Members of the Audience: Lynn and Marie Gardner, Raymond Ayer

The Planning Commission had a site visit before this evening's meeting on Texas Hill to look at the area for the subdivision proposed by George Bedard.

1. Raymond Ayer - Final Subdivision Plat. Ted Bloomhardt opened the public hearing for consideration of final plat approval for the four-lot single family residential subdivision of a 15 acre parcel located on the east side of Route 116. (George Bedard recused himself from discussion.) Ted noted that the biggest change was the reforestation area along the south side will now be 25 feet. Landscaping around the transformer in the cul-de-sac was discussed. There is a Green Mountain Power notice that describes how not to do landscaping around transformers. Faith said that since it is not visible from the road, its not a public concern, but the property owners will have an interest in landscaping. Roger Kohn thought landscaping should be required. Raymond Ayer said maintenance of landscaping would be the responsibility of the four owners. There is a pole box just as you get on the property, and a transformer in the center island. There also might be a transformer pad by the farthest lot serving that one house.

Roger noted that the Lot #1 building envelope needed another dimension. George Bedard said that will be fixed. He also said that the building envelopes will be staked, so that each house will be built in the envelope. Mr. Ayer said that road lighting is not anticipated.

Audience member, Marie Gardner asked if there would be deed language about the neighboring industrial zone. It will be in the deed. Language concerning the reforestation area will be in the deed and plat. Audience member Lynn Gardner asked about the Blazes false line border on the plat. George Bedard explained that it was there because of the difficulties the steep ledge presented in physically surveying the land.

With no further audience comments, Ted closed the public hearing. Roger noted that the right-of-way to Route 116 looked a little narrower. George Bedard explained that it was pre-existing and not a real issue since it is pretty flat in that area. George added that nothing could be done about it. Faith said she didn’t have a chance to discuss the 15" culverts with Rocky Martin. Mr. Ayer noted that the only time water sits on the Casey property is in the winter; a culvert wouldn’t change the situation.

Ted Bloomhardt then made the following motion which is attached to the end of these minutes.

Before being seconded, Roger suggested that the principal building and outbuilding should be in the envelope to deter any obstruction of views. Faith felt that only Lot #1 had a view that is of public concern. Mr. Ayer agreed, noting that none of the other lots have view concerns. He also thought that a property owner would not want to build a horse barn right next to his or her house.

Jean Isham asked if the deed language should be attached to the minutes. Roger felt the true issue was making sure the deed is filed appropriately.

With no further comments, John Mace seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, with the exception of George Bedard who recused himself from the vote.

2. Minutes of August 16 and September 6. While the minutes were being reviewed, Faith said that Saputo will be submitting site plan proposals at the October 4^th meeting. George Bedard described his findings of Dynamite Hill Road; it has a slope of 16 degrees, maybe 17 degrees in a small section. Fred Haulenbeek thought the Planning Commission should be more diligent on the steepness of roads. George Bedard thought that if the road was staked before the site was approved, the property owners could better visually see possible problem areas and have corrections made before starting construction. Faith said that when the Planning Commission re-does road standards, there could be a limit placed on the length of a 15 degree stretch.

Jean Isham moved the accept the minutes, as corrected, of August 16 and September 6. Carrie Fenn seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

3. Planning Commission Bylaws Faith explained that Item 12 had a minor change. The Planning Commission could change the Bylaws with a majority vote, rather than by all Planning Commission members. George Bedard moved to approve the Bylaws as amended September 20, 2000. John Mace seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

4. Procedural Issues The proper protocol for site visits and ex parte communication was discussed. It was agreed that discussion of a site visit should be held when the Planning Commission members reconvene at a scheduled meeting.

Faith described the Erb subdivision revision request. (Roger recused himself from discussion). She said there was a proposal to relocate an approved septic system to a better site closer to the house site. She wondered if the Planning Commission wanted to treat this as a final plat review, or as a subdivision revision under Section 8.7. The Planning Commission agreed to treat it as a revision, but to make sure they have the appropriate easements.

Roger said the Planning Commission needs some general standards or guidelines to help determine what is a revision and what is a new subdivision plat review. Perhaps look at any significant impact on the factors of a subdivision. One factor may be if neighbors had concerns. Faith said that neighbors get notified if it is a final plat warning and also if it is just going to be on the Planning Commission meeting agenda.

5. Work Session - Rural Density Ted started the work session by first saying it was easier to talk about rural densities, than it is to do anything about it. He also recapped the previous Planning Commission discussions about rural density for the benefit of new Planning Commission members, George Munson and Will Patten. Ted summarized by saying the Planning Commission needs to decide whether or not to implement rural density, and if they do decide to implement it, at what scale?

Fred spoke about encouraging cluster type development in areas chosen for growth. Fred and John Mace agreed with George Bedard that the land in Hinesburg has natural restrictions to development. George noted that there are only a handful of parcels that have natural "abilities" for development anyway. George asked why the Planning Commission would need to put development limitations in writing. He felt a better focus would be to examine carefully each subdivision proposal. Roger countered that the Planning Commission doesn't want to have to "fight the fight" after a huge developer comes in to town; that fair and reasonable limitations could be proposed now to stop future large scale development, and this should be put before the voters.

Ted said that the state septic regulations limit Hinesburg's development potential. Development is not under the Planning Commission control. It all defaults to state septic regs to determine location and density of development in Town.

Faith said density could be limited by road standards; putting a cap on the number of houses a private road could serve. Fred thought identifying safety, health, school issues were more important than limiting density. He said density standards should support those goals; not the other way around. Will Patten suggested the term "managed density", rather than "limited density". Roger thought that limiting density was a way to maintain the rural character and quality of life of Hinesburg. By restricting development you may increase property values by making the Town more desirable a place to live. Will said the Town will be under tremendous pressure to develop, and the Planning Commission should decide where development will be, not try to stop all development. Fred agreed, adding that development should be encouraged where town services are.

Both Ted and John expressed a worry that someday someone with a lot of money will buy out a farmer with a large acreage, and present a 50-lot subdivision that will meet all regulations. How with the Planning Commission deny approval or limit the size? George Bedard said that a development that size fills a need for housing. Faith added that we need to face up to the housing crisis and decide where the development will grow. George Munson asked about the relationship with housing and schools. Faith said she will have report on that subject for the Planning Commission in November.

Hinesburg's septic capacity restrictions were discussed. Faith noted that the Selectboard is looking into the costs of increasing capacity to support further growth, but the problem is that there are existing areas in town that need septic, like the trailer parks and camps on the lakes. Faith described small batch treatment plants that are in other states and bio filter systems. She said that Jericho doesn't have a sewage plant, and they are setting up a municipal entity that will inspect individual leach fields in Jericho to make sure they work.

For the next work session, the Planning Commission asked Faith to define Hinesburg scale development and to map ridgeline areas with zoning versus subdivision areas. Jean asked Faith for soil data of areas in Hinesburg as well.

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary

HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

October 9, 2000

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants final plat approval to Raymond and Ruth Ayer for a four-lot single family residential subdivision from a 15 acre parcel located on the east side of Route 116 (tax map parcel 12-01-08). The subdivision shall be as proposed by the applicant and as shown on a plat titled Raymond and Ruth Ayer Property "4-Lot Subdivision" prepared by G.E. Bedard and dated September 5, 2000, and plans titled "Site Plan - Raymond Ayer" and "Details" prepared by Ridge Consulting Engineers dated 8/18/00, and shall be subject to the following conditions: