TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

May 6, 2008

Approved May 20, 2008

 

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

 

DRB Members Absent:  Dennis Place.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Roger Kohn, Gary and Rebecca Fournier, David and Dawn Morgan, Andrew and Kristin Miskavage, Dave Bouchard, Deborah and Andy Seaton, Fred Spencer, Greg and Barb Glade, Rebecca Cook, Mary Baldwin, Matt Baldwin, Marty Gray, Stacy Bornstein, Anne Broussard, Jim Sinful, Kate Winner, Wayne Bissonette.

 

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

 

Minutes of the April 15, 2008 Meeting:

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

 

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

** continued from the April 15th meeting

 

Ted said the previous meeting ended with a discussion regarding a reasonable number of dogs that worked with the 20 trip maximum.  Alex added there had been an inadequate notification of neighbors who did not attend the April 15th meeting.  Gary said he tried to establish noise guidelines per Peter’s request, and also a plan that dealt with the environmental impact of dog waste and urine.  Gary gave an overview of the proposal.  A dog daycare would be operated Monday to Friday, 6:30 am to 6:30 pm; Saturday 7:00 am to 2:00 pm, as well as overnight boarding 7 days a week.  It would accommodate 30 dogs maximum capacity, with a 20 round trips per day maximum.  Additionally, dogs would be boarded on the weekend and kept mainly inside.  When outside (on all days), dogs would be supervised constantly by a person.

 

Gary described measures they took to investigate noise at similar operations in the area.  They used a decibel meter at Gulliver’s (South Burlington) and also at The Crate Escape (Richmond).  Gary said readings mainly measured car traffic noise and not dogs barking.  He said both yards were staffed when dogs were out and dogs appeared to be calm.  For his own facility, Gary said consistent or continuous barking (multiple dogs barking at one time) would be grounds to implement noise control measures, which he described (A barking dog will be brought inside; if barking continues, training will be recommended.  If no improvement, dog will no longer be allowed at the facility).  He said he understands neighbors’ concerns about noise in a residential area.

 

Gary addressed concerns about dog urine.  He said he spoke with two state wetland representatives who did not have concerns about the proximity of dogs to the wetlands, with one noting that the Burlington dog park was located next to the lake.  Gary said he would create a sand-filled trench and grass berm at the base of the slope, beyond the fenced-in area, in addition to a no-mow zone area.  That trench would not be within the 50-foot wetlands buffer.

 

Dick asked about dogs being boarded during the week.  Gary said yes, there would be overnight stays on weekdays.  He also clarified there would be no more than 30 dogs at the facility at any given time, with the majority as daycare dogs.  Zoë asked if there would be a set number of slots for daycare dogs and boarding dogs; in other words, how that 30 dog maximum would be maintained.  Gary said they would manage that schedule each week.  He also said they hoped to have 20 dogs per-day as a full capacity number, but that they are requesting 30 for flexibility.  He added he has no immediate plans to hire an employee and that would limit their capacity.  Tom asked about other doggy daycare facilities in Hinesburg (The Hinesburg Animal Hospital and Fortin’s on Shelburne Falls Road).  Alex said the hospital is a commercial use; Fortin’s is the only comparable home occupation.  Dick asked whether the lean-to (used initially until a new structure is built) would be insulated.  Gary said yes, it would be insulated and with exhaust fans before the business was open.  George noted exhaust vents may also carry noise out of the building.

 

Tom opened the discussion to the public.  Roger Kohn, an attorney, spoke on behalf of the Orchard Commons Home Owners Association (abutting neighbors).  He asked board members to review his memorandum (copies were passed around).  He stated he thought this proposal would not fit in a residential neighborhood.  He also requested a site visit.  He read from his memo, stating a kennel is a problematic use according to Hinesburg zoning ordinances.  He described his understanding of home occupations, noting points regarding noise and pollution concerns.  He thought this business would cause disturbance of the surrounding properties or occupants as it would include noise other than the comings and goings of the owners.  He said a kennel operation would be more appropriate for a more rural location where dogs could not be heard.  He discussed pollution, noting that no home occupation shall present any danger than is greater than a normal residence.  He said pollution would still be present in a residential area, regardless of whether wetlands officials opposed the operation or not.  Roger said zoning regulations state home occupations should not produce any change in the neighborhood.  He questioned how the applicant could prove they would be able to prevent noise or pollution, adding he thought proposal plans were insufficient.  He noted the Orchard Commons community well and said no engineer had been brought in to discuss plans in detail, such as building ventilation, fence construction, landscaping, etc. 

 

Lisa asked for a map with topographic lines.  Gary said there is a hill section between the kennel and the community well.  Gary said he received two letters from state water department officials.  One stated they had no concern regarding the well, noting only that a septic system needed to be 200 feet from a well (Gary said his is 700 feet away from the well).  The second said soils were impermeable around the shared well, which was 746 deep.  Roger said matters regarding pollution, noise, traffic, etc. should be addressed by professionals (engineers) as part of the application. 

 

Kristen Miskavage, president of the association, said there are 33 residents (11 houses) living in direct proximity to the proposed facility.  She said they are very alarmed over potential impacts to property values, character of the neighborhood and quality of life.  She said they are concerned about the smaller structure that would be used before the larger is built.  She said there are 9 children under the age of six, along with expecting parents.  Gary asked how many dogs were in their neighborhood; Kristen said 3.  She said although the distance between the proposed facility and their homes seemed far enough, sound traveled in this location due to the landscape.  She said she also went to Gullivers, noting frequent imperative commands to the dogs from caretakers.  Debby Seaton (OC resident) said the fact that there is no noise ordinance in town is concerning.  Marty Grey (OC resident) said she works from home at least once a week and that others are home during the day as well.  Dave Bouchard (OC resident) said the issue of napping children concerned him.  He suggested board members should note the landscape during the site visit, how events at CVU could be heard.

 

Gregory Glade (OC resident) said he agreed with neighbors’ comments and said he, while supportive of home occupations in general, does not think this proposal fits with the definition.  Anne Broussard (OC resident) said she had experience with working at a boarding house kennel.  She said dogs were excited and barking any time anyone entered the area, particularly at time of drop off and pick up.  Marty Gray said she was not sure what challenge it would present to keep her dog quiet, based on being triggered by other barking.  Dawn Morgan (OC resident) said she is concerned about noise as she likes to sit outside and would not have bought the property if a kennel had been nearby.

 

Tom explained how the DRB hearing process would continue.  George recommended a site visit; Kristen asked that the Orchard Commons neighborhood be included in the site visit.  She also asked about property owners that were not abutters but would be within hearing distance of the facility, whether they would be notified.  Alex said only abutting neighbors are notified and described other locations where meeting notices were posted.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to May 20th and to schedule a site visit.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Greg abstaining.  Dick asked that proposed building and fenced-in areas be staked out.  Lisa asked for a map with topographic lines.  A site visit will be held May 20th at 6:00 pm, starting at the Fournier’s house.

 

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

** continued from the April 15th meeting

Fred gave a summary of his proposal to replace his house on Lake Iroquois, explaining that most of the house cannot be saved, including the foundation.  Dick said in order for the DRB to approve changes to a non-complying structure, changes must impact setbacks as little as practicable.  Lisa noted there was much room around the structure on all sides and did not think the expansion into the setback made sense.  Jim Sinkula, an abutting neighbor, said he fully supports the project.  Peter explained the new face of the building on the lake side is increased at the top; a roof is being built up over the current truncated A-frame.  Fred said in order to address the height and mass of the new structure, he took a picture of the existing house and his neighbor’s house.  Since most of the houses on Pine Shore Road are conventional in design, this new house would fit in better with the others in the neighborhood.

 

Tom said the house is already into the setback; he asked how much farther the house would be moved into the setback, and what was the difference in percentage (old to new); Peter said he would get that figure.  Peter said the increase has always been on the footprint, not the mass of the house.  He questioned whether the second story of the house should be included in the square footage percentage increase.  Alex said the setback issue at hand has to do with character and impacts to the water body; the second floor would not impact those.  Lisa noted the applicant owns the property behind the house and also no one attended the meeting to complain about views of or from the lake. 

 

The board discussed differences in conditional use review versus a variance review.  Jim Sinkula said he supported the project as it would improve the aesthetic of the neighborhood.  He thought the moving of the project to another location may mean Fred would not be able to retain the garage slab.  Peter said although he did not measure specific distances, the well and forced main are in an area to the west of the property, making it a concern to move the house in that direction.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.  NOTE: This proposal was discussed later in the meeting (see below).  The conditional use review hearing has been re-opened and will continue at the May 20th meeting.

 

 

Final Plat Approval – 3-lot subdivision – Drinkwater Road – Applicants: Peter and Mary Baldwin

Matt said they made changes that staff report recommended.  They refined details in language regarding the right to farm around the lots and details about farming operations.  They included a 50-foot easement to access one property from the other.  An engineer went over a stormwater plan with Alex and found drainage affects only a minimal area.  Alex agreed that the stormwater plan was adequate, with a rock-lined ditch.  Alex also contacted Mike Anthony, who did not get back to him with any concerns.  Matt said they also set clearing limits in the proposal.  Check dams were discussed.  Dick asked about fill, whether 6-8 feet of fill would put the driveway up too high.  Matt thinks stone ditch will be at current ground level.

 

Greg asked about the proposal to divide the adjoining jointly-owned farmland amoung two landowners.  Matt said that had not occurred yet, but was on track.  Alex said he would add an Order #12 that addressed check dams language.  Lisa asked about language regarding a 200 foot setback.  Alex said the residential wells are not going to get any surface water from ag use in the area and that the topography would eliminate concerns regarding a residence less than 200 feet from an ag operation.

 

Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and accept the draft as written and amended (approval).  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Final Plat Approval – 2-lot subdivision – Hines and Gilman Roads – Applicant: ESNID LLC

Lisa recused herself from the board at this time (9:15 pm).

 

The board reviewed the draft decision.  Greg asked about a change in building envelope location.  Peter confirmed it had been moved out of the farm area; buildings would be kept over the brow of the hill.  Stacy Burnstein representing ESNID answered questions about the project.

 

Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Final Plat Approval – Create one new lot and transfer land to adjoiner – Hines and Gilman Roads – Applicant: ESNID LLC

Kate Wanner said there had been no changes to the proposal.  Peter explained the order of transactions with regards to the transfer of land.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

Other Business:

Lisa rejoined the board and Greg left the board at this time (9:30 pm).

 

Green Street - George MOVED to extend the commercial building permit for another year.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 6-0.

 

Spencer - The group discussed the requirements of a conditional use proposal, the percentage increase into the setback and the footprint.  Peter suggested asking the applicant to reduce the size of the deck at the lake side.  Tom MOVED to re-open the hearing to discuss changes to the proposal.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0.  The conditional use review hearing has been re-opened and will continue at the May 20th meeting.

 

Zoë left the meeting at this time (10:05 pm). 

 

Sprague – Engineering plans and the quality of the road were discussed. 

George MOVED to approve the final plat application as amended.  Lisa SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0, with Tom abstaining.

 

Emmons – Lisa asked about Order #2 regarding additional lot development.  Alex said there was no guarantee that there would be additional measures taken to address stormwater.  The matter regarding the zoning violation appeal was discussed; the board discussed adding an additional condition to the approval related to the remaining portion of the stormwater plan.

George MOVED to approve the change to the stormwater plan as modified.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4-0, with Tom abstaining.

 

The next DRB meeting is May 20th.  The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary