TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

April 15, 2008

Approved May 6, 2008

DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Richard (Dick) Jordan, George Munson, Dennis Place.

DRB Members Absent: Tom McGlenn, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Karen and Carl Quenneville, Carlene Emmons, Robert Burritt, Jackie Sprague, Steven Sprague, Michael Hennessey, Doug Henson, Fred Haulenbeek, Fred Spencer.

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

Minutes of the March 18, 2008 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4–0 with Tom and Zoe abstaining.

Revisions to Final Approval of Stormwater Plan - Bittersweet Hill – Applicants: Charlene Emmons and Robert Burritt

George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants. He said a mediation session with all interested parties took place this afternoon and that they have come to a point of agreement. He explained the mediator would draft a list of items that were agreed to in concept. McCain Consulting would be asked to put those items on a plan to be reviewed by all parties and then by the DRB. The applicants would like one item of that plan – the installation of a culvert - to be implemented this spring and are looking for DRB approval for that action only. George B. explained a culvert would be installed across the Fortin property that would take water out of the detention pond and divert it to the CVU Road ditch running west. He said the Select Board has already given permission to do this and McCain Consulting has drafted plans. George B. said an easement by the Fortins has been established that allows for the installation and maintenance of the culvert. The Fortins would like it installed before May 15^th.

George B. said neighbors were concerned about the spring in the area which was adding quite a bit of water to the pond. He said the culvert will ease that; he pointed out the area on the plan, noting drainage area #2 drains the easterly side of the access road. Lisa asked if the DRB is still waiting for more information that came out of mediation. George B. said yes, that additional items would be put in a plan. He said the culvert step will divert 40% of the water in the pond over to town ditches. Alex said they are asking only for the culvert from drainage area #2 to be directed to the new Fortin culvert.

Ted asked about design plans; Alex confirmed that an independent engineer hired by the town checked the work done by McCain Consulting. He noted the original designer, Nick Nowlan, worked with Peter Laserchek on the current plan. Dick asked if the #2 pond could hold enough volume to withstand a 25-year rain. George B. explained the 8” pipe is working all the time with water flowing continuously and that took the peak off (the heaviest point of the flow) and spread it out over time.

Karen Quennville, an adjoining neighbor, asked for some clarification on the project. George B. said this water was coming off the Burritt property; he described the four different drainage areas that have been defined. Karen asked if the parties involved felt comfortable that this would work; George B. said yes and described earlier attempts to correct problems. He said this proposal addresses the most questioned pond area, taking that water and diverting it into the west running road side ditch on CVU Road, rather than joining the other water to the east. Ted explained this was only a first step and that all parties including adjoining landowners would be invited back to another meeting to discuss the overall plan when ready. Alex stated that although Polly Quinn could not attend this evening, she submitted a letter and said she wished to continue as an interested party.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval for this revision of the stormwater plan. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Revision to Subdivision Plat – Gilman Road – Applicants: Raymond and Ruth Ayer

George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants. Peter said this was a straightforward request that would not impact any design. He said archeological notes were added to the plat and a second detention pond north of lot A4 was being proposed. George B. said no lot line or easement line has changed. He said Act 250 required a new mylar to be filed due to changes. Lisa asked about easement areas for construction, whether they were flat. George B. described the topography of the basin areas, noting they were out-of-play on the golf course. Peter asked if this revised plat would reference the former plat. George B. requested that the DRB signing statement (block) should reference the previous mylar/slide number.

Lisa MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the revisions as proposed. George M. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Final Plat Review – 2-Lot Subdivision – C.B. Road – Applicants: Sherman and Jacqueline Sprague

Sherman Sprague explained his proposal to subdivide his 17+ acre property with two structures (house and accessory apartment/garage) into two lots. He addressed comments from the staff report regarding the road: the pullout noted on the site plan would be improved; the Select Board gave permission to make the road 14 feet wide instead of 18 feet; language was created to grant ROW access as needed. He gave a description of the road and said he has always done road maintenance, including installing culverts and grading in the spring. He described efforts to create a ditch that ran the length of the road on the uphill side and said the ditch required yearly maintenance to correct erosion. Ted confirmed there would now be 8 lots, 8 houses, with no additional traffic but with the potential for another accessory apartment (not proposed now). Dick asked which side should be considered as the front yard on Lot 2. Sherman said the apartment is at the front of the lot. Peter described how a setback for a property with no road frontage is determined (with a 60-ft. radius). Alex said the building envelope line on Lot 2 should be tweaked to meet that front yard setback calculation that Peter described. Doug Henson, the project engineer, sketched where the radius line would carve out a circular part of the building envelope.

George, Dennis and Dick stated they visited the property. George noted the road does need the pull out and also the ditching as culverts are full of gravel. He recommended the road be done professionally. Ted asked if there were a way to stabilize the ditch so the uphill side would not need to be maintained every year. George asked about a road association. Sherman said Carol Berry started an association which appears in his deed and is in place for the deeds related to this subdivision. Alex said only legal language was being proposed now (not a formal association) but recommended these two lots join an association with an invitation for other residents on the road to join (but they are not obligated to join). Alex also recommended that a licensed engineer go out and look at the completed road work to ensure compliance of these conditions. Alex described all the culverts (5 total). Doug said one advantage to a concrete culvert is that it comes in 36” segments; other pipes are trickier to extend. He recommended clearing the ditch, widening the road, then looking at the culverts to see if they needed to be replaced or extended. He did not recommend doing ditching along the first portion of CB road.

The turnaround (pull-out) was discussed again. Alex said there was plenty of room where the driveway split off, once it was graded. Dick thought the turnaround would still be difficult. Sherman said trucks now turn around in his yard. Lisa recommended putting the location on the plan. Ditching was discussed again. Ted thought yearly ditching does not seem right. Sherman said he clears out debris but does not do ditching per say every year. He noted a soft-spot on the road in front of his house. He said a second ditch was dug higher in the bank to take water away from Lincoln Hill Road. Ted suggested stabilizing the ditch with fabric. Doug said a flat dirt road needs any grading every year. Lisa suggested specific improvements to ditches; Doug agreed erosion matting in bottom of ditches and seeding under that would make a big difference. Doug did not think the ditch was failing but needed to be re-established and stabilized for the long term. He said they have not cored the road but will check gravel depth. He added that the figures found in staff report sounded correct for a turnaround dimension.

Drainage towards Lincoln Hill Road was discussed. Doug said drainage near Lincoln Hill now received ideal stormwater treatment, flowing 200+ feet across land and leaf debris before it gets to the ditch. He said if the road were crowned it would create runoff to the north. He recommended the crowning did not start until just past the first driveway, about 550 south of Lincoln Hill Road. Dick asked if trees would be cut in order to widen the road; Sherman said yes.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Lisa SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Conditional Use Permit – Home Occupation (Doggy Daycare) – Pond Brook Road – Applicants: Gary and Rebecca Fournier

Gary and Rebecca Fournier discussed the proposal. Gary said they would like to start the daycare and boarding business in a 24’ x 14’ lean-to located off the side of the barn. Once their business was established with five dogs enrolled, they would start construction on a new building. He said the lean-to would be heated as a 2^nd heat zone from the barn if the new construction was not done by the fall. He clarified that the written #3 on the plan is the house location. He said their proposal is to accommodate 30 dogs (with up to 15 dogs as boarders); he asked the Board to recognize that although the number of car trips (20) was the limiting factor, multiple dogs per car trip was likely, hence the higher number of dogs.

Hours of operation were discussed. The applicants confirmed they wished to include Sundays as a boarding dog pick-up day only (i.e. no day care on Sundays). George asked about a stream and wetland area on the property. Gary said the dogs would not have access to that area, only the fenced-in dry area. He said dog droppings would be picked up every day. Methods of disposal were discussed; Gary said he was still researching a compost method used by other operations, but that it did not deal with urine. Lisa suggested a vegetated treatment swale between the fence and wetland. Gary said the barn is 70 feet from the wetland; with 15 feet fenced in, a 50+ foot buffer would be left in place. Lisa suggested not mowing the area; Gary thought the wetland would get larger if not mown. George said he was concerned with a large number of dogs occupying 2500 sq. feet of dog runs, with proximity to water as his main concern. Setbacks were discussed; Alex said a 50-foot setback was required from a class II wetland for structures, fill, etc., but he was not sure about septic. Gary suggested brush-hogging the area to prevent tree growth. The group talked about installing a cement or pressure-treated barrier, or grass berm. Peter said he would research similar operations.

Fred Haulenbeek, representing the Community Alliance Church (adjacent property) said his main concern was noise and asked what methods of control would be in place. Gary said the building(s) would be insulated. He described language in his customer contract that stated if a dog barked excessively, its time would be limited for outside play. Gary said they would work with dogs to curb barking, and also stated someone would be with the dogs for the entire time they were outside. He said there would be an indoor play area in larger building.

Frank Babbott, an adjacent property owner, said he did not have any concerns about traffic or dog waste and noted his parcel would share a driveway with the Fourniers. He said his only concern was the potential for noise, seven days a week in a residential area. Alex said although Hinesburg did not have a noise ordinance, Section 5.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations described performance standards, to which home occupations are held. He added that permit conditions regarding noise could be made more specific. Peter asked that the board be as clear as possible as noise standards are not easy to enforce. Gary said they were making allowances for noise. Privileges for boarding dogs would not be the same on weekends as during the week; dogs would spend most of their time indoors. Dennis said other home occupation applicants have been asked to simulate the anticipated level of noise. Gary noted the hours of operation as 6:30 am to 6:30 pm (NOTE staff report states 5:30 pm); he said dogs need to be picked up by closing time or they stay overnight for boarding. He said boarding dogs would be let outside for 15 minutes during the evening, then inside for the evening.

Dennis asked how close structures would be to neighboring properties. Gary said the structure would be 75 to 100 feet from the Babbott property line. Gary asked about a different doggy daycare facility on Hinesburg Road that had been approved, whether waste issues had been discussed. The group explained that operation was far from a waterway and on a level lot. Gary said solid waste would be cleaned up daily and stored in a trash can with locking lid. He said it would be taken to a landfill at a minimum of once a week. Gary asked if there were any issues that needed to be discussed with parking, a turnaround or the driveway; Peter said no. The group discussed researching other doggy daycare facilities. Ted said it would be helpful to figure out the conditions for the size and number of animals that is enforceable, not the 20 car trips.

Ted MOVED to continue to continue the public hearing to May 6^th and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Conditional Use Permit – Replace an existing house – 310 Pine Shore Road – Applicant: Fred Spencer

Fred Spencer explained the new house would occupy the same foot print, with additions of a porch and bump-out. The current house is 2800 sq. feet; the new house would be 3200 sq feet, with a larger 2^nd floor. He said the 75-foot setback line is about even with the back of the house and that side yard setbacks are all met. The areas falling outside the setback are included in a small portion of the addition to north and almost the whole addition to the south. Lisa asked if the porch could be moved back 5 feet; Fred said he would reduce the size of the porch, not move the addition to the west. Lisa noted there were no limiting factors to have the entire structure within setbacks. Ted explained conditional use permit requirements, with regards to the statement “modified as little as practicable”. Lisa asked about the height of the building, whether it would block anyone’s view; Fred said no and explained the layout of land (with a large portion of his own property behind his house across the road). Ted clarified that the conditional use request is for a 5’ x 12’ space (the 5 feet is in the setback). The existing house is already 30 feet infringing into a different 75 foot setback, and that the proposal does not put the house closer to the lake. Fred noted the septic is in the same area as the porch and he would be hesitant to move the porch for that reason. Ted noted this proposal did not make the original non-compliance worse and did not create a side-yard setback non-compliance, in other words, adding more structure is not making a new non-compliance. Fred said McCain Consulting planned an engineered septic system, already in place.

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the May 6^th meeting and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Other Business:

Lisa recused herself from the board at this time (10:00 pm).

ESNID LLC sketch plan - George said the draft should contain a requirement to remove the mobile home. Alex noted changes since the sketch plan hearing; the applicants modified the septic plan and moved the building envelope. Dick suggested taking out language about land use as an organic farm. The farm lot buffer zone was discussed. It was agreed to change language in Conclusion #2 to “due to topography”.

Ted MOVED to accept the draft as amended (approved). George SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 4-0 (George, Dennis, Ted and Zoe voting yes in absentia) with Dick abstaining.

The next DRB meeting is May 6. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary