TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
September 1, 2009
Approved September 15, 2009
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m. The August 4th minutes were not reviewed due to a lack of quorum.
Minutes of the August 18, 2009 meeting:
Tom MOVED to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. George SECONDED the
motion. The motion PASSED 4–0, with Zoë
abstaining.
Hart Hill - Final Plat Review - 9-lot/8-unit PRD/Subdivision - Route
116
Applicant: Hart Hill Designs, LLC / David Carse [Tax Map #16-20-26.300]
*Contd. from the 7/7 mtg.
Alex said the changes made to the draft decision (last discussed at the July 7th meeting) were minor. The group reviewed a new version of the decision. George said he thought Lot 9 was not represented accurately on the Subdivision Plat map(s) – The proposed pond area, only a small part of Lot 9, is noted with “35.87 Acres, Open Space”, but most of that space (to the southwest) is not shown on the map. He suggested adding a dotted line to connect the pond area to the larger acreage. Dick noted that the patterned line used to delineate the pond was not also depicted in the map‘s Legend. Tom noted an error on map C1.1 re: the acreage for Lot 9. The group agreed to ask the applicant to correct the above discrepancies on both the plat and overall maps as needed.
Zoë asked if the decision should more clearly tie the approval to use non-nursery trees to the specs in the landscaping plan. Alex said Conclusion 7 stated the need for landscaping, reiterated the submission of the plan and supplementary planting specifications per a letter on file from a professional landscaping firm. Zoë asked if Order #1 could state that the landscaping shall be installed per plans, per the species and size indicated in the plan, and that the plan apply to both nursery and non-nursery trees.
Tom asked about Order #10, whether this statement was strong
enough to remove the development potential from Lot 9 (the open space lot) as
this was a PUD. Alex said any applicant
wishing to further develop would have to seek to amend a previous approval,
coming back to the
Dick noted a typo, FOF1 wording should be “of the Adirondacks mountains to the west.”
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë
Wainer.
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] *Contd.
from the 8/18 mtg.
Dick noted a typo, Order 4B wording should be “… be located”.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Zoë abstaining.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place.
Dowd/Harter – Appeal of Zoning Permit #2009-20 for property at 167 Wood
Run
Appellants: Tim Dowd & Melissa Harter; Landowners: Travis & Sarah Hart.
[Tax Map #14-21-74.000] *Contd.
from the 7/21 mtg.
Tom confirmed with Tim Dowd his request to continue the hearing to the October 6th meeting. Tim said the two parties are hoping to enter into mediation over the next two weeks. Alex said the Hart’s attorney Joe Fallon had called the office on Monday to request a continuance as well.
Peter Erb asked for clarification on why the appeal was filed originally. Tim said it was based on a septic permit issue and also an issue with an easement not shown on property maps. Peter asked that two items be entered into the record: 1) the Harts now hold a valid wastewater permit for their project; 2) The easement at issue was shown on maps submitted as part of the zoning permit #2009-20 but was not discussed specifically between Peter and the Harts. Peter said this was because the easement was not in the building area for which the Harts submitting their building permit application.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the October 6th meeting. Dick SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë
Wainer.
Wagner - Conditional Use Review (Accessory Apartment) - Gilman Road.
Applicant: James Wagner [Tax Map
#12-01-27.200] *Contd. from the 8/18 mtg.
George noted a typo in the first paragraph of the Order – the term “…subdivision” should be replaced with wording re: accessory structures. Dick and George wished to discuss whether the driveway, as it would now serve two residences, should be reviewed as driveways are in subdivision reviews. George asked if the Board could similarly require an applicant to make road improvements within a conditional use (CU) review; he thought there was little difference between this request to build a structure at a significant distance from the primary residence, and a two-lot subdivision in which two residences are also separated. George said a subdivision applicant would be required to address stormwater, emergency vehicle access, etc. Peter addressed this particular situation, stating he thought the parcel’s topography was suitable for the project - stormwater would not be a problem due to the presence of two detention ponds and that emergency vehicle access was adequately addressed. He added that he had raised the same concern (regarding continued driveways) with the Planning Commission, requesting that they require structures to be next to each other (for this and other reasons). George said he thought this application did not seem different from building another house (through a subdivision) because of the apartment’s significant distance away from the existing home.
Alex said the Planning Commission intended for the addition of accessory apartments to be a simple and straightforward review process. If an apartment is proposed as part of an existing house OR within an existing accessory, there is no review; only a building permit is needed.) One within a new structure requires a CU review, a process not as rigorous as a subdivision review. He added that the state legislature also intended for this process to be simple in order to encourage more affordable housing. Peter said the PC decided not to allow additional curb cuts, but that extending an existing driveway to a new site within a parcel was OK. Alex said they also discussed requiring a fixed area for the apartment but decided against it, stating each situation (topography, location of neighbors, etc.) would be different. The group discussed CU criteria, agreeing that the last standard (a caveat about public welfare) may be used to address specific situations, such as a shared road not being safe or appropriate to extend.
Tom suggested adding language that said the CU for this
apartment was non-transferable. Alex
said that provision existed for home occupations but not for apartments (nor
could the
Peter said that not limiting the distance between structures (home and apartment) may undermine the provision that a homeowner must reside in the primary residence (in order to allow an apartment); presumably homeowners will keep better watch over tenants if they are physically close to them.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended (approval). George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Zoë abstaining.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place.
Hubbard - Conditional Use Review (Home
Occupation) - Pond Road
Applicants:
§ primarily for personal use (a “hobby”, a permitted use)
§
with the option of renting it in the future (a
“home occupation”, a conditional use requiring
§ Hours of operation - he would use the studio after 5pm, wrapping up between 8-9 pm weekday nights; if he were renting, he would like the option for later hours
§ “hours” was to define “noise emanation”, not other operations such as mixing which would not be heard outside the building.
§ The emission calculation predicts 30 decibels at the property line (50 feet); the nearest resident is 300 feet. The location of the building was determined by topography (flat site), it is generally far from everyone and can be built up higher in the trees (obscuring it). There are no windows on the building.
Charles described the construction: the exterior framing is insulated, sheet rocked and caulked. An entirely new room is then built within that, with 2 layers of 5” insolated drywall and a third layer of sandwich glue equivalent to another layer of drywall. This construction method can predict an “STC” of 63, that is will stop 63 decibels from leaving the room. Charles said at its loudest, the threshold of sound is at 110 decibels; if he can achieve an STC of 70, sound experienced right outside the facility would be at 40, and sound at 50ft would go down to at least 30.
Zoë said she felt that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to address noise emanation. Alex explained that performance standards already exist in regulations; if neighbors complained, they could take the matter up with the ZA and/or come before the Board. Charles said his back up plan, in the event of complaints, would be to either turn the equipment volume down or add more mass to the building – a third layer of drywall would have a substantial effect on noise emission. He added that (2 x 6 ) construction would not provide enough benefit to justify the cost.
The group discussed the allowed hours at length, especially with regards to related activities that would occur outside the facility (such as loading/unloading, talking, vehicles, etc.). Peter also limited hours for which equipment can be transported to and from the facility across a field, to between 6am and 8pm. Outside those hours, cars would have to be parked in the driveway and equipment carried by hand as needed. Up to 5 vehicles (not including the residents’) would be allowed to park in the driveway; those cars could come and go at any time (Peter agreed to alter Order #2 to remove any restriction on travel hours). Charles said his immediate neighbor was OK with the plan for traffic and vehicles, as long as speed and noise were kept down.
Alesandra (co-applicant) asked if vehicle provisions related
only to the music studio; Zoë said yes.
Power was discussed (it will be underground); Signage was discussed;
Peter agreed to include an approval for a basic sign for a home occupation in
the decision, so that the applicant would not have to return to the
Zoë asked about language in Order #1; Peter said he would remove point B re: additional noise, as the Board acknowledged that there will be some level of noise discernable at the property line but expect it to be reasonable (per FOF 10B). George asked about the AC system; Charles said he planned to use a heat pump system that will mitigate sound emanating from the AC.
The group then worked out provisions regarding the commercial activity, which Charles did not expect to incur until early 2011. After that he anticipated a few – up to 1 per month at the most - commercial sessions a year, mainly on the weekends. The group agreed that the definition of a “session” was work done at the studio by one client over the course of several days (up to 5 days). George asked how anyone would know whether sessions were commercial or private. Charles said to the outside observer, he did not think they would know. The group discussed whether to set limits on commercial activity, and decided the following:
§ up to 12 sessions (at up to 5 days per) would be permitted in one calendar year
§ the commercial activity “clock” would start on January 2010, whether Charles was ready to pursue that activity or not
§
The certificate of occupancy only determines
when the facility is ready for use – hobby or commercial. If the C/O is issued in November 2010,
Charles would still have the 12 sessions allocation available; on January 1,
2011, any remaining allocation would be lost; a new round would begin.
Charles would submit a use log to the ZA each year as an affidavit of not only how many session but as a measure of a track record of complaints, if any.
Zoë MOVED to close the public hearing and direct staff to revise the draft decision (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Other Business
Mechanicsville LLC – Request for Extension of Sketch Plan Approval
Zoë MOVED to grant a six-month extension of the March 3rd, 2009 sketch plan approval. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
McGlenn Subdivision – No quorum was present and this matter was not discussed.
The meeting ended at approximately 9:00 pm.
The next
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary