HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of May 2, 2001

APPROVED

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

Members Absent: George Bedard

Members of the Audience: David Lyman, John Lyman

1. John Lyman - Site Plan Review for Storage Units. Ted Bloomhardt started the meeting by inviting John Lyman to present his proposal to construct a lean-to addition onto the back side of his storage barn. Mr. Lyman showed a drawing of the addition. He said he wanted the addition to have the same look and character of the front side of the building. Mr. Lyman explained he gets calls all the time from people looking for storage and he would like to expand his business. In terms of lighting, Mr. Lyman said he would do whatever is appropriate. Ted noted that the Planning Commission’s goal is to have fixtures with downcast lighting and to light just the areas the applicant wants to have lit. It was agreed that motion sensor lighting may not be appropriate. John Mace asked if Mr. Lyman would be amenable to landscaping should a new road be constructed through that area. Faith said an engineer will be looking at the feasibility of the road this summer. It was noted that Mr. Lyman’s proposal is not for new construction, but a modification. John Mace complimented Mr. Lyman for the good job done on the presentation, and also let Mr. Lyman know that the zoning changes requested by the Lyman’s a while ago is on the Planning Commission’s list of things to do.

Ted Bloomhardt then made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby grants site plan approval to John Lyman to construct an addition for commercial storage on the west side of the existing storage barn on the David Lyman property immediately north of the canal at 10438 Route 116 in Hinesburg village. The addition will be a lean-to type structure, approximately 10' wide and 200' long with an 8' high ceiling, and will replace an existing shed attached to the barn. The site plan shall be as approved previously on December 16, 1992 except as modified by this approval. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. If experience indicates inadequate parking or unsafe traffic flow, the applicant shall immediately present proposed modifications of the site plan to the Hinesburg Planning Commission, and obtain approval of it.

2. Wall-mounted exterior light fixtures are approved on the west side of the approved addition. The new lighting shall be sharp cut-off type fixtures and shall be installed and shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector/refractor areas from view from points beyond the lot. The applicant shall bring a proposed lighting plan to the Hinesburg Zoning Administrator and obtain certification of compliance with this condition, before lighting installation.

3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to require landscaping on the west side of the property, if in the future a public road is constructed west of the barn.

4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit from the zoning administrator prior to construction of the addition.

John Mace seconded the motion. Will Patten asked who would determine if there were any parking or traffic problems, and what the exterior color of the addition would be. There is an agreement that community reaction would show up any traffic problems. Mr. Lyman said the exterior paint would match the existing building. Mr. Lyman asked if he could have three exterior lights. Faith suggested the lighting condition be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Lyman also asked about the exact dimensions of the addition, as one section may be more than 10 feet wide.

With the motion modified to include the word “approximately” before the dimensions, and to include the Zoning Administrator reviewing the final lighting plan, the Planning Commission unanimously voted for approval.

2. Follow-up - Gardners As-Built Plan and Saputo Landscaping.

Faith presented a plan submitted by the Gardner’s to satisfy the Planning Commission’s condition for screening along the south side of the property. Faith explained that this plan was drawn up for State septic permitting purposes, but it also shows the landscaping locations. Faith added that the Planning Commission had previously requested information about the front boundary along Route 116 and that the state right-of-way line is shown on the plan. The property boundary will need to be clarified before any future development is proposed on the front of the site.

It was noted that the future building indicated on the plan is not approved by the Planning Commission, just the landscaping along the southern boundary. Ted Bloomhardt made the following motion:

The Hinesburg Planning Commission hereby finds that the plan entitled “Lynn and Marie Gardner Industrial Property, Water Supply and Over-all Site Plan” by W. Bradford Ramsay, P.E., dated 12/28/00, satisfies the requirement for an as-built plan showing the trees along the southern boundary of the property. This plan satisfies the requirements of 8/2/00 approval of landscaping relating to the 12/02/98 site plan approval for additions at Clifford Lumber.

Jean Isham seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

Faith also presented a perspective drawing showing landscaping at Saputo Cheese along the front of the building. It differs from previously reviewed drawings by showing evergreen rather than deciduous shrubs in front of the building facing Mechanicsville Road. It was felt by the Planning Commission members present that the side of the building facing Mechanicsville Road needs more work. The Planning Commission would like to see a new facade, not just a new coat of paint, in addition to the proposed shrubs. Will Patten suggested a traditional New England look of clapboard and trim. It was observed that Saputo recognizes that the most visible side of the building is the Mechanicsville Road side, because that is where they put their hiring sign.

3. School/Housing Study Report. David Spitz led a discussion of his report and recommendations on the school population/housing study. Roger Kohn suggested that the Hinesburg Elementary School accept more St. George students in order to offset Hinesburg student enrollment declines. The current phasing policy of 4 units/year/subdivision was discussed at length. Mr. Spitz felt it didn’t do much to impact school population. He suggested that as long as small subdivisions continue to be the norm, the Planning Commission should concentrate on tracking the information on housing and modeling the impacts on town services. Will Patten said density will be more important than phasing. Faith thought not enough measures of town services were in place to allow creation of a phasing policy. Roger suggested some wording for a phasing policy and asked Faith to write up a proposal for phasing that the Planning Commission could consider. Faith thought it could be a goal to have a phasing policy in the new Town Plan. Fred Haulenbeek said a policy that encouraged residential growth in the Village center would deter large scale subdivisions, and having sewer allocation in the village for residential would help keep school enrollment up. Faith said the Planning Commission could request a meeting with the Selectboard soon to discuss not only DRB’s, but residential village septic allocations and a permit tracking system. Roger asked Faith to also pursue the St. George students idea with the School Board.

4. Other Items.

Faith presented the work plan by Brian Shupe from Burnt Rock Associates who will be working with the Planning Commission on rural development regulations and ridgeline zoning.

Michael Boutin is tentatively scheduled for the June 6^th meeting for a continuation of sketch plan review.. The Planning Commission agreed to schedule a site visit for 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 23^rd (just before the Planning Commission work session with Brian Shupe).

Roger wondered what the Planning Commission could do to encourage applicants to get professional help for designing their subdivisions. Faith suggested listing the type of professionals required to design subdivisions - like landscape architects. Faith also suggested the Planning Commission might consider working with Brian Shupe on strengthening design guidelines for aesthetics and use of land. The purpose of the sketch plan process was discussed. Faith noted that lot layout requirements were described in Section 7.10 of the subdivision regulations. She felt the Planning Commission didn’t have clear goals about maintaining larger blocks of land. If you’re not going to have a big dairy farm what use should rural/agricultural land have? Lot configuration, house siting, and lot size all play a role. Fred suggested someone write an article for the Hinesburg Record about a greater vision of planning and land-based activities.

Faith reported that the Recreation Committee is interested in doing a trail study. She will be meeting with them to discuss a trails project next week.

Faith asked the Planning Commission how they felt about her pursuing a grant for a conceptual study on stormwater runoff in the village. Faith wasn’t sure she could take on another project right now. It was agreed that the Planning Commission supported the grant as it would be good for growth center development issues, but that Faith could decide if she wanted to go ahead with it.

5. Minutes of March 21 and April 10.

Jean Isham moved to approve the minutes of March 21 and April 10, as corrected. The motion was seconded, and unanimously approved.

The meeting adjourned at 10:55 pm.