house location on plans. The group discussed a house location, topography and the 75 feet setback from the stream. Lisa Godfrey reminded the group of the erosion near the stream and said staying farther away from it would be best. Tom asked if anyone had any problem going from 4-lot to 3-lot subdivision, with lot 2C as a future proposal; the group said no. Ted clarified that the only developable lot will be 2B, with one farmstead. Kate asked if the cemetery could be considered a suitable community facility. The group agreed this would be acceptable.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Lisa rejoined the board at this time.
8-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan –
Peter asked George Bedard whether ACT 250 would apply to this subdivision; George B. replied yes. He introduced an 8-lot sketch plan. He said a previous 16-lot PRD proposal had been denied on May 1st. He said the matter has gone to environmental court as an appeal and described this application as a desire to begin the process of mediation. He said he felt there was no clarity given with the denial decision regarding density for the parcel. He reviewed a plan used in the previous application to show how the parcel could be divided conventionally into 8 lots. He then showed an old 8-lot subdivision plan approved in 1999 and said it was used as a starting point for this new application.
George B. described each of the house sites and general topography of the parcel. Sites have varying grades of 10 to 20% and each has a plateau for building. Greg asked about the proposed access point, referring to the last application’s site walk; George described the access. He said the main difference between this and the 1999 plan is that home sites have not fractured a large wooded area. Ted thought it could be fractured in the future if land was in private ownership.
George B. talked about how the subdivision could be configured depending on what the DRB wanted to see. One idea is to divide the 53.7-acre parcel into 7 lots at 3 acres each, with one larger piece left. He is also open to a PRD proposal. Tom clarified that the 1999 plan had been approved for sketch but was not pursued by the applicant.
George B. addressed the comments from the staff report:
-
Access point; he has designed the road to curve off
- Wildlife; George addressed staff comments. Ted noted with 8 lots in a PRD, comments would be satisfied if a large amount of land in the upper portion were preserved.
- Septic and water; George said smaller lots (such as those in a PRD) require a common water supply. He described how septic systems could be provided for an 8-lot cluster with an additional wooded parcel approved for a future 3-lot subdivision. He showed where conventional septic was reserved on the Mawe property (capacity reserved for 8 lots) and also on the Barbour property (capacity reserved for 3 lots).
George B. said he needed to go through Act 250 because of his relationship with David Lyman, the original owner of the parcel.
Debbie Light asked whether a specific plan was being discussed. George B. said although his application is for 8 lots, he is introducing other ideas tonight. Tom explained sketch plan applicants were encouraged to submit more than one layout idea. Bob Stahl asked about the 1999 plan; board members confirmed that approval for that plan had expired.
Debbie Light felt the warning notice for the meeting went out too late and guessed there was a low turnout at the meeting as a result. She said while she appreciated a lower number of units than the previous proposal but still felt the density of the project was too large. She noted there were fewer houses around Hayden Hill East in 1999 when the first 8-lot proposal was approved. She felt a mini development that was out of character for the area was now being created.
Jeff Washburn, who has a nearby beekeeping operation, wanted to see a forested wildlife corridor maintained. He was concerned about the impact on the water supply in the area; he said he is on the upslope that feeds the development. George said with a drilled well, water sources are not connected. He said Jeff is taking surface water at a higher elevation and the development would be taking water from further below the ground. Jeff said the water was all part of the same aquifer all coming off the same watershed. George said the state has thresholds that require water testing but he is not sure his proposal will trigger those. Alex noted neighbor comments regarding a general water supply problem in the area. George said he would tie the issuance of a building permit to a contingency that water be proved for a cluster of homes. He said the state is going to require a certain number of gallons of flow and storage. If his proposal goes in the direction of a PRD, he said he would prove water supply.
Gerry Livingston asked whether a PRD would leave the possibility open for more than 8 lots. George felt open space land should have a caretaker and that the land be approved for further development using the septic rights he has reserved. Gerry asked about alternative septic sites; George said the site reserved on the Mawe property is for primary and replacement systems. He said new septic rules require a built system designed for 2300 gallons a day.
Tom suggested board members take the matter up in deliberative session and also to continue the hearing. George reviewed his proposal again; Ted asked whether this was actually an 11-lot subdivision. He asked whether the land to the east outside of the lots should be left in common land, or included in the lots’ acreage. The group discussed how the 8 lots could be configured. Lisa mentioned road length as an issue. Debbie Light asked about procedure. Ted explained the meeting would be kept open and continued. Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan hearing to October 2nd. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Conditional
Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure –Sunset Lane West –
Applicants/Landowners: Wayne and Harold Sachleben
Wayne Sachleben said he and his brother have a 40-year old non-conforming structure, a house set back 53 feet from the lake. They are proposing a 12-foot addition and stoop, which he said will stay within the present setback from the lake. They would also like to add a closet. The total addition would be 285 sq feet, added to a house now 780 sq. feet. Ted felt this was an appropriate conditional use proposal. Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
2-Lot Subdivision Final Plat
Review – Corner of
Leslie Morrissey reviewed a map
of the 13-acre parcel and said the northwest corner of the property is partly
in
Ted MOVED to close public hearing and accept the final decision as amended (APPROVAL). Alex noted an issue with the Burlington Free Press warning and said the hearing has to be kept open. Ted withdrew his first motion and MOVED to continue the public hearing to September 4th. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Other Business
Tom MOVED to enter into executive
session in order to discuss a legal matter with Bud Allen regarding the
Greg MOVED to adjourn from executive session. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Minutes of the August 7, 2007
Meeting:
Greg MOVED to approve the August 7, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0, with Ted and Lisa abstaining.
Peter explained two minor site plan revision requests, both of which did not require a formal vote. NRG would like to install lighting on the south side that is the same as existing lighting. CVU would like to put another metal storage facility behind the softball field. It would be backed up to a bank and painted green. The group agreed these revisions were OK.
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
The group came out of deliberative session and took the following actions:
6-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Baldwin and Burritt Roads – Applicants: Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush
Tom MOVED to approve the sketch plan as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-2, with Greg and Lisa opposed.
Variance and Conditional Use
Approval of a Home Occupation –
Tom MOVED to approve the decision as
written (DENIAL). George SECONDED the
motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Lisa and Ted abstaining.
Lisa left the meeting at this time.
Site Plan
Revision – Route 116 – Applicant: Paul
MacCluskey, Hinesburg Auto Sales
Tom MOVED to approve the decision as amended
(DENIAL). George SECONDED the
motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Subdivision Revision – Final Plat Review –
Zoë MOVED to approve the decision as written. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Ted abstaining.
Giroux Subdivision – no action taken at this time.
The next DRB meeting is September 4th. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary