HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

Approved 10/05/04

Members of the Board Present: Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Ted Bloomhardt, Greg Waples, Howdy Russell, and Clint Emmons. Also Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator and Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner.

Members of the Audience: Tom, John and David Lyman, Barbara Forrest, Karla Munson, Lynn Gardner, Margery Sharp, Wayne Bissonette, Joe Iadanza, Dianne Deforge, Kurt Van Hook, George Bedard, Peter Goldsmith, Rob Bast, Ray Ayer, Kay and Tim Ballard, Sam Evanson, Larry & Micki Ketcham and Fred Haulenbeek.

The meeting was a work session for the Board to discuss procedures and staffing among themselves and with members of the audience. Notices had been sent out to recent applicants and interested parties of those applications inviting people to participate in this meeting. Barbara Forest announced that she was recording the public discussion portion of the meeting.

Before beginning this process, Tom McGlenn made the motion to accept the minutes of September 7, 2004 and this motion was seconded by Howdy Russell and passed.

The meeting was run by Chairperson Tom McGlenn who explained that the purpose of this Board is to serve the citizens of Hinesburg. The Board will be meeting several times this fall to assess their needs in relation to serving the public and the amount of staff support to help accomplish that. The purpose of this review is to then assist the Select Board in preparing next year’s budget. The Board had received several letters and emails in regard to this issue.

The following issues, complaints, and recommendations were then discussed:

- Alex had prepared a chart indicating the amount of time each of the 3 staff members spends approximately on DRB issues in relation to their other duties. The staff for the DRB at this time consists of Alex who is the planner, Peter Erb the zoning administrator, and Holly Russell a part-time assistant. In explaining this chart, Alex felt that it would be good to have another staff person, to only assist the DRB.

- It was mentioned that having three people work on applications might not be an efficient method.

- It was also felt the process of reviewing and making decisions on applications could be more quickly dealt with and streamlined.

- It was suggested that the Board provide applicants of checklists as to what should be submitted with their projects.

- It was also strongly suggested that the Board’s meetings be recorded.

- It was explained that using deliberative sessions had been suggested by the previous planner as a manner to expedite reviews. This Board is now doing the work that previously had been processed by the Planning Commission and Zoning Board and the amount of development and the complexity of proposals in Hinesburg have greatly increased. This Board has encouraged the use of PRD’s and PUD’s and tried to encourage innovative subdivisions and allow landowners to more fully develop their property.

- This Board’s meetings are run quite informally and in other Towns formal procedures are strictly adhered to.

- Several developers felt that Board members and the Zoning Administrator had not been helpful in reviewing their subdivisions and the merits of them.

- It was felt that there might not be sufficient time for staff feedback between the meeting where the application is heard and the next hearing for the applicants to adequately prepare their information.

- It was explained that some applicants feel it is not necessary to provide information to the staff but would like to have the Board directly deal with applications.

- It was suggested that the Board in reviewing applications at the meeting specifically address those sections of the regulations that apply.

- Hinesburg’s DRB has only been in existence for two years and it would be helpful to contact other towns and find out some of their methods of reviewing and dealing with applications.

- An adjacent landowner to one of the larger subdivisions currently under review by the Board thanked them for their attention to the concerns of landowners. The Board had made two site visits to this property and usually does site visits for subdivisions either prior to meetings or on Saturdays.

- It was felt that it is a problem that although Alex reviews and does the memo for some projects he is a part-time staff person and is unable to attend the meetings.

- It was explained that the regulations are written by the Planning Commission and it is the job of the DRB members to interpret them and they are not black and white standards.

- An opinion was expressed that the zoning administrator should only deal with zoning issues and not be involved with the DRB.

- Lynn Gardner explained that Select Board has hired a consultant to help with job descriptions and any new position created to assist the DRB could be included.

Tom McGlenn thanked the members of the public for their input and helpful suggestions.

The following other items were then acted upon:

1. Jeannine and Doninque Francis and Joyce Devoid were present in regard to the Francis subdivision on Hayden Hill Road West. It was explained that the final plat public hearing had been officially continued until the Board’s October 5^th meeting and therefore it could not be discussed at this work session. However, they were given a draft of the Official Decision to review.

2. Greg Waples made the motion to deny the appeal of Robert Audette in regard to the denial by the Zoning Administrator to replace a mobile home on lot #58 in Triple L Park. This motion was seconded by Ted Bloomhardt and passed. Ted Bloomhardt then made the motion to grant Robert Audette a Conditional Use Permit with conditions to replace the mobile home on lot #58 with a doublewide home.

3. There was then a discussion of what issues the staff could address at the next work session on October 19. Alex, with the help of Ted and Tom, will work at getting a consultant to assist with this process by contacting other towns and suggestioning procedures to follow. The consultant should also gather data from other towns on their fee schedules for reviews and how much it costs to develop in other towns. It would also be helpful to know if other DRB’s have deliberative sessions as part of their meeting procedure. Several of the time restrictions in reviewing projects are set by the Subdivision Regulations and it was felt that the Planning Commission could maybe rewrite this section. Greg Waples will look into the open meeting law and the procedure for taping meetings.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50

Respectfully submitted,

Holly Russell

Recording Secretary