HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

                                                       Minutes of November 15, 2000

 APPROVED

 

Present:            Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, John Mace, Jean Isham, George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, George Munson, and Will Patten.  Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner

 

Members Absent:         none                            

 

Members of the Audience:        Karen Yacos

 

 

1.  Smart Growth Scorecard.  Roger Kohn opened the work session meeting since both Ted Bloomhardt and Jean Isham were delayed.  Faith introduced Karen Yacos from the Forum on Sprawl who was in attendance to observe how the Planning Commission worked through the scorecard exercise.  John Mace facilitated the exercise with the use of computer screen projection equipment borrowed from the elementary school.  John also modified/created the program to keep track of the score of the Planning Commission’s answers.  The Smart Growth Scorecard exercise is “homework” for the Orton Foundation planning workshop that John is attending.  John explained that this is both a tool to see if members of the Planning Commission agree with the definition of sprawl, and to indicate the direction growth is headed in Hinesburg. 

 

The Planning Commission completed the eight different sections related to growth issues.  Discussion followed each question and John tallied each members vote to “elect” a final answer for each specific question.  At the end of the questionnaire John’s computer program summarized the results.  Each of the eight sections was given a rating of either: “Smart Growth”; “In Transition”; or “Needs Your Attention”.

 

Section #1 asked questions concerning the town center.  In answering the questions, the Planning Commission discussed where the town center was; the borders of the town center; village district zoning versus outlying areas.  It was agreed that Ballard’s corner is not considered part of the town center.  Density patterns, sewer lines and any limits on commercial and industrial growth were also important issues discussed.  Faith noted that a compact pattern of growth is developing at Commerce Park; buildings are moving closer to the road.

 

Section #2 addressed transportation issues such as street layouts and provisions for pedestrian services.  It was agreed that this area “Needs Your Attention”.

 

Section #3 - Natural resources and preservation of historic features.  Everyone felt Hinesburg was doing a good job in preservation of buildings, but that natural resources such as Lake Iroquois and the LaPlatte River need help.

 

Section #4 - Preserving public access to open spaces.  It was felt that open spaces are available for public use because of the generosity of private land owners in Hinesburg. 

 

Section #5 - Protecting farming industries.  Jean noted that her family can get some supplies from the  Middlebury area, but they have to go to New York state for some farming supplies.  George Bedard said that farmers are developing their fringe acres.  Faith reminded everyone that she always indicates if there  are prime agricultural soils in proposed developments.

 

Section #6  - Encouraging a mix of housing and other uses.  Faith noted that Hinesburg has an existing mix in the village.  There was discussion of state and local regulations prohibiting a mix of housing and other uses.  Multiple unit housing is prohibited by sewer capacity.

 

Section #7 - Supporting a diversity of businesses in community centers.  Hinesburg doesn’t make an effort to attract business but has been lucky that it has happened.

 

Section #8 - Community involvement in developing smart growth goals.  It was agreed that Hinesburg has high rate of public participation (good public spiritedness).

 

The results of the questionnaire were: 37% Smart Growth; 45% In Transition and 18% Needs Attention.  Karen Yacos commented that Hinesburg does well with community involvement and is good in keeping commercial development concentrated near the center of town, but the Planning Commission should focus on where Hinesburg is not doing well, like having a sewer district; a plan for a network of streets; agricultural preservation.  She also described the merits of having a Development Review Board in addition to a Planning Commission.  Faith has heard that towns that have adopted DRB’s are very happy with them.  She said Planning Commissions have a hard time doing both development review and planning especially when working on projects like the Town Plan.  Karen said that DRB’s seem to work well not only in cities like Burlington but in smaller towns too.  Planning requires more than meeting, you need to strategize as well.  She said that Jericho, which is similar in size to Hinesburg, has a Planning Commission of 9 members and a Development Review Board of 9 members.

 

Roger said that many towns are facing the same issues and it would be helpful to have some model bylaws for towns to use, rather than separately grappling with creating bylaws.  A policy for ridgeline zoning was given as an example.  George Bedard felt that planning should not get in the way of letting people do what they want with their land.  The issue of septic regulations limiting growth was discussed again.  Faith thinks the state will loosen up on community septic system regulations.  There is lots of pressure to have package septic treatment plants.  She said the state can’t recommend growth centers without loosening up the septic regulations.

 

The Planning Commission thanked Karen for her observations, and also thanked John for his computer presentation and for providing refreshments.

 

 

2.  Village/Commercial and Industrial Districts.  Faith asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to deal with zoning districts comprehensively when working on the new Town Plan over the next year and a half, or deal with districts piecemeal through zoning right now.  At issue is the Lyman request to change zoning west of Route 116 in the village.  Carrie Fenn noted the four Planning Commission members are not familiar with the Lyman request.  Faith will bring the Lyman Proposal to the next work session.

Fred Haulenbeek described his vision for growth in the area behind the cheese factory.  He envisions a road going all the way to Shelburne Falls Road that offered commercial spaces on first floor levels and affordable housing/apartments on second and third floors.  This road would serve as relief to traffic on Route 116.  Faith said that you can’t make a major zoning change without the Town Plan.  She suggested Fred’s plan be introduced as a vision stage.

 

Faith recommended tweaking the zoning to meet the Lyman’s short-term needs, without changing major policy.  Roger referred to it as “expansion of existing uses”.  Will Patten felt that short term zoning changes shouldn’t be made without an understanding of the long range zoning goals.

 

On another topic, Roger suggested that applicants not be scheduled for work sessions, unless absolutely necessary.  If it is necessary, they should be scheduled for after 10:00 so that the work sessions can be productive.  Jean asked if it would make sense to cut off applicant scheduling at a given time (10:30 for example) so that the meetings don’t run late.  She suggested a continuance for an overflow meeting for applicants who weren’t able to make their presentations by the cutoff time.  Both Roger and George Bedard thought applicants should be heard promptly because of the seasonal nature of their requests.  Roger suggested that planning staff be aggressive about determining which applicant is truly time sensitive and which is not.  

 

3.  Minutes of October 18 and November 1   Jean Isham moved to approve the October 18 minutes.  George Bedard seconded, and it was unanimously approved.  Carrie Fenn moved to approve the November 1 minutes as corrected.  Jean Isham seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

 

 

4.  December Meeting Schedule   Due to the holidays, it was agreed the Planning Commission would meet November 29th for work session.  The December 6th meeting will be held as originally scheduled.  There will be no meeting on December 20th.

 

 

5.  Procedural Question   Faith asked the Planning Commission about the sidewalk to be installed in front of Champlain Telecom’s new location at the former Hinesburg Family Health building.  The phone company was not sure about when to do their landscaping with respect to the sidewalk construction.  In reviewing the conditions, it was determined that the sidewalk construction is the phone company’s responsibility.  The Town will construct a sidewalk that will hook up to their sidewalk at some future point.  Faith will communicate to Champlain Telecom that they could put in the sidewalk now and do the plantings later.

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:45 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary