TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Approved November 19, 2003
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Joe Iadanza, John Buckingham, Carrie Fenn, George Bedard, Deb Howard, Fred Haulenbeek, John Mace, Nancy Norris.
Commission Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), George & Karla Munson, Wayne Bissonette, Craig & Laura Chevrier, Paul Wieczoreck, Bill Marks, Andrea Morgante (arrived 8:15pm), Ann Frost (left 8pm).
Minutes of the October 15, 2003 Meeting:
George Bedard MOVED to approve the minutes, as amended, of the October 15, 2003 meeting. John Buckingham SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 9-0.
Announcements and Citizens
to be Heard:
Alex announced that Brendon Cosgrove from the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation (GBIC) is interested in presenting the GBIC’s regional economic development plan to the Planning Commission. Alex suggested scheduling this presentation for the November 19 meeting in conjunction with the Town Plan discussion on commercial and industrial land use. The Commission agreed, and asked Alex to get any written material ahead of time.
Alex announced that the Selectboard approved the Subdivision & Zoning Regulation changes proposed by the Commission. The Subdivision Regulations were approved October 20 and will become effective November 10. The Zoning Regulations were approved October 27 and will become effective November 17. The Commission also briefly discussed a letter from the VT Agency of Natural Resources regarding flood-related erosion hazards.
Accessory Apartments (maximum size) – Ann Frost asked the Commission to consider increasing the maximum size of accessory apartments located in accessory structures. Ann described her situation and why such a change would help her and others. Jean reviewed the timetable for the next planned revision to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, which is likely to begin in the summer of 2004, after the new Town Plan is adopted. George Bedard suggested that new language could parallel the 1/3 or 1000 square foot maximum for accessory apartments located in the primary structure. John Buckingham, John Mace, George Bedard, and Jean felt some sort of compromise on this front made sense. Jean said the Commission will take this issue up again at the next meeting, and asked Alex to get input from the DRB and from Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator). Ann thanked the Commission for taking the time to discuss this.
Town Plan Revision –
Natural Resources ~ Draft 2 Recommendations:
Deb described the changes she and Carrie had made to the Natural Resource section recommendations. Basically, the changes reflect the input from the Commission’s review of the draft 1 recommendations at the August 6, 2003 meeting. Alex suggested adding a recommendation to investigate means of reducing and treating storm water runoff in the Village area in order to minimize the Town growth center’s impact on water quality, and to ensure the Village’s future growth given state and federal stormwater regulations. Andrea suggested looking at stormwater from a sub-watershed perspective rather than a site by site basis. Andrea suggested adding a recommendation to deal with this issue, in part, by creating a stormwater utility. Andrea also felt the Plan should recommend that the Town address the impact of roads on stormwater.
Joe said that the DRB should be removed from “Who Does It” under groundwater recommendation #1. Bill Marks said the wording in the 3rd sentence of this recommendation is poor, and that instead, we should review what we know and then fill in the gaps.
Bill said an open space plan (recommendation #16) should be clearly defined. Bill said that maps are needed for each natural resource (e.g., forest land, wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc.) to provide the DRB with visual information.
Alex said that recommendation #8 needs rewording since locating all class 3 wetlands is impossible. Alex felt site delineation on the ground was critical, and that our existing wetland data (specifically the UMASS data) is sufficient for planning purposes. George Bedard would prefer to defer to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland maps. He also emphasized the importance of on-site delineation, and said the regulatory process already assures this. Alex said the Town should endorse the UMASS wetland data as this is specific to Hinesburg and is better than the NWI data. Andrea and Bill agreed.
Alex said that recommendation #3 needs rewording as “vegetative buffers” are not currently required in our regulations. The 75’ stream set back restricts structures but doesn’t dictate vegetation maintenance. Andrea said the 75’ stream set back protects the structure from dynamic rivers/stream, rather than the water resource itself. She said a vegetated buffer would better protect the water resource. Bill suggested reviewing the vegetative buffer recommendations in a report prepared by Kim Royar, John Austin (both VT Fish & Wildlife), and Kevin Behm (Addison County RPC). Bill said this report recommended much larger (e.g., 300 feet) buffers to protect wildlife habitat. Andrea said the Commission should review the report and consider what the competing issues are in order to arrive at a suitable buffer. George Bedard said that his #1 issue is protecting landowner rights, and that the Town better be prepared to compensate landowners if it requires larger buffer areas. Wayne agreed and described how his agricultural operation would be affected by large vegetative buffers. Wayne said that if the Town wants to preserve agriculture, vegetative buffers are not going to help. Bill said the buffers from the wildlife report are just guidelines and shouldn’t dictate to the DRB how to handle site specific considerations. Andrea said this hinges on what the community values and how to balance those values, whether they are wildlife, water quality, agriculture, etc. The Commission discussed various language for a recommendation on this issue.
Bill commented that recommendation #11 isn’t specific enough – e.g., what is connectivity? Bill said this recommendation needs to mention small forest areas, ridgelines, and other issues. Craig agreed that recommendation #11 needs more specificity like what was done for the wetlands recommendation. Paul said the mention of wildlife habitat is too broad, and that we need to define what kind of wildlife we mean. George Bedard asked Bill to have the Conservation Commission provide a list of possible maps of these natural resources.
Andrea suggested 3 additional recommendations: 1) Manage use of non-renewable resources in such a way so as to not damage the Town’s interests and the ecosystem; 2) Addressing non-native and invasive species; 3) Recognizing radon and radioactive hot spots in Town.
Town Plan Revision –
Agricultural Lands ~ Goals & Recommendations:
Jean distributed draft 1 of the Agricultural Lands recommendations. Alex suggested adding a recommendation to recognize the value of agricultural/forestry lands for non-traditional uses that still keep these lands open and retain their value (e.g., event locations, B&Bs, inns, etc.). George Bedard said that these types of uses are partially addressed in the existing zoning regulations, and a good example is the Ketcham event barn. He also said that we must be careful with event facilities with regard to the impact on adjoining uses.
Wayne said agricultural landowner options are limited given the economy, markets, etc. John Mace asked Wayne if there is anything Hinesburg can do to make agriculture more profitable. Wayne said the Town’s tax abatement (piggyback) program helps, but the problem is beyond the Town and is really a state and national problem.
Jean said 2-3 acre parcels don’t have much value for agricultural uses, whereas, 20 acre parcels are probably viable. Andrea agreed and felt that it is important to protect the landowner and community investment in these agricultural areas. Wayne said that we must plan for some development of agricultural lands, but it’s very important not to “waste” land by putting each house on a large lot. Wayne felt planned residential developments should be encouraged. John Mace and George Munson said that often times, jointly owned common land or open space (frequently part of a PRD) aren’t kept open or managed well.
Craig said that the Agricultural Lands section of the Plan should also recognize existing residential uses in the Agricultural Zoning District. Joe said that when PRDs are proposed near existing residential areas, impacts on existing uses should be and are considered as part of the PRD review process. There was an extended discussion about how existing residential uses should be treated in the Agricultural zone, and how these uses should be treated with regard to future cluster development in the same area.
Paul asked what was meant by “agri-business” and how we can encourage agricultural processors to locate here to support agricultural lands. Andrea said we should also consider industrial uses related to agricultural production and processing.
Other Business:
The November 19 meeting will begin with a discussion of the draft 1 forest land recommendations prepared by John Mace. After this discussion, we will hear the GBIC presentation and discuss draft 1 commercial/industrial land use recommendations.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________ ___________
Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Date