TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

January 15, 2008

Approved February 5, 2008

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Mark Hall, Berthann & Lou Mulieri, Jeff Olesky, Jeff Davis, Jean Davis, Andre Robert, Jeff Kapsalis, Gary French.

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

Minutes of the December 18, 2007 Meeting:

Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6–0.

Conditional Use Permit Review – Shadow Lane – Applicant: Jeff & Jean Davis

Jeff Olesky, project engineer, said he and the Davis’s had met with Alex to review project changes and also held a meeting to give neighbors an opportunity to discuss the project (Andre Roberts attended). He reviewed changes made to the proposal since the last hearing, as follows:

- The culvert on the Crawford property (1^st driveway on the right) will be replaced.

- Culverts on three other properties will be left in place; two minor culverts (Washburn, Robert) and one major driveway culvert (Mulieri). Improvements will be made to the drainage swales around these culverts instead.

- A stone-lined swale will be installed in front of the Martell property (station #490 to 620). Jeff O. said there has been significant erosion problems at that location due to its steep grade. Ted asked how the swale would help water quality; Jeff O. said it gave stormwater the opportunity to settle out before getting to the lake, and also prevented additional sediment from being picked up at that point.

- The road in front of the Thibault driveway will be graded evenly, not with a crown. Lou Mulieri asked what the grade would be at that turn-off; Jeff O. said 2%, from one edge to the other looking north to south. He said the grade east to west would stay consistent with the grade profile of the roadway.

- The stone-lined swale at the Davis property will be extended down to the first driveway. Ted asked how that would improve water quality. Jeff O. said the swale would provide an opportunity to slow the water down, as a best-fit solution in lieu of a grass-lined swale.

- The dispersion pad to have been located at the lake entrance has been removed from the proposal. Jeff Davis said this was done to maintain beach access. Ted asked what the elevation change was from the road to the Davis property. Jeff O. said it would be about a foot lower. Jeff D. noted his septic system and drilled well were in the area and he wished to avoid introducing storm water near them. He also said that he was fearful introducing storm water closer to the septic system could contaminate the storm water running into the lake.

- Jeff O. said the majority of the road would be maintained within a 14-foot wide minimum range for the length of the road.

Ted asked about driveway elevations at the Crawford/Bushey lots. Jeff O. said the driveway will be almost equal with the road where the two meet. He emphasized that the steepest section on the road would be eliminated, creating a more natural transition onto Pond Road. Lou asked about the grade change. Jeff O. said it will go to 15%. Lou thought it was being changed from 9%. Alex said the new grade will be at about where the top of a heaved culvert is located.

Ted asked about planned maintenance for the road. Jeff D. said sand trucks are very responsive and come quickly. He agreed maintenance needs to be prioritized. Jeff O. said the steepest section will be eliminated and that the road will be less steep across a longer section. Lou asked why the grade needed to be raised; Jeff O. said it was to increase the 8% grade at the top. George Bedard’s profile records were discussed. Lou asked about the Bushy and Crawfords’ properties; Jeff D. said he was committed to maintaining the grade at those driveways. Jeff O. said they are proposed to be at the same grade as they are currently.

Jeff D. submitted photos of stormwater run-off after a recent storm, one on his property and one from the Wilson property that indicated Pond Road storm water. He said both showed a large amount of water coming down the hill from property to property, but not on the road. Tom noted Lou Mulieri had also taken photos showing water coming into the lake. Tom asked if a detention pond would help that situation. Jeff O. said there was no place to put a retention pond due to a narrow land width (26 feet from start to finish). Tom asked if a series of ponds could be used. Jeff O. said a step-down or cascade effect within the stone-lined swales could be created with pockets in those swales. Jeff O. emphasized that the main goal of the project is to create a safe and accessible roadway, with storm water treatments a bonus benefit to the project.

Mark Hall, an attorney for the Davis’s, said he reviewed the bylaws of the formal association on Shadow Lane. He then gave his understanding of how road maintenance may be handled by all residents on Shadow Lane, as follows:

- Shadow Lane is maintained by a joint tenancy.

- The formal association (to which only four residents belong) acts as a proxy for the membership that belongs to it.

- Road maintenance is left to the individual landowners and/or to the formal association. The association and/or any individual can make road improvements.

- The association bylaws do not impact or displace the tenancy or how road maintenance has been handled by an informal association of residents. It serves to provide a mechanism for the formal association to act on improvements.

Alex said as the formal association is made up of only 4 residents, if that association had the road re-graded for instance, the association’s bylaw language does not recognize the other residents on the road, most of whom are part of the informal association. He said it seemed odd that there was not such a recognition or attempt at a collaboration between the two groups. He asked about collection of fees associated with road maintenance. Mark said individual residents may have higher standards of maintenance and may act on those improvements outside regular maintenance, but that all residents should contribute to reasonable regular maintenance. Alex thought the bylaws should at least recognize the joint tenancy, that there are residents on Shadow Lane that are not part of the formal association. He explained that creating the formal association was a necessary element to maintaining the improvements being proposed for the road and that they are therefore part of Davis’s application. Tom asked how fees are divided now. Mark said a maintenance plan is created at the beginning of the year which, ideally, all Shadow Lane residents agree to and pay for. George asked what happened if people did not pay. Mark said any resident or group of residents could go to court and try to collect fees either “IF” or “IF THERE ISN’T” there had been an agreement between all (formal and informal) participating. Jeff D. said payments are not based on a resident’s physical position on the road, that fees are divided equally under the assumption all have access to the lake (at the bottom of the road) to a common beach.

Andre Robert, a Shadow Lane resident, questioned the legal implications of the evening’s conversation. Lou Mulieri said an informal association has always maintained the road with Al Barber’s blessing. Tom said the tenancy did allow an opportunity for road residents to vote on improvements. Berthann Mulieri asked if residents would ever be forced to join the formal association; Mark said no. Lou noted there was an excess of $900 in maintenance funds right now as the road has not been maintained recently up to normal standards because of the uncertainty of the proposed changes.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Conditional Use Review – Non-conforming structure (deck) – Sunset Lane West - Applicant: Jeff Kapsalis

Jeff Kapsalis explained his recently-built house was sited differently from when he first applied for a permit; it changed the location of a door at the back that now required a deck for access. He said a deck in that location would put the house over the allowable lot coverage but would not make the location of the house more non-conforming. Peter said the house is considered a pre-existing, non-complying structure because it replaced a non-complying structure, He said lot coverage lines were difficult to determine. The group made lot coverage calculations, and determined that coverage would increase from 14.8% to 16.1%. Peter said the non-complying status of the house is much less than the previous structure. He said he reviewed conditional use criteria found no adverse effect on any point.

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

1-Lot Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review - Drinkwater Road – Applicant: Gary French

Zoë recused herself from the hearing (8:45 pm). Gary explained he was applying for approval to develop a property that came into existence as a former agricultural lot. He wished to build a house on the back side of the property. He said driveway grade was not an issue and that septic plans have already been filed. Peter said a sketch plan with building site had been approved previously for this property but at a different location. He said septic permits and easements are in existence. Peter said Richard (a DRB member not present) had a question about siting the driveway. Gary said he would prefer the road (curb cut) to be down further than where it is currently sited. Peter said the only issue is that the area is close to the creek, about 250 feet away but that it slopes down. Gary said a tree buffer exists there and those trees will stay. Alex asked if the area where the house would be sited is already cleared; Gary said yes. Zoë said as a neighbor she had no objections, adding she thought the location was appropriate. Gary said the driveway will be 700-750 feet long.

Lisa asked if Gary was amenable to leaving vegetation near the river. Gary said most of the river frontage is already wooded with a small clearing on the corner that is maintained (weed-whacked) as a picnic table area. There was a discussion of buildings permitted on the property (inside or outside an envelope). The group advised that the building envelope be made large enough for outbuildings in the future.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. He noted attention should be paid to the Lewis Creek buffer. Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Other Business

Hart Hill/Carse preliminary plat

Zoë asked about the use of the farm road, whether language in conclusion #9 should be more explicit. Alex explained he wished to clarify open space as an agricultural use and also that any connection with Ballard Farm be clarified in some manner. George asked if there should be an easement to get to the farm road near the barn. Alex said that structure was no longer owned by the Ballards. Alex does not know if there is a separate clause for access contained within the original land sale and transfer, but going forward, the association will own the land and barn.

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

Lyman/Grabowski sketch plan
Ted asked if there was anything within this decision that could regulate future subdivision criteria. Alex said lots were being approved only in this application; he suggested language could be drafted to state no further development could occur without further DRB review. The wetland area noted in Conclusion 1 was discussed.

Tom MOVED to approve the decision as written (approval). Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Saputo variance request

The group discussed whether to mandate the paint color of the proposed structure. Zoë wished to add a note about a technology advances over the years and how they factored into the situation leading to this request.

Zoë MOVED to approve the decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

The group voted to go into deliberative session. The next DRB meeting is February 5. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary