TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Approved January 29, 2003
Commission Members
Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Joe Iadanza, John Buckingham, Nancy Norris,
George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, John Mace
Commission Members Absent: Will Patten, Fred Haulenbeek
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), Marty Illick
The meeting began at approximately 8:00pm.
Minutes of the December
18, 2002 Meeting:
Carrie MOVED to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2002 meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Town Plan Revision
Project:
Alex distributed the latest draft of the survey to be distributed town-wide. The Commission discussed each question and made revisions. Alex will make the revisions and get the survey to the printer later this week so that it can go out in the mail and appear in the Hinesburg Record as an insert.
Alex reviewed the 6 consultants that submitted proposals in response to the Town Plan revision project RFP he distributed in December. Alex indicated that the RFP was crafted to include both phases of the process – i.e., a series of citizen forums and actual drafting of the plan. Alex reviewed the 4 selection criteria and how each proposal ranked overall in his estimation. Upon further discussion, the Commission narrowed the list down to 3 consultants and instructed Alex to follow up further with each of these. The Commission also instructed Alex to check references and get Faith Ingulsrud’s (previous Town Planner) advice on the consultant list. Alex will work with Jean to make a final selection by early next week.
Lyman/Grabowski
Development Discussion:
The Commission discussed the Lyman/Grabowski development proposal for David Lyman’s property (approx. 70 acres) behind the police and fire stations on the West side of Rt. 116. The project is currently undergoing sketch plan review with the Development Review Board. Jean asked if Commissioners wanted to provide any input to the DRB on this project at this time. Jean recommended the Commission submit a brief letter outlining general issues the Commission felt were important given this parcel’s proximity to the village core, Rt. 116, and the LaPlatte River. George and Nancy expressed concern that the Commission should hear the developer’s presentation before making specific comments or suggestions. Specific issues raised included the need for additional municipal infrastructure (particularly parking for the firehouse and police station), and compatibility of adjacent uses (i.e., industrial vs. residential). Jean will draft a letter and e-mail it to the Commission for review and a decision on whether or not to send it to the DRB.
Zoning and Subdivision
Regulation Changes:
Marty Illick, of the Lewis Creek Association, was present to discuss possible revisions to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) section of the Zoning Regulations (4.5). The Commission reviewed draft language (dated 7/1/2002) prepared by Brian Shiupe of Burnt Rock Associates as a part of an earlier contract/project on developing rural area regulations. Marty indicated her support for the draft language that had been developed. She suggested adding “streams” to page 4, 4b and the table on page 5 under “fragile features”.
The Commission discussed other aspects of the draft language as well. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding draft section 4.5.6 (5) on allowing contiguous parcels under the same ownership to be reviewed as one PRD or PUD. Various Commissioners expressed support for such a provision. George related a specific account of a subdivision proposal for 2 parcels separated by a road. The draft language needs to be changed slightly to clarify that contiguous parcels also includes parcels separated by a road or stream. Alex will work on this section.
The Commission also discussed density requirements for PRDs, and how these should be calculated when site limitations (e.g., wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes, etc.) are present. George indicated that wetland acreage should not necessarily be removed from density calculations, because subdivided lots can easily include wetlands without the building area impacting them. George felt that building areas are generally so small, that impacts to wetland areas can generally be avoided. John Mace sketched some scenarios and discussed the pros and cons of possible subdivision strategies. John Mace indicated that truly non-developable should be taken out of the density calculation for PRDs.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________/____________
Alex Weinhagen Date