TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

April 21, 2004

Approved May 5, 2004

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham (Chair), Fred Haulenbeek, Carrie Fenn, Deb Howard, John Buckingham, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Nancy Norris (arrived 8:15)

 

Commission Members Absent:  Johanna White (appointed 4/19)

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), David Spitz (Planning Consultant), Bill Marks, George & Karla Munson, Lynn Gardner, Jon Trefry, Andrea Morgante, Peter Erb, Craig & Linda Chevrier, Paul Wieczoreck, George Dameron, Tom Lyman, John Lyman, David Lyman, Andrea Haulenbeek, Chuck Reiss, Tom Hackett

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

 

Town Plan Revision – Public Input:

Jean opened the meeting by explaining that the Commission is looking for feedback on the early draft of the new Town Plan.  She said she would try to make sure everyone had a chance to speak, and then she opened the meeting up for public comment.

 

Bill Marks asked why the Commission was revising the Plan.  Carrie said that Plan revisions are legally required every 5 years in order to be eligible for certain grants, among other things.  She said that the Commission felt it was time to take a comprehensive look at the Plan, since the 2002 revision merely updated the statistics without a fresh look at the real substance.  Jean added that the last comprehensive revision involving significant public involvement was over 10 years ago.

 

George Dameron indicated that he had submitted written comments.  He said the Plan should seek to correct the serious problems in the existing village area before expanding and/or encouraging more development in the village area.  Serious safety issues currently exist due to inadequate infrastructure – e.g., road intersections, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.  These issues should be a higher priority than others listed in the village section of the Plan.  He also felt that the Plan should include stronger and more decisive language for the village quality of life recommendations.  These recommendations should be listed 1st so as to highlight their importance and priority.  Finally, he asked how expanding the village going to serve the public, and how this expansion is not going to end up promoting strip development.

 

Jean said the intent of the expansion to the north is not necessarily to expand the existing village zoning district, but rather to possibly create a unique zoning district that is tightly crafted to avoid strip development.

 

Andrea Haulenbeek suggested that the agricultural lands to the north of the existing village are not viable for continued agricultural use.  She felt these landowners should have the opportunity to develop or conserve these lands as they see fit.  She also supports the concept of well planned growth rather than trying to restrain or prohibit future growth.

 

Paul Wieczoreck agreed that landowners should be compensated for land conservation, but he feels that the Plan’s proposed village expansion is rushing ahead too fast.  He’s concerned that the sewer service area is being expanded into this area, and that zoning changes to make development possible were being discussed too quickly.  Joe explained the Commission’s overall planning process, which includes working to finalize the new Town Plan, followed by careful review and revision of the Zoning & Subdivision Regulations to implement the Plan, followed by changes to the sewer service area to make development in this area possible under the appropriate zoning.  Joe said the vision of what this area should look like will come first, and everyone will have the opportunity to shape that vision before anything happens.

 

Tom Lyman said the Town should work with the inevitable development that is coming.  We’ll achieve a better result if we work with this growth instead of trying to avoid it or hide from it.

 

Lynn Gardner supports the expansion of the village.  He doesn’t want to see all future growth crammed into the existing village zoning district.  He said that there isn’t a lot of land available in the village area, and he worries about in-fill and redevelopment of existing properties because of the negative impact on the village’s historic buildings.  He supports additional commercial growth so that we can focus more on local jobs and help reduce the need for residents to commute to work out of town.

 

Craig Chevrier said the proposed Plan language represents a rush to growth both in the village and in the rural areas of Town.  He said the language favors growth over the needs and concerns of existing residents.  He asked how can you concentrate growth in the village while expanding the village area.  He asked how can increasing density in rural areas be consistent with concentrating growth in the village?  Carrie said the point of the development changes in the rural areas is not to increase the overall amount of development, but rather to cluster new growth so as to conserve more open space.  Craig was concerned that the rural roads may not support clustered development.  Joe explained that the Commission is not seeking to enlarge the total “pie” (development potential or density) in the rural areas.  Instead, the Commission is seeking alternative ways to divide the existing pie so that rural character and open spaces are better conserved.

 

Peter Erb said the base density of 1 unit per 2 acres, in the Agricultural zoning district, represents too much overall density.  He said the Commission needs to confront this issue if it really wants to conserve these agricultural areas and natural resources.  Joe and Carrie said that the proposed Plan language doesn’t institute area-based zoning, it simply enables the Commission to follow through with more research to make informed decisions on these issues prior to any zoning changes.  Fred described the area-based zoning concept.  He talked about how it would likely be based on the traditional development density of 1 unit per 10 acres, given that every parcel has site constraints that limit the development potential.  Alex explained that the concept seeks to disconnect the minimum lot size from the allowed density, so as to allow the creation of smaller lots while still accounting for reduced development potential on remaining land.

 

Andrea Haulenbeek said she supports the West Side Road concept because it will help create a network of roads and streets.  She said we currently have a 1-road village, and there’s little opportunity to change that without utilizing the west side of Route 116.  Craig said that he supports higher densities in the village so long as the streets are well designed and have appropriate sidewalks, landscaping, etc.

 

David Lyman felt that the proposed Plan is not a rush, and instead is a good starting place.

 

Andrea Morgante said that we need to address the 2 and 3 acre base density in the rural regions.  She said this density is far too high for our current and likely future infrastructure.  She asked how will an overall density of 2-3 acres across most of the Town be supported.  She wants a lot of that “rural pie” of land to be left.  The land is still capable of producing viable agricultural and forest products, and we should recognize that.  She also felt that the Plan needs additional language on the growing elderly population and its needs.

 

Chuck Reiss agreed with Andrea on the need to conserve more of the overall rural “pie”.  He said that we need to figure out what the base density should really be for these areas.  He also encouraged the Commission to look into expanding the village on the east side.  He said that Lyman Park has significant potential, and that providing more connections behind Lantman’s IGA could be a positive step.

 

Tom Lyman felt we should focus the growth in the village area rather than see it happen in the rural areas.  He’s not interested in seeing a “Ketcham Flats” development like the Butler Farms development and others like it in rural areas of other towns.

 

George Dameron would also like to see village growth with gridded streets, sidewalks, street trