TOWN OF WESTFORD

TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

April 7, 2004

Approved April 21, 2004

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Joe Iadanza, John Buckingham, Nancy Norris (arrived late), Carrie Fenn, Deb Howard (left at 9:30pm).

Commission Members Absent: George Bedard, Fred Haulenbeek.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), George Dameron, David Lyman, Bill Marks (only for 1^st 5 minutes).

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Bill Marks mentioned that the Conservation Commission met with the Development Review Board on April 6. He said they had a good meeting, and that the Board was interested in having additional natural resource maps to help in the development review process.

Town Plan Revision – Items from Selectboard Discussion:

John wondered what Andrea meant when she suggested utilizing the Mechanicsville Road area for more development instead of the Route 116 area. Carrie felt Andrea was thinking primarily of residential uses in the Mechanicsville Road corridor. Carrie volunteered to update the Energy section to reflect the 10% Challenge initiative that Andrea mentioned. Jean said that Andrea will be sending related language on this initiative.

Alex said that Jeanne has provided a copy of Jon Trefry’s comments, which include many suggestions in the Community Facilities & Services section. The Commission discussed Jon’s concerns regarding organization of the natural resources section recommendations. Jon was concerned that recommendations for some sections (especially 4.8) weren’t listed in the section itself, but instead in other sections (e.g., 4.9 and rural regions land use section). Deb suggested that we simply repeat recommendations in both sections that they apply to. She said it is very important that these sorts of recommendations use the same language in all the sections where they appear. Currently recommendation 4.9.1a (overlay districts) is very similar to 3.4.5a. Basically the same intent, but the wording is different, which could cause confusion later on. These 2 recommendations, and others like them, should use the same wording.

At the Selectboard meeting, Stuart Pierson recommended stronger language to encourage and/or require affordable or low-income housing. He also recommended adding a definition of affordable housing, so that everyone could clearly distinguish traditional low-income housing from the broader concept of reasonably priced housing. The Commission discussed the housing recommendations in section 2 at length. The consensus was that an additional recommendation should be added that specifically addresses low-income housing. The Commission felt that the word affordable should be deleted from the other recommendations so that they retain the more general focus on all types of housing. Carrie also wanted to be sure the wording of 2.1b and 2.2b was modified to clearly state that additional housing is not to be encouraged in the Shoreline district.

George Dameron asked to be heard now since he couldn’t stay for the whole meeting. George made a number of points and asked some questions based on his initial review of the draft plan. He said he supports affordable or low-income housing in the village. He wondered if the West Side concept will promote strip development and sprawl. John and Joe said that it shouldn’t if it is planned well. Joe said the Commission will take up the specifics when they begin work on zoning revisions. He said the Commission is envisioning mixed uses in this area to include conservation areas, municipal land, high density residential, and some commercial. He said the Commission wants to make sure the potential for this area is well planned before development is enabled via zoning changes. He said the Commission also envisions rigorous design standards in this area to ensure development has the right look and feel. George said he would like some of the village section recommendations to be more direct and less tentative. He thinks the Route 116 scoping study didn’t adequately address the need for improvements to the Commerce Street, Route 116 intersection. Joe concurred on this point, and said the Plan mentions this. George thinks the Town shouldn’t “explore” the question of taking over Route 116 through the village, but should instead “decide” this question. Joe asked George to think about recommendation 6.2c, which considers closing Charlotte Road at the Route 116 intersection and instead redirecting that traffic along the proposed West Side Road to the Commerce Street intersection.

West Side Area Development Concept:

Possible Challenges

Alex reviewed some of the possible challenges to development in the West Side area. The area has a lot of prime/statewide agricultural soils, which could make large scale development difficult and/or expensive given the emphasis Act 250 places on impacts to these soils. The Commission may need to recognize that impacts to agricultural soils in the growth center are less critical than impacts in the rural regions. The 1995 wetland delineation report shows much of the West Side as wetland area that would fall under State jurisdiction. The report says that these wetlands are not functional due to their conversion to agricultural fields, and that future development and good site planning could actually improve the functionality. The Town may need to do additional delineation work in this area. Alex said that the Town’s current wastewater capacity will only allow for approximately 60 new residential units. Some of this will be utilized by projects in other portions of the sewer service area, so a complete build-out of the West Side area (under a new zoning regime) will not be possible until the treatment plant is upgraded. Given this reality, Alex recommended adding some sort of phasing language to some of the village growth recommendations. Jean agreed that mentioning phasing in the Plan would be a good idea.

West Side Road Committee Update & Concerns

Alex and John discussed the March 23 committee meeting, and the committee’s desire to hold off on any further action on the road until the Town Plan process is complete. The committee wants to make sure that the public is supportive of the West Side development concept before proceeding. The committee also felt that the public needs to understand the various scenarios and challenges in order to reasonably assess their level of support for the project. John felt that the upcoming April 21 Planning Commission meeting and the eventual formal public hearing in June should be sufficient to gain additional public input at this stage.