HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of May 23, 2001

Minutes Approved 6/20/01

 

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

 

Members Absent:            Ted Bloomhardt                                   

 

Members of the Audience:            none

 

 

Prior to the scheduled 7:30 Planning Commission meeting, some of the Planning Commission members had a site visit at the Boutin Farm off Shelburne Falls Road.

 

1.  Work Session on Ridgeline and Rural Development Regulations.  Brian Shupe and Sharon Murray of Burnt Rock Associates met with the Planning Commission in their first in a series of work session meetings to help provide direction and approaches for ridgeline and rural zoning and subdivision regulation changes.

 

Mr. Shupe reviewed the handout he distributed “Technical Memorandum, Maintaining Rural Character and Protecting Ridgelines and Hillsides”.  The document summarized Burnt Rock’s review of the Hinesburg Town Plan, Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Regulations.  Mr. Shupe noted a change in development from the 1980's to the 1990's.  He asked what the Planning Commission’s objectives were with regard to rural character.  Sharon Murray described “open space/golf course” planning which keeps houses off the open land.  She also described overlay districts.  Will Patten asked if the regulations could be changed before the Town Plan is changed.  Mr. Shupe said the current Town Plan recommends that the Town explore other regulations.  Fred Haulenbeek noted that we have to be sensitive to the fact that the Planning Commission is dealing with people’s estates and assets.  Will said there are lots of options to protect rural character, but we need to define rural character first.

 

Rural density options were outlined.  Will thought density issues should be considered after rural character has been defined.  Roger Kohn liked the concept of buildable area calculations.

 

Ridgeline and hillside development regulations issues were also outlined.  Roger noted Jean Isham’s idea that ridgeline development could be controlled by limiting the slopes of road/driveways.  Will suggested creating overlay zoning for ridgelines.  George Munson and George Bedard agreed that no matter what the Planning Commission decides, some landowners will view this as further restrictions on their land.  Fred liked frontage and setback requirements.   George Bedard felt if the focus is on ridgelines, it’s not a problem; but if the focus is on every little hill, then it is a problem.

 

It was agreed that for a successful public forum, the townspeople would need concrete ideas and proposals to evaluate.  Faith advised that the tone used is as important as what is being presented.  It was decided that a public forum should help define rural character, but first the Planning Commission has to have consensus on what rural character is and what the problem is that needs to be solved.  Carrie Fenn added that it’s important to involve the Selectboard and keep them informed at every step.  (John Mace joined the meeting at this juncture.)

 

Brian Shupe summarized that this evening’s meeting shed light on what the Planning Commission wanted to accomplish.

-  Burnt Rock will do the mapping of Hinesburg for ridgelines and hillsides, so that the Planning             Commission can figure out what the problems are.  This was tentatively scheduled for the

   June  20th work session to be held in the Resource Room at the elementary school.

-  Rural character needs to be defined first, before rural density zoning is addressed. 

-  Burnt Rock will help with public forums, and participate in Planning Commission work sessions.

 

Roger concluded the discussion by saying it was a pleasure to work with someone (other than Faith of course) who knew what they were doing.  

 

 

2.  Minutes of May 2.   George Bedard moved to approve the minutes of May 2nd as amended.  Jean Isham seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

 

 

3.  Miscellaneous Review.

Ayer Simple Parcel - Fred Haulenbeek moved to extend the 90 day filing date an additional 30 days for Tim Ayer’s simple parceling.  John Mace seconded.  It was decided to change the wording.  Fred Haulenbeek then moved to re-approve Tim Ayer’s simple parceling with the same conditions with a June 6th file date.  The motion was seconded, and all voted in favor except for George Bedard who abstained from the vote.

 

Ayer Covenants - Faith explained that deed language had been submitted concerning the Ayer subdivision on Route 116 and the reforestation area between the lots and the Gardner’s property.   John Mace moved to approve deed language as read by Roger Kohn.  Carrie Fenn seconded, and all voted in favor except for George Bedard who abstained from the vote.

 

Lyman Change in Storage Units - Faith said that John Lyman wanted to keep the existing shed, rather than remove it as previously approved.  Roger Kohn moved to amend the approval to provide the existing shed can remain rather than removed.  The motion was seconded, and all voted in favor except for George Bedard who abstained from the vote.

 

Donato Road Agreement Update - (Roger Kohn recused himself from discussion).   Lisa Carlson faxed a report to Faith on the status of the formalization of a neighborhood road agreement as it pertains to the condition of approval for Rich Donato’s mother’s camp and ultimately the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a camp conversion.   The Planning Commission felt that this faxed report from Ms. Carlson met the condition of providing a report on the status of the road agreement.    But this status report does not satisfy the original condition. 

 

Jean Isham moved that the motion of November 1, 2000 is amended by deleting the language that says the applicant will “implement a more formal road maintenance agreement and shall report back to the Planning Commission within six months on the status of the agreement” with the following:  The Nancy Donato estate and its heirs and assigns will share equally the cost of upgrading and maintaining Upper Access Road with all year-round residents of Upper Access Road until such time that group forms a more formal road maintenance agreement and submits it to the Planning Commission and obtains its approval. 

 

Will Patten seconded the motion, and all voted in favor with the exception of Roger Kohn who recused himself from the vote.

 

 

4.  Selectboard DRB Discussion.   Faith said she will try to get on the agenda for the Monday, June 4th Selectboard meeting to discuss a Development Review Board.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:20 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary