HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

                                                         Minutes of August 15, 2001

 APPROVED September 26, 2001

 

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:        Brian Shupe and Peter Erb

 

 

Prior to starting the work session, the Planning Commission had a site visit for the proposed Evanson Subdivision at the corner of Buck Hill Road and Lavigne Hill Road.

 

1.  Ridgeline and Rural Regulations.  Planning consultant, Brian Shupe picked up where he last left off on discussions of ridgeline and rural regulations.  He reviewed maps from the last work session and elaborated on the concept of defining a district on the east side of town with maximum road setbacks and minimum  frontage requirements.   He presented a draft map showing how various road setbacks would look.   In this concept permitted development could t take place only near existing roads and there would be greater restrictions, such as conditional use review on development further from the town roads. He suggested two possible strategies for implementing this type of ridgeline protection: (1) create an overlay district; and (2) re-zone the RR2 district.

 

Mr. Shupe thought overlay districts were effective if you want to impose certain aesthetic and other types of development standards on an area.  With an overlay district, the underlying RR2 district could be maintained as is, and the overlay area could be defined by the setback distance established by the Planning Commission.  He felt that if the Planning Commission wanted to change the density, lot size or permitted uses, then it would be better to change the zoning district itself.   Stricter development standards such as for new road in an overlay district could be effective in limiting density.  Mr. Shupe then reviewed his draft of a Forest Reserve/Uplands Conservation District.  Special attention was given to the district development standards described in the draft.  He pointed out that the Town’s plan to adopt a Development Review Board (DRB) review process would work well with this proposal because new development would be reviewed either as a Conditional Use or in subdivision review.

 

There was discussion of the merits of both options with no clear consensus among the group, but it did lead to related topics of providing affordable housing and communication towers.  Will Patten asked Mr. Shupe which option he thought would be better to avoid the “Willistonization” of Hinesburg’s uplands.  He replied that either option would work, but very restrictive standards with objective, measurable criteria would have to be applied.  Everyone felt comfortable with setting a 900-foot road setback as a location where stricter review would apply, as long as someone checked to make sure significant ridgelines were not included in the 900'.  Roger Kohn said the Planning Commission has to also address the issue of steep roads that Jean Isham has brought up before in other work session meetings.  Jean added that another issue is the length of the grade.  Mr. Shupe said he did the road standards for another town, and he will send copies to Faith.

For the next work session, Mr. Shupe will (1) prepare a draft for ridgeline district standards for the Planning Commission to review; (2) have a revised map that will show shading of the overlay area; and (3) start on a density buildout by bringing in examples of maximum density and providing options and issues to consider.

 

 

 

1a.  Scheduling.    Faith noted that there are many applicants lined up for the next few months.  It was agreed to hold three meetings in October.  The schedule will be:

 

Wednesday, September 5 - Applicants

Wednesday, September 26 - Work session

Wednesday, October 3 - Applicants

Wednesday, October 17 - Applicants

Wednesday, October 24 - Work session

 

2.   Zoning Administrator Appointment.   Ted Bloomhardt moved to appoint Peter Erb to fill the office of Zoning Administrator.  Jean Isham seconded.  Will commented that Peter knows the zoning and planning business inside and out, and loves it.  Roger described the search committee process and the unanimous decision to recommend Peter Erb for the position.  The motion was then unanimously approved.

 

 

3.  DRB Follow Up.  Faith met with the Zoning Board on August 7, and she summarized their discussion of a Development Review Board .  The Zoning Board would like to schedule the transition for the beginning of February rather than January.  Tom McGlenn expressed an interest in having alternates who could replace board members on a regular basis, rather than just for emergencies.  Faith said she got some advice from VLCT Law Center supporting Tom’s approach.   She was sent the rules of procedure from another town that generally describes the use of alternates for replacing regular members “when the member is expected to be on extended absence (more than 30 days) from the DRB.”   She said the next step is to edit the recommendations, draft resolution, and scheduling and take it to the Selectboard.  The Selectboard would like a public hearing before they make a final decision.  Faith said she will send the revised recommendations to the Planning Commission, Zoning Board and Selectboard all at the same time to get comments from everyone.

 

 

4.  Training Opportunities.   Faith described a couple of training opportunities that will be coming up.  At issue is the $250 budget available for training since the events would cost more than the funds available..  George Munson suggested Faith check with the Selectboard to see if they have any more money available for training.  Faith thought the new DRB might be best served with a customized training event focused on their needs and questions before the DRB begins its work.  The Planning Commission thought training for the DRB should be a priority this year.  She also described an on-line training for Planning Commission provided by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.  It was decided to re-visit this training opportunity once the final price is determined.

 

5.  Minutes.  Jean Isham moved to approved the minutes of July 25, as revised.  John Mace seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

 

In reviewing the August 1 minutes, it was agreed that all owners should sign an application for a subdivision (including husband and wife).  The situation with Viola Goodrich should be resolved before the Planning Commission continues with Evanson subdivision application on September 5.

 

Carrie Fenn moved to approve the August 1 minutes, as corrected.  George Bedard seconded.  It was unanimously approved with the exceptions of George Munson and Will Patten who both abstained from the vote.

 

 

6.  Powerline Issues.  Faith distributed copies of a letter sent to the Planning Commission from Daniel Reinhardt who is building a house on Lot 3 of the Bissonette subdivision on Gilman Road.  Mr. Reinhardt expressed his concerns about the involvement George Bedard had in power line placement on his lot.  George described to the Planning Commission the series of events that he played part in.  Faith also described how she requested information from George about the power line placement, assuming he was still involved in the subdivision.  Ted noted that  George cannot represent the Planning Commission on projects where he has represented a client (in this case, Wayne Bissonette).

 

Roger suggested replying to Mr. Reinhardt with two letters as there are two separate issue.  He suggested Ted respond about the concerns with George, and that the Planning Commission send a letter requesting a revised final subdivision site plan be submitted.   Roger then made the following motion:

 

The Hinesburg Planning Commission will respond to Daniel Reinhardt by letter or letters by indicating that if Mr. Reinhardt would like to pursue the issue, the Planning Commission would be happy to discuss it with him.  And secondly, on a separate issue, it has come to the Planning Commission’s attention that the utilities are not in place as indicated on the subdivision plan.  The Planning Commission is requesting a revised final plat be submitted for Planning Commission approval.

 

Will Patten seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

 

 

Before the meeting adjourned, Ted reminded everyone to familiarize themselves with PRD’s before the next meeting on September 5th.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at  11:20 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary