Present: Roger Kohn, Jean Isham, Carrie Fenn, John Mace, Missy Ross, Fred Haulenbeek, and Ted Bloomhardt. Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner

Members Absent: George Bedard, Maurice Goodrich

Members of the Audience: Andrea Morgante

This work session meeting began with the approvals of minutes from past meetings. Jean Isham moved to approve the minutes of March 15 as corrected. Carrie Fenn seconded and all approved. Carrie moved to approve the minutes of April 5 as corrected. Missy Ross seconded and all approved. John Mace moved to approve the minutes of April 12, Jean seconded and all approved. Missy moved to approve the minutes of May 3 as corrected, Carrie seconded and it was approved by all.

1. Abstentions. Faith Ingulsrud explained that five affirmative votes are needed to approve a motion. A recent Supreme Court ruling makes decisions difficult when members aren’t present or if someone recuses themselves from the vote. Carrie Fenn made a motion to change section #6 of the Bylaws of the Hinesburg Planning Commission by removing the wording "exclude those members who abstain" in the second and fourth lines. John seconded and all approved. It was noted that Roger Kohn was not present when this motion was approved, and may wish to make another motion at the next meeting.

2. Village Zoning. Faith updated the group about her discussion with Howard Riggs, who has no interest in developing north of the Commercial District portion of his property between Patrick Brook and CVU Road. He will be at the Planning Commission’s next meeting to seek re-approval for the commercial lot that was originally approved in 1989 but that has expired because there has been no "substantial construction". Mr. Riggs has to go through subdivision again in order to sell the lot.

Fred Haulenbeek brought up the question of whether gravel parking lots are better than asphalt in light of reducing pollution from stormwater runoff. Faith will investigate. Shared parking with Lantmans IGA and the veterinary clinic (which may expand) was also discussed.

The Planning Commission discussed changing zoning, and in particular, opening up more commercial use on David Lyman’s land west of Route 116. This could allow further expansion for the Fire Station and Giroux’s Auto Body Shop. The suggestion that zoning changes be phased to accommodate the immediate needs of those businesses was raised. Everyone agreed that they didn’t want "spot zoning" and that they needed to think about zoning on a larger scale.

Fred felt it was important that the Town pursue the new road with the cheese factory. Hinesburg is growing along with the rest of the region, and this new road would be in a prime location for potential development within the Village on sewer lines. Secondly, the new road would ease traffic flow. Other members agreed and suggested that when the easement from the cheese factory for the Town Hall entrance way. Issues such as the new road can be raised at that time. Roger Kohn concluded that if the Town is serious about a road, a new site plan should be drawn up with a proposal and presented to the cheese factory for a response. Questions about whether or not the cheese factory would remove the front part of the building as previously proposed were also discussed.

The group asked Faith to look into enlisting a university class or getting a grant to hire an engineer to look at road feasibility, wetland, stormwater runoff and buffer area issues, so the zoning change and road construction issue can be considered comprehensively.

After discussing whether to seek funding from the MPO to study a Park and Ride in Hinesburg, Ted Bloomhardt made a motion to submit a request for scoping for Park and Ride options in Hinesburg.

The motion was seconded by Carrie. It was unanimously approved upon being seconded.

Andrea Morgante joined the meeting during these discussions. In discussing the Park and Ride scoping study, she said that we need to think regionally about the issue. Hinesburg is low on the totem pole, for Park and Rides. But she agreed that it would be good for Hinesburg to get in line with other towns for scoping.

3. Ridgeline Zoning. Members listed their observations from the ridgeline tour:

- Color of house and roof make a big difference. Grays and browns work well, as do non-silver and non-reflecting roofing.

- Excessive clearing is a problem.

- How a house faces and the amount of glass in it that reflects in the sun.

- Houses silhouetted on top of mountains.

- The views from down in the valleys looking up. It’s not an issue of altitude, but of the "view shed".

The issues of how to define all of the above and create an ordinance were considered. Using a map to define areas of view sheds was one possibility. The other was to not use a map at all, but describe the parameters with general, but clear definitions.

The Moretown Uplands Conservation Overlay District ordinance was reviewed. Faith showed the group a map of Hinesburg with a tracing paper overlay illustrating what an area using an "Uplands Conservation Overlay District" could look like in Hinesburg. She said the elevation definition used by Moretown wouldn’t work in Hinesburg. Missy pointed out that the Moretown zoning does not address little knobs and humps, like those on the west side of 116.

Andrea offered a selectboard point of view that ridgeline zoning is more than just aesthetics. It is also about the Town providing services to remote locations if spread out, scattered development is encouraged. And it is about maintaining private forest land and wildlife habitat. Jean suggested using slope steepness of driveways as a guideline. Andrea thought people would build long, winding driveways to get around it.

It was suggested that distance back from a road be a guideline.

Roger suggested that if it is possible to generate a map, given the parameters of whatever ridgeline ordinances we have, then the parameters can also be set forth in words.

Faith said she would use GIS to identify lots that don’t have houses on them, on the assumption that the Moretown ordinance is close to what the Planning Commission wants. Conditional use review would just be for pre-existing lots. Any other development would come under Subdivision Review so knowing where the pre-existing lots are will help identify locations of concern with ridgeline issues.

Roger felt Hinesburg’s road standards allow private driveways that are too steep. Most towns have a 10% limit. Faith said that road standards are a very big issue. The Planning Commission could choose to focus on planning concerns through road standards, such as: grades of driveways, road use levels, recreational function of some roads, etc.

4. Summer Schedules. It was decided after reviewing everyone’s schedules that the Planning Commission will meet for the next two months on:

Wednesday, June 7^th (applicants);

Wednesday, June 14^th (work session); and,

Tuesday, July 11^th (applicants).

There will be no second meeting in July.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm..

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary