TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

July 21, 2009

Approved August 18, 2009

DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Greg Waples.

DRB Members Absent: Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

* There is currently one vacancy on the DRB.

Also Present: Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Gary Fournier, Peter & Lynn Monty, Drew & Monique Corcoran, Mac Rood, Tom Walsh, Michael Hopwood, Diane Langevin, Bart Frisbee, Michael Hart, Travis Hart, Melissa Harter, Tim Dowd.

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

Minutes of the July 7, 2009 meeting:

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

Fournier - Sketch Plan Review - 2-lot subdivision - Pond Road

Applicants: Gary & Rebecca Fournier [Tax Map # 17-20-05.100]

* Continued from the July 7^th meeting.

Greg left the Board at this time (7:40pm). The Board and applicants continued their discussion regarding the definition of the term “educational institution”. At issue is whether a Tae Kwon Do (TKD) program could be an educational institution as this is the term referred to in the Zoning Regulations for RRI district conditional uses. The applicant is requesting a sense from the Board on whether this would be allowed before he continues with the necessary subdivision proceedings.

Gary Fournier and Peter Monty spoke on behalf of the request. Ted said he thought the program was closer to an exercise or athletic program, and that he was not convinced it should be considered an educational institution in a residential area. Dick said he reviewed the website and echoed Ted’s comments about the appropriateness of the facility in RRI. Gary said he visited with and received positive feed back with neighbors.

There was extensive conversation about how the terms “educational institution” and “school” are defined within our regulations, public dictionaries and other towns’ regulations, with these ideas expressed:

- Peter Erb said most nearby towns define the word “school” within their regulations as something emphasizing academics; one specifically mentioned martial arts programs as NOT qualifying as a school; another said an “institution” grants degrees. He said neither word is defined within our own regulations, only used generically.

- Ted said he thought TKD was a sports-oriented program with discipline associated with it; “educational” is more academics-oriented.

- Lynn Monty said all Blue Wave facilities utilize a standard academic curriculum and teaching materials (goal sheets, practical and verbal testing) to provide training in leadership skills and Korean culture (history, language). She and Peter Monty invited DRB members to visit the facility to view classes first-hand. Peter Monty said they have been invited to teach TKD in area schools including HCS.

- Monique Corcoran described the practical and verbal testing requirements of the program, stating that other sports aren’t structured in the same way.

- Gary Fournier asked for Peter Erb’s opinion on how he would rule; Peter said he would be open to considering the TKD program as an educational institution. Gary said he did not want the Board to re-interpret Hinesburg rules (or its lack of a clear definition of terms) by looking at other towns’ regulations.

Greg (not participating in the discussion as a Board member) explained the DRB’s position as having to interpret already-adopted Zoning language and/or the lack of language. He said theirs was an interim decision only and suggested the applicant take action through the Planning Commission should they wish to change the regulations.

The group discussed how to proceed. The application before the DRB is for Subdivision Sketch Review, with an additional request for a “sense from the Board” on the interpretation of the term “educational institution” as it is used within the Zoning Regulations. It was decided that more Board members should be present to give such an interpretation, as well as to render a vote on the subdivision review.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0.

Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson.

Greg rejoined the Board at this time (7:55pm).

Dowd/Harter - Appeal of Zoning Permit - Wood Run

Appellants: Tim Dowd/Melissa Harter; Landowners: Travis & Sarah Hart. [Tax Map #14-21-74.000]

Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator, explained that this was an appeal of his decision and that he was not participating in this discussion, nor was he a Board member. Tom McGlenn passed out correspondence received from Steve Lidle and Nancy Wright, and also from Tim Dowd and Melissa Harter. Tom Walsh spoke on behalf of Tim and Melissa, as well as Kim and Michael Hopwood. He stated that the building permit issued for a year-round residence (replacing a camp) was invalid due to 1) the lack of a valid state wastewater permit (a previously approved permit is now being amended and is not yet finalized) and 2) easement issues on the property.

Referring to the 3/31 DRB approval for camp conversion, Ted said they relied on the state permit that had been obtained; he said there was now an issue over a well that required a re-submission of that permit. Tom McGlenn noted that Joe Fallon, attorney for the Harts, raised the issue of the timeliness of the appeal as it related to the 3/31 appeal; Greg agreed that may have some bearing on this matter.

Tom Walsh said Melissa and Tim live directly across from the Hart property; Mike and Kim have deeded access across the Hart property to the lake. He discussed Zoning Regulations section 4.1.6, subsection 3, which requires an illustration of specific easements before a zoning permit may be issued. He said he did not wish to revisit the camp conversion approval, but to address the location of easements and how they might impact the approved building project.

Regarding the state wastewater permit, Tom W. said the Hart’s engineer acknowledged that the permit needed to be amended. The group discussed this state permit amendment process and how it overlapped with the issuance of the Hinesburg zoning permit. Travis Hart stated they did have a valid permit when the zoning permit was approved, that the permit is now being re-submitted and will eventually receive state approval. Peter noted that legally towns cannot regulate wastewater (i.e. require a wastewater permit) unless they adopt the full set of regulations (which Hinesburg has not done). He said therefore he cannot technically deny a residential zoning permit application because it does not have a wastewater permit.

Greg asked for more information regarding the easements. Travis Hart said he could not comment on that; Tom W. said the easements are set forth in a warranty title. Melissa Harter submitted a copy of the Hart's warranty deed to the Board. Tom W. said regardless of whether easements were considered in the conditional use hearing, they should have been considered in the Zoning permit application.

Ted asked if the easements impacted the usable area on the lot and the setbacks. Travis said the two parties differed on the answer (he says no, they say yes). Ted said because the easement is described by deed it could be laid out on the plat to determine whether it encompasses more than just the road. Tim Dowd said the deed states that no permanent structure may be constructed on the lot with the easement. Part of the retaining wall of the new project (on the adjacent lot) is on the deeded area.

Tom McGlenn summarized that the State is working on the amended permit and the easements issue is before Superior Court. Greg Waples acknowledged that there may be some disputes of fact, and also a question about whether the application itself was sufficient (complete) without easement information. The group discussed how to proceed. Greg said the applicant could submit a new application to the ZA rather than try to fix the one under appeal, one with full disclosure of any easements. Peter said he used the surveyed parcel map for the zoning permit application that was presented to the DRB for the camp conversion. Tom Walsh submitted a letter to the Board summarizing his argument.

Tom MOVED to continue the appeal to September 1st meeting to allow the state wastewater resource to rule on the amended appeal and give the Harts a chance to amend their original application to the ZA. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Greg Waples.

Hinesburg Hillside - Revision to a Final Decision Review - Mechanicsville Road

Applicant: Hinesburg Hillside LLC, Bart Frisbee [Tax Map #09-01-01.100]

Bart Frisbee explained his request to delay crosswalk painting until 1) paving is completed on Mechanicsville Road OR 2) the best crosswalk location, as it relates to both sides of the road, is determined (it depends on how/when the bike path proposed for the west side is executed.) He explained the condition in the original approval requiring the painting and gave an update on road work to-date. They have cut and patched Mechanicsville Road for water installation but the road still requires another overlay of pavement. This was not planned to be done until after Phase II of Thistle Hill was completed. He said it is a matter of timing – once the paving is finished on the road and the bike path is built, they will connect the dots, so to speak. Ted suggested a change to the draft decision Order #10 to include a requirement that the applicant consult with the Town Public Works Director if the bike path is not installed by the time the paving is complete on Mechanicsville Road.

Ted MOVED to approve the decision as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Greg Waples.

Green Street - Revision to a Final Decision Review - Charlotte Road

Applicants: Green Street LLC, Mac Rood & Rob Bast [Tax Map #20-50-43.000]

Mac Rood explained his request to change the elevation of interconnecting bridges within the proposed development. He said they are proposing to change (raise) the elevation of the lower level access road by not lowering it as much (i.e. less excavation). This would have the effect of requiring a greater bridge height on the upper level to allow for emergency vehicle passage below. Nothing was shifting (left to right); in most areas of the development the first floor of the building elevations would remain as proposed; in other areas the first floor would drop a foot or two. The basement floor elevation would go up by about 5 feet. This would change the height of the garages and covered areas in front of them from 15 feet to 10 feet.

The group discussed the implications for pedestrian access, practical issues regarding the lower level living areas and traffic lane, and overall connectivity of units to public areas (the “plaza”) and each other. There was much discussion of the bridge and sidewalk re-designs, whether they would be easy to negotiate (in icy conditions, with slopes, with strollers, etc.). The group also discussed whether the change in garage/parking area elevation would hinder everyday uses in those areas (such as loading on the top of a car or receiving deliveries), requiring those tasks to now take place in the street’s traffic lane. Mac said he did not anticipate a conflict, as the road would be a quiet, dead-end road. Peter said the original minutes and project decision stated a requirement to create a traditional pedestrian-friendly New England street scene. He thought this proposal made the development less pedestrian-friendly.

Changes to the plaza area were discussed. Mac said it would be changed to a U-shape; Tom asked whether that would change the dynamic of the development as that plaza had originally been proposed as a community gathering place. Greg cautioned against creating streets that were too narrow, noting he had heard complaints about the Creekside streets being too narrow.

Mac said although the changes will make units non-ADA compliant, each would be designed with an elevator shaft (the elevator itself would have to be purchased/installed by homeowners). He noted that all the garages are on street level, with units connected and accessible by a lower level sidewalk. Peter asked about the grade of the road; Mac said it was going from 29 feet to 35 feet (height) over 125 feet (length). Peter asked if there would be a retaining wall behind the buildings to the south. Mac said that will not be changed, that the road is coming up with the first floor and basement staying the same.

The bridge design was further discussed, with Peter and Ted questioning the calculation of a rise in height (5 feet) over what they felt was too short a span (about 30 feet) between walkways. Mac agreed that the bridges would require steps and an arc or “camber” (camber is the amount of rise at the center of a radius divided by the length of the bridge). Tom asked if the bridges to the west could be designed to extend further west, eliminating the steps; Mac said no. The possibility of providing an alternative ramp system was discussed. The experience of sitting on one’s deck was discussed, whether a raised bridge system would compromise that visually or practically.

Ted MOVED to continue the hearing to the August 4^th meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Greg Waples.

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative to vote on the Iverson decision. Dick SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0. Greg left the board at this time (9:35 pm).

Other Business
Iverson / Thomas Revision to an Approved Final Plat

The Board voted to approve the draft decision as amended (approved). The motion PASSED 4-0.
Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson.

The meeting ended at approximately 9:45 pm. The next DRB meeting is scheduled for August 4^th.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary