HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

       Minutes of October 24, 2001

APPROVED November 7, 2001

 

Present:            Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, John Mace, Jean Isham, Carrie Fenn, and Will Patten. 

Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner and Planning Consultants, Brian Shupe and Sharon Murrary                                   

 

Members Absent:            George Bedard, Fred Haulenbeek, George Munson                                   

 

Members of the Audience:            none

 

 

1.  Rural Density and Development Patterns.  Sharon Murray, along with Brian Shupe, of Burnt Rock Associates led a discussion of rural density and development patterns.  Sharon said that rural character issues are “the pretty versus the gritty”.  The pretty being residential and the gritty referring to things that cause dust, noise and smells (farms, logging).    The key is to find the right mix of the two and to use buffers between them. 

 

She and Brian presented a land use map of Hinesburg, showing very little 6 acre or less development outside the village.  This was an indication that the 10 acre septic rule has driven development in Hinesburg.  Sharon described how Starksboro has gone from a 10 acre minimum to a 25 acre minimum lot size.  She noted that large lot zoning would accommodate farming and forestry.  Roger commented that 10 acre lots will preserve Hinesburg’s rural residential character.  Sharon agreed, but also noted that  working agricultural land is not preserved with 10 acre zoning, you need to have bigger lot sizes.  The Fletcher Farm development off Baldwin Road was discussed as an example of 10 acre lots that preserved the open meadows.

 

 There was general agreement that 10 acre density is close to what people’s expectations are for development of rural land.  There was a discussion of the perception of fairness in choosing 10 acres.  It was suggested that 9 acre or 11 acre/unit densities be proposed instead to break the habit of 10 acre lots..  Roger asked how the Planning Commission could stop a build-out of 2 or 3 acre subdivisions.  Sharon said the Town could have 10 acre minimum lot-size zoning, or have fixed area based density that allows some creative clustering in certain areas.  Will Patten noted that the less the Planning Commission changes, the easier the concept will be to sell to the Town. 

 

Sharon asked if the Planning Commission wanted to apply proposed changes to all the rural districts.  There was discussion about whether changes should apply to RRI, especially where there is municipal sewer and water and existing small lots.  There was also discussion about whether density could be transferred between a landowner’s parcels that are split by a road.

 

In discussing the use of PRD’s Faith suggested allowing a density bonus only in the village district for affordable housing.  John Mace wanted a clearer definition of develop-able land.  Brian Shupe recommended the Planning Commission clarify under PRD review what the definition of develop-able land is.  Develop-able land would exclude wetlands and steep slopes from density calculations.

Sharon said she would use the Planning Commission’s discussion to draft some proposed zoning language for the next work session.

 

 

2.  Forest Overlay Conservation District.  Brian Shupe apologized for not having a draft of the Forest Overlay Conservation District ready for tonight’s meeting.  He will have it at the next work session.

 

 

3.  November Schedule.  It was decided that November 7th will be an applicant meeting, and that the work session meeting will be scheduled for November 28th.   Members could not agree on a time for a site visit during light hours so Faith suggested that the Planning Commission members drive up on their own and visit the Daryl Miller lot on Hayden Hill East prior to the November 7th meeting.  She will send everyone a map and instructions on what to look for when they are at the site.  Members agreed to visit the site on their own in lieu of a joint site visit.

 

Faith also noted the necessity for a site visit at the Babbott parcel on Pond Road.  There are access issues for the lot.  This site visit should be scheduled prior to the December 5th meeting. 

 

 

4.  Planning Grant.  Ted Bloomhardt moved that the Hinesburg Planning Commission supports the idea of Faith applying for a grant to cover some of the expenses related to involving the public in the Hinesburg Town Plan process, including a survey, public forums and mapping.  Jean Isham seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

 

 

5.  Planned Residential Developments (PRD’s).  John Mace expressed his thoughts on the way the Planning Commission has used PRD’s in two different ways.  He wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that the Planning Commission may be appearing inconsistent.  In the recent Evanson decision, the Planning Commission interpreted PRD’s as a way of rewarding an applicant for innovative design by relieving them of the burden of specified dimensional requirements.  In other instances, the Planning Commission has used the PRD as a kind of variance.  It was agreed the Planning Commission needs to be more careful in the future.

 

 

6.  Permit Tracking, Planning Commission Budget.  Faith gave an update of the permit tracking database.  Roger offered a suggestion for a good software program.  Faith also noted, for Ted’s benefit, that it’s time again for budgeting.  John suggested that the Town budget for an update of ArcView.

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:05 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary