TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

November 6, 2007
Approved November 20, 2007

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

DRB Members Absent: George Munson.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Mike Martel, Denis Martel, Jim Collins, Mike Charney, Meri Charney, Kristi Brown, Tim Brown, Tonia Bouchard, David Bouchard, Judy Laberge (Charlotte), Louis Laberge, Brock Francis, Matt Laberge, Judy Laberge (Hinesburg), Andre Robert, Scott Johansen, Berthann Mulieri, Lou Mulieri, Wayne Bissonette, Gary Fenwick, Fiona Fenwick, Schuyler Jackson, Jon Thibault, Heidi Thibault, Rick Kelley, Rob Farley, Nathan Miner, M. Ron Charney, Richard Goldsborough, Matt Francis, Paul Marchelewicz, Robert Chalifoux, Carol Chalifoux, Jeff Olesky, Jamie Carroll, Adam Burritt.

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

Minutes of the October 16, 2007 Meeting:

Greg MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6– 0, with Lisa abstaining.

Appeal of Notice of Violation – Hayden Hill Road West – Appellants: Matt and Judy Laberge

Tom asked for comments regarding the recent site visit. Alex noted the following attendees, in 3 different locations:

1) On the Laberge property next to the track – Zoë, Dick, Greg; Peter, Alex (board/staff members); Matt and Judy Laberge, Tonia and Cooper Bouchard, Matt Francis, Brock Francis

2) At the Fenwick’s house in parking area – Zoë, Dick, Greg; Peter, Alex; Gary and Fiona Fenwick, Matt Francis, Brock Francis, Mr. and Mrs. Gauge

3) At the end of Chickadee Lane – Zoë, Dick, Greg; Peter, Alex; William Snyder, Lisa F., Brock Francis, Matt Francis

Greg said weather was extremely foggy, extremely damp, with more foliage than usual at that time of year but less than in summer. He said ground conditions were wet. Alex said 4 dirt bikes were ridden, by 3 children and 1 adult; the bikes had these specs:

50 cc 2-stroke, ridden off the track in the grass

65 cc 2-stroke

85 cc 2-stroke

250 cc 4-stroke bike, ridden by Matt Laberge

Alex said he used the town decibel meter to measure decibals at the 3 sites. A range of readings were taken at the Laberge site close to the track, with an attempt to get the peak values by bike. Readings ranged from 72 to 85 decibels when the bikes were nearby. The meter did not record any specific decibel level for the 50 CC bike as it was away from the group. For the other 3 bikes, the following spikes were recorded, when bikes were nearby the spectators.

65 cc – 76 spike

85 cc – 85 spike

250 cc – 80 spike

Alex said the meter did not register any decibel readings at the other locations (the machine did not pick them up). Greg said smaller bikes produced a higher pitch sound which to his ear was more annoying than the larger bike. Zoë said the sound of a chainsaw was discernable at the Laberges; she was not sure if that had an impact on decibel readings.

Tonia Bouchard said her son was riding the 65 cc. She noted gunshots coming from the Lincoln Hill area, and also the sound of a goat, audible through the motorcycle riding. She thought there were a lot of outdoor activities going on at different properties. Brock Francis said the goat is 200-300 yards away on the Francis property.

Schuyler Jackson, an abutting neighbor on Lincoln Hill Rd., did not think the site visit was representative of the initial complaint. He said in June the noise heard at his property coming from the Hayden Hill area was horrendous. He thought there were a lot more vehicles running, with noise that was sustained and very disturbing, noting he had to retreat inside his house. He thought the site visit was different; he listened from his property and did not find the noise to be annoying. He said sometime after the zoning violation was issued, the noises became fairly tolerable, in terms of the frequency of riding and the less sustained nature of sound. He thought if the track was going to be regularly used (scheduled), and used by people other than family members, then it should be a conditional use (and permitted as such).

Matt Laberge said they did have more kids riding in the beginning of the summer. He said once they were issued the violation, they did make changes such as limiting frequency and also who could use the track (it was kept to immediate family and a couple friends); he said that is what they have been doing since. Scott Johansen said he also rode motorbikes on his property on Lavigne Hill Road; he noted he had attended the Select Board noise ordinance hearings, and that the Board had asked participants to review the Williston noise ordinance (WNO). He thought the LaBerges would meet the Williston ordinance requirements of 55-65 decibels on average over one hour. He described how to calculate a one hour average. He said due to the nature of the track, the sound of motor bikes goes away for an entire minute, comes back, and then goes away again. He said he does not believe the Hinesburg regulations are written in a way that motor bike riding had to done as a conditional use. He thought the SB meeting showed that residents don’t want a noise ordinance.

