TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

January 20, 2009

Approved March 3, 2009

 

DRB Members Present:  Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, 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), Tanya Jones, David Carse, Tim Ballard, Daniel Bromley, Jane and Ken Douglas, John Kiedaisch, Andrea Morgante, Paul Boisvert.

 

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

 

Minutes of the December 16, 2008 meeting:

Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended.  Lisa SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7–0.

 

Preliminary Plat Review – 3-lot/2-unit Subdivision – Gilman Road – Applicant: Hinesburg Land Trust

[DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

John Kiedaisch spoke on behalf of the HLT.  He explained changes from Sketch Plan review:

-         The small lot proposed for the north side of the large parcel off Gilman Road has been dropped; the proposal is now for 3 lots and 2 units.

-         The building lot to the north remained the same.

-         The large lot was made even larger, to encompass the lot that was eliminated and also to include a portion of land north of the Town access easement that was originally going to the Town.  The Town will now retain about 4 acres.

-         The vehicle ROW to the Town Forest will remain for logging or other services

-         A public walking/skiing path will now be further to the north around the edge of a field.

 

John said the plan is now to share the Cornish driveway to access the house site on Lot 1A.  Portions of the road shared by the Cornishes and the Douglas’s will be improved to comply with town standards.  Zoë asked if the building envelope on Lot 1A was moved back toward the forest edge; John said it had been moved accordingly.  He said that lot would be subject to a conservation easement to prevent further subdivision and to require ongoing agricultural use. 

 

Lisa asked how large the building envelope on Lot 1A would be and whether it would also serve for agricultural structures.  John and Andrea Morgante said ag structure locations are yet to be determined, but likely to go near the house site.  They stated they did not wish the ag structures to be constrained by a building envelope.  Jane Douglas, an abutting property owner, asked what the chances were that the owner would put a barn at the southeast corner of the lot, blocking the view from her house.  John said it was possible but not likely given that the new house would be located on the other side of the lot.  Lisa asked if the town forest parking area was planned for a particular place.  John said the concept was for a small 4-5 car parking area, with plenty of room for one on town land. 

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as written (approval).  Tom SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

[Voting members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

Hart Hill Designs, LLC – Final Plat Review – 9-lot/8-unit or 8-lot/7-unit PRD/Subdivision - Route 116 –Applicant: David Carse/Hart Hill Designs, LLC

[DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

Paul Boisvert, an engineer with Engineering Ventures, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He first reviewed two plans – the original approved during the Preliminary hearing and an updated version in which building Lot 2 was replaced with a stormwater retention pond and changes were made to the interior road.  He explained the applicant hoped to replace the lost house lot with another to the south, bringing the project back up to a 9-lot/8 unit PRD proposal.  He described the project: the entire parcel is 40+ acres; the subdivision is planned on approx. 5 acres with the remainder to be kept in agricultural use.  Building lots will have onsite individual wells; well testing has been done with sufficient yields found.  Lots will have individual septic systems with a shared septic field; the project is in the process of obtaining wastewater permits.  It has also received approval from VTrans for the Route 116 road cut, which will be 25 feet wide coming into subdivision.

 

Paul introduced the third plan in which a new Lot 8 had been added to the south of Lot 5.  Paul explained they had reviewed an area beyond Lot 5 to the southwest that was technically more difficult, and less desirable.  The group discussed elevation changes on the parcel (noted as 438’ at Route 116; 434’ south of Lot 5; 421’ west of Lot 5; and 417’ at the retention pond location).

 

Alex thought the subdivision design would flow more logically and better preserve views if the new lot were placed at the end of the interior road (to the southwest).  The Adirondack views as seen from Route 116 were discussed.  David Carse thought a house to the southwest would stick out more than one to the south of the already-proposed houses, where it might simply double up with those.  He felt views were arbitrary depending on when one looked out while driving south on 116.  Alex thought houses placed along a southwest alignment might not be seen as much due to lower elevations there.  David said he was concerned about placing a house in too low an elevation as septic would have to be pumped back up and would be more expensive.  He explained his desire to create an affordable housing development and how having an eighth lot would make that economically feasible only if sited without unnecessary expense.  He asked the group to be certain of the views they wished to protect; the group agreed the area would have to be looked at again.  Alex asked if stormwater for the new eighth lot could be dealt with differently (than the other 7 lots).  Paul said planning for larger storm water events was driving where to site the eighth lot.  Tom asked whether the farm access road was needed anymore.  David said the Ballard farm is still in operation.  Tom suggested a split driveway between Lot 5 and the new eighth lot.  David described how the Ballard access would be cut off if a lot were put to the west. 

 

Alex suggested placing stakes at the proposed new lot lines for DRB members to review on their own. David suggested creating a covenant for the eighth lot that required it to be a one-story house.  Ted said the reason Lots 4 and 5 were moved (from previous plans) was to preserve the view.  Tom thought Lots 4, 5 and 8 should relate to each other, that Lot 8 looked as if it were “stuck” on the bottom; Paul agreed.  The board said they were generally favorable to adding the lot and asked for the location to be tweaked.

 

Ted asked about the farm access road.  Tim Ballard said it was an established road, providing the best way to get to the barn throughout the year.  Ted asked if it could shift a little; Tim said another road could be used to access the barn but it had to cross a wet area.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the March 3rd meeting.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

[Voting members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

Dam - Final Plat Review – 7-lot/6-unit PRD – North Road – Applicant:

George Bedard and Joe Fallon spoke on behalf of the applicant.  George B. passed out a copy of the staff report to which he had added responses.  He described the project as a 6-lot PRD with 5 building lots; Lot 7 contained the remaining acreage, would be privately owned and is already developed with a trailer within an existing building envelope; this proposal decreased the size of that envelope.  34 acres on Lot 7 will be set aside as open space, restricted to forest use forever. George B. said no other development could occur on Lot 7 without further DRB review.

 

He discussed the concerns regarding a forest management plan.  He said a management plan had been submitted with the DRB application in August 2008.  That plan was the one currently being used as part of the state current use program.  George B. said it has since been revised by the A. Johnson Company (a forest products business located in Bristol); he said Tom Yager, A. Johnson’s head forester, was at the meeting to answer questions.  George B. said he has received a verbal approval of the plans by Mike Snyder, Chittenden County forester.  George B. said plan documents will be signed by the Dams and sent to Mike within the week; he then distributed copies of the text portion of the document to Board members.  He said this revised plan is more detailed, essentially setting up areas to be managed and documenting tree types.  He said this plan would be used as long as there was a current use program.  Beyond that, he said the Dams would continue to treat the land as if it were in the program and would agree to binding language stating as much. 

 

Regarding the state mapped deer yard, George B. said Tom Yager found no evidence of a deer yard, that the area in question had never been ground-proofed.  George B. said the woodland lot would remain untouched to grow trees under the management criteria of the current use program and in accordance with state “Acceptable Management Practices”; he said those practices deal with how streams and wetlands are treated.  He said the applicant planned to cut on a regular basis as this encouraged new forest growth and provided feed for wildlife.  He added that Lot 7 can’t be further developed without coming back to the DRB.

 

Tom McGlenn asked if the management plan covered 48 acres or 34; Tom Yager said he has broken out management areas with the 34 acres portion located in the upper area of Area 1.  He said areas are based on types of tree stands, divided either topographically or biologically.  Joe Fallon asked Tom Yager to address the deeryard, stream and erosion issues.  Tom Y. said the rules of the current use program must be followed regarding erosion or sediment.  He said a 4-foot high ring of trees was found in the area of the deeryard.  He remarked this to be unusual as regrowth is not typically that high if deer are eating it.  He said the area was previously mapped because of the softwood stand on the WMA but that it was never checked again.  He thought most of Hinesburg’s deeryards were located in the LaPlatte River area. 

 

Tom Y. said he made cuts on the parcel in 1992 and 1994, then again just after Dams bought it. Lisa asked about the documents that have been signed and sent, whether those were more detailed.  Alex said those documents included the text copy they received tonight plus a mapped plan.  He explained that Mike Snyder is waiting to receive copies signed by the Dams and will then put his own signature on documents. 

 

George B. asked the board to accept the plan from A. Johnson as the forest management plan requested as part of the subdivision application.  Ted asked if the plan would be carried out whether the land was in the state program or not.  George B. said yes; he explained the use program as having a lien attached to it; landowners have to abide by their plan even if they withdraw from the program.  He said a landowner can withdraw and not have a change of use and not pay the lien OR a landowner can withdraw and pay a certain amount of money.  He said enrollment was voluntary but once lien is in place, the owner is bound to the terms. 

 

George B. responded to other issues raised in the staff report:

 

#2 re: pins being set.  He said the Dams have not had the surveyors set pins, pending final approval, but that they would be set in the spring and pins would be reflected on the mylar that is filed.  He added that there would be blazing on trees to mark off the 34-acre protected area.

 

#3 re: utilities going under roadways.  He said the applicant has no problem with a condition requiring the installation of infrastructure before the installation of fabric.

 

#5A  re: necessary infrastructure and the issuance of a CO for individual building lots.  George said the applicant would follow necessary building permits procedures.  He noted that a bond is not being called for as there is no risk to the town, and that it is not unusual for lots to be presold before infrastructure is in place as those sales are often the source of construction funding.  Peter Erb said he simply wants buyers to be aware they will not get a CO until the infrastructure is in. The group discussed whether this was different from other applications.  Peter said there is an expectation that the developer put in the infrastructure before the lot is sold; he is asking this expectation to be formalized.  Greg thought perhaps there should be a plan for the event of a landowner not doing the infrastructure.  Peter asked only for the deed to make it clear to the landowner if for whatever reason the developer does not put it in the infrastructure, he will not get a CO.  George said the applicant would not be opposed to such deed language.  The group confirmed they were discussing and agreeing to bold type under 5A in the staff report.

 

#5B re: road maintenance/repair by the owners of Lot #7.  George said Joe Fallon sent a revised ROW declaration specifying how the Lot #7 trailer site would share in road costs and what would happen in the event Lot 7 were to damage the road.  Ted reminded the group that requirement bonds have been done in the past for private developments, citing Lyman Meadows.

 

(Beginning pg. 6) Declaration of Covenants notes to be included:

#1.George said underground power would be put in under the supervision of GMP who would end up owning the system.

#2. George said prior subdivision approvals have allowed people to clear trees out to 75 feet.  He noted which proposed lots were wooded and likely to have clearing.  Peter thought prior approvals have not allowed for a specific measurement of allowed clearing, only that clearing be done within a building envelope.  Lisa said she wished to review what has been done in the past.

#3. Peter said he wished to speak with Joe Fallon to make sure Lot 7 was not exempted from road responsibilities.

#4. George agreed to a condition that increased an asphalt apron from 4’ to 20’.

 

Ted wanted a clear statement of direction by the board regarding the amount of land reserved for the current PRD, whether the 34 acres (25% of the entire parcel as required in a PRD proposal) was all that ever needed to be set aside regardless of how many times the landowner came in for future subdivisions.  George said this issue was discussed when the application was first submitted.  He said the landowner has satisfied the minimum requirement of the present subdivision regulations, but will defer to future subdivision rules should they wish to propose an amendment to their PRD.  Ted thought there should not be an expectation that no more land needed to be set aside in any future request for development.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the February 17th meeting.  George M. SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

[Voting members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session (9:20pm) to discuss the Fritz and Burnett applications.  Zoë SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business

Burnett Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit

Decision: Zoë MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Lisa SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

[DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples]

 

Fritz Subdivision

Decision: Zoë MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval).  Lisa SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Greg abstaining.

[DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer]

 

The meeting ended at approx. 9:45 pm.  The next DRB meeting is scheduled for February 17th.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary