TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

August 19, 2008

Approved September 16, 2008

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

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples, Lisa Godfrey.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Bud Allen (Town Attorney), Chris Roy, Gary & Fiona Fenwick, Scott Johansen, Pam Francis, Matt Francis, Judy Laberge (of Charlotte), Matt & Judy Laberge, Tim Brown, Kristi Brown, Tonia Bouchard, Brock Francis, Dick Francis, Jack Pilla, Steve Hoke, Bob Quackenbush, George Bedard, Bill Marks.

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

** Note – Channel 17 (cable TV channel) was present to record the meeting for future TV and web broadcast. Channel 17 intends to record all DRB, Planning Commission, and Selectboard meetings from this point forward.

Minutes of the August 5, 2008 meeting:

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

Appeal of a Decision by the Zoning Administrator – Hayden Hill Road West – Appellants: Gary and Fiona Fenwick – continued from 8/5/08 meeting

Tom explained that the Board had continued the hearing on this appeal from the 8/5 meeting, primarily in order to get guidance from the Town Attorney on the appeal and the Nixon, Ackerman Environmental Court case cited by the appellants’ attorney. Alex summarized the appeal, stating the Fenwicks asked Peter Erb (Hinesburg Zoning Administrator) to make a decision as to whether the Laberge motor cross track, if considered as an outdoor recreational facility, needed a conditional use permit. The ZA’s June 13^th decision stated the track, as it is presently used, did not require a conditional use permit. The Fenwicks are appealing that decision.

Tom MOVED to go into executive session to consult with the Town Attorney. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0. The Board left the room to conduct the executive session with the Town Attorney and Alex. When they returned, Alex distributed additional written feedback recently received from Scott Johansen and Judy Laberge (Matt’s mother from Charlotte). Chris Roy (appellants’ attorney) briefly restated their case, and said that their written submittals and their testimony at the last meeting pretty much sum up their arguments. He reiterated the request he made at the last meeting, that the Board continue this hearing if necessary in order to rule both on the need for a conditional use permit and on the need for a zoning permit for the Laberge motorcycle use and track. He said he would be happy to request a determination from the Zoning Administrator on the need for zoning permit to help clarify this.

Scott Johansen verbally summarized his submittal, explaining that he is friends with Jim Ackerman (subject of the Nixon, Ackerman court case), and had recently spoken with him to get additional details on that case. Among other things in his written submittal, he pointed out that the Ackerman case centered on the need for a zoning permit for moving dirt, and that quite a lot of dirt (hundreds of yards) was brought in for the Ackerman motorcycle track in Fairfax.

Matt Laberge said that at the last meeting the Fenwicks mis-stated when the motorcycle riding began when they said it began in 2006. Matt said his family was riding on his property as early as 2002, that the track began to evolve in 2003, and that it was formally constructed in 2004-2005 from material on the site left over from building their home. He doesn’t feel their use constitutes an outdoor recreation facility, and feels that if their use does, then there are many such facilities in Hinesburg.

Tonia Bouchard made several comments. She reminded the Board that the Town has no noise ordinance, and that she does not find the noise objectionable. She said the DRB found that the Town’s decibel meter didn’t even register the motorcycle noise at the Fenwick’s house during last fall’s site visit. She also said that the Laberges have kept their word by following the limited riding schedule they discussed with the Fenwicks and the DRB last year. Matt Laberge submitted additional written information, including an Environmental Court decision regarding noise and the use of snowmobiles on a “snow-cross” track, State statute regarding maximum noise in decibels for motorcycles, and clarification of the decibel limits (instantaneous versus 1-hour average) in the oft cited Williston noise ordinance.

Tom MOVED to close the hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. George Munson SECONDED the motion. Zoë asked Alex his opinion about the appellants’ request that the Board continue the hearing to deal with the zoning permit versus conditional use permit issue. Alex recommended continuing the hearing as it could be in everyone’s interest to wrap these 2 questions together with a single DRB review/decision. Scott asked for clarification. Peter clarified that based on a new Fenwick request for a determination on whether a zoning permit is needed for the track/use, he’ll have to decide whether the track/use constitutes “land development” (any land development requires a zoning permit), as defined in the Zoning Regulations. If he deems it is not, then the Fenwicks can appeal this, and the Board can wrap the 2 appeals (conditional use & zoning permit) together. If he deems it is land development, then the Board can simply render a decision on the conditional use appeal, and the Laberges would then need to either request a zoning permit or appeal Peter’s determination.

Tom withdrew the previous motion, and MOVED to continue the hearing to the September 16 meeting per the appellants’ request. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Final Plat Review – 2-lot subdivision - North Road – Applicants: Robert & Mary Reid

George Bedard was present to represent the applicants. This is final plat review for a 2-lot minor subdivision of a 10.25-acre vacant property on the east side of North Road, approximately 1/3 of a mile north of Hayden Hill Road, in the RR2 zoning district. George Bedard described the property and the proposal. He said the building envelopes are designed to account for 75’ stream setbacks (1 stream on east side and 1 on west side), the road right of way, septic areas, class 2 wetlands, and a low lying area between the 2 streams (providing a 75’ buffer from this drainage area as well). He described the class 2 wetland location and the note about this area and its limitations on the plat or site plan. He said the State wetland coordinator (Julie Foley) had reviewed this, and was satisfied.

Regarding the issues raised in Peter’s staff report, first of all, George Bedard said the site plan is somewhat cluttered by necessity to show all the site features, but that the actual plat is not. He said the building envelopes will be staked out per the normal practice. He described the utility locations and how these will interact with drainage on the site. He said he is amenable to Peter’s suggested decision language on this utility/drainage issue. He said he is also amenable to Peter’s suggested language regarding the driveway. Regarding adequate water supply, George Bedard reviewed well yields for the surrounding lots, which Peter indicated showed great variability including some very low well yields. Peter said the state water supply permit (that will be required) doesn’t appear to require a minimum flow, which is why he suggested decision language to require that a minimum flow be demonstrated prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new homes. George Bedard said that the State relies on well drillers to provide a well with the total daily household capacity/flow required in the State permit. There was general discussion on the water supply topic and how this issue has been handled in the past.

Tom suggested keeping the hearing open to the next meeting to allow Peter to continue working out these and other details with the applicant, even while he is drafting decision language. Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the September 16 meeting and to direct staff to draft approval language. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Preliminary Plat Review – 6-lot Subdivision – Baldwin Road and Burritt Road – Applicants: Robert & Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen & Joanne Hoke

George Bedard reviewed the project. This is a conventional 6-lot subdivision of a jointly owned 66-acre property near the southwest corner of Burritt and Baldwin roads. It is in the Agricultural zoning district and is currently enrolled in the state use value tax abatement program. Five of the lots would be accessed via a new road off of Baldwin road, and the other lot (lot #1) would be accessed from the existing Quackenbush driveway.

George Bedard passed out additional written materials and colored maps to address the issues Peter raised in the staff report. Steve and Bob passed out another document to further address these issues. Steve said that by moving the road north (as prescribed in the sketch plan approval), they had to modify the building envelopes. They tried to site the building envelopes per the landscape features and the design standards in 6.10.8 of the Subdivision Regulations (explained in more detail in written submittals). George Bedard explained that the building envelope for lot 4 is within 75’ of the Baldwin property line (southern property line), but this was the best they could do given the terrain, and he said the Baldwins have submitted a letter indicating that they have no problem with this arrangement.

Tom asked if the amount of forest disturbance was quantified to be able to compare between the sketch plan (more disturbance from previous road design) and this new plan. George Bedard said the sketch plan road design included a 50’ right of way at about 800’ long through the southern edge of the forest for approximately 1 acre of disturbance, while the building envelope for lot 4 is only about a ½ acre of forest disturbance.

Zoë asked what road length difference was between the sketch and the preliminary plans. George Bedard said the new plan is about 700’ less road. He explained that the new road layout was done to respect the existing topography and accomplishes this with pretty slight grades of generally 5% or less. He said that lot 6 (29.8 acres) was sized to ensure that it would remain eligible for enrollment in the state use value program, even after exclusion of the required 2-acre house site, and potentially the exclusion of the entire septic area, pipeline easement area, and driveway. He said that if they were forced to relocate lot 4, it would undoubtedly impact the size of lot 6 and might compromise its eligibility for the state use value program.

Zoë asked what the rationale is for the large building envelope on lot 6. She questioned whether the western portion of the envelope was really viable/appropriate given the steep topography of this area as shown on the plans. George Bedard said that this much area would allow the future landowner flexibility and greater choice in siting a home. He encouraged the Board to conduct a site visit to better understand why this makes sense on the ground. He said that the intent with this large building envelope is to allow greater choice for a building location, but then after the building location is selected, to limit the actual forest clearing area to a smaller area (approximately 1 acre) around the house site and structure. He said this is similar to what the Board approved in the Ayer subdivision off of Gilman Road and Birdie Lane.

George Bedard described the utility line layout – i.e., south side of the new road at first, then crossing under the road to run along the north side in order to account for the wastewater lines which will run on the opposite side(s). He said that the proposal is for a road with 18’ of traveled surface plus a 1’ shoulder on either side and ditching as shown on the plans. He said this will work well for the project and for accommodating emergency vehicles (fire trucks), and that the applicants are reluctant to reduce the road width as suggested in the staff report.

Ted asked about the impact of the subdivision on existing trails on the property and surrounding trail networks. A letter from Frank Twarog of the Hinesburg Trail Committee was circulated, which expressed some concern on this issue given the increasing difficulty in using Baldwin Road itself for recreational activities. George Bedard said that Baldwin Road has a traveled surface of 26’ wide, which is wider than many dirt roads in town. He said that he doesn’t see major conflicts between cars and bicycle/pedestrian use now, and that the Town has ample opportunity to address future conflicts via improvements within the road right of way because the Baldwin Road right of way is 66’ wide. Furthermore, he said that the trails in question are informal with no clear connections or destinations beyond the property. Peter said his goal in reviewing projects is to guide building envelope locations so that future trails could more easily be sited without being too close to structures and yards. Bob said that the building envelopes are designed to allow for future trail connections, especially on lot 6 with regard to trail connections to the west. Dick asked if trails would be considered exclusions for the state use value program, and Alex said they would not.

Bill Marks asked for clarification on clearing limits for lot 6 and the other lots. George Bedard reiterated that their plan is to clear an area approximately 75’ beyond the structure(s) on lot 6. He said the remaining lots will be very restricted on clearing due to the small building envelopes. Bill, speaking on behalf of the Conservation Commission, asked that the Board consider the Commission’s earlier concerns expressed during the sketch plan review, which Bill feels are still important (e.g., why not redesign the project as a PRD).

Bill said the Conservation Commission still feels that an important undisturbed, forested wildlife corridor along the southern boundary of the parcel is being compromised by lot 4. He doubted the wildlife expertise of the applicant’s forester based on the letter this forester submitted to the Board. He reminded the Board about the very different feedback about the importance of this corridor that they received from David Hirth (a Conservation Commissioner), who is a wildlife expert. Bill said that wildlife (e.g., otter, moose, etc.) clearly moves from east to west through this parcel from the Carse swamp that is east of Baldwin Road. George Bedard reiterated the applicants’ testimony that from their observations, wildlife moves more in a north/south direction rather than an east/west direction. He said the wildlife corridor being discussed is not shown on any official town map as a priority public resource. He feels their plan fully meets the spirit of the wildlife provisions in the regulations as well as the specific design standards in the subdivision regulations.

George encouraged the Board to conduct a site visit. Dick is the only member of the Board who did not attend the earlier site visit during the sketch plan review. Zoë said she would like to see the building envelope area on lot 6. Ted said he would like to see the new road location and the building envelope area on lot 4. Zoë MOVED to continue the review to the September 16 meeting with a site visit at 6pm that same day. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

The meeting ended at approximately 10 pm. The September 2 meeting has been cancelled due to the small number of complete applications in the queue. The next DRB meeting is scheduled for September 16^th.

Respectfully Submitted:

Alex Weinhagen

Director of Planning & Zoning