Greg said he did some legal research of published cases that were similar. He found two that involved tracks or objections to use of such a track. One in Ohio found that decibel levels above 65 made it hard to carry on a conversation in distances of 1 meter or less. A second case in Louisiana cited statistics from an EPA study on sound: a 60 decibel level would produce moderate interference with normal conversation, and 9% of the public would be annoyed; a 65 decibel level would produce a significant interference and 15% would be annoyed; at 75 decibels, 25% would be highly annoyed. Dick asked if the studies referred to constant noise. Greg said he was not sure. Ted said other industry standards usually refer to constant levels. Dennis asked where decibel readings were taken; Alex described locations.

Brock Francis said he researched how sound decays over distance and found that, on average, outdoor sound loses 3-6 decibels over every ten meters. He asked whether the track was the issue or the motorcycles themselves. He thought any research from other places should not be taken into account. Matt Laberge thought the issue was over motorcycle use, and asked if other recreational vehicles would be subject to any ruling.

Rick Calley, a North Road resident, asked if the DRB decision would affect everyone in Hinesburg. Tom clarified the DRB decision was as to whether the board agreed with the ZA decision. Alex said it was not a violation related to a conditional use and was only limited to this one property. Tom noted there are performance standards in the Bylaws dealing with noise, dust, vibrations. Rick suggested this case would drive other cases. Tonia B. said one of the questions raised about the site visit was whether the bikes were riding at the usual performance. She said her son was struggling in the mud and that his bike was revved much louder and longer in duration than usual. She said recreational vehicles are not classified individually but as a group; that’s how they are sold. Tom said the board is looking at an appeal on a decision by the Zoning Administrator. Scott Johansson asked the group to consider the intent with which the performance standard (in the Bylaws) was written. He said the beginning of the standard describes hazards, that it’s there to protect us from people who are being unreasonable. He suggested this was not unreasonable as it did not create a hazard for neighbors. He thought discussion of decibel levels was out of context, stating Hinesburg did not have a noise ordinance, that the regulation was about hazardous nuisances.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The PASSED 6-0, with Lisa abstaining.

Subdivision Revision to Final Plat - Boundary Line Adjustment – Texas Brook Road - Applicants/Landowners: Mike & Meri Charney and John & Dianne Kaiser

Mike Charney reviewed a previous easement agreement with the Kaiser family. He said both parties now wished to do an even property swap of .31 acres. Ted said no new lots were being created and felt the change addressed an original concern. Mike said the only request the Kaisers had for the swap was that they did not want a no-clearing stipulation for the land they were receiving. FOF #10 of the decision was discussed. Peter did not feel the request was an issue. Mike said they will not cut anything in the well shield protection area. Ted recommended adjusting FOF #10, stating in effect that no restrictions existed previously on the property the Kaisers were receiving, and should not be placed on it now. Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to modify conditions of approval. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Conditional Use Review – Camp Conversion – Shadow Lane - Applicants/Landowners: Jeff & Jean Davis
Tom noted some DRB members were familiar with the Davis property from previous site visits. Steve Vock from Civil Engineering Associates spoke on behalf of the Davis’s. He described an initial goal of the project, to improve the entrance location where grades are currently close to 24%. Greg asked if the road had been improved since previous DRB hearings; Steve said no. He said the sight distance down Shadow Lane was good, due to the straight alignment of the road, but that the approach needed work. He proposed to balance out the overall profile, from a grade of around 16% to 8%, noting the overall average grade will stay the same but the road will be flattened out. Jeff Davis said the road would be raised about 6-9 inches where it met the road’s driveways. He said they talked to the neighbors to understand that that limiting factor (how much fill could be placed in front of individual driveways) and said they worked backwards from that. Greg asked about snapshots (profiles) showing the grade in increments. Steve said those were available for review, and also indicated a chart on the map with proposed profile stationing.

Steve described current drainage on site, noting water that comes down the roadway now stays on the roadway, causing rutting. He said they are proposing improvements to the drainage features, with a 2% crown on the road and better culvert maintenance. He said water discharge goes from west to east, with contours running perpendicular to Shadow Lane. They are proposing to crown the road, so that water will discharge into enhanced grass line drainage swales, with some culverts replaced. He said they looked at discharge levels and found swales to be in generally good condition because a huge quantity is not flowing into them. He said it was important to reestablish the swale vegetation and proposed using mats to protect them from erosion as vegetation came in. He did not think swales needed to be lined with stone. Lisa asked about treatment at the bottom of the road (before water discharged into the lake). Steve said there was not a lot of room and pointed out where they are proposing to replace a culvert with a stone dispersement area. Lisa asked about the culvert, whether it ran across the Davis property. Steve said there were some breaks in it; Jeff clarified culvert location and open areas. Lisa asked if there were any opportunities for more grass areas instead of culverts; Jeff said there was no room between his property and the Newton property, but was not sure about upstream. Jeff said in the biggest rainstorms the culvert had never been more than half full. Alex said there were sections above the Davis property where a channel has eaten into the road.

Greg asked if the road eventually met the shoreline. Jeff said yes, it was a gravel road with no grassy area that some people used as a boat launch. The stone dispersion pad was discussed; culvert water would run through the rough stone pad, dissipating its velocity; it would then run through a grassy area. Steve described dimensions of the pad, noting there was not a lot of opportunity for other treatment. He mentioned a small town-owned parcel along Shadow Lane. Alex said he discussed with the Select Board, the possibility of using the parcel for water treatment. Steve said although it was small, it may provide an opportunity for dissipating water in a well-contained, curved fashion (bring water in and out, curving back to the swale). Tom noted its use would be limited to the south side.

Lisa said if grassy swales were proposed for other properties, Jeff could do the same on his property. Andre Robert described his culverts and their use. Steve said the road width varies from top to bottom; he described how measurements were taken and that generally the average road width is 13 feet. His recommendation is to widen to a minimum of 14 feet everywhere, and to also greatly increase the turning radius at the bottom.

He said there are 22 properties; 9 are year-round, 5 have been allowed conditional use and a few are undeveloped. Greg asked if any improvements were to take place outside the ROW; Steve said no. He described the sight distance from top to bottom, noting drivers could see another car immediately. They are proposing a turn-out in the center as a bypass area for cars. He thought, combined with visual sight distances, this would be effective. Jeff said an increase in road width would increase impermeable surface and run-off, and so they wanted to limit that increase to a minimum. Steve said they had located as many pins (property corners) as possible, in order to survey and make proposed map.

Lou Mulieri, a Shadow Lane resident, passed out materials. He said property boundaries were stated (in the application) to be approximate. He noted the proposal states that driveways will be restored to original conditions; in order to achieve this, he requested stakes to be placed before work was performed, with the opportunity for homeowners to review demarcations with engineers before work started. He discussed measurements previously taken by George Bedard, and described a comparison between the 2006 Bedard measurements and the 2007 CEA measurements. He does not think there is an improvement from the original grade changes proposed by Bedard in 2006 to the present proposed grades, and thinks there should be consideration of benchmark measurements. He discussed proposed swales, their width and depth. He was concerned that cars coming off the road into the ditch in the winter will now have to be towed. He requested stone-filled ditches. He also said the proposal posed a hardship on community members who have maintained the serviceability of the road, with greater maintenance expenses and extra plowing.

Jamie Carroll, a Shadow Lane resident, thought that if the Davis’s were willing to make improvements, the road would be more serviceable and not washed out as it is now. Mike Martell, a Shadow Lane resident, noted his home/driveway is close to the road. Jeff explained proposed improvements near his property. Mike asked if a 6-foot ditch would be installed; Steve described ditch improvements to get water off the road and into ditches. Andre Robert asked about the depth of the ditches. Steve said ditches are proposed to be about a foot deep in certain areas. Andre said he was worried that about the sliding factor down Shadow Lane, that it was near his house. Steve described how the road would be flattened and terraced.

Alex noted that a letter was received from Eileen Crawford. Dick asked about raising driveway levels. Beth Ann Mulieri asked if road could be staked so neighbors could see what will be changed. Steve said that could be done, with tape indicating new grades. Beth Ann asked why her culvert had to be removed. Steve said it could be looked at again to see if the cement culvert could be retained and incorporated. He said they would like to salvage as possible, and then enhance conditions. Andre asked about the change from concrete to plastic culverts.

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing until the December 4^th meeting, with site visit scheduled for Saturday, November 17^th at 9:00 am. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0. Steve said he would mark the outside of roadway on both sides where the finished grade would be, especially on the upper end. Ted suggested indicating proposed road widths with road paint.

4-lot Subdivision –Preliminary Plat Review – Route 116 & North Road (west side) – Applicant/Landowner: Everett O’Brien

Peter Lazorchak with McCain Consulting said he has taken over the project for Nick Knowlden. He summarized the project as a 4-lot subdivision, with lots are all 3-4 acres in size, relatively uniform in shape, with designated building lots. He described lot layout and access points. He noted all four lots have their own drilled wells and leach fields with various septic easements, and that project has received state wastewater permits. He said there are class III wetlands and drainages on the property, but the majority of the project is away from those. He noted an upgrade proposed for the entrance off 116, and also showed an erosion control plan. Greg asked if staff report concerns have been addressed; Peter Erb said yes. Alex noted the 15% segment of the road (that may be an issue to the fire department) is short, less than 100 feet.

Dick asked about landscape matting; Peter L. said it is left on site but is biodegradable. Alex said that type of matting is a standard, temporary piece of infrastructure. Peter L. said it will be used where there will be a significant earth work. Ted asked about driveway standards. Alex said there are no town driveway standards except that they have to be accessible to emergency vehicles. Robert Chalifoux, an adjacent landowner, noted a history of problems with the driveway entrance, describing wet spots and hill erosion. He said the grass and trees are holding the slope now, that it is stable. He thought if it were dug into again, it will be disturbed and will probably need to be stabilized again. Peter said they are proposing to cut the slope back to create a lesser slope, with erosion control matting to stabilize. Greg mentioned that a condition may be imposed on the owner of the lot with the slope that it be repaired if provisions don’t hold and slope erodes. Dick asked how many lots were served by the entrance; Alex said one now (Challifoux), one for new lot, and Bissonette future lot(s). Peter Erb said he had concerns about septic system locations. The goal was to keep the leach fields as close as possible to the houses that were using them. Peter L. said building envelopes prohibit encroachment on those septic areas for overall undisturbance of those areas.

Ted noted lot 4 did not have any septic on it. Alex asked Peter L. for an explanation of the difference between an at-grade system and a traditional system. He said an at-grade is built completely on the surface, that instead of placing a foot of sand, crushed stone is placed on the surface. He said typically a 6-foot wide bed with a distribution pipe is situated on the uphill side. At-grade systems are long and narrow unlike a mound system. Dick asked about freezing; Peter L. said the effluent is warm, and it is a pressurized system that does require rigid insulation in some areas, where manifold goes out to the field. The group discussed power supply.

Peter Erb asked about use and maintenance that would be allowable on lot 1 (how homeowner would know septic system location, liability issues, etc.) Peter L. said the main restriction is there can be no plantings in the area, but a mowed lawn would be OK. Homeowner’s association document language was discussed. Restrictions on types of plantings in easement areas were discussed. Dennis thought restrictions were likely no different from parcels using the town sewer system. Wayne Bissonette said deed documents will indicate a ROW where the septic lines are, and that the only place there would be a problem with plantings is over perforated pipes, not forced main pipes.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Other Business

Riggs Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval Extension

Tom MOVED to grant the Riggs an extension. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Dam Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval Extension

Tom MOVED to grant the Dams an extension. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Prue Variance Request
Ted MOVED to approve the decision as written (denial). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0, with Lisa abstaining.

Bedard Subdivision Sketch Plan

Peter noted an addendum to the staff report that provided more detail and references to the town plan that could be thought could be referenced in the decision. He discussed FOF #9 regarding collector road designation and emergency vehicle service to the area.

Greg MOVED to approve the decision as revised (denial). Zoë SECONDED. The motion passed 4-2, with Ted, Lisa, Greg, Zoë for and Dennis and Tom against.

The group went into deliberative session at this time (9:30); Peter also left the meeting at this time.

The next DRB meeting is November 20th. A site visit to the Davis property is scheduled for Saturday, November 17^th at 9:00 am. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary