HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

       Minutes of February 13, 2002

 APPROVED February 27, 2002

 

Present:            George Bedard, John Buckingham, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham John Mace, Nancy Norris, and Will Patten.  Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner                       

 

Members Absent:            Carrie Fenn                                   

 

Members of the Audience:            none

 

 

1.  Election of Officers and Bylaws.  Jean Isham opened the meeting since she was the vice-chairman on the old Planning Commission.  George Bedard nominated Jean for Chair, and John Mace seconded.  Jean said she didn’t mind being Chair as long as she could appoint others to speak at public meetings.  The motion for Jean Isham to chair the Planning Commission was unanimously approved.

 

John Mace then nominated Fred Haulenbeek for Vice Chair.  George Bedard seconded, and it was unanimously approved.

 

There was a discussion of the minutes from the January 16, 2002 meeting.  No comments were added.

 

Faith noted that the Planning Commission is not required by statute to have bylaws and the new DRB will be taking on the quasi-judicial functions that were addressed in the previous Planning Commisison bylaws.  She will ask other planners if they have any examples of bylaws for a Planning Commissions from towns that also have a DRB.  John Buckingham asked why they needed to have bylaws.  Faith described issues of ethics and conflict of interest.  Joe Iadanza described the “dining room rule” that Steve Stitzel used to describe conflicts of interest..

 

 

2.  Rural Regulations with Brian Shupe.   Brian Shupe described the background of the Forest Conservation Overly District draft for the benefit of the three new Planning Commission members.  George felt the overlay district would prohibit development in Hinesburg.  He said it would only encourage development along roads, which is exactly the opposite of what the town has wanted for years.  George also felt that the overlay district will not encourage affordable housing.  Joe Iadanza said that the Zoning Board/DRB generally wants to work with people and will see that development will occur within reasonable means.  Brian said the overlay district gives people flexibility and negotiation when seeking to develop in the hills.  Joe had several questions and suggestions about the terms in the draft.  He said the DRB will need specific standards to work with, and that the DRB needs to understand what the Planning Commission’s intent is.  He also was concerned with fairness to applicants.  Fred noted that the DRB can work within the context of all the standards, plus the new road standards.  Jean suggested the overlay district refer to the road standards.

 

When asked about the process of adoption, Faith described the statutory requirements for public hearings by both the Planning Commission and Selectboard.  Faith suggested that the Planning Commission conduct an informal public hearing first before warning a formal meeting.  Brian said he could help with the public meetings.  After the hearings, the Planning Commission could move to send it to the Selectboard that would move to adopt or not.  If there is a petition, town would have to vote on the measure by ballot.  Will Patten suggested meeting with the Selectboard before having the first public hearing.  It was also suggested to have an article in the Hinesburg Record, and handouts at the Town Meeting.

 

A draft of Rural Density Standards was also reviewed.  Brian described the results of the Hinesburg Rural Districts Residential Density Analysis, which was distributed at tonight’s meeting.  He noted the trend for 10+ acre lots in Hinesburg.  Will Patten said that choosing 10 acres for the density standard would

stabilize the status quo, but what does the Planning Commission want for a long term development plan?  Jean noted that Hinesburg will see more pressure for development with the new septic rules and with Williston starting to limit growth.   Both Fred and George voiced concern about the 10 acre density asked if there’s a large parcel with good, build-able land, why limit development?  In response Brian suggested the possibility of Transfer Development Rights (TDR), and especially an idea of transfer of density between rural parcels.  The various TRD options were discussed at length.   Faith said density is currently negotiated with applicants through the subdivision regulations, but it would be better if the rules addressing density were clearer for both the applicant and DRB.

 

Brian will revise the draft to allow for subdivision in the 10 to 20 acre parcel size, and to include non-contiguous transfer of development rights.  He will also present some alternative approaches to controlling density in rural districts using examples from other towns.

 

 

3.  Planning Commission Work Plan and Schedule.  It was agreed the Planning Commission would meet the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month.  It was also agreed to try to end meetings around 10:00.  John Mace proposed meeting at the Wainer Learning Center to take advantage of the computer set up.  Faith suggested holding meetings there as needed, since it would be inconvenient to transport all her materials there and back.  George questioned availability of the site, and being the last ones out of the building.  Faith will explore the availability.  Faith offered the idea of having sub-committees within the Planning Commission that could meet in the mornings or afternoons since the Planning Commission doesn’t always have to meet as a full board.

 

 

4.  West Side Road Steering Committee.  Faith described the feasibility study of a road on the west side of the village that is being funded by the CCMPO.  Fred volunteered to be on the steering committee.  George volunteered as well.  Jean suggested Faith e-mail Planning Commission members about meeting times.

 

The meeting adjourned at  10:30 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Sally Kimball, Recording Secretary