TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Approved November 5, 2003
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Joe Iadanza, John Buckingham, Carrie Fenn, George Bedard, Deb Howard, Fred Haulenbeek.
Commission Members Absent: John Mace, Nancy Norris.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), David Spitz (Town Plan Consultant), George & Karla Munson.
Minutes of the October 1, 2003 Meeting:
George Bedard MOVED to approve the minutes of the October 1, 2003 meeting. John Buckingham SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Announcements and Citizens
to be Heard:
Alex announced that there is a Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) meeting on October 22 to review the recently completed Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that lays out transportation priorities in Chittenden County for the next 25 years. Alex also announced that there will be a “Planning Celebration” in Montpelier on November 7 featuring speakers, workshops, and award presentations.
Town Plan Revision –
Housing ~ Goals & Objectives:
George Bedard presented the housing recommendations from the existing Plan, and reviewed his proposed changes and additions. He outlined the housing need/crisis in Vermont, and especially Chittenden County. He said the problem is simply a matter of supply and demand, and that we need to grow the community in order to meet the demonstrated need. He noted that beyond the Village Zoning District, our regulations really only permit single-family or duplex housing, and that duplexes still require twice the minimum lot size, so there is no density advantage.
The Commission discussed the need to establish a definition for “Affordable Housing” as listed in recommendation “a” on George’s list.
Regarding recommendation “c”, The Commission also discussed the need to modify the word “any” so that the focus for affordable elderly housing was in and around the fringes of the village area. This might entail a redesign of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District to accommodate this.
Regarding recommendation “d”, Joe said quality of life issues must be addressed prior to having new mobile home parks. George Bedard said he wants to find a way to improve existing parks via incentives. He said that positive changes to existing parks may happen if the owners stand to make a profit through increased density allowances. Carrie said she doesn’t think we should be encouraging high density housing (mobile home parks or otherwise) in every district. Alex suggested that we could think of the existing RR1 district as a place to focus medium to higher density housing beyond the Village.
Regarding recommendation “e”, Joe said he is uncomfortable with public entities favoring one private entity over another. Joe would rather set policies or regulations that encourage affordable housing, and let the private market decide. Deb, Carrie, and Jean all favored public/private partnerships. David gave examples of Towns supporting private entities seeking grants for affordable housing, and by prioritizing sewer allocation for affordable & elderly housing.
The Commission felt the remaining recommendations were appropriate. Deb commented that new development carries property tax implications, and if we really want more housing, we should have real targets, both for “regular” and affordable. Deb mentioned recent studies done by Deb Brighton that discussed the property tax connection. David said he’s not convinced of the 1:1 connection of new development and property tax increases. Carrie said that above and beyond the tax implications, we have a moral obligation to provide for the community’s housing needs. Fred said that we should focus on Hinesburg’s needs, and not be so concerned with serving the needs of the county or with what other towns are necessarily doing. Fred suggested that establishing maximum lot sizes in certain areas (e.g., Village) could help ensure higher density development. The Commission discussed how much of the county’s housing needs Hinesburg should absorb, as well as whether we were prepared to “go it alone” when other towns may or may not be
Town Plan Revision –
Village Issues & Sewer Service Areas ~ Draft 2:
Alex reviewed the build-out results for 3 sewer service area alternatives. Rocky Martin (Public Works Director) and Alex have been working with Michele Maresca at the CCRPC to better understand potential build-out scenarios based on the existing Zoning allowances. The Selectboard recently adopted a new wastewater allocation ordinance, and now needs to formalize the Town’s sewer service area to better implement the ordinance. Rocky is interested in exploring a possible sewer treatment plant expansion, and he needs a defined sewer service area in order to estimate necessary future capacity.
Alex told the Commission that the Selectboard would be discussing this issue at its next meeting, so it was important for the Commission to make its planning objectives and desires known. Alex also cautioned the Commission that the 3 alternative service areas were developed for modeling purposes only, and that the actual sewer service area could and should be fine-tuned further.
David cautioned the Commission that this build-out analysis was based on the existing Zoning parameters, and as such, the results may be on the low side if the Commission is considering expanding the Village district, modifying lot density in or around the Village, or creating new districts.
George Bedard advocated that the sewer service area should correspond to the largest alternative, and should at minimum include all areas currently connected to the sewer system. George felt this was the fairest option. He also felt that this was important if we want to grow the greater Village area, since there is no guarantee that undeveloped properties close to the core of the Village will be developed. Keeping the sewer service area large allows more opportunity to grow. George felt short term development potential of the Quinn and Russell properties, which are closer to the core Village, are extremely low. He said if the Commission is committed to growth in and around the Village, then we shouldn’t set the sewer service area so small that future development is beholden to just a few properties/landowners. Alex argued that we should use the sewer service area as one tool to focus more growth in and around the existing Village area rather than wherever Town or private sewer lines currently run. Alex said that a landowner’s desire to develop their property is hard to predict and will change over time, especially as land is transferred within or outside a family. Alex said we shouldn’t base the Town’s growth center on assumptions about individual landowner desire, or lack thereof, to develop.
George Munson said that the original plan for the wastewater treatment plant included a design for what parts of the Village should or could be served. He said he was disappointed that this original sewer service area was not being looked at more closely. Furthermore, he said that the original plan included his property down to Buck Hill Road along Route 116. He said he was discouraged to see that this area was not included in the alternative 1 area build-out analysis. Alex explained that since the sewer treatment plant was constructed, 2 or 3 different sewer service areas have been evaluated or utilized. Currently, however, none of these areas have been formally adopted by the Selectboard. Alex felt that establishing a sewer service area for today should be based on today’s situation and tomorrow’s needs rather than solely based on past plans or original design areas. Alex went on to say that all of the discussions to date have been positive toward expanding both the Village Zoning District and the sewer service area South along Route 116 to Buck Hill Road.
George Bedard reiterated his desire to see the sewer service area be large, approximately as shown in alternative 3. He felt that if the Town is seeking to expand the sewer treatment plant, it would be beneficial to define a large sewer service area that would allow ample growth to justify any plant expansion. Jean said she felt it was premature to make a final decision on the sewer service area given the ongoing work on the Town Plan, and the likelihood that the Commission would recommend significant Zoning changes in this area upon completion of the Plan. Fred and Carrie agreed with this sentiment. There was general consensus that the Selectboard should adopt whatever sewer service area they felt was appropriate in the short term, with the understanding that it may need to be revised once Zoning changes are made in the next year or two.
Other Business:
George Bedard, Jean, Carrie, and Joe volunteered to attend the Selectboard’s October 20 meeting for their public hearing on the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Regulation changes and their discussion of possible sewer service areas.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________ ___________
Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Date