Town of Hinesburg

Development Review Board

Meeting Minutes

February 2, 2010

Approved February 16, 2010

Board Members Present: Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Kate Bissonette, Greg Waples, Zoë Wainer

Board Members Absent: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director Planning and Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator, Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Mr. and Mrs. David Bissonette, Peter LaZorchak (McCain Consulting), Ken Castonguay

Tom called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

Alex Weinhagen started the evening with a couple of reminders to the Board: first one was that at the next meeting, February 16, 2010, there were two items on the agenda. One would be the continuation of the Lyman/Milot Kinney’s application (stating that will be the big item agenda), then the Baldwin 2-lot subdivision. Alex gave a quick overview of this application stating that in the past the Baldwin’s had a number of different parcels that they wanted to subdivide, but those plans would trigger Act 250, which the Baldwin’s didn’t want to deal with. George and Greg asked if all other permits had expired and Alex said they had and if in the future the Baldwin’s want to subdivide more property they would have to start from sketch. They are ready for their final review and that’s what they are coming in for on the 16th. Zoë asked which applicant should go first. Alex said that normally they would schedule the continuation first and then address all others. After much discussion the Board agreed that the Lyman/Milot project would be first on the Agenda then they would address the Baldwin project. Alex said he will tell the Baldwin’s to come later in the evening for their final review.

Alex’s second reminder was that the meeting on March 2nd will likely be the Bissonette/Champlain Oil application which the Board had denied last year. They have been working on a new application, which they haven’t submitted yet and are hoping to submit it soon to get on the March 2nd meeting. Tom asked if they are staying on the same lot as proposed earlier. Alex said they would like to pursue that and would like to show the Board a different master plan with a different traffic access plan. They are trying to address all items the Board stated as reasons for denying them previously.

Minutes from January 19, 2010

Greg Waples MOTIONED to accept the minutes from the January 19th meeting with the revisions from George and Dick. Dennis Place SECONDED the motion. Voted and passed 6-0.

At this time Tom recused himself from the meeting as his application was the first on the agenda. Greg assumed the role of chair.

McGlenn 2-lot subdivision final continued from January 5, 2010 of property located on the west side of Pond Road, and the north of Pond Brook Road intersection. [Tax Map # 14-20-08.000] **continued from the January 5th meeting

Greg moved to address the application of Tom McGlenn for final plat review on the property on Pond Road. Greg asked Tom to give a quick overview of his application for the Board members and members of the audience who were not at the last meeting. Tom described the project as 25 acres and he would like to subdivide only 2 lots. He would separate out the existing house keeping it out on its own on a 5-acre lot as lot 1 and then create another 19 acre lot. Tom gave a synopsis, using a plat map, as to where the property in question was located, showing where any Right-of-Ways and easement would be. He stated that Vermont Electric Cooperative came out to see if a new line and/or transformer would be needed for electricity to the properties. Tom said the new plan for power to lot 2 is to install a new pole at the existing lines on Pond Road and to go underground from there staying entirely on lot 2.

There was a discussion between Tom and Ken Castonguay about storm water run-off, the proposed ditches, culverts, road engineering (widening) and how it would affect the neighbors. With this Tom introduced Peter LaZorchak from McCain Consulting to help explain this topic. Peter L. addressed the issue of additional run-off associated with upgrading the road right above the Bissonette property. One idea was pitching the entire widened driveway to the north but Peter L. said for drivability, constructability and maintenance it’s not ideal and he would prefer to keep it as a crowned driveway. Greg asked how the crowned part of the driveway would be maintained over time and Peter said by adding gravel and grading it. Alex stated that if the DRB gets road engineering for any road and the diagram shows a crowned road then that is, by default, how it has to be going forward, whether it is formally conditioned or not.

Peter L. showed on the map approximately where the Bissonette garage was and showed the direction of the flow of water. Peter L. said that he was only talking about 250’ feet of the driveway that’s headed back down to Pond Brook Road. He said they were proposing a stone lined ditch that will fan out to a wider drainage area near the bottom. Peter L. explained that this was the natural drainage for that area and he could not see any benefit in doing anything additional as it will eventually end up in the Town ditch. Using the map Peter L. showed where the culverts are proposed. Greg said that there was a question as to whether the culvert design was adequate and Peter said there had not been any storm water modeling done per say to figure out flow volumes because it would be costly and it seems like overkill for a single lot. Peter showed another way to work with the water flow by breaking the property into 3 drainage areas. Ken pointed out that there was no existing drainage and Peter L. showed that there is existing drainage leading down to Pond Road through Ken’s property. Ken stated that was just one culvert on his driveway and the water sheets down on Tom’s existing driveway and now we are talking about putting a culvert on the other side collecting water. Ken stated that would be a lot of extra drainage. David Bissonette worried that a lot of that water run-off would be going towards his woodshed. Peter L. said that there a couple of things that have been done in this plan: he showed on the map that the drainage would not go onto the Bissonette property and the culvert would take most of the water. There would be additional run-off from 300’ feet of new driveway. Peter L. said in general there will be a little bit of drainage that will still come to the south, but anything on the 7’ feet to the northern side will get pitched into a ditch and infiltrate into the flatter area and end up in the Town ditch. Peter said there will be some run-off from the proposed driveway that will have to come out through the natural drainage on the Castonguay parcel. Greg asked about this drainage and Peter L. said it was an existing major drainage.

There was much discussion about the storm water flow, runoff and overflow which led to more discussion on culverts, stone ditches, and ponds. Greg asked Tom and Peter L. if the applicant would be responsible for any corrections with regard to the culverts and water flow direction if any would be needed. Peter said they do not see any problems happening from the culverts as they are designed to handle the water, but it corrections would have to be done then yes Tom would be responsible for that.

Greg said to the applicants that the Board could not decide tonight exactly how the storm water runoff is going to go and if they would approve or deny the proposal based on the submissions. Greg stated that we technically build in conditions requiring an applicant to be prepared to make any necessary corrections if the storm water runoff proves unacceptable in certain circumstances. Ken stated that it was already bad and it will be worse than it is now. There is no water absorption into the land like it is now and figured that the plans would be throwing the water into a ditch and forcing a flow.

Zoë asked Peter to explain a stone lined ditch and the water flow. She asked him to show the direction of the water flow. Peter showed on the map the direction and explained the grade of the land. Zoë said it looked like there was a break in the stone-lined ditch and it would not be sending all 300’ feet of water through that section. She said her question to Peter was how does that work. Peter said that the storm water has to go somewhere and no one is changing any of the drainage areas. The water is coming down, there will be an extra ditch to help carry some water, but ultimately the same amount of water is still falling over the same land and it is still going into the same place. The impervious surfaces are speeding things up which is why you typically have some sort of retention facility, but not for a project this small.

Peter Erb asked about the set backs from the barn and if this would ever be a shared road. Peter E. said in fact Alex mentioned it to Tom if he was going to develop the rest of the land the road would probably have to follow more closely to the water shed line. Peter E said he was just thinking that if you have to widen the road all the way up to where it splits and rebuild the whole road with fabric underneath it basically you’re constructing a new road all the way up to the barn. Peter E’s point being why not consider creating a new road anyway, the costs may be the same. Peter L. said that the idea is that if Tom decided to do a bigger project one wouldn’t use this access road all the way up and around the barn. Peter E said that right now it would be a driveway one may want to make it full width but actually it would be 12’ feet. Peter L. said it could be argued either way, but if the original driveway is going to stay adding a different driveway configuration may end up with more impervious surface.

Greg questioned about the potential stormwater detention pond. Peter L. said that would be located on lot 2. Greg then asked who would be responsible for the digging and maintaining of the retention pond. Alex said that it really wasn’t something they were going to actually create it’s a reserved space in case lot 2 was further subdivided and there needed to be a place to put more storm water. Tom clarified that creation of additional stormwater facilities would be the responsibility of lot 2.

David Bissonette wanted to go back to what Peter E was saying; if it is going to be subdivided again, you are going to have so many feet away from Tom’s barn but what about his barn? Greg said that would be a whole new set of hearings, a whole new project subject to all the aspects that this project has gone through. David asked then are they going to do the road once or are they going to do it twice. Greg said the road would be expanded to the size and width to fit the future subdivision. David asked how many feet from his property line or barn the road would be? David wanted to know if they were talking about a Right-of-Way from Tom’s barn that’s there and what about his barn? Greg said it would not intrude on David’s property any expansion would be on the other side. Tom concurred.

Mrs. Bissonette stated that there is a lot of water running between her house and the log cabin next door right now. She stated that her lot does not cause the water to run down the hill and expressed that there has always been a lot of water running down that hill. David’s concern was how close is the road going to be from his property. Tom said no closer than it is now. David then started to discuss the possibility of someone plowing all the snow onto his property and the traffic increasing. Greg said the edge of the road is not going to move, any expansion of the road is going to be away from David’s property. David said he understood, but said that more traffic will be added closer to his property. Ken brought up the subject of road cloth again stating the existing roadway does not have road cloth so he wondered if that meant the whole road is going to be torn up and road cloth put under it, and then the driveway reconstructed. David asked if the driveway is all going to be torn up anyway would it hurt to move it over 10’ feet? Peter said it would be quite a lot more earth working and he would rather see the driveway stay where it is then see the cut that would have to happen to move it farther into the hill. You would end up with a much bigger swath and more clearing. Tom agreed with Peter that to widen it 5 more feet it would take quite a few big trees out.

Greg stated that the regulations prohibit subdivision applicants from increasing the amount of flow. Alex stated that our regulations don’t actually say that but that’s been the general practice. We take a philosophical lead from the States storm water regulations. Greg asked Alex if the conditional approval typically embodies that and Alex said they usually mention that if the system doesn’t work the way it was designed that the applicant would have to come back and fix it, our conditions usually refer to the plan as proposed. Ken said that there isn’t 5’ feet of elevation difference there he is afraid the increased amount of water will come onto his property. Greg said that he anticipates that if the Board approves this he will embody conditions that prohibit the increase of water flow across Ken’s property. Ken asked who enforces the corrective measures? Greg said the Town or the Board. Greg said the Board does the best they can and that they do not want to end up in neighborhood wars. Greg said he thought the Board had heard all the comments and asked if there were any additional comments on subjects that hadn’t been talked about. Ken rated the existing driveway area that crosses his property. Greg said that the driveway may have been built in the wrong place, but that is not an issue for the Board to decide and that the applicant has included a right-of-way to lot 1 in case the existing driveway has to be moved.

Greg drew this discussion to a close. Ken stated those were the only issues he had. Greg asked Mr. and Mrs. Bissonette if they had anything else they wanted to add and they declined.

For the third time Greg MOTIONED to close the meeting and go into deliberative session regarding Hinesburg Auto and the McGlenn application. Zoë SECONDED. Voted on - passed by all.

Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary)