TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

June 3, 2008

Approved June 17, 2008

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

DRB Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), John Kiedaisch, Tim Cornish, Peg Montgomery, Kathleen Maloney, Aaron Stine, Andrea Morgante, Ken and Jane Douglas, Gary Mawe, George and Jan Bedard, Matthew Probasio, Robert Farley.

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

Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7–0. (Dick not voting.)

Sketch Plan Review – 5-lot, 4-house Subdivision/PRD – Gilman Road – Applicant: Hinesburg Land Trust

** continued from the May 6^th meeting.

Lisa recused herself from the board at this time and Dick joined the board. Tom said a site visit took place just before the meeting with the following in attendance: Tim Cornish, Ken and Jane Douglas, Lisa and Ted Godfrey (neighbors); John Kiedaisch and Andrea Morgante (HLT representatives); Alex, Peter (staff); and Ted, Tom, Zoë, Dennis and Richard (DRB members).

Tom said the group started at the 50-foot ROW that begins on Lot 2. They walked on the ROW back to the tree line then over to view two potential locations for a house on Lot 1C, on the east and west sides of a swale. The group then walked down the ROW accessing the Douglas and Cornish properties, viewed the potential house locations for Lots 1A and 1B, then visited the Douglas property to get a view of the 1A lot as seen from their front yard. The group then drove to Lot 1D to view that proposed house location.

Zoë said the group saw the potential driveway to Lot 1C, planned to follow an existing swale. They walked to where the driveway cut off the ROW shared with the Douglas and Cornish families and noted the location of a culvert. She said they looked at the existing ROW drive in terms of how it would need to be improved for access. Zoë said the group observed Lot 1D to be fairly wet with ferns growing in the cleared area. She said the end of the property line was pointed out to the group (not visited) where septic for 1D would be on town forest land.

John Kiedaisch said they pointed out where the NE property corner for Lot 2 would be on Gilman Road; Zoë said they also saw the lot corners for 1A and B. John said the property boundary between 1C and Lot 2 would be adjusted to more closely follow the south side of the existing ROW, following out to where a small gravel parking lot was planned.

Tom said there were a few discussions on the site visit regarding lots 1C and 1A/1B and also regarding affordable housing. Tom said this phase concerns a conceptual sketch plan that could change. Alex said it would be preferable to lay out the basics in this phase, including house locations.

John responded to a question about the drive off Gilman Road (to the south); he confirmed that the Douglas and Cornish families have a ROW over land owned by the Hinesburg Land Trust. The ROW extends along the driveway to a point, at which the driveway continues on land owned by the Cornishes. John said if a new ROW could be obtained from the Cornishes, the drive to the house site on Lot 1C could be shortened.

Peter said it was his opinion that there are many possibilities for lot configurations and he would not like to see the board lock into anything this evening. He suggested setting up criteria for what was most desirable in the project and have the board review the configurations based on those criteria. Ted thought the lot layouts were uninspired. He said he had no problem with the number of lots (three) on the southern side of the entire parcel. He noted there were many conflicting demands, for example, that state wildlife officials would prefer a 300 feet buffer of house sites to tree line while the subdivision regulations prefer house sites closer to the tree line. He thought other configurations would do a better job siting the houses; he suggested having three house sites in back (to the west) and possibility using the other ROW (to the north, currently proposed to access only town forest land). He said that drive needs to be improved anyway for the parking lot.

Tim Cornish, an abutting neighbor, asked for a summary of the philosophy that went into where the house sites (to the south) were proposed. John said an HLT building subcommittee has done 8 or 9 site plans for the project, some with more houses and some with fewer. He said the overall project was never meant to be a housing development but a conservation project, with houses sold to help pay for that project. He said they have never thought of the ROW across Lot 2 as being anything other than a public access to the town forest, with a short road and small parking lot to the front of the lot. Beyond the parking lot, the ROW would serve mainly pedestrian, recreational traffic, with limited vehicular access for farm or trail maintenance vehicles or equipment. He said the group felt strongly that houses should be kept away from where the public was going, for safety purposes and also to leave the adjacent meadow as pristine as possible.

John said a proposal with 2 small lots and 1 large lot allowed for keeping as much of the meadow open and in tact as possible. Such a large and contiguous lot could allow for a mini farm. The two small lots were sited close to Gilman Road to keep development costs down. John said a new longer driveway accessing houses to the back (west) of the property would be more expensive, compared to reconstructing the driveway currently serving two existing homes. He said HLT has talked with people who can develop affordable housing; he said any one of the smaller lots might be a location for affordable housing but noted there are restrictions and limitations as to what affordable housing organizations can purchase land for. John said siting the two smaller lots at their proposed location off Gilman Road would create a cluster of 4 homes, that would include a future home on the 2+ acre lot currently for sale and the Douglas home. John noted a large deer yard near the tree line (to the west). He said they feel they have justification for this particular plan but are willing to look at other options.

George Munson said the application was submitted as a PRD and suggested keeping all three lots together as such. John thought having the house on Lot 1C combined with the other two would decrease its potential market value. George noted town subdivision regulations require houses to be sited near tree lines. John said ACT 250 would not apply to the current proposal if houses remained sited away from the tree line. George said he does not see the proposal as designed as a PRD, noting a ½ acre building envelope for Lot 1C to be in the middle of the field. John said it was planned there in order to keep the house off the hill.

Ted said as HLT could determine sale prices for lots, selling any size lot at a price of their choice; for example, a three-acre lot could be sold for the same amount as a small lot. John said small lots have the potential for being affordable. He said if the price of Lot 1C were reduced (due to decreasing its size to allow for larger 1A/1B lots), HLT would have to make up the price difference by charging more for lots 1A/1B, which they did not want to do. Andrea Morgante said the small lots may or may not be affordable depending on the market at the time. She said HLT feels those small lots are marketable whether they are affordable or not. She said they are sited in that location from an energy conservation perspective as well. She said the application has been submitted as a PRD to take advantage of flexibility on lot size and configuration that would otherwise have to conform to two-acre zoning in that district. She said lots near Gilman Road are desirable for their solar exposure and views.

Ken Douglas, an abutting neighbor, said while he understands the rationale behind the proposal and does not have a problem with the number of houses, he disagrees with lot sizes and locations. He said homes sited as proposed on Lots 1A and 1B would completely take away the same views just mentioned as seen from his home, putting houses directly in his line of sight. He said he is also concerned about the term affordable housing and its affect on property values. He thought siting houses directly off Gilman Road takes away from the openness of the field. He noted the 2.65-acre lot for sale in front of his house, and that siting a home there is in keeping with the homes already sited on Gilman Road. He said he has a major problem with row housing in his line of view.

Ted said he disagreed with keeping houses away from public infrastructure, that it seemed logical to have sites accesses off a town owned ROW. Andrea said HLT was concerned that siting private homes off a public recreational access could eventually lead to a conflict of use. She said the group thought keeping houses where there are already houses was best. John said public access issues in rural and village situations are different. He noted a current situation in which a trail accessing public land following very close past a private home has caused a conflict situation with the homeowner. He said HLT is trying to avoid using public infrastructure to access private homes for that reason. Greg said anyone buying the lots would know that going in. Peter asked whether the terms of the ROW (already given in easement to the Town) were fixed or whether it could be configured some other way. John said a trail exists now to enter the woods; he said he is not sure legally if the ROW could be reconfigured but there is nothing physically in the way of moving it. He said a legal definition exists in deed language of the ROW attached to the gift of 300+ acres to the town.

Tom asked about other configurations, whether houses could be sited along Gilman Road. John said no, that hillside topography would make it expensive to build there. Andrea thought houses would stick up if built there. Ted asked if any other plans had sited houses to the back (west); John said yes. Andrea said that idea was eliminated for the area north of the town ROW and by 1D due to bat conservation funding restrictions. She said they could explore moving the town ROW further south. Tom recognized competing interests and noted that some applicants present multiple configuration plans to the DRB.

Zoë said she appreciated the reasoning behind the current plan but is not convinced that this proposal sites houses in the best place. She thought homes on lots 1A/B would be right on top of each other. She said she liked a cluster plan but suggested pulling the house on 1A to the other side of the ridge. Houses on 1A and 1B would then be in the same proximity to each other but on either side (north and south) of that ridge. John said where the stake was placed for lot 1A is clearly right in the middle of the Douglas’s view. Richard thought a home there would also be clearly viewed off Gilman Road. John said he agreed but still felt the plan as proposed was the best option for the parcel as a whole. Andrea said HLT could present alternate options. John agreed, stating the building committee would be willing to do that to be ready for the next DRB meeting. Tom MOVED to continue the sketch plan review to the June 17^th meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0.

John asked for criteria or direction. Alex said the DRB did not have a mechanism to provide that criteria, only to deal with decisions, not deliver partial decisions. He suggested working with Peter to help with alternate plans. Tom agreed, asking for 2 or 3 proposals. Ted said because this was a fairly low impact subdivision; putting 200 feet of field between the forest edge and the house because of a deer yard was not in compliance with some stated subdivision performance criteria, rather bending over backwards to satisfy unreasonable requests by the state. John asked if the Board would support a HLT plan that required ACT 250 review. Ted said yes, that the DRB decision would stand as our opinion. Peter said the Board generally goes along with Fish and Wildlife decisions. Lisa rejoined the board and Dick left the board at this time (8:20 pm).

Sketch Plan Review – 8-lot Subdivision/PRD – Texas Hill Road – Applicants: Jan and George Bedard

George gave details of two VT Environmental Court hearings and said he was returning to the DRB as part of an ongoing mediation process. He reviewed previous proposals and said his last application had both an 8-lot layout and a 12-lot clustered layout shown as options. He presented a new 8-lot layout, with a cluster of seven 1 to 1½-acre house sites and one large lot of about 44 acres. Lots would be served by individual wells and share a common septic area on the Mawe property (on which a septic easement for 8 lots exists). George noted that old septic rules were in place at the time the easement was reserved; current rules would have allowed more.

George said leaving the large lot under one ownership would make it easier to manage; the lot is not currently under any management plan. He said a building-restricted 75-foot buffer area would exist on two sides of the large lot where it borders neighboring properties. He said the access off Texas Hill Road has been changed; it has been moved away from the brook, close to the alternative access discussed in previous meetings. Lisa asked if road needs to be widened. George said a bank would be cut back as well as tree removal done for site distances.

Ted asked if the proposal was an 8-lot PRD. George said yes, and described this proposal as a blending of a conventional 8 lot subdivision with aspects of a PRD, to condense development to a cluster of 7 houses and 1 large lot. He explained that the line through the middle of the map represented the area that seven houses would have taken up under a conventional subdivision (22 acres). He said the land surrounding the cluster will (north of the yellow line) will feel like open space protection. He said it is not common land nor would the cluster of houses have access rights to it. The line marks an area with restricted development to the north of the line on lot 8. Ted asked how the restrictions were defined. George said typical residential structures would not be allowed in that area. He said he would reserve the sale of the larger lot until after water has been established for other house sites.

Zoë asked if Lot 8 would be restricted from further development. George left the question open, stating the lot is 44 acres and could be sold to include a different set of septic reservations on a neighboring lot to the southeast. Ted said if the proposal were for an 8-lot PRD, the whole PRD would have to change to make additional lots on Lot 8, not just a change to last lot.

Gary Mawe, an adjacent land owner, said he had concerns that the access location sat in a bad stretch during mud season on Texas Hill. He described conditions during the past mud season, with cars getting stuck from Bishop Road up to bend. He also said while he felt this was a big step in the right direction, he still thinks density is too high. Tom asked Gary if drainage at that location on the road was a problem; Gary said he did not know but added the whole width of the road was in bad shape, that one had to carefully decide how to navigate it during these times. Rob Farley, representing the Conservation Commission, said he still thought the cluster did not fit with the Texas Hill area. He cited high density and the north-south wildlife corridor as concerns.

George said he spoke with Mike Anthony who agreed taking trees out at the access point would help with the seasonal problem, to put more sun on road way. He said there is no ditch in the area but that Anthony would like to cut back trees and make improvements as necessary. Regarding the wildlife corridor, George invited parties interested in that connector as possible public land to talk to him about acquiring it; he said he was open to any conversation, but that his bottom line asking price for the land would be the value of eight parcels.

Tom asked for DRB members input on the plan presented as a hybrid PRD. Ted said the 8-lot PRD was the best plan he had seen among all the iterations, particularly in the configuration of the lots. Dick Jordan asked about water resources and what neighbors had for recourse if their wells were compromised. Ted described his understanding of a “sphere of influence” for a well, that the zone of influence is small. Peter, noting a similar subdivision in St. George, said it was very difficult to ascertain what would happen. George said they would rely on the state permitting process for water and wastewater permits. Rob Farley said he was a hydrogeologist; he said fractured bedrock aquifers are very hard to predict and sphere of influence does not apply. He said it is what is tapped into that matters and you don’t know until you get into it. He said he is familiar with scenarios where someone has drilled and inadvertently tapped into a neighbor’s supply across road; they then drill deeper than the neighbor, using depth to their advantage. He spoke about storage and reserve, the number of people using the same1/2 gallon per minute, and said it was best to find a well first then decide how many houses it can support.

Rob also responded to clearing trees. He said Hinesburg is losing forest-canopy roads, causing the roads to be drier and dustier. A forest canopy over a road can help mitigate stormwater and may be more beneficial than a ditch. He said it may be easier to maintain a ditched road, but other reasons to maintain the canopy are as justifiable. Gary Mawe spoke about water supply, noting the issue keeps coming up in hearings. He noted that his well is 1000 feet deep, not the 600 listed, as an additional 400 feet has been recently added. Peter said a PRD application must take the impact of wells on the open space into consideration, with regards to necessary maintenance that would require the use of heavy equipment, etc.

Tom said he thought an 8-lot PRD was preferable to a 7-lot PRD with an 8th lot that had development potential. George said labeling the application as a PRD is not an issue but said the open space involved would be under private ownership, not common land. Tom asked if Lot 8 would have the potential for subdivision. George said he would prefer that. He said it would put the burden on a future DRB to review any proposal under the rules at the time. Alden Pellet, a Hinesburg resident, suggested making the entire west side a wildlife corridor. George said the western side is steep, so houses and other infrastructure would probably be sited to the east anyway. Zoë suggested marking the area as such, providing protection to the house sites and wildlife. George said designating buildings to the east would essentially do the same thing. Zoë asked for clarification on the buffer line. George said north of the line is 22 acres out of the parcel’s total 53 acres. It represents more than the required 25% open space for a PRD, but with lots’ acreage taken out, it goes down to about 12-13 open acres (exactly 25%). He stressed again that it is not open space but a buffer area, with nothing deeded to the 7 lots that they can access or enjoy the land. Zoë read the PRD open space provision aloud, noting regulations don’t describe or suggest that open space is used as a buffer among the houses in the PRD, but as a buffer for adjoining properties. George described how all parcels would benefit from open land.

Peg Montgomery, an area neighbor, asked if George has considered using a dowser. George said he used one who found water. George said the variety of wells in the area averages 3 gallons a minute. Greg MOVED to close the public meeting and discuss the application in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0. Zoë asked whether the house site on Lot 8 could be moved closer to the 7-lot cluster. George said no, due to drainage.

Conditional Use Permit – Expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure – Pond Road– Applicants: Alden Pellet and Tara Brown

Alden Pellet explained he wished to replace a 12.5’ x 8’ tool shed with a 20’ by 20’ garage. The new structure would maintain the current setback of 47 feet from Pond Road, but the total area in that setback would be increased. Ted asked if the yard layout prevented expanding the structure in another direction. Alden said relocating the building to the south would not impact the well but getting the driveway to the building would. He said they don’t currently have a garage and most of the expansion would be further away from the road. Tom asked if the existing structure would be removed; Alden said yes. Alex said although this was a small lot (1.1 acres) for the zone there were no lot coverage issues. Ted MOVED to direct staff to draft conditions of approval. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Conditional Use Permit – Expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure – Sunset Lane – Applicants: Aaron Stine and Kathleen Maloney

Aaron Stine explained he wished to expand a deck on the lake side of the house and construct a second floor stairs and deck on a side of the house leading to attic space. He showed a photo in which the existing deck had been temporarily cut shorter, and where he wished to build a wrap-around deck to expand out to sliding glass doors for access. Peter confirmed he needs approval only for the deck addition. Aaron said the attic space would be used for storage, not living space, noting there is no garage or basement space on the property.

Peter described a lot coverage issue due to the deck expansion and also a new parking area. The following dimensions were discussed and determined:

Total lot is 17424 (10% is 1742)

Sq. footage coverage:

Before – 1893, was 10.9% over (1893/1742)

After – 2059, is 11.8 over (2059/1742)

Applicant is adding 166 net sq. feet = 2059-1893

Lot coverage is increasing by .09% (11.8-10.9 = .09)

Peter said he would revise numbers in the FOF to reflect these calculations. Clement Stine said the deck would be Trex, not an impervious surface. Zoë MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Tom SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Other Business:

Fritz, 2 lot subdivision

Tom MOVED to extend the application. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Fournier, conditional use review

The board voted 7-0 to approve the decision as drafted (denial), with Dick voting, Greg not voting.

Spencer

The board voted 6-1 to approve the decision as drafted (approval), with Lisa voting no, Dick voting, Greg not voting.

RCC Atlantic

The board voted 7-0 to approve the decision as drafted (approval), with Greg voting, Dick not voting.

Bedard 8-lot subdivision

The application was discussed with no action taken.

The next DRB meeting is June 17^th. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary