TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
March 6, 2007
Approved March 20, 2007
DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Joe Donegan, Bob Linck, Dennis Place, Greg
Waples.
DRB Members Absent: Tom McGlenn, Lisa Godfrey, George Munson.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning
Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Rad Romeyn, Inez French, John
Kiedaisch, Gerry Livingston, Jean Miner, Margaret Woodruff, Lee McIsaac, Isaiah Kiley,
Lenore Budd, Raven Davis, Annemie Curlin, Linda Hamilton, Jonathan Trefry, Marty Illick,
Johanna White, David Hirth, Bob Chalifoux, Carol Chalifoux, Pat Mainer, Mike Mainer, Zoe
Wainer, Jeff Wainer, Chuck Reiss, Paul Wieszoreck, Steven Palmer, Tinker Palmer, Nancy
Palmer.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Ted introduced Dennis Place as a new member of the DRB.
Minutes of the February 20th, 2007 Meeting:
Some minor corrections were made. Greg MOVED to approve the February 20, 2007 meeting
minutes as amended. Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0, with Dennis
abstaining.
7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant: Hinesburg
Hillside LLC
There was a discussion regarding whether a vote could be taken at this meeting due to lack of
quorum. Alex noted the public hearing was closed on February 6th. He determined March 20th to
be the last day a decision could be rendered. It was decided to wait until March 20th to vote on
the matter in an open board meeting, rather than poll absent members.
21-Lot, 19-Unit Subdivision/PRD Sketch Plan – Drinkwater Road – Owner: Inez French;
Applicant: Vermont Land & Cattle Company, LLC
**continued from the December 19th and January 16th meetings
Ted noted the applicant was withdrawing the revised plans submitted at the January 16th meeting
and would like to continue the sketch plan review using the original plans submitted with the
application (dated by George Bedard 12/09/06). He clarified procedures for this evening’s
meeting, stating the board would take new evidence and potentially close the public hearing.
Alex added that absent members would review any new evidence presented at this evening’s
meeting. Rad asked if an up or down vote could be taken. Ted replied no, that once a public
hearing is closed, the board usually discusses the matter in deliberative session. Following
discussion, the board directs staff to write a draft decision; board members then formally vote on
that document. It was agreed to follow the usual procedures. Rad then asked Bob Linck to
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 14
recuse himself from the matter, as a conversation between the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) and
Vermont Land & Cattle Company regarding conservation efforts had occurred since the last
hearing. Bob, who is employed by VLT, agreed and left the board at that time. Greg then
questioned whether the board should proceed if there were not four members with continuous
attendance at the meetings where this project was discussed. Joe said other DRB members
would be able to review new information presented at this evening’s meeting even if the public
hearing was closed. Greg questioned whether the board could transact a public hearing, stating it
may be better to have Rad come back at the next scheduled meeting. Rad encouraged the board
to proceed and it was agreed to do so. Alex confirmed that a quorum would still exist without
Bob when the matter came up for a vote later.
Rad read excerpts contained in this section of a 2004 study conducted by Michael Munson,
entitled “SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM SURVEY OF TOWNS USING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARDS”:
"As a starting point it is noted that the Development Review Board serves the Town as a whole
by carrying out the development review activities spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations. Consistent with Vermont’s Planning Law, these include Site Plan
Approval, Subdivision Approval, Conditional Use Approval, hearings on requests for Variances,
and hearings on appeals of decision by the Zoning Administrator. The Board is to literally
enforce the provisions of the ordinance and regulations. Ideally, the Ordinance and Regulations
are sufficiently clear that there are few instances where the DRB makes discretionary decisions.
Development Review decisions should be based on whether or not the application satisfies the
requirements of the Ordinance and/ or Regulations, and whether or not there are specific
conditions which, if implemented, will cause the application to satisfy the requirements of the
Ordinance and/or Regulations."
It was Rad’s position that the DRB was obliged to approve his proposal, as its 5.8-acre density
met with current 2-acre agricultural zoning regulations. He noted two other developments that
had been recently approved; the Hickory Place development with a 6.6-acre density and the
Ballard proposal with a 5-acre density. He said High Point met with Town Plan guidelines that
limit development on ag soils, as all ag soils within the proposed development were to be
reserved for agricultural use. He felt his 19-unit proposal met all criteria for permissible
development under the Town Plan, the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations and
asked for an approval of the project.
Alex distributed additional written comments he had received. Margaret Woodruff then
submitted her comments in the form of a letter. John Kiedaisch spoke on behalf of the
Hinesburg Land Trust. He said his organization was prepared to talk to Rad about a possible
conservation effort on the parcel. His group has a strong opinion regarding the placement of
buildings on the west side of the property. They feel the area is a critical wildlife habitat and that
buildings shown on the current proposal, even farm buildings, would do irreparable damage to
that habitat. Isaiah Kiley wanted to confirm whether the board had received a letter dated
1/16/07, in which he and his mother requested a denial of the proposal; Greg confirmed the letter
had been received. Isaiah said Table 1 within the Zoning Plan specifies a minimum lot size of
two acres, which is not necessarily, in his opinion, the same as specifying a district’s allowable
density. He felt that Subdivision Regulations section 5.1.5 “Compatibility of Surroundings”
should be used as a guideline for determining density.
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 24
Dave Hirth, speaking as a member of the Conservation Committee, concurred with John
Kiedaisch’s comments regarding the west side of the parcel, which contained woods at the edge
of a large, contiguous forest. He felt units should be moved away from the woods and built in
fields, which he explained have no value for wildlife in the area.
Linda Hamilton of the Charlotte Conservation Committee expressed disappointment with the
applicant’s decision to revert to the original proposal. She felt shifting houses down to the lower
third of the parcel addressed issues that were raised in her organization’s December 18th letter.
Jean Miner questioned a density study presented by Rad Romeyn at the January 16th meeting.
She thought the number of houses and driveways off Burritt Road was inaccurately reported as
27 homes served by 22 driveways. She counted 17 houses served by 12 driveways off Burritt
Road, noting shared driveways and several houses on large parcels of land. Joe clarified he
thought the study included houses on Baldwin Road in close proximity to Burritt Road.
Gerry Livingston of the Hinesburg Conservation Committee felt the DRB’s charter was not
limited to subdivision and zoning regulations, but that the board was also responsible to the
Town Plan and the protection of town resources. Isaiah Kiley described open space as a natural
resource of the town that should be protected.
Ted made a motion to close the public hearing. He explained how the matter would proceed
once the hearing was closed. He felt sufficient evidence had been submitted and it was best to
proceed. Alex explained that legally an applicant has an expectation that once information is in,
the 45-day deliberative period should begin. John Kiedaisch asked if deliberative sessions were
open to the public. Alex replied the board reserves the right to go into a closed deliberative
session and does so on occasion.
Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg
SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Bob abstaining.
Public Hearing – Minor Plat Revision – Buck Hill Road – Applicant: Chuck Reiss
**continued from the March 6th meeting
Joe recused himself from the board for this matter. Chuck Reiss indicated the proposed change
of a Right of Way (ROW) on a map. The change expands, but does not move, the ROW area for
the driveway from 15 feet to 20 feet. Alex said it was not a shared ROW, just a ROW for Lot 2.
There was a question about the size of the parcel from which the area was being transferred, as a
lot size waiver had already been granted. Ted said although it did not change materially, the lot
size(s) would have to be revised on the plat. Chuck said the plat would be revised to reflect the
ROW change and new lot sizes.
Ted MOVED to close the public hearing on the modification. Bob SECONDED the motion.
The motion PASSED 4-0, with Joe abstaining.
4-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – North Road – Applicant: Everett O’Brien
**continued from the March 6th meeting
Alex said that the applicant had reviewed a draft decision for sketch plan approval and that no
new information had been submitted. Bob Chalifoux, an abutting landowner, asked why Lot 4
was not using the same access road as Lots 1-3. It was explained that the road serving Lots 1-3
would have to cross an existing stream to get to Lot 4. Bob noted an existing farm road to the
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 34
area, and suggested creating a new driveway accessed from North Road, across from the Dam’s
driveway. Ted said the board encouraged people to share driveways to avoid additional curb
cuts. He confirmed that the road accessed off Rte. 116 would be improved at the applicant’s
expense. Alex confirmed the configuration of lots and driveways (correcting a typo that had
appeared in a letter to the Chalifouxs).
Greg MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Bob
SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Public Hearing –Building Envelope Revision – Boutin Subdivision – Shelburne Falls Road
–Applicant: Shomit and Birgitte Ghose
**continued from the January 16th meeting
John Pitrowiski and Doug Bicknell of Trudell Consulting Engineers spoke on behalf of the
Ghose’s. John reviewed the proposal to change the building envelope, noting the location of the
original septic system as designed by a previous engineering firm. He said the previously
approved site would not meet current septic standards. He said the new septic area did meet
standards and had been reviewed on site by a state representative. He felt the house site was also
better placed, now closer to the wood’s edge and away from of wetlands.
John said balloons had been placed on site to determine how the house might be viewed from the
neighbor’s home. Assuming the new home would be built to the maximum 35-foot height, John
said the home would still be below the tree line and out of the neighbor’s Camel’s Hump view.
He stated the landowner’s preference of this new location over the old one. Greg expressed he
would not take the landowner’s preference into consideration. John reviewed the septic issues
and new design again. Ted asked if alternative systems had been explored; Doug replied the new
design was already a performance-based system. Greg asked about the driveway; John indicated
the path of the new driveway on the map. Joe pointed out that the leach field area, which must
be 75 feet away if the house is downhill from the area, and 35 feet away if it is uphill, restrains
the building location.
John said an alternative house site had been proposed that was situated closer to other neighbors
(Donnolley/Hines), but they had objected. Greg felt changing a building site was a significant
consideration, as neighbors relied on a pre-approved plan to make their decisions. He explained
the history of the application when the land was being subdivided by the Boutins.
Steve Palmer indicated where his property was in relationship to the applicants’ lot. He said
Phase 1 (a garage and apartment) of his home was built in 2004. Phase 2 will include the main
home, planned to face Camel’s Hump. Greg asked whether the Ghose home would be visible
from the Palmer’s home were it built within the approved building envelope. Steve said yes,
slightly, but that a home in the proposed envelope would impact their view greatly. He passed
out photos with the balloons in place, stating the photos were taken 90 feet away from the corner
of the new house. It was noted that the balloons were floated at the corners of the two building
envelopes. Ted noted the elevations of the two properties were similar (within 4 feet); Steve
agreed.
The septic issues and possible locations were discussed. John said the system could be designed
one level higher, as a pre-treatment system, but that would be very expensive. He said the land
had been explored for potential primary and replacement systems, with digging in many test
areas. Lawrence Palmer expressed concerns about the larger Palmer parcel, the value of views to
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 44
both the east and the west, and the potential for new adjacent homeowners to strip the land of
trees. Doug felt a house built within the proposed envelope would not obstruct easterly views.
Ted agreed, stating it would be seen in either place at almost the same elevation. Steve said it
was a difference of a home being in a primary view, or a view off to the side. There was a
discussion about the tree line and existing vegetation on or near the proposed site. Joe proposed
a compromise, that landscaping be mandated to obscure the view of the new home. Lawrence
suggested limiting the height of the house. John did not believe the homeowner would want
such restrictions. There was further discussion about the impact of the change on the Palmer’s
views to the east.
Joe noted the proposed change met with setback requirements, and also that there was no
requirement on the part of the DRB to consider the visibility of one house to another. He
suggested landscaping as a solution. Greg stated he would not vote favorably on this proposal,
stating he felt there should be resistance to amending building envelopes. Ted proposed a site
visit. John asked if it would be helpful to have confirmation from the state that the entire site had
been explored, adding his firm looked at the entire 20 acres using a reasonable measurative
exploration. Dennis asked if the project was grandfathered from new septic laws. John said he
would not build a septic system on the site as originally proposed. Alex said the project was not
grandfathered, that all development after July 1st would require a permit.
Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing until April 3rd. Joe SECONDED the motion. The
motion PASSED 5 - 0. A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, March 31st at approximately
11:00 a.m. Steve requested the existing and proposed building envelopes be marked with
balloons.
3-Lot, 34-Unit (8 existing, 26 new) PUD Final Plan – VT Route 116 & Charlotte Road –
Owner: Robert Bast & Laura Carlsmith; Applicant: Green Street, LLC
**continued from the December 19th and January 16th meetings
Background Information from the Staff Report
The Applicant is requesting Final Plat approval of a 3-lot, 34-unit (8 existing, 26 new)
subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Village Zoning District. This
application constitutes a combined application for final plat along with related and necessary
site plan and conditional use approvals. Site plan approvals are necessary for: 1) the existing 3unit mixed office/apartment building; 2) the existing 5-unit multi-family dwelling (apartment
house); 3) the proposed 5-unit multi-family dwelling (L1-L5 Condo units); 4) the proposed
commercial building (N1-N2). Conditional use approvals are required for: 1) the use of the
proposed commercial building as “business or professional offices” the use will occupy more
than 1000 square feet (see section 3.4.4 #1, Zoning Regulations); 2) development in the flood
hazard area (below the 328’ elevation). The project includes 2 adjacent parcels of 13.83 acres
(parcel #20-50-43.000) and 0.33 acres (parcel #20-50-44.000). The project is located west of
VT Route 116, south of Charlotte Road, and east of the LaPlatte River. Lowlands adjacent to the
LaPlatte River occupy the western 2/3 of the property. This portion is largely coincident with
the LaPlatte flood hazard area and associated wetlands. The remaining portion of the property
is upland and gradually climbs to the Route 116 frontage. A Town sewer main runs south to
north through this portion of the property. The Route 116 frontage of both parcels is currently
developed with a 5-unit multi-family dwelling on the larger Green Street parcel, and a 3-unit
mixed office/apartment building (1 unit of which is currently a commercial use – massage
business) on the smaller Bast & Carlsmith parcel.
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 54
Rob Bast and Mac Rood gave an overview of a map and project to-date. Five parking spaces
have been added as supplemental parking for the apartment building units’ five 1-car garages.
Mac said sidewalk plans have been discussed with the Select Board. A path would connect
Green Street to Route 116, with no disturbance to existing infrastructure or natural features. Mac
noted a large tree in front of the Damerons’ home where the sidewalk concrete may be
interrupted. The crosswalk near the commercial building would be an extension of the existing
crosswalk. Rocky Martin has walked the path and will review the proposal. Ted asked what the
town intended to do on Route 116 and Silver Street. Rob explained how the Silver Street
intersection may be changed, and how the new sidewalk would accommodate that change. Alex
reminded the group of the sidewalk requirement for the adjacent Norris development. Rob said a
catch basin that is part of an existing drainage basin will probably have to be re-done.
Mac reviewed modifications to the landscape plan. Five trees have been added and the hedge
around the parking area has been modified to allow for easier snow removal. The location of the
three transformers has been changed, as Green Mountain Power preferred to the have main trunk
line on the west side of the project rather than down the middle of the street. Greg asked about
snow removal in the event of a large storm. Rob said snow removal had been discussed with
Gary Clark; Mac indicated plowing areas on the plan, noting one tree (at the road curve near the
commercial building) could be removed to make snow removal easier.
Mac presented elevations of the proposed commercial building. Rob explained the details of a
stair tower located in the front and center of the east side. He explained the railing on the
building roof was an architectural feature as well as required safety feature. Ted asked about the
average height of the building. Rob described the structure as a flat roof building with a cupola;
the flat roof was 34 feet in height; the rail added an additional 2 or 3 feet. Peter explained how
average height was calculated for residential buildings, that the highest point was used in the
calculation unless it was a decorative feature or structure. There was a discussion about how to
define this building for the purpose of measuring it. Existing buildings in the village were also
discussed in comparison, particularly those over 2 stories high such as the Lantmans building.
Regarding a traffic light proposed for the area, the applicants preferred that occupancy for their
development be made conditional on the installation of the traffic light, rather than conducting a
study beforehand.
Regarding garage setbacks, Rob said they were no longer seeking waivers, but wished to
minimize doors on some units by recessing them 10 feet into the building. Although those units
have not yet been designed, they would like conceptual approval for this approach. Joe felt
comfortable giving a waiver for setbacks now rather than having the applicants return for those.
Specific units were discussed: K, J1, J2, and I2. K faces northeast and is the only one that
requiring doors to be recessed. J1 and J2 face inwards; their garages will be set 10 feet back
from units. I2 faces the walkway and will become like the others. Ted suggested using language
from the Barone project decision (order #8) to address architectural features on unit K. Peter
said a waiver might be necessary since the setback is from the deck. Mac confirmed they were
considering the deck to be the front of the unit. Joe felt the garage on unit K could be waived
without delay due to the diversity of home styles within the development. Ted agreed, saying
this was a private roadway. Alex said garage standards applied in other subdivisions; he read the
Barone decision language.
Mac described a tower that would serve as a focal point for the development and possibly as a
gazebo. At approximately 58 feet, it would be visible from the village driving south on Route
116 and on the backside of the development. A height waiver is being requested. Rob described
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 64
protected areas in the wetlands to the west. He said a pedestrian trail that followed along the
river and connected to key points within the development would be indicated on a larger plan.
Mac said the lighting plan, a surveyed plat and the landscape plan were still open for discussion.
Landscaping around the condominium units L1-L5 was discussed. Mac said landscaping was
intentionally minimal due to limited space. Ted asked about the west side of the project, stating
he wished to avoid an empty look at the backs of the buildings. Rob said the barn will be
relocated onto a new foundation, near a new garden space. Mac said foundations to the rear will
not be exposed. Rob suggested an orchard to break up foreground and serve as a focal point.
Joe asked about photovoltaics (PVs). Rob thought trees would shade the homes and limit
potential for PVs. Joe did not agree that all types of trees do so and suggested species with lower
mature heights. Ted felt taking trees out was not a good trade off in planning for something that
may not be economically viable. Alex said current design standards include traditional street
trees that provide shade. Eastern locations for trees were reviewed; Mac said trees had been
placed in every possible space already, noting space was limited due to the clustering of homes.
Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing until March 20th. Greg SECONDED the motion.
The motion PASSED 5 - 0.
Other Business:
Mark Ames request to extend sketch plan approval another 6 months.
Ted MOVED to extend the sketch plan approval for an additional period of six months. Greg
SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5 – 0.
4-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – North Road – Applicant: Everett O’Brien
No action was taken.
Conditional Use Review – Camp Conversion – Wood Run Road – Applicants: Michael and
Kimberly Hopwood
Ted felt the applicants had met the camp conversion policy, and that the home had adequate road
access. The order requiring DRB approval regarding additional bedrooms was discussed. Ted
MOVED to accept the draft decision as written (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The
motion PASSED 4 – 0, with Dennis abstaining.
7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant: Hinesburg
Hillside LLC
No action was taken.
Public Hearing – Minor Plat Revision – Buck Hill Road – Applicant: Chuck Reiss
Language regarding the ROW change was added to the decision. Ted MOVED to accept the
draft decision as written (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4 – 0,
with Joe abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 74
Recording Secretary
Hinesburg DRB Minutes – March 6, 2007
116096213
Page 84