TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

July 1, 2008

Approved August 5, 2008

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, Richard (Dick) Jordan, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), John Nevius, George Palmer, David and Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Michael Jacobs, Bill and Nancy Lee Ross, Alan and Nancy Norris, Mike Wilson.

 

The meeting began at approximately 8:00 p.m.

 

Minutes of the June 17, 2008 Meeting:

Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 4–0, with Greg abstaining.

 

Sketch Plan Review – 1-Lot, 13-Unit Subdivision/PRD – Route 116 – Applicants:  Alan and Nancy Norris

**continued from the June 17th meeting

 

A site visit took place before the meeting.  In attendance were Nancy Lee and Bill Ross, John Nevius, George Palmer, Mike Jacobs, David and Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Bernie Roy, Lori Wilson, Mike Wilson (neighbors); Alan and Nancy Norris (applicants); Bill Marks of the Conservation Committee and the DRB members in attendance for the meeting. 

 

Tom said the group started at the northern end of the property at one of the proposed duplexes.  They proceeded to visit the building sites (two duplexes, two single-family homes, one triplex and one four-plex) traveling down the east side, up the access road/ROW, then back down the west side of the building area.  They noted the balloon tethered at 35 feet high at the four-plex site.  They then walked out to 116 and came in the access road across from Buck Hill Road where it would enter the development.  Zoë said they saw where the proposed road would cross the drainage stream area.  She said Alex noted how the land sloped away to the south, noting property lines and the potential for wet areas as had been discussed in the previous hearing.  The group also noted that the new sidewalk would be at the bottom of the hill to the east.

 

Tom said the group then went to Friendship Lane, starting at George Palmer’s driveway.  They looked at the view and balloon from there and also from inside George’s living room, out a window.  They then walked to the end of Friendship Lane to the Wilson property, up to Nevius property and out to their pond; they also noted the view from the Jacobs and Roy property.  Zoë said she noted that the best views off of all the properties are to the south, towards the Wernhoff property and the mountains beyond.  Dick agreed views were more southerly, with another development (South Farm) off to the east.  He said the duplex at the end of the road would be tucked behind trees but the remaining buildings would be visible from Friendship Lane.  He said he noticed only one place where the balloon was higher than the ridge beyond it.

 

David Fenn, a South Farm resident, said the layout of the buildings did not seem to take advantage of solar potential.  He suggested having buildings face south for passive solar, and to orient roof lines to the south so that they could be outfitted with solar hot water panels.  Johanna White, a South Farm resident, said she had the same concerns and added that facing homes to the south would maximize the best views.  Mike Jacobs noted that the tree buffer (mentioned in the site visit notes) has only deciduous trees and is thus only seasonal.  John Nevius said the development would be in the direct line of site from his property, with the four-plex dead center.  He said the 35 foot balloon lined up with the top of the mountain.

 

Alan Norris spoke regarding the project.  He addressed a comment regarding the size of the single-family homes; he said they would be 1500 square feet, not including an attached single-car garage.  He explained their goal of building moderately-priced homes, with smaller footprints but with quality materials such as ceramic tile and hardwood floors.  He said all units would be between 900 and 1700 square feet.  He said that an overall economy of space allowed the buildings to use better building materials but remain reasonably priced.  He said they would use a Vermont architect to draw up custom plans, considering solar potential at that time.  He described his previous project, a 2 building, 9 unit condominium development off Silver Street.  He said the (7) 2-bedroom units and (2) 3-bedroom each had a total living area of 1550 sq. feet and 1770 sq. feet, respectively.  All were energy star rated; he said it was easier to build an energy-efficient multi-family home due to shared walls.

 

Mike Wilson asked about the four-plex footprint, specifically why it appeared to be smaller than other buildings, and how tall it would be.  Alan said the four-plex units would have walkout basements to the back and the front part of the structure would be two stories, approximately 30 feet tall.  He said the duplexes had a larger footprint due to the placement of a 2-car garage on each end.  Alan said they used stock plans to approximate building footprints, massing and yard spacing, etc., for the application only, but have not finalized any building details.

 

Mike said his wife Lori suggested a development with all single-family homes, built in a cape or modified salt box design to make use of living space.  Alan said 13 single-family homes would be very cluttered.  Tom asked if all buildings would be at 30 feet; Alan said he understands buildings need to be 35 feet or less, that they would meet that maximum height requirement but could not commit to firm dimensions at this time.  Tom said he was concerned that 6 buildings clustered at the end of the parcel, all at 35 feet, may look massive.  Alex agreed an applicant could not commit to a design he has not made yet but that the Board could give direction based on observations and standards in place.  Greg asked how many maximum density bonuses have been granted in the past.  Alex said taking the size of the parcel (24 acres) and the ROW (less 1 acre) into consideration, the theoretical maximum for this project would be  would not be 23/2 (minimum lot size), for a total of 11 conventionally-sited units.  An additional 2 are being requested as part of a PRD.  Alex said there has only been one request for a unit bonus due to a PRD and the DRB granted it (Thistle Hill).  He said most developments don’t seek to take advantage of it so there is not really precedent.  He said in reviewing the Thistle Hill proposal, the DRB discussed to what degree the project meets the 5 standards of a PRD, and to what extent it is an exemplary example of a PRD.  Greg replied that therefore, unless there was a good reason, the DRB would not be inclined to grant a bonus.  Alex said he has not heard the Board make that specific interpretation but that they would have to determine an appropriate development density based on the space and whether the project warranted the extra density.  He said the DRB generally could not approve more than could have been developed conventionally (in this case, 11 units), adding extra units if the project merited it.

 

Town septic was discussed; Alex confirmed that allocation was not contingent on an expansion of the system and that the SB has adequate capacity to grant allocation for this project.  George Palmer asked about the 50-ft ROW and the potential for sidewalks inside the development.  Alex said the traveled portion of the road would be 24 feet wide.  George asked about a turnaround, noting it would have to be near the duplex site to the north.  Setbacks were discussed; Alex said setbacks within a PRD development could be lower than in a conventional development but not at the perimeter (where property meets neighboring properties).  He said setbacks would be either 20 or 30 feet (side or rear yard) at the perimeter, depending on building orientation within the triangular shape of the parcel.  Zoë said as the layout is drawn currently, buildings are tight and there may not be much opportunity to change building orientation.  Alan said he could reduce the number of buildings and increase units within the multi family buildings (to retain a total unit number of 13).  Zoë asked what their preference was; Alan said the single-family homes had been included to better blend the development within surrounding area.

 

The PRD’s 21-acre open space was discussed.  Alan said the town has indicated it may use the space for a recreation field, if viability could be determined with a wetland delineation.  Alex explained a discussion of public infrastructure that had begun as part of public forums last fall; residents wanted more certainty as to where public improvements would go.  A master planning map was created and submitted to the SB for preliminary review, with funds set aside in the Planning and Zoning budget for wetlands delineation.  A rec field was indicated on a map, on this property and another north of village.  Alan said they are still discussing a variety of uses for the space, but that they would not retain ownership of it.  Greg thought it was difficult to discuss a PRD at the sketch plan phase without a proposal of what the open space would be. 

 

George Palmer suggested putting three buildings to the west, on the other side of the stream: one duplex, one single-family home and the four-plex.  Alan said that would not be possible as currently the sewer allocation area ends just past the stream.  Alex explained the SB has delineated a town sewer area, outside of which they would not allow connections, whether a developer ran a pipe there or not.  He said the sewer service area would likely change if the village rezoning proposal was approved.  He explained a new higher-density residential district would be created to the village south, to include parcels from just south of the Buck Hill intersection.  Regarding the Norris proposal, Alex said the applicants could seek to revise the PRD after any changes in town regulations, given no restrictions were placed on the remaining open space.  Alan said under new regulations, the sewer service area would be changed and a total of 24 units (on the 24-acre parcel) would be allowed.  He said they wished to go forward with this proposal, however, to ensure some sewer allocation within the current service area and regulations.  He said they would work with the Affordable Housing Committee on this project and that, if the rezoning went through before building was started, they would be required to make some units affordable anyway. 

 

Tom confirmed theoretically, the project could receive approval and sewer allocation; if buildings were not already in place, the applicants could come back and revise the proposal.  Alex reviewed the village growth area rezoning proposal, stating its overarching goals were to create more housing, and more affordable and reasonably-priced housing, along with provisions for energy efficiency. 

 

The building arrangement and setbacks were discussed.  Dick asked about ownership of the triangular land area, and also whether each resident in the development would have access to all parts of the property.  Alan said a condo association would be formed; land would be owned together and outside maintenance would be shared.  Mike Jacobs asked about landscaping.  Alan said a formal landscaping plan would be submitted during the preliminary and final phases. 

 

Dick asked whether the properties on Friendship Lane could be further subdivided, under current or future regulations.  Alex said yes, with new zoning, but it would depend on the layout and size of the parcel.  He said regulations already allow for high density in the village but that he is not sure exactly where village line crosses through Friendship Lane.

 

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the application in deliberative session.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Other Business:

Hinesburg Land Trust - 4-lot 3-unit subdivision sketch plan

Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

French extension of sketch plan approval

Tom MOVED to approve a 6-month extension of the sketch plan approval for a project on Drinkwater Road.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

The board went into deliberative session at this time (9:10 pm) and the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary