TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

December 18, 2007

DRAFT

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

DRB Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), David Carse, Peter Gibbs, David and Barb Lyman, Johanna White, Dorothy & Bob Blanck, Bob Wood, Brett Grabowski.

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

Minutes of the December 4, 2007 Meeting:

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

Greg left the board at this time (7:45); Dick joined the board.

9-lot, 8-unit Subdivision/PRD – Preliminary Plat Review – Rte. 116 (west side), south of Ballard Farm – Applicant/Landowner: Hart Hill Design LLC
** continued from 11/20 meeting
Peter Gibbs presented a revised site plan. He reviewed specific lots (8 total); each had a house approximately 40 ft. x 40 ft. sited within a building envelope. He said the development road and driveways were lengthened, bringing the total area of impervious surface to 1.25 acres. He said the project will now require a VT State stormwater permit as a result. He pointed out locations of stormwater treatment devices such as culverts, and reviewed temporary erosion control methods such as silt fences, sediment traps, check dams in roadside ditches and locations for stock piling. Landscaping was discussed. Peter G. said their general goal was to focus on landscaping behind homes along the eastern and southern side, as those homes were the most visible from Rte. 116. He said they are proposing loose clusters of larger shade trees on the south corner of Lot 8, and east and south sides of Lot 7. He said they will also plant reasonably-spaced trees along the southern boundaries of Lot 6. Black locust trees were suggested; David Carse agreed this would be an ideal variety but questioned their availability from nurseries.

The group discussed what views from Rte. 116 were desirable. Ted suggested pushing the building envelopes for Lots 5-6-7 up towards the development road. Waivers required for those lots were discussed. Zoë suggested requiring a professional landscaping plan, one with an intentional design to keep houses in the land, not on the land. She asked about a shared driveway for Lots 2-3-4; Peter G. said they had forgotten to draw that but it would be implemented. Peter Erb suggested making the long driveway strip part of association land to simplify the legal matters of a shared driveway. David agreed but asked about Lot 3 then becoming too small. George clarified that PRD lot sizes could be smaller than regular minimums. Dick said he went to the property and noticed houses on Lots 5-6-7 will be more prominent. Peter G. noted a high point between Lots 5 and 6. Dick asked about leafy trees in the development itself. David agreed they were needed and described general landscape ideas.

Ted said he thought the proposal worked, with no fatal flaws; George agreed. Dick asked whether there was a potential for development beyond the development road and if so, the pump station should be sited to allow access to the back of the property. David explained the development road intersects with a farm road and that if there was a continuation of the development, access would be made off that farm road. Peter G. said he would consider an alternate location for the pump station that had been planned at that intersection.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0. Dick left the board at this time (8:10); Greg joined the board.

2-lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review – Rte. 116 & Farmall Drive - Applicant: Creekside Investments LLC; Landowner: David Lyman

Brett Grabowski explained he is requesting to divide approximately 4 acres off the 50-acre lot north of the Creekside development, creating two lots (a 4-acre front parcel, “Lot 2” and a 46-acre back parcel, “Lot 1”). He said currently there is enough sewer capacity to allow commercial development to occur now on Lot 2. (Note the Applicant is working with Kinney Drugs to potentially locate on a portion of Lot 2; a 2^nd commercial operation would occupy the other portion.)

He reviewed concerns raised in the staff report. He showed a master plan for the two lots that had been in development before the sewer expansion was voted down. He reviewed the back parcel’s lot layout (as it would be further subdivided) as wall as connectivity between Lots 1 and 2. He said the structures and uses proposed for Lot 1 would fit in with the proposed zoning change to a mixed-use district. Brett said the western boundary line of Creekside would be extended directly north to create the western boundary of Lot 1.

Brett addressed staff report comments regarding the FEMA flood hazard area, stating access to Lot 2 has been considered in the master plan. He said there would be two separate stormwater systems for Lots 1 and 2 with plenty of space on Lot 2 for stormwater treatment. Greg asked about Lot 2’s elevation; Brett said it would need to be filled and noted Creekside had required substantial fill as well. Easements were discussed. Brett said there will be access points from Farmall Road to Lot 1, explaining he is the interested party for both parcels thus ensuring those multiple access points.

Water resources were discussed. Brett said stream setbacks under the new zoning regulations would be increased from 75 feet to 100 feet. He said a 100-foot setback is indicated on the site plan. He said there is ample space on both parcels to deal with stormwater treatment. Brett said the plan indicated old wetland delineations, but that he had done new delineations this summer and had met with the VT State Corps of Engineers who agreed with his delineations. He explained the small circles on the map were low points in the fields, considered Class III wetland areas that were dry in summer. He said 11,000 square feet of wetlands would be impacted and that was within state impact limits. He said Lot 1 would not be impacted and would continue to be hayed. He said the new proposed zoning line was drawn to minimize impact of the flood plain and added that Creekside ends where it does for the same reason.

Greg asked if there was a conceptual plan for the second commercial operation on Lot 2 (sited next to Kinney Drug). Brett said no, but that a meeting was being set up with Kinney Drugs regarding building restrictions, parking, etc. He said a new stop light would be installed at the intersection of Farmall Drive and Rte. 116, paid for by Middlebury Bank. Alex confirmed, noting the Creekside homeowners association was supposed to contribute towards that light but that the bank was assuming full costs. Brett said parking along Rte. 116 was an interesting concept and would be pursued in the discussion with Kinney. Tom asked about the potential for a back-up of cars coming out of a commercial business on Farmall Drive (he likened it to the Mobil station across the street). He suggested that the entrance to businesses on Lot 2 be set back (to the west) on Farmall Drive. Brett showed potential access points. He said only commercial operations would be sited on Lot 2, and only mixed-use and residential buildings would be sited on Lot 1 (more in line with Creekside). He said a road would be lined up with the entrance to the road into Creekside, and that Lot 1 would have multiple access points. Alex asked if roads would become town roads; Brett said yes.

Lisa said she thought the stream buffer was a significant issue. She said Patrick Brook had been moved as far north as it could have gone. She described the nature of its path and its original flow, expressing concern about the placement of houses near a stream that is possibly not stable in its location. Brett said that flood plain was limited by a bridge and culvert (crossing under Rte. 116) that controlled water flow into Patrick Brook. He thinks the brook will have room to wander as needed. Lisa thought this was a unique case where the stream has been moved so far that the proposed setback might not be sufficient. She also expressed concern about filling in the flood plain at all in that area. Brett said they were complying with town regulations; Alex added Act250 proceedings would address geomorphic issues. Alex asked Lisa for an estimate of how wide of the berth Patrick Brook needed to be in this area. Lisa said the area was unique, that it was hard to get the number because the brook had been moved so far. She said she researched its original location to the extent that she could, but work on the stream has not been documented. David Lyman said the brook had not been dredged in the last 79 years.

Alex explained that this 50-acre parcel was Lot 32 from the Creekside PRD and that any development on it will require DRB review. Greg asked about a discussion about this parcel becoming a town green. Alex said it had been discussed but that it was not likely to be further considered for that purpose. He said the new zoning districts include design requirements for public greens, gathering spaces, etc. Dick asked whether there had been a study done on the raising (filling) of the 14 acre Creekside parcel; Brett says water moves naturally north and west, and that all water for the new development would be collected into a stormwater system. He said the DRB would see stormwater analysis documentation.

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

Request for Variance from setback requirements – Rte. 116 – Applicant: Saputo Cheese

Bob Wood spoke on behalf of Saputo, explaining they are requesting a variance setback from the canal. He said they wish to build a frame structure to replace a fabric tent which houses a de-watering box (tip-off container) used for de-watering wastewater sludge. In summer, the operation de-waters two boxes, 3 times a week, with sludge transported to the Intervale and used as compost. In winter, without a structure, they would have to de-water every day or the sludge would freeze. They wish to build a structure large enough to house 2 boxes so they can transport two boxes in one day (a truck would make two trips in one day, rather than drive from a distance every day to transport just one box).

Bob said the proposed building’s footprint won’t be larger than the current tent. He said although it could be moved closer (further south) to a tank mounted on a foundation, a 30-foot variance was still needed to keep away from the canal. He said currently the tent is heated inefficiently; a framed, insulated building would be much more efficient and, painted to blend with the plant, would add to the overall appearance of the plant. Peter said the tent now needs a permit. Bob said his understanding is that someone from Saputo came to talk to the town and the tent was considered a temporary structure at that time. Dick asked about the placement of the building, whether the building could be rotated and butted up against a larger building. Bob said the driveway is a town ROW (as an extension to Creekside), and that the horizontal holding tank is within that ROW.

Greg thought the application/submission lacked details. Peter said he did two extensive site visits and concluded that large trucks could not get anywhere else but the proposed location. Bob confirmed there was no other place where that operation could go on the property. Tom asked if material was gravity-fed or pumped; Bob said pumped. Alex asked if the de-watering function could be relocated to another location. Bob said yes but at considerable effort and expense to redo the pipes. Greg asked how it got piped there in the first place (to the de-watering box); Alex asked how long it had been configured that way. Bob said the tank was put in around 1994 but for a different purpose at the time. He said a small trailer on the site would be taken away. Tom asked if the de-watering boxes had to be parallel or if they could be lined up in a series; Bob said he did not think it would work out to have one behind the other. Lisa asked if the big tank could be moved; Bob said it is on piling and concrete quarters. He explained a truck comes and takes the whole container. Dick asked about the areas to the right of the lagoon and to the left of the tank. Bob said the contractor occasionally has to use large tandem trucks and that there would not be enough room (in those locations). He pointed out a high berm between the canal and Saputo that would restrict use of that area.

Zoë asked how trucks pull into the lot; Bob noted their path, how they back up to containers. Alex explained there was no town ROW, but instead it was a condition that a certain area not be developed or have structures. Peter pointed out where he thought the road should be required to be 60 feet. Ted asked about turn-around areas. The group discussed how trucks maneuver around the buildings before and after the load pickup. Alex said earlier boards granted variances for other setbacks on the property, noting some were greater than what is being requested here. Alex described the discussion regarding a town west side road, that the area was looked at in-depth and discussion focused on the lagoons and whether they should remain. He said the general consensus was they were an important, efficient use for the plant and the town. The conclusion was that the only way the road could go in was if Saputo left, and also that another location for a west side road (further west) may be better. Bob said Saputo had an escrow account to close those lagoons if they ever left.

Tom reviewed the variance criteria, each voted upon:

1. Tom, George, Dennis, Dick, Lisa, Ted, Zoë – all yes

2. Tom, George, Dennis, Greg, Lisa, Ted, Zoë – all yes

3. Tom, George, Dennis, Greg, Lisa, Ted, Zoë – all yes

4. Tom, George, Dennis, Greg, Lisa, Ted, Zoë – all yes

5. Tom, George, Dennis, Greg, Lisa, Ted, Zoë – all yes

Bob explained that since the original 50K gallon tank was installed as a spill tank in 1994, new technology was utilized by Saputo and the tank was converted to a de-watering tank, with a new 30K tank taking its place as a spill tank. Ted asked about the structure’s design. Bob said it would be a pole barn on gravel, not slab. He thinks that texture 111 plywood would be used and painted to match outside of the Saputo building. The group requested that the building be moved over towards the big tank as close as possible.

Tom MOVED to grant a variance and to direct staff to draft conditions. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0, with Greg abstaining. Dennis asked if the boxes had to stay there; Alex confirmed yes.

Greg left the meeting at this time (9:25); Dick joined the board.

Other Business

Wright appeal of a Z/A decision

Ted MOVED to approve the decision as written. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Flash preliminary plat approval

Zoë MOVED to approve the decision as written. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Dam preliminary plat approval

Zoë MOVED to approve the decision as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Dick abstaining.

Thibault extension of sketch plan

Tom MOVED to approve the decision as written. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

The next DRB meeting is January 15. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary