HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 14, 2000
APPROVED August 16,
2000
Present:
Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, Carrie Fenn, John Mace, George Bedard, Missy
Ross and Fred Haulenbeek. Also
Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner
Members
Absent:
Jean Isham
Members of the
Audience:
Eileen Carpenter, Tom Sopchak, Andrea Morgante, Ethan
Lacey
1. Eileen Carpenter, Hinesburg Healing Arts
Sign Review. Ms. Carpenter described the proposed
sign and showed a color version of the drawing that the Planning Commission
members had received with tonight’s meeting agenda. The sign’s lighting would be similar to
Lantman’s IGA and the law offices of Kohn and Rath. Each halogen light would be 100
watts. The times that the sign may
be illuminated were discussed. It
was assumed that the sign would be lit during the Hinesburg Healing Arts
business hours. Ms. Carpenter
expressed a desire to have the sign lit for a time after hours as well. She suggested using a timer to turn the
lighting off at 9:00 p.m.
The sign
location meeting the 33 foot setback from the Route 116 centerline was also
discussed.
With no further
questions or concerns, Ted Bloomhardt made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sign approval to Eileen Carpenter for a 25" X
30" free standing, lighted sign in front of the Hinesburg Healing Arts building
at the corner of Route 116 and Kelley’s Field Road. The sign design and location shall be as
proposed by the applicant except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The applicant
shall obtain a Zoning Permit from the Zoning Administrator prior to installing
the sign.
2.
Any additional
signs shall require further approval from the Planning Commission unless the
zoning bylaw states that the category of signs is exempt from Planning
Commission review.
3.
The sign may be
illuminated as proposed until 9:00 p.m. or later if the business is open
later. The lighting shall be aimed
such that no glare is visible from the road.
John Mace seconded,
and it was unanimously approved by all those present.
2. Tom Sopchak, Storage Solutions Sign
Review. Mr. Sopchak explained that his proposed
free standing sign would be similar to the Lantman’s IGA sign. The drawing presented by Mr. Sopchak
showed a half moon decorative shape resting above the main body of the sign, and
he indicated that this might be modified sign the company making the sign does
not like it. Mr. Sopchak showed a
color photo of sign that would have similar coloring. He is proposing red posts; cream
lettering; and a dark green background.
John Mace asked for confirmation that the 16 square foot size limitation
applies to just the sign. It was
explained that the posts and borders don’t apply, but there is also a height
limit.
Mr. Sopchak felt
that a free standing sign would be more attractive than a wall mounted
sign. He explained that a lot of
landscaping has been planted to make the front of the business look good, and
that a wall mounted sign would be harder to see through the landscaping than a
free standing sign.
Ted Bloomhardt then
made the following motion:
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants sign approval to Tom Sopchak for a 3' X 5'
free standing sign in front of the Storage Solutions building on Commerce
Street. The sign design and
location shall be as proposed by the applicant except as set forth herein. This approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The applicant
shall obtain a Zoning Permit from the Zoning Administrator prior to installing
the sign.
2.
Any additional
signs shall require further approval from the Planning Commission unless the
zoning bylaw states that the category of signs is exempt from Planning
Commission review.
3.
No sign
lighting is proposed at this time and none is allowed without further Planning
Commission approval.
4.
Lettering and
trim colors may be changed from that proposed to match and coordinate with the
buildings.
George Bedard
seconded the motion. There was a
question about the colors of the sign, and Ted amended the motion by adding item
#4. John Mace then re-seconded the
amended motion and it was unanimously approved by all those present, except for
Roger Kohn who joined the meeting in the middle of the
discussions.
3. Andrea Morgante - Lewis Creek Mapping
Project. Andrea Morgante and Ethan Lacey met with
the Planning Commission to show examples of the grant project they are working
on and to get the Planning Commission to think about what’s useful for them in
regards to this project. Ms.
Morgante explained that there are implications on natural resources when writing
the new Town Plan. There have been
many natural disasters/flooding in the past few years that have resulted in loss
of gravel and culverts. FEMA does
not cover road repair if culverts weren’t properly sized to begin with. Incremental damage occurs with each new
road cut. When people build, they
like to clear more land and flatten lawns which increases storm water runoff and
adds sediments to town roads and ditches.
Ms. Morgante showed
several NRCS maps. One showed flood
plains mapped according to soils types.
George was not impressed by the maps and saw many errors. He felt the main value of the project
was to let people know they have a long way to go to have accurate mapping. Another set of maps illustrated the
historic build out of land in Monkton since 1869. A color coded map of Starksboro’s
wildlife habitat land cover illustrated how development can fragment “”core
forest” areas.
Fred Haulenbeek
asked why it was so difficult to correct the maps. Faith explained that FEMA has a ton of
maps that need updating. They
haven’t been properly funded on the national level. The only areas getting attention
are those that are grossly erroneous and where bad flooding has occurred
repeatedly. Faith also explained
that new local subdivisions are providing site-specific information such as for
wetlands mapping and this information should get incorporated into the GIS
mapping system. The best
mapping information is information that is refined at the site
level.
There was discussion
about coordination of information with other local town planning
commissions. There is no
communication among the towns.
Roger said there needs to be model zoning ordinances so towns don’t have
to re-invent the wheel all the time.
4. Planning Commission Bylaws
Amendment. A revision based on the recent Supreme
Court decision that abstentions cannot be counted in a Planning Commission vote,
was made to paragraph #6 of the Planning Commission Bylaws. Roger wondered about the wording
concerning who can warn special meetings.
It was decided that paragraph #11 addressed that issue in a satisfactory
manner. It was also noted that in
paragraph #12 the bylaws may be amended or changed only be a vote of all
Planning Commission members. Faith
with change the bylaws so that #12 says: “These bylaws may be amended or changed
at any time by a vote of a majority of all the members of
the Planning Commission.
5. Minutes.
In other business, Carrie Fenn moved that the minutes of May 17 be
approved, as amended. George
seconded and it was unanimously approved by all those present. Ted moved to accept the minutes of June
7 as amended. Missy Ross seconded,
and it was unanimously approved by all those present.
6. Miscellaneous Issues and
Questions. Faith gave a history of the Colton
subdivision located across from Cedar Knoll Golf Club. A five lot subdivision was approved in
1993, but according to her research, it expired three years later because
substantial construction did not occur.
Among other issues, the Planning Commission was not notified that
reclamation had been completed as required before any lots could be sold. A revised plan was approved in 1995 but
the plat was never filed in the Town Records so that plat expired 90 days after
approval. The new owner of
the land is operating under the assumption that the 1993 subdivision approval is
still valid. The Planning
Commission agreed with Faith that substantial construction did not occur and
therefore, the new owner needs to renew the subdivision
approval.
Boundary line
adjustments for lots that were approved subdivisions were discussed at
length. Faith said the Subdivision
Regulations have a clearly defined, simplified process for boundary adjustments
for pre-existing lots, but it is not clear if this can be applied to lots that
were approved subdivisions.
George gave an example of a boundary line problem he is currently working
to correct. Roger said that if a
boundary adjustment is needed for approved lots, people should come back to the
Planning Commission, even if the change is is minor. It will then be determined what the
correct procedure is at that time.
It will either be a Subdivision Revision per Section 8.7 of the
Subdivision Regulations, requiring just Planning Commission approval of the
change, versus Re-subdivision, requiring a warned public
hearing.
Faith asked if when
preliminary and final plat review are combined in one meeting, if the applicant
needs to pay both fees. There were
differing opinions, but it was ultimately decided that when review steps are
combined that the both fees need be charged. Roger argued that both fees should be
applied so the Planning Commission will not be making a financial decision
affecting the applicant when it chooses to shorten.
Carrie Fenn asked
about the status of the Firehouse Plaza landscaping. Faith said she is working with the owner
to reach compliance with the Planning Commission requirements. She described the issues involved with
finding room for a sidewalk between the parking lot and Route 116. It was agreed that the Planning
Commission still needs an accurate engineered plan for Firehouse
Plaza.
Members suggested
that the Rural Zoning issue be addressed as the first item on a meeting agenda,
rather than towards the end of the evening so it doesn’t get put off all the
time. The Planning Commission
decided to schedule a work session for Wednesday, July 26th. A meeting for applicants is scheduled
for Tuesday, July 11th.
Faith will not be able to attend the July 11th meeting, but
will have everything prepared in advance.
The meeting
adjourned at 10:30.
Respectfully
submitted,
Sally Kimball,
Recording Secretary