Public invited
Home & garden
Open meeting laws ensure transparency, participation
Get ready for fall with our special ad supplement
Page 5
Page 8
September 21, 2023
Hinesburg Center II project under scrutiny
PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT #217 CONCORD, NH
POSTAL CUSTOMER
ECRWSSEDDM
Weekly news coverage for Charlotte and Hinesburg
thecitizenvt.com
Beach day
COREY MCDONALD STAFF WRITER
A major housing and commercial development in the works since at least 2015 is hung up in Vermont Environmental Court over concerns the project will create an increased risk of flooding near Patrick Brook. Hinesburg Center II would create 21 new lots in the town’s village growth area off Route 116 and would include 73 new homes — 15 single family homes, two nine-unit buildings, one six-unit building and one 34-unit building. More than 14,000 square feet of space for office and retail space is also queued up for the area. It’s a continuation of development that brought Kinney Drugs, the Parkside Cafe and other housing units to town several years ago. But documents from the project’s Act 250 hearings that began this summer show there are concerns around its location near a floodplain, and whether that risk may increase as climate change continues to intensify. “Our concern with the currently proposed project is that it creates an increased risk of flooding on the project property before any impacts of climate change may be considered, as well as resulting in the loss of floodplain function in the Patrick Brook and LaPlatte floodplains which impacts the floodplain’s ability to mitigate future flooding,” See ACT 250 on page 2
PHOTO BY LEE KROHN
A family enjoys a respite at Charlotte Beach on a rare un-rainy day.
Selectboard approves Thompson’s Point project LIBERTY DARR STAFF WRITER
The Charlotte Selectboard has officially approved a deal that overrules its own development review board, which had earlier denied a major revamp to a property on Thompson’s Point — a decision some residents say sets a dangerous precedent. “I just want you to know that this is really a huge decision that you’re making because it does send a message to people in Charlotte that if you have time and you have the money and you hire a lawyer, you may be able to do what you want,” Sharon Mount, a member of the town’s conservation commission, said. The controversial property leased by Barbara Russ and Dean Williams sits on a 0.38-acre lot on Thompson’s Point. The applicants proposed to replace the existing
753-square-foot camp built in 1940 with a new climate-friendly, two-story 1,769-square-foot house located 26 feet from the lake’s edge on a 28 percent slope, a decrease from the steep 44 percent slope where the camp currently sits. Town planner Larry Lewack said in an email that although the proposed new camp is quite a bit larger, the proposal reduces lot coverage due to the demotion of a shed and a smaller driveway and patios. Neighboring residents, along with the conservation committee, have consistently opposed the development, mostly citing issues with the steep slope, which the land use regulations say cannot equal or exceed 25 percent, along with the removal of 16 trees to make room for the new structure. “We recommended against it for very good reasons,” Claudia Mucklow, a member of the town’s
conservation commission, said. “We’re dealing with old-growth trees that should really be protected and not cut down for construction.” Although concerns mostly surrounded the protection of the native plant species surrounding the camp, per the town’s land use regulations, the project did have to receive approval from the tree warden along with providing an extensive revegetation plan created with help from a landscape consultant. “Three areas would be revegetated, and we would reduce overall impervious surface area. Much of the property would remain undisturbed,” Russ and Williams wrote in response to resident pushback. “Only native species, including native woodland ground covers, would be used. Layering the plantings and establishing a more ecologically diverse planting
palette will support the ecosystem function of this landscape.”
Board’s denial Despite what Russ and Williams say were their efforts to ensure the structure adhered to the town’s land use regulations, the development review board denied the project in March. Russ and Williams appealed the decision to the Environmental Division of Superior Court, at which point the town’s lawyer entered mediation to negotiate a solution. The selectboard officially approved the deal during an executive session — on the grounds to discuss litigation — at its Aug. 28 meeting but was criticized over why the decision was made behind closed doors. See CAMP on page 16