TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

December 15, 2009

Approved January 5, 2010

 

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

DRB Members Absent:  Greg Waples.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), George Bedard, Stephen Hoke, Bob Quackenbush, Paul MacCluskey.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm.

 

Minutes of the December 1, 2009 meeting:

Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended.  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6–0, with Kate abstaining.

 

Stephen & Joanne Hoke and Robert & Elizabeth Quackenbush for Final Review of a Major Subdivision for property located south of Burritt Road and west of Baldwin Road.   [Tax Map #08-01-73.000]  **continued from the 11/3 meeting.
George Bedard and Board members reviewed a small number of changes to the draft decision (approval) that had been distributed at the December 1st meeting.  George read updated language that he had discussed with Alex, including:

- tree removal (certain trees or species that posed a threat to the primary structure), as applied to all lots and also specifically to Lot 4

- a statement that the owner of Lot 6 may not violate the terms of the forestry program

- language re: the homeowners association and when the various owners are required to join; George said the association begins with the first lot sale is made, i.e. when the first legal documents are filed.  He also clarified that Lot 1 is obligated to be part of the Association for purposes of septic maintenance only.

- Trails; Alex explained there are no public trails currently running on this property; Peter said he recommended that the house on Lot 6 be situated in such a way that the owner could give (public) trail access if they wanted to in the future.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and approved the draft decision as amended (approval).  Ted SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-0, with Kate abstaining.

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

 

Hinesburg Auto Sales (MacCluskey) for Revision to Conditional Use and Site Plan approval for property located on Route 116.   [Tax Map #20-50-03.000] **contd. from  12/1

A site visit took place before the meeting, with the following in attendance:  DRB members George Zoë, Dennis, Dick Ted; Alex Weinhagen (staff) and Paul MacCluskey.  Ted said they began at the front of the lot and viewed the state ROW line and the landscaping between that and the parked cars.  The cars had been “stacked” in rows 3 deep and 8 wide, with additional partial rows beyond that as well as cars on the opposite side.  They saw where cars would park at the back of the lot along the ditch at the north side of the building, noting cars might be parked there while being serviced.  They saw the back of building, the dumpster, the fence line, the location where snow would be piled (along the south side of the building.)  Zoë said they viewed existing trees on north and south sides.  Tom said they noted where the location of the proposed island would have been installed.   

Tom explained that the applicant was currently under violation of their original 2005 site plan; they were reviewing a Revision to a Site Plan and also Conditional Use for various proposed functions (car washing, a service/inspection station, etc.)

The group discussed the 3 stacking options presented by the applicant.  All three options showed a proposed number of 40 cars allowed for the site.  Members noted how far back cars were to the ditch and where the tail end of the cars (past their tires) extended into that area; Zoë felt the cars needed to come forward for that reason.  Paul said they were stacked in the dark and he could not see how far they were being set back.

The car washing area was discussed; Dick said he thought the gravel area sloped more toward the ditch than toward the grassy area at the back of the building (where water was intended to flow).  Paul explained state rules re: car washing at sites less than 1 acre (30 cars per week were allowed if water flowed to a grassy area).  Dick asked if any water flowing into the Giroux area would be a problem; Ted and Zoë did not think so as they thought that ground level was higher.

The number of allowed cars, and also extra cars (customer, employee, cars in for service) was discussed.  Paul said a boundary adjustment with the Girouxs corrected setbacks for his site, allowing for his business to be considered a commercial entity under town regulations.

Landscaping details were discussed.  Alex said he spoke with the town tree warden Paul Wieczoreck about specific trees that would thrive on the site; he said he would meet with the applicant and tree warden again to finalize a species plan.  Paul (MacCluskey) described the former center island idea as not being practical due to problems with snow removal.  He described plans for landscaping at the front of the lot and also a small stone retainer wall.

Lot coverage was discussed; Paul said by his calculations they had a 23% landscaping ratio (his lot requires a 25% ratio minimum).  Ted asked how wide the south and north side buffer zones were; Paul said they ranged between 5 and 6 feet, describing the ditch to the south as curving, not straight.  Alex said a good portion of the buffer to the north side is actually the ditch; the south buffer was more level.  He also explained that the landscaped area at the front is situated in the state ROW; the state owns that area and while they have not expressed a desire to use it (for sidewalks or other projects, for example), they could in the future.  He said the 2005 approval states that the lot was required to maintain the integrity of the minimal amount of landscaping it had.  Alex said in (car arrangement) options 1 and 3, he thought the cars at the very edge, on the north side, should be removed (about 4 cars).

 

Dennis suggested allowing for an approved parking area in which any arrangement was allowed (a “parking envelope”).  Ted thought having random stacks of cars on the lot would not be visually appealing, stating he thought there should be a number associated with it.  Peter suggested defining a number of cars for sale and a number of cars for service.  George Munson thought the lot required a certain amount of free space in which to maneuver cars for any reason.  Tom suggested delineating a parking envelope combined with a maximum number of cars.  The group discussed further the details of parking and car positioning (wheels on gravel with a portion of the car past the gravel into landscaped areas).  Alex noted a provision in the original site plan that required that a landscape buffer aid in handling stormwater. 

Car washing was discussed.  Paul said he is mainly rinsing cars with plain water outside to remove dust, not dirt, grease, etc.  He said the cars are usually delivered to him as clean reconditioned vehicles; any car washing (with soaps) that is required is done at Hart and Mead.  Alex read from a state environment agency’s fact sheet on handling wash water, noting that Paul is following the 4th option.  He said the sheet did not clearly answer the question whether a straight water rinse would be OK with this ordinance.

The request to create a car inspection and repair service function at the site was discussed.  Paul said services would be limited to what other small shops in town do (tires, brakes, exhaust; no body work or painting).  The provision within the zoning regulations regarding services stations near a place of gathering was discussed.  It was decided that this business should not be considered a “service station” like a “gas station” (the same conclusion was made for Automotion next door.)

 

The Board agreed with the location of the dumpster, number of employees and hours of operation (proposed to be 8:30am to 5pm in winter; to 6pm in summer, with 10:00am to 2pm on Saturdays. Peter asked what other types of vehicles such as snowmobiles, campers, boats, etc. should be allowed on the lot, and also whether personal vehicles would be allowed to be stored there.  He asked only that the Board make it clear in the decision as to which were allowed.

Zoë summarized her thoughts about the project, stating she thought the front green area needed to be set back further away from the state ROW; that a number of 34 cars seemed reasonable; some grading may need to be done to ensure that water does not leave the property; the servicing proposal and dumpster location seemed reasonable.  Paul asked why other buildings on either side of his are not being held to the same standards in terms of a setback from Route 116.  Zoë said an extra 2% (from Paul’s calculations) were still needed to meet the green area requirement and moving the green area would help make up for that and the loss of the island.  Ted noted that the 75% maximum lot coverage is a guideline; less could be granted by the DRB (i.e. more landscaping, less impervious) at their discretion.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the hearing to the January 5th meeting.  Dennis SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

Voted:  Kate Bissonette, Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.


Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss Hinesburg Auto Sales.  Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

 

The next DRB meeting is scheduled for January 5th.

 

Respectfully Submitted: Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary