HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

       Minutes of November 28, 2001

Approved December 12, 2001

 

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

 

Members Absent:            Ted Bloomhardt and George Munson                                   

 

Members of the Audience:            none

 

 

1.  Forest Conservation Overlay District.  George Bedard opened the meeting at 7:38.  It was first noted that there were several maps of Hinesburg on display throughout the room: an ortho photo, parcel polygon area, land use, two proposed forest conservation overlays, and an elevation planning project.  Brian Shupe, of Burnt Rock Associates, noted that the conservation overlay maps were not the final versions.

 

Mr. Shupe reviewed Draft #3 of the Overlay District, dated November 16, 2001.  He described some of the changes made from Draft #2.  The purpose was re-written and some big changes were made to the Conditional Uses section.  George Bedard was not happy Conditional Use #6 which would require PRD review for a subdivision with any portion of a lot located within the Forest Conservation Overlay District.  He felt that when you put the restrictions of a PRD on a subdivision right from the start, there is no appeal route available to the applicant.  Mr. Shupe explained that some of these provisions are designed to prevent having both the subdivision applicant and then the new owners of the lot having to go through the same review again.  George Bedard said the problem is for the subdivider, not the builder.  Sometimes land is sold, then held for a few years before a house is built.  He felt the issue should be where the house is going to be located, rather than what the house will look like.

 

Section 3.11.6 (5), concerning development visible from public roads, was discussed in detail.  George Bedard noted that if houses in the overlay district have to be invisible from the road, people will have to go further into the woods to hide their house, which would cause fragmentation and be less affordable.  Fred Haulenbeek said the more affordable housing would be in the town center and along roads.  People who could afford long drives and power lines will build exclusive houses up in the mountains.  Will Patten agreed.  Fred thought the purpose section covered the concerns discussed for both Sections (5) and (6).

 

John Mace expressed his concerns about the language in Section 3.11.5(2) regarding a creating a logging road for future development, and the board limiting development on the non-impacted portion of the property if pre-development plans are not submitted prior to making a logging road.  There was a discussion about land owners cutting trees on their lots.  Brian Shupe noted that logging is not the issue, the issue is when someone logs and then subdivides.  Faith suggested that this section acknowledged that logging is often the best stewardship of the land is expected to take place in the overlay district.

 

Mr. Shupe recapped the discussions by noting the draft needs fine tuning and he will restructure Section 3.11.6 to make the process of conditional use review clearer.

 

2.  Road Standards.  Faith distributed the Draft Road Policy that was to be discussed at a joint meeting of the Selectboard and Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 12.  After much discussion, it was decided, at Roger’s strong suggestion, that the Planning Commission first meet to review the road policy and road standards, before having a joint meeting with the Selectboard.  Roger felt this would give the Planning Commission the chance to “fine tune the nitty gritty”.

 

3.  Meeting Schedules.   There will be three meetings in December.  December 5 will be an applicant meeting, December 12 will cover road standards and possibly one applicant, and December 19 will  be a work session.

 

It was also decided to have an applicant meeting on January 9, 2002 and a work session meeting on January 16, 2002.  Faith also noted that there will be DRB training meetings on January 23 and January 30.

 

4.  Minutes of November 7.   Carrie Fenn moved to approve the minutes of November 7, as corrected.  Will Patten seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

 

5.  Other:

 Ayer Subdivision.  Faith noted  Raymond Ayer applied for approval of a couple of small projects relating to his golf course parcel and while the proposals are relatively minor and unrelated geographically, do have an incremental impact on the property as a whole.  There was discussion about whether the Planning Commission should ask for Mr. Ayer’s long-term development plans to get a bigger picture.  Faith also wondered if Mr. Ayer’s proposals be scheduled in February when the DRB is in place, to avoid any frustrations if his proposal is reviewed by the old Planning Commission in January and then the new DRB in February.  The Planning Commission agreed that the proposals should include an overview of the property as a whole but were not clear about the timing for reviewing the project.

 

Gardner Site Plan.  Faith described Lynn and Marie Gardner’s situation with a 3rd business proposal for their parcel and asked for advice about how to interpret the regulations permitting multiple uses on a lot.  There was general agreement that the regulations should be made clearer to indicate when these uses should  be treated as a subdivision.  The suggestion was made that when land around a building is rented or leased to another entity, this should require subdivision.

 

Village Sewer Allocations.  Faith noted the Selectboard has approved additional sewer allocation for 2 new housing projects with multiple units in the village, which are contingent on Planning Commission approval within a year. 

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:35 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary