TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

August 18, 2009

Approved September 1, 2009

 

DRB Members Present:  Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place.

 

DRB Members Absent:  Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Bob and Karen Nolan, Mac Rood, John Penoyar, Judi Maculan, Ken Castonguay, David Bissonette, Sandra O’Hora, Neale Gow, George Dameron, Milo Willmott, Roger Kohn, Marian and Dennis Willmott, Jim Wagner.

 

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

 

Minutes of the July 21, 2009 meeting:

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

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

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

* Continued from the July 21st and August 4th meetings

 

Mac Rood reviewed plans revised since the last hearing.  3 total bridges have been modified in design, with arches and steps, all with 14’ clearance below.  Two bridges have 6” risers; the third has 3” risers.  Mac said they have also standardized the width of walkways in the development, to 14 feet.  Dick noted that the one bridge’s steps came down into a paved driveway area and asked if that would conflict with cars turning out of driveways.  Mac said no, that proper radii for turnarounds have been designed.

 

Neale Gow and Sandra O’Hora, Silver Street town home residents, asked several questions about the development.  Mac and members of the board described the general layout, scope of the project, projected home prices and timeline for beginning work (the first phase of infrastructure would begin this fall).  Mac explained there would be no houses in the wetlands.  He explained that the project had already been permitted and the hearing tonight was to request a change in road elevations only.

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

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

Tom left the Board at this time (7:50pm).

McGlenn - Sketch Plan Review - 2-Lot Subdivision - Pond Road

Applicant: Thomas McGlenn   [Tax Map #14-20-08.000]

 

Tom McGlenn reviewed the proposal to divide his approx. 25-acre parcel into 2 lots, a 5.13 lot around the existing house (Lot 1) and a 19.62 lot with a building site to the southeast (Lot 2).  A master plan has also been submitted for Lot 2, showing possible locations for two additional building lots.  Tom said the master plan was conceptual only; he is not requesting approval for development of those additional lots (3 & 4), only presenting ideas for future access to those lots.  He said they would possibly share the same driveway as Lots 1 & 2 (traveling along the property line to the east) or would be accessed by a new ROW (at the north end of the parcel). 

 

The new lot lines around the existing house and the driveway access were discussed.  Tom said lines were chosen primarily to create a 5 acre lot, following along natural contours.  The house would be given a 50-foot ROW across the existing driveway and then travel about 50 feet further to the house.  The traveled portion of the road is now 8 feet wide; it would be widened and improved as required, with the addition of a second house on Lot 2.  Dick asked about a turn-off area on the road, near Pond Road.  Tom said it serves as a turn-in area for cars passing each other, and also for mail delivery vehicles.  Tom noted mature trees along the Pond Road frontage; he said those would provide screening for neighbors to the east, of a future driveway going north.  He also said he dug test pits on the entire parcel and found similar soils throughout.

 

The group discussed contours and how stormwater might be directed for future lots.  A letter submitted by a neighbor, Theron Webster, was addressed; Tom said all wells in the area would be located and considered as part of the septic permitting process.

 

Karen Nolan, an adjoining property owner, said she would not wish to extend a ROW across her property for future access.  She and her husband Bob expressed concerns regarding stormwater runoff.  Bob asked about test pit results.  Tom said soils were similar on the entire property; he also described a proposed engineered septic system that has a pre-treatment function.

 

Ken Castonguay, an adjoining property owner, noted an unresolved ROW issue regarding a small un-deeded portion of his land over which the current driveway travels.  Tom said the driveway could be moved if necessary.  Ken noted another deed issue, stating only single-family homes were allowed on their properties, according to the original subdivision.  Roger Kohn, representing the applicant, said the statement restricting development within the original private deed was a title issue (and thus private matter) that should not prevent an approval for this proposal.

 

Ken raised concerns about driveway maintenance and plowing.  Ted explained that the DRB could require owners of the existing lot and new lot to enter into a shared maintenance agreement, but could not require Ken to do anything.  Alex noted that the original deed does call for sharing between the existing two lots, i.e. there is some language that compels Ken to share road maintenance, but not improvements related to the proposal.  Ken asked when improvements would happen; Ted said they will be required but may not happen until Lot 2 is actually developed.

 

David Bissonette, an adjoining property owner, expressed concerns with driveway, stating it is currently within inches of his property line.  He request that a new driveway be pushed further away from his property.  The barn on the Bissonette property was noted to be an existing structure without proper setbacks.

 

Judi Maculan said she was concerned about stormwater runoff.  Alex pointed out a ridge line found in the contours, stating the Lot 2 house would be sited on a different side of that line than the existing house.  Karen Nolan asked about future home sites.  Tom pointed out a flat area at the north of the parcel.  David Bissonette asked whether further improvements would have to be made now or later, for Lots 3 & 4 if those were developed.  Ted said the applicant could build a road that wide, but would not be required to do so immediately.  David asked about a building schedule.  Tom said he has no immediate plans to build a house on Lot 2.

 

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

Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, George Munson, Dennis Place.

 

Tom rejoined the Board at this time (8:10pm).

 

Wagner - Conditional Use Review (Accessory Apartment) - Gilman Road.
Applicant: James Wagner   [Tax Map #12-01-27.200]

 

Jim Wagner presented building, site and wastewater plans.  He described existing buildings (a single-family home, barn, garage & shed).  He said the building area for the apartment is former pasture that is growing in.  Dick asked what would happen to the apartment building if the owner no longer lived on the premises (as is required by regulations).  Alex said the building would not be in violation, only its use as an accessory apartment would need to be discontinued. 

 

Peter asked whether the Board should require the landowner to improve the existing driveway.  He said this was the first application for an apartment that was not close to the primary residence, and as such, he thought the road (up to the new structure) should be improved for emergency vehicle access.

 

Peter said the proposed building size (about 650 square feet) meets regulations.  Ted said regulations did not require a certain positioning of an accessory apartment on a lot, in relationship to the primary home.  Alex agreed, adding that a new access to the apartment could not be created (in this case, the driveway is extended to it.) 

 

Stormwater and existing ponds (for recreational use only) were discussed.  Peter said he had no concerns regarding stormwater or sewer.  The house locations of several adjoining properties were discussed in terms of their well sites (and any need to consider well shields).  It was noted that both the Douglas and Sellinger houses were well away and upstream from the proposed septic system, and that all wells in the area would be considered during the state permitting process.   Jim said the water supply would be shared with the main house, noting two different wells. 

 

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

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

 

Willmott/Barton - Final Plat Review - 2-Lot Subdivision - Hayden Hill Road West
Landowners: Dennis & Marion Willmott; Applicants: Milo & Jada Barton

[Tax Map #10-01-02.200]

Milo Willmott addressed comments from the staff draft decision.  He said they would use a shallow well due to the septic system shield area and also because drilled wells in the area performed poorly.  He said the septic would be a gravity-fed mound system; the driveway will be moved slightly to work with the system.  He discussed stormwater plans and said a swale on the upper side of the mound system would be installed until the driveway was in place.

 

The creation of two building envelopes (in the draft decision) was discussed.  Peter said the intention to delineate one for residential buildings and the other for non-residential buildings was due to the lot’s general proximity to the Town Forest.  Wording for Order #5 was discussed.  Dennis Willmott said they wanted to ensure options for siting accessory buildings remained flexible.  The group agreed to define two building envelopes, as they are separated by a ROW anyway; one would be limited to residential buildings; the other would be for all other structures.

 

Alex explained that the hearing needed to be kept open due to a mistake with the official warning in the Free Press.  (This applied to the Willmott and Wagner applications.)

 

Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the September 1st meeting.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

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

 

Ted MOVED to re-open the Wagner hearing and to continue it to the September 1st meeting.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

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

Ted MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Fournier, Hinesburg Hillside, Green Street and McGlenn applications.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

Other Business
Fournier Subdivision

The Board voted to approve the draft decision as amended (approved).  The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place.


Hinesburg Hillside Revision

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.

 

Green Street Revision

The Board voted to approve the draft decision as amended (approved).  The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place.

 

McGlenn Subdivision

The application was discussed with no action taken.  Tom McGlenn was not present for this discussion.


The meeting ended at approximately 10:15 pm.  The next DRB meeting is scheduled for September 1st.

 

Respectfully Submitted: 


Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary