TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

October 2, 2007
Approved October 16th, 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), David Trevithick, John Goettelmann, Connie Kendall, Don T., Dan Baldwin, Matt Baldwin, Mary Baldwin, Bill Marks, Gary Mawe, John Berino, Rob Farley, Bob Linck, Bob Stahl, Bill Maclay, Brian Leet, Mike Charney, Peg Montgomery, Bob Kort, David Blittersdorf, Kevin Worden.

 

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

 

Minutes of the September 18, 2007 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the September 18, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7– 0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Applicants: Mary and Peter Baldwin

**continued from September 18th, 2007 meeting

 

Observations made at the Oct. 2nd site visit were recorded.  Attending the site visit were DRB members Tom, Ted, Lisa, George, Dennis and Zoë; Matt, Dan, Mary and Peter Baldwin; Alex and Bill Marks.  Tom said the group started up the proposed driveway and cut through the woods to Lot #2.  They noted the locations of the house site and proposed septic and replacement septic sites.  Visibility to surrounding areas was noted, as was the lack of any agricultural land (pasture) on the property.  The group walked the driveway over to Lot #3.  The group saw the ledges that were shown on the site map.  Tom said both house sites were cleared.  Ted said they went back to the road cut to observe the sight distances.  The grade of the driveway was discussed.

 

Greg asked if there were plans to pave the driveway; Matt said no.  Zoë asked about house design/size; Matt said two-story, 4-bedroom homes were planned.  Ted did not think visibility of homes would be an issue.  Matt described the brush vegetation around Lot 2, that some would be cleared but not the trees in the back.  He said the Lot 2 house would be seen somewhat in fall/winter, but not the Lot 3 house.

 

Tom described a the density issue due to the main farm not being under the same sole ownership of the 10-acre parcel.  Tom thought the house sites fit into the landscape and were well thought out.  Zoë thought if lot lines were erased and the parcel was considered part of the shared landscape, this area would make the most sense for house sites.  She was not sure how much latitude the Board had to make the connection between the farm and this parcel, and she did not wish to set a precedent for splitting up a 10-acre lot.  Ted thought the connection could be made in two ways: 1) this development was intended for family members who actively work on the main farm and 2) the main farm is partially owned by the applicant.  He did not think it would set a precedent due to those unique circumstances.

 

Greg said he thought the circumstances of the family building a family compound for specific reasons, and with clear intent to preserve the adjacent farm, were highly unique and acceptable in justifying the subdivision.  Lisa thought the board had to be careful not to burden a farm lot with the perception that it is being used to transfer density.

 

Matt Baldwin spoke representing his parents Peter and Mary.  He said the other half of the family (who has 50% ownership of the main farm) has not attended the DRB hearings and do not appear to have an issue with the application.  Bill Marks with the Conservation Commission thought there might be visibility issues with the house site and suggested attention be paid to exterior color, materials, etc.  He noted density as the primary issue, and said he thinks the state looks closely at proposals where identity of land ownership may be an issue.  He does not think that applies here though, and generally agreed with board member comments.

Dick Jordan asked about the driveway grade, whether run-off might affect the replacement septic field.  Ted thought engineering plans would investigate that.  Greg noted a big trench to the east; Matt agreed that trench is where the water will go.  Tom said a stormwater plan would have to be done.  Matt described a swale at the top of the driveway, that followed along down the driveway to a trench near the road cut, where water would be channeled east.  Lisa asked how long the driveway was.  Ted said he thought the house sites were where they need to be and required a long driveway.  Alex said the applicant will try to meet the 10% grade standard, but that there may be a short stretch where it might exceed that.

 

Tom MOVED to close the meeting and direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Greg SECONDED.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Conditional Use – Business Operating Hours – The Paisley Hippo - Firehouse Plaza – Applicant: John Goettelmann

John Goettelmann said he would like to explore the option of opening a seventh day, but there is no planned date to do so now.  He said the Paisley Hippo Sandwich Shop has been in business six months Greg asked about the adjacent business, The Dragon House restaurant.  John said it is open until at least 9 pm, probably 10 pm on Fridays and Saturdays.  His shop’s hours are now 11 am to 8 pm.  Alex said Firehouse Plaza use hours are 6am to 10pm, and noted when the conditional use permit was issued for the original business at this location, it was for the full range of hours (allowable in Firehouse Plaza); a seventh day would have the same hours.

 

Greg asked that Conclusion #1 state that an adjacent restaurant has approval to be opened until 10 pm; he also asked to reference the hours in Order #1.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended.  Ted SECONDED.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

8-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Texas Hill Road (south side) – Applicants: – George and Jan Bedard

**continued from August 8th, 2007 meeting

George Bedard clarified the application (considered Plan #2) is a renewed version of the 1999 plan (Plan #1), an 8-lot subdivision with sites ranging from 3.4-acres to 12 acres.  He presented two alternate plans for review.  Plan #3 is an 8-lot subdivision with 1400 feet of road, 1.6 acres in the road, between 21-22 acres in the front lots and the balance of almost 30 acres in the back, as Lot #8, which would be a privately-owned building lot.  He said the Texas Hill Road (THR) road cut is planned not in the flat flood plain area but east of that.  A shared septic area is located on the Mawe/Foster property, and lots will have individual wells.  He said the shared system is smaller as it functions more like municipal water system with shared water capacity.

 

He described well yields in the area, which he said ranged from ½ to 2.5 gals.  He said on average the water is sufficient, that storage in the well casing or above ground storage provides what the state requires.  Greg asked whether the staff report recommendation to require drilling to prove yields had been applied to any previous DRB applications.  Peter cited Section 6.7 of the Subdivision regs.  Members discussed other projects and what the board has done in the past.  Alex cited the Stuart application in which the issue was raised, and also the Stanlonius decision which stated a requirement about addressing the issue at preliminary.

 

George addressed density, describing what he thought was an appropriate calculation method – to take a zone’s minimum lot size and divide into the parcel’s acreage.  This plan would divide lots into an average of 6.5 +/- acres, each with building envelopes and screening buffers.

 

Regarding municipal/emergency services, George said although the property is approaching the town line, the area is heavily developed up until this property and also back down to Huntington.  He said this is not putting a new, unused demand on services.  He said Hinesburg shares mutual aid with Huntington and this development would put more people amongst those who already enjoy it.  He noted a map attached to the road standards that showed THR. as a “collector”(a more heavily-traveled road), not a “rural” road, connecting the two towns.

 

Greg noted many of the issues surrounding this application appeared with the February application (that had been denied).  George agreed but stated the lot layout is different.  He the reviewed Plan #4, a 12-lot PRD which had the development’s road in the same location with the addition of a small spur close to the THR entrance.  A large lot within this plan would qualify for the state forest management plan.  Greg thought the 8-lot plan was more attractive in his opinion and asked George which plan he preferred.  George said the PRD would change the water plan, as it required a greater number of shared solutions with more front-end expense, which would in turn, require more lots to make it work.  He said the 8-lot plan is simpler.  Dennis asked about sewer and George noted available locations.

 

Peg Montgomery, an area neighbor, asked about the state forest management program.  George said although the large lot would not be sold with a requirement to be in the program, it had more than enough acreage to qualify.  Bob Linck, an area neighbor, said he thought all the proposals had too many lots for the land that is left.  He said there is much anecdotal evidence that the parcel contains a north south wildlife corridor.  He said whether Texas Hill Road is a connector road or not, many people do not want to see it paved.  He said it is getting difficult to enjoy the road recreationally and felt these developments will push that over the edge.  He did not wish to see a density allowed that is greater than the average density in the area.

 

John Berino, an area neighbor, disagreed that THR is heavily developed and asked the appropriate density for housing was on a very rural road.  He said he is assuming public comments from the February application will stay in the record and be taken into consideration.  He thought these plans go against town planning efforts.  Rob Farley spoke representing the Conservation Commission; he thought these plans do not propose an appropriate density for the area and should not be approved.  He said driller’s yields are not a dependable means in predicting future reliability, that a driller’s yield should be cut in half to understand what is sustainable.  He also said yields change over time as a well is used, typically decreasing without aggressive intervention.  He said an interference assessment needed to be done on the proposed wells, as to how they will collectively affect on the existing wells in the area.

 

Rob said the Commission generally preferred the PRD layout over the 8-lot plan, as it preserved the wildlife corridor and included one lot large enough for the current use program, but that the plan’s number of lots was still too high.  He included a personal comment about an increase in density and traffic along THR; he runs dogs along the road as part of his sled dog operation, and said he will be shut down from doing that if the road is paved.

 

Bob Court, a Huntington resident on THR, asked how a PRD proposal’s lot number could be higher than a conventionally divided subdivision.  Greg explained PRD versus strict subdivision rules.  George said previous land sales on THR had been the lowest on the market in their time.  He explained the rationale behind the PRD’s cluster design.  He said his goal is to bring in modest housing, with extra units paying for the infrastructure that will be needed.

 

Zoë asked what George felt to be the minimum number of lots needed to recoup expenses.  He thought both plans as conceived were at their minimum. He is requesting guidance from the DRB and would focus on 8-lot plan if the board did not wish to review two plans simultaneously.

 

Gary Mawe, an abutting landowner, expressed shock with the proposed plans and described actions (pump replacements, hydrofracting) he has had to take over ten years to maintain his own well.  He thought all of the issues brought up in the February review were still relevant.  Mike Charney, an area neighbor, said he has watched THR become developed over the years and he is comfortable with another development, seeing it as inevitable.  He said there are deer crossings everywhere that would not be impacted.

 

Bob Stahl, a Bishop Road resident, asked if the proposals would be limited to single-family lots; George said yes.  Bob Court thought any large lot should be proposed as common land, citing no lack of demand for smaller lots that shared common land.  Tom pointed out different schools of thoughts as to how best preserve a large piece of land.  Bob said he had done research and found nothing to support the argument that clustered lots sell for less, locally or nationally.

 

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

 

4-Lot Subdivision Preliminary Plan – Riggs Road – Applicants: – David and Jan Blittersdorf

Kevin Worden, an engineer for the project, reviewed a map of the proposal, noting changes from the last hearing.  He said there are four instead of three lots now, with no development proposed on the large lot.  He noted the discussion at the last hearing on a sustainable approach for houses in this development and the balance between retaining trees for visibility screening and clearing trees for sun.  Bill Macklay said his firm discussed where the tree line ought to be to attain both goals, and showed a new clearing line situated closer to the homes than previously, at about 50 feet from the NRG boundary.  Tom said he would like to see an elevation.  Kevin thought the new line left the houses less visible.  Ted asked how wide the remaining green area was; Kevin said it ranged in width from 50 ft. to 200 feet.  Lisa asked if trees that were surveyed over 8” in diameter would be cleared; Kevin said yes, some would, but that softwoods in the green area are 65 to 75 feet tall.  Bill reviewed a diagram “Site Section Views”, noting trees proposed to be left are as high as the houses.  Lisa agreed it was a priority is get as much solar gain as possible and asked how much electricity would be offset by having no trees in front of houses. Bill said the goal is to have net-zero energy use, and said shading is a concern due to the expense of photovoltaics.

 

Dave Blitterdsdorf made a proposal to have the tree line follow a dotted soil change line on the map.  Lisa said she agreed with maximizing solar energy use the village setting, in spite of some visibility of homes in the winter.  Ted asked how old the softwood stand was; Bill said about 40 years old and thought thinning the stand to encourage growth of remaining trees may be beneficial.  Peter said it was important to keep the stand dense to avoid wind damage.

 

Kevin said the access Road had not changed since the sketch plan.  He reviewed grade percentages and noted a T configuration that had been incorporate to accommodate emergency vehicles.  Alex said Al Barber has not had a chance to review plan.  He asked where the road width changed from 18 feet to 16 feet, whether it was at the bend; Kevin said yes.  Alex suggested retaining the 18-foot width around the corner and beyond.  Kevin said he would get together with Al Barber to discuss truck sizes and road requirements for them.

 

The proposed elevated path was discussed; Kevin said the project maintain the conditions of earlier subdivisions.  He described construction of path, stating it would be six feet wide with slanted railings so two riders could pass.  Alex said the proposed public easement (the pathway) should be shown on the survey.  David described the other components to the easement and what it will take to obtain permitting.  Alex said it is a matter of recording the location of the easement.

 

Don T. asked if there were plans for any wind turbines; the answer was no.  Dick Jordan asked about an 18-foot grade on Lot 4.  Bill said houses will likely be bermed into the hillside, and described size and height parameters.  Peter described how the Reiss development parcels were measured for building height requirements.  Dick noted an error in a measuring notation; the group agreed the number notation was incorrect, but the key was correct.

 

Tom MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval, with the modification of the clearing limit line to follow the dotted line as David proposed.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 7-0.

 

Conditional Use – Expansion of a Non-Complying Structure (Deck Addition) – Sunset Lane East – Applicant: David Trevithick

David explained he purchased a house and found later that the deck had been built without a permit and was too large (too close to the water).  He has since removed part of the deck to bring the size down to its original size.  The group discussed the non-complying aspects of the deck (setbacks and lot coverage.)  Tom asked about outdoor lighting; Dave said it is all concealed and downcast.  Dick Jordan thought there should there be a statement that the deck surface remain porous. The group discussed where that language applied.  Zoë thought the conclusion made in the Order #4 makes that assumption.  Peter said he would add language that said it should be maintained as an open structure.

 

Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve as amended.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business

Hackett Notice of Violation Appeal

Greg moved to approve the draft decision as written.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.  The group then moved to go into deliberative session.

 

The next DRB meeting is October 16th.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:17 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:  

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary