TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

January 5, 2010
Approved on January 19,2010

DRB Members Present: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

DRB Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Joshua Trombly, Kenneth Castonguay, Paige Larson, Kristie Wheeler, Eileen Carpenter, David Bissonette, Paul MacCluskey, Heidi Dally, Russ Barone.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm.

Minutes of the December 15, 2009 meeting:
George MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0, with Greg abstaining.

Hinesburg Auto Sales (MacClusky) for Revision to Conditional Use and Site Plan approval for property located on Rte. 116. [Tax Map #20-50-03.000] **contd. from the 12/1 and 12/15 meetings.

Greg left the Board at this time (7:35pm). Alex passed out a statement from the town tree warden, Paul Wieczorek. Paul MacCluskey presented a new landscaping plan that corresponded to suggestions given by the tree warden for tree type (honey locust) and configuration. He addressed the car washing issue, stating the area to the back of the lot is lower and would remained filled with gravel to allow for proper drainage. He addressed lot coverage, stating new plans bring the landscaping up to a 25.39% lot coverage. Zoë asked if the green area at the front would be moved back. Paul said he has started building a retaining wall that is half on his property and half in the state's ROW. He did not wish to move it, stating he thought it was functional and attractive where it was.

Dick asked about types of cars (e.g. employee cars, cars there for service) that would be on the lot at any one time, and how those would work with the allowed number of cars there for sale. Paul said customers (7-8 a day) are usually by appointment and are there only one at a time. The group discussed the lot configuration and how and when service customers would access the lot. Tom asked if Paul would vary the lot configuration day-to-day; Paul said no. Alex reminded the group they had discussed the idea of not restricting the parked car configuration, but instead to limit the number of cars and to a certain area. Paul stated he wished to have 40 cars allowed for sale. Peter asked the group to designate a parking area for customers that either meets or waives current dimensional zoning standards. Paul noted signage that would be put up to indicate customer and service parking. Peter asked the Board to draft language that clarifies an acceptable level of water leaving the drainage area as a larger amount may occasionally occur from car washing water mixing with stormwater. Paul said he has never seen water overflow out of that area; he also said he only rinses cars, not washes them per say.

Dick asked about the trees shown on the plan, to the north of the lot, noting the ditched area there (he wondered where trees could be planted). Paul said those trees are already there and growing. Greg Waples commented on the application (as an audience member). He noted his familiarity with the various reviews for this property over the years, and said he had concerns about the applicant's willingness to comply with the decisions/conditions received at those hearings. Paul responded that he has tried to address the various issues.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

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

Greg rejoined the board at this time.8:05pm

Cliffside Condominiums Association for Sketch Plan Review of a 2-lot Subdivision of property located at 25 Kelley’s Field Road. [Tax Map #20-50-15.000]

Eileen Fisher and Joshua Trombly spoke on behalf of the project. Eileen said she owns the Hinesburg Healing Arts building, across from the Saputo factory. Her building shares a lot with the Cliffside Condominiums. Joshua said it has become difficult for residents to sell their condominiums due to banks concerns having to do with the combination of commercial and residential on one lot.

The group viewed the house and condos on an aerial map and discussed how parking would be divided. Eileen reviewed 3 different options for dividing the property as presented in their application. Peter said their first-choice option meets all dimensional zoning standards, adding he thought it was the cleanest, easiest division. The draft decision was discussed; for Finding #6, Peter said the DRB can waive parking standards (and he recommends that waiver), noting parking works for the commercial business as it is presently configured with the potential for more even after the subdivision (using the first-choice line). Alex clarified that the parking standards table found in the new village zoning regs is to be used as a guideline only; what has changed is that applicants must now demonstrate what they need for parking. The group agreed the owner of the commercial building would have to come back to the DRB if more parking was requested.

For Finding#8, it was clarified this would be a 2-step subdivision process. Zoë suggested clarifying language to describe which subdivision line was chosen (among the 3 options). Eileen asked for clarification on who the applicant was; the group agreed it was the “Association”.

The group discussed the possibility of landscaping on the lot as a way of screening the parking and driveway areas from one building to another. Alex cited the building design standards that he believes are more related to new, not existing structures.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

Mechanicsville LLC. for Final Plat Review - Revision to a Previously Approved Subdivision, and Development on a Class IV Town Road Approval, for property located west of Lavigne Hill Road. [Tax Map #09-01-01.100]

Russ Barone explained he is seeking to develop a portion of Lot #7 from the Thistle Hill subdivision. He said although the lot is approved for two houses, he is only seeking approval for the western lot at this time. He said the primary building envelope has been created so that primary structures would be kept at the higher elevations on that lot; a secondary building envelope for accessory structures, with structures limited in height and size, has also been created. Alex noted 2 items that had been revised since the first version of the draft decision. In Order #2 which discussed the restrictions on the western building envelope, the accessory structures would be limited to a 300 sq. foot footprint of one story (Alex clarified that a one-story building could be a barn with an elevated roof). Greg noted that the primary building envelope was much larger than is usually approved. Russ said the boundaries followed the topo line; he said because he did not have a buyer yet he did not wish to restrict a 30-acre parcel down to a 2-acre size. Greg said most subdivisions don't have ready buyers either. The group discussed site lines and any visual impacts a home sited within that envelope would have from Mechanicsville Road (or beyond).

Alex said the other revision was more clearly recognizing the proposed deed language in Conclusion #4, which had been revised to include “a cost sharing mechanism”.

Greg asked for clarification on Conclusion #1. Alex said the whole lot is subject to a 50-foot ROW for easement and access by the Town for a possible future connection between Lavigne Hill and Mechanicsville Roads. The SB has agreed that this can be a floating easement (with no exact location designated). Alex noted an existing trail and steep topography in the ROW area. Russ said he did not wish any discussion about the road location to be put in the decision, i.e. the language in Conclusion #1 stating a “most logical location” for a future town road. He said he has moved the primary building envelope to provide flexibility and just doesn’t want to preclude the road location. The group agreed to change language to “...might interfere...” and in another sentence, delete everything after “trail”.

Peter asked about tree clearing, whether the home would be visible if all the trees in the building envelope were cut to the west? Alex and Russ said there is a greater elevation gain on the west side, in other words, standing on the back portion on the primary building envelope one only sees a hill, not views to the west. Alex said tree cutting was not discussed as there were no views beyond what would be cut. Zoë asked about the southern tree line; Russ said it is a well stocked, mid-aged forest.

Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and approve the draft decision as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

Tom left the Board at this time (8:50pm).

Tom McGlenn for Final Plat Review of a 2-lot Minor Subdivision for property located on Pond Road. [Tax Map #14-20-08.000]

Tom McGlenn explained his proposal for a 2-lot subdivision and said concerns from the Sketch plan review have been addressed. He said the engineers created an extensive well protection area around Theron's well. Greg asked Tom to clarify the ROW issue involving the Castonguay property. Tom said the survey states that the ROW does encroach on the property. He said the ROW has to be 50 at the property boundary whether the driveway is there or not; his proposal will make sure the 50 feet is there.

The group discussed site distances at the curb cut off Pond Road. Greg asked about responsibilities for clearing vegetation. Alex clarified that the area in question is on the Bissonette lot; it has been cleared over time and the question now is who will maintain it. He said the town mows within the town ROW (in that same area) but he is not certain whether a landowner can compel the town to keep it mowed. Alex clarified that Tom owns the land to the north, not to the south; he said for this proposal, there can be a recognition of those advisory standards; if a future subdivision happens that warrants attention to that, it may be necessary to move the roadway. Greg asked if there was a safety concern to the north; Tom said there is visibility to the north, adding Mike Anthony has stated there are no issues with site distances to the north, only to the south.

Tom discussed the drainage along the proposed new road. Alex had suggested drainage to the south of the driveway, but Tom said his experience was that most of the drainage takes place on the north. He talked to his engineer and they are proposing to ditch on the uphill side. He pointed out existing and proposed culverts. Ken Castonguay described drainage and culverts locations on his property. Tom said water goes in two directions at Pond Road. Ken then cited these specific concerns:

- FOF #1. Ken asked if the deed language needed to be changed on both deeds. Tom said there was a previous subdivision before he bought the property. Greg said that nothing they do tonight would change a private deed. Ken would like to change the deed so that it does not specify there can only be one house on his lot. Alex clarified that Ken would need to come back to the DRB to revise the 1980 approval, in the same way Tom must do now. Greg said it was a private right between grantors and receivers; any subdivision would have to be done with town approval.

- The issue of the driveway crossing on his property. Greg said they are not requiring Tom to move the driveway, only to create a 50-foot wide ROW, located within proper setbacks from the property line. Greg said if the driveway had to be moved at some point, there would be sufficient space to do so. Greg said the issue of the driveway location is a private legal matter.

- The utilities map. Ken asked if a map had been created; Alex said the plans being reviewed showed those proposed utility lines (i.e. there was not a separate utility map). Ken described the pole on his property and asked where service would branch off from the underground line. Tom thought it would be somewhere in the ROW. Tom said the barn has power coming back from the house. Tom said a transformer would not have to go on Ken's property. Ken asked about digging. Greg said the power easement across Ken's property would not be affected by the DRB decision.

- Blasting. Alex explained that language re: blasting is boiler plate language included to all applicable decisions and is there to protect neighbors. Ken said he is concerned about blasting and any affects on his well and foundation. The language simply states that neighbors must be notified of any blasting before it occurs. Greg said if a neighbor’s blasting creates provable damage to a neighboring property, that neighbor has a right to take action. Alex said Tom has not asked or said that he would require blasting.

- The driveway width. Ken asked when improvements to widen the road to 14 feet would begin. Tom said it would not be until the new house is built. Alex said the “trigger” to widen the road is the building permit which states the driveway must be expanded. David Bissonette asked about the design of the road. There was much discussion about drainage and the exact location of the road; the group expressed/ clarified these points:

- The road would be widened to the north, i.e. not be built closer to the Bissonette property. David said he wanted assurance that a rock garden area very near the present road would be protected. Ken suggested creating a berm on that southern side to help with that.

- Engineering sheet EC1 shows the road profile, not where the road would be on the property within the 50 foot ROW, only how the road would be built.

- Tom said any increase in snow (due to a wider road) would be removed to the north

- Ditching was discussed; Tom said drainage would be kept to the north. David asked about crowning the road; Alex said the road could be angled entirely to the north, so that stormwater sheets to the north. Greg said decision language could require that.

- Ken asked about the new road surface (gravel versus tar). Tom said the blacktop has not washed out since it was put in, but the road would probably be gravel when it was widened.

Tom noted the letter received from abutting neighbor Bill Charbonneau; he said he thought his comments were related to future houses shown on a master plan, not the house site being discussed. Dennis asked about the Stans alone ROW; Tom said he is discussing the matter with Stan to see if he still requires access of Tom’s property to (Stan’s) land in the current use program.

Ken asked about Road association language. Greg clarified he would not have to join it but if he did, he would have the right to compensation (for road maintenance) as described within the language. Peter said this decision can't change existing agreements or fix past problems.

Greg summarized existing issues as: 1) how to bring electrical power to the new site, 2) the re-sculpting of the driveway to face north, and 3) the drainage and culvert plan. Alex suggested Tom obtain a statement from his engineers on how water would flow through these culverts.

Greg MOVED to continue the public hearing to the February 2^nd meeting. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.

Tom rejoined, and Greg left the board at this time (10:00pm).

Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Hinesburg Auto Sales and Furno applications. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

Other Business

Furno 2-lot Final Subdivision

George MOVED to approve the draft decision as written. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voted: Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

No further action was taken on the MacCluskey application.

The meeting ended at approximately 10:30 pm. The next DRB meeting is scheduled for January 19.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary