TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

December 4, 2007

Approved December 18, 2007

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Dick Jordan, Greg Waples.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Lou Mulieri, Berthann Mulieri, Paul Marchelewicz, André Robert, Jean Davis, Jeff Davis, Jeff Olesky, Stephen Vock, Adam Burritt, Robert Wyatt, Alan Belcher, Marion Holcomb, Butch Holcomb.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.  Alex said the town of Hinesburg received recognition for its energy planning initiatives, as well as several awards from the Vermont Planners Association at their biannual conference last Friday (11/30).  The 2007 Outstanding Citizen Board award went to the citizen boards of Hinesburg, “in recognition of the volunteer boards, commissions, and task forces working together to plan a bright future for the Town of Hinesburg.”  Alex was also honored with awards for the Outstanding Professional Planner Award for Vermont (from the Vermont Planners Association) and for Northern New England (from the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planners Association – Maine, NH, VT).

 

Minutes of the November 20, 2007 Meeting:

Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended.  Tom SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5–0, with George abstaining.

 

Appeal of Decision by the Zoning Administrator – East Shore Lane – Appellants: Betty Wright and Alan Pratt

** continued from the November 20th meeting

 

Alex passed out a legal opinion he received from Bud Allen.  Board members and George Bedard (representing the appellants) reviewed the document.  Tom said the opinion upholds the ZA decision.  Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision.  George M. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Conditional Use Review – Camp Conversion – Shadow Lane - Applicants/Landowners: Jeff & Jean Davis

** continued from the November 6th meeting

 

A site visit took place on December 1st, with the following in attendance: Dick, Zoë, Dennis, Alex (DRB members and staff); Jeff Davis, Jeff Olesky, Lou and Berthann Mulieri, Eileen Crawford, André Robert, Jamie Carroll, Bob Fairbanks.  Zoë and Alex gave these observations of the visit:

Zoë said the group started at the top of the hill at Pond Road. Stakes were in place down to the end of the pavement, to show the proposed changes in road elevation.  The group discussed what those changes would look like and how they would affect the existing swales.  They talked about the proposal to increase the width of the mouth of the road.  They walked down the road using a site plan provided by the applicant and looked at each of the culverts proposed to be replaced or extended.  Alex said the group noted that Eileen Crawford’s culvert was heaved and cracked, but not indicated on site plan.  He said Lou Mulieri noted a utility pole in the area where the road was to be widened, and he questioned if enough room would be left for a swale.  Alex said André Robert does not want the culvert on his property removed as the site plan proposes.  The group noted a long culvert on the Martell property and nearby erosion on the south side of the road.  He said Jeff Davis described how the plan would address that.  Jeff also showed the location and dimensions of the pull-off.  The group noted a discrepancy between the height of the pull-off and the height of the road; Jeff said it would have to be blended.

 

Zoë said the group saw the Mulieri’s culvert and noted the Mulieri’s did not want it to be replaced as proposed.  She said the group saw the catch basin at the top corner of the Carroll property and noted it was not low enough and that water went around it.  Alex said the group saw the culvert system that spans across various properties and daylights at the Newton/Davis property line.  He said a footing drain by Davis property was depositing water near the culvert.  A drainage pipe was seen coming down the hill; Alex asked André if it provided drainage from his property.  Alex said the group finished at the bottom of the road and saw the area for the proposed stone swale and dispersion pad.

 

Tom reviewed the conditional use request.  He said following a previous request denial, Jeff Davis has undertaken engineering work and would like to finance some improvements to the road.  Tom asked how far short the improvements would fall in making the road meet current standards.  Alex said although the Vermont Environmental Court recognizes a town’s road standards might not be suitable for every road, camp conversion regulations require the board to find that this road meets an appropriate standard given the existing conditions of the area.  Tom confirmed the board could add road improvements not already stated in the proposal to bring the road to an appropriate standard.  Alex noted conditional use zoning regulations also need to be considered as well; he summarized by stating the board needs to find that the proposal brings the road up to appropriate standards for the area, and the criteria for conditional use are met.

 

Lisa asked whether the fire department will serve roads not meeting the 10% grade requirement.  Alex said yes, that Al Barber confirmed the department would not refuse a call for service on this road.  Ted said there is a difference between a new road being created and one that already exists.  Alex said although this road did not meet the 10% standard, it is an existing road with residents with 9 year-round residents and 5 camps, and it would be served.  Alex said Chris Morrell stated the police department would also serve the road.  Jeff Davis noted someone from the police department comes down every day to check neighboring property.  George Bedard passed out an email from Al Barber that pertained to the Dam application.  He summarized Al’s comments as stating it was ideal to make roads meet the 10% standard but that there was a need in the community for the department. to be flexible and serve roads not meeting that standard.

 

Steve Vock of Civil Engineering spoke on behalf of the Davis’s.  He said it’s important to focus on the fact that the road currently serves nine year-round residents who will be served by comprehensive improvements.  He feels the impact of converting the road does not outweigh the potential for improvements that will be gained.  He gave comments on the site visit and remarked on how road would be maintained year-round. 

 

Alex acknowledged letters received by the board: a letter of support from Jamie Carroll; a letter from Eileen Crawfrord expressing concern about her access and interface with the road; input from Lou Mulieri with similar concerns, whether improvements will make the road better or worse, as well as some concerns about the accuracy of the site plan.  Tom asked how much of the road would be paved.  Steve explained the existing pavement at the top of the road has to be removed; grade will then be adjusted, then the road re-paved.  Tom thought it would be an improvement to pave more of it.  Steve agreed but noted paving costs were very expensive.  He said the biggest improvement would be at the top of the hill because of the grade and the access.  He also reviewed proposed improvements to drainage.  Tom asked if the Davis’s were financing the entire project; Jeff said yes.  Tom noted neighbor contributions could either lower the Davis’s costs or add additional improvements or features.  Tom asked what assurances were in place that maintenance will be done.  Jeff said there was a formal road maintenance agreement as required by his application.  He said two groups of neighbors, one formal and one informal, took care of maintenance.

 

Berthann Mulieri asked about the re-grading and re-paving work at the top of road.  She was concerned about access and the potential for erosion, particularly during a sudden summer storm, while work was being done.  Steve said traffic and access to and from the development will be maintained at all times by the road contractor.  He said the work at that location can be completed in one day, noting at no point would there be substantial changes to the grade, only 1.5 to 2 feet.  He reiterated that bid documents would contain erosion control assurances, and that his engineering firm would do inspections.

 

Tom asked whether a third-party should review the engineering plan (on behalf of the town).  Ted noted substantial runoff into the lake, but also said he thought the top of the road is terrible and that leveling off that access to Pond Road would be a vast improvement.  He thought improvements make it better for everyone, and the plan, with some tweaks and additional engineering, could work.  Tom asked if any board member felt there was a fatal flaw in the proposal; no comment was registered.  Peter Erb offered a comment (as a citizen) that he would want to be assured that equipment brought to the work site would not get stuck and/or hinder access in any way.  He also thought that the decision should contain language pertaining to the road’s permanent maintenance, by the present and future owners of the Davis property.

 

Lou Mulieri read from his letter to the board.  He said he is generally in disagreement with the proposal.  He does not think the top of the road is as dangerous as is put forth by the applicant, and does not think grade changes at lower end of the road are improvements. 

 

All six board members gave general support for the proposal.  Zoë said she wanted to make sure neighbor concerns were protected.  Ted said not to compromise or change the whole design just to address every concern.  Lisa said she shared Ted’s concern about runoff into the lake and would like to see a proposal to address the problem.  George added that stormwater is a very serious matter; he said if the proposed improvements did not work, the applicant would be required to correct them.  Jeff passed out photos of rainstorm of 1”, stating there was not that much water present.  Ted encouraged the applicant to continue to work with neighbors.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to January 15th.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 6-0.

 

Revision to an Approved Final Plat – Lavigne Hill Road – Applicant: Viola Goodrich

Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator, said that the road constructed for the Viola Goodrich Subdivision, approved 7/10/07 was not in the approved location, however actually in a better one. He is recommending, under subdivision section 7.7.3, Revisions after Approval and Before Recording of Plat, that the changes be approved by the DRB. These changes are included on a revised plat, titled Viola C. Goodrich, Trustee, Sheet 1 of 1 and dated March 8, 2007 and on file in the Town Records. The approval also recognizes that a new Wastewater Design has been submitted to the state, and that a state permit for it will be obtained before the applicant receives a certificate of occupancy.

 

Ted MOVED to approve the revision as requested.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

3-Lot Subdivision/PRD – Preliminary Plat Review – Burritt Road – Applicant: Suki Flash

Ted reviewed the proposal for a minor PRD subdivision.  Suki said the staff report listed the parcel at 13 acres; she clarified it is 15.74 acres.  Ted said a 1-acre lot is being added, with an additional lot serving as open space.  Suki confirmed the open lot would remain undeveloped forever.  She reviewed a map, pointing out where a new access road would be sited, to follow along, but not share, a neighbor’s driveway.  Peter said Mike Anthony requested that both driveways share the same curb cut; Peter said the neighbor, Alan Belcher and Suki are in agreement with that.  Well shield areas were discussed.  Peter said state law prohibited requiring easements related to water on neighboring property.  Alex confirmed new waste water rules from the Agency of Natural Resources did not allow towns to regulate land around well areas.  The group talked about well shield areas, and situations when one property’s well location encumbers another.

 

Tom asked about the building envelope.  Peter said it reflects assumed setbacks and is moved away from nearby trees.  Lisa said although she does not like the long driveway she agrees with the creation of a retention pond situated above the driveway.  The pond location and water runoff direction was discussed.  Alan Belcher, the property owner to the west, said Suki offered to enlarge the culvert under his driveway; he said the driveway would have to be raised up as the existing culvert (newly installed this summer) is already the maximum size.  He agrees with the proposed retention pond and noted a slope from an existing pond to the east field.  He said water collects on his driveway now and thought more ditching would only mean more water.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

7-lot, 6-unit Subdivision/PRD – Preliminary Plat Review - North Road – Applicants: Anup and Sanghamitra Dam

George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants.  He noted a letter he submitted on October 31st in response to findings within the Sketch Plan decision.  There were no questions regarding the letter.  He then reviewed and gave responses to the issues raised in the recent preliminary staff report:

 

Road grade – George said he received email comment from Al Barber in which Al stated the fire department would serve roads not complying with the 10% road grade standard.  George said town road standards range up to 16%; he thought the general tone of Al’s response was one of flexibility in dealing with conditions that fell outside the standard.  George reviewed the access road and grades, stating a road design with a grade under 10% would be invasive, with more soil cutting and tree removal.  He said the maximum grade of a less invasive road would be 12.9%.  He said the road is 600+ feet to intersection at North Road, and pointed out features and infrastructure that existed in the area that affected the design of the road.

 

Peter reviewed the 10% grade discussion that has taken place among various town officials and staff.  Alex said the Select Board stated 10% is the standard, with allowances made for some roads to go up to 16%.  George B. said he is responding to concerns from the DRB following sketch plan review and has designed the road to keep a more natural appearance at the front of the parcel.  He said that could be better achieved with the 12% road.  He said a 10% road would be graded in a straight line, with cuts from top to bottom, and also bigger side cuts.

 

Power line easement - George B. said the sewer line would be located on one side of the stone wall/hedge, and the power line on the other, unless there was a way to combine the two utilities underground on one side.  He confirmed either way, the stone wall and hedge would not be removed.

 

Electrical and wastewater - George said access to electrical infrastructure won’t be under the road and will be situated as described above.

 

Forest management plan (FMP) - George said the land outside the open space forest protection zone is in a state land use program, and that its maintenance has met the requirements of that program’s FMP.  Peter said there was nothing in the subdivision language that guaranteed the landowners would stay in the program.  George said all but 12 acres of the parcel are in the FMP.  He said there may be a slight reduction of land in the program over time, but that landowners would have to pay for that land’s release.  He said any land in Lot 7 would be subject to DRB review for further development.  Alex clarified the land use plan is a voluntary tax abatement program that requires participants to have a professional forester devise an FMP.  He said that plan document has not been provided for this application as requested and subsequently staff does not know if desirable natural features have been protected in that plan.  George B. described the plan, noting there is some logging being done on the parcel.  He offered to submit a copy of the plan to the DRB and reiterated that the landowners would pay a penalty to leave the program.  Alex said language in that plan is unknown at this time, adding if the applicant were to come out of the program, the parcel could be logged in a way that was inconsistent with that plan as nothing now prevents that.

 

George pointed out deeryard boundaries and described tree types in the area (hemlock stands, open hardwood slope).  He says Lot 4 will have no impact on the deeryard.  Zoë said she is not concerned about that edge, but would like assurances about the area outside of open space forest protection zone, such as a condition to state that area could not be clear cut.  George said clear cutting could not happen, noting clear cut rules exist and said again the DRB must be consulted before further development.

 

Adam Burritt, vice president of VAST, thanked the Dams for allowing snowmobile access across their parcel to get to state land.  He asked George if they were willing to continue the trail agreement, noting it was the only access to the southern corridor right now.  George said he will bring the issue up with them.  He pointed out where the VAST trail goes; Adam said VAST currently maintains the road through the woods to Lincoln Hill Road.

 

Shallow wells – George said a Table E water test was done; with the exception of e coliform, all substances found were below the minimums.  E coli was found in two area wells which were then corrected (shocked).  He described neighbors’ uses of wells, noting the Hunter family was using a drilled well now.  He said the shallow wells need to be taken care of and used judiciously in summer.  He does not think the new houses will impact those neighboring wells and described foundations as not being that deep. Tom asked what the shortest distance was between any well and the houses; George said at least 200 feet.

 

Butch Holcomb asked whether the berm directly behind the fence was going to remain.  George said yes, the ditch will stay and a formal right in the form of a deed that protects that right will be given to the Holcombs, allowing them to maintain the berm.  George addressed water runoff coming from side of hill, stating it will be subject to a stormwater permit which addresses preconstruction flows on the property.  He described how extra water will be directed towards a pond as opposed to adding it to the Holkum property.  Culvert locations were discussed.  Peter asked whether directing water away from one area to address a 25-year flood would inadvertently affect or add to a potential 100 year flood.  He as also asked about directing water to gravel areas.  George B. said the focus is on where they have the biggest space coming down towards the road.

 

Ted summarized outstanding issues: how to treat stormwater, the road grades and the forest management plan.  Zoë asked about VAST; George B. was not sure if the Dams would be open to giving an easement.

 

Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval.  Dennis SECONDED to motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Other Business

Fritz 2-Lot Subdivision

Ted asked to remove the forest management plan language (H) and also Conclusion 5.  Tom MOVED to approve the decision as amended (approval).  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0, with Lisa abstaining.

 

Dam Subdivision
there was some discussion about a forest management plan for the area outside the forest protection zone, and also about natural features on the rest of the acreage.  Alex noted specific PRD standards found in section 4.5.7, #4A.  The access road was discussed, the aesthetic and safety concerns of 10% and 12% grades.  Board members agreed to pursue a 10% grade road with an 18 foot width.

 

Peter, George M. and Lisa left the meeting at this time (10:20pm).

 

Laberge Appeal of a Notice of Violation

Ted MOVED to the approve the decision as written (denial).  Tom SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-2, with Tom, Ted, Greg and Dick voting yes and Dennis and Zoe voting no.

 

The next DRB meeting is December 18th.  The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:  

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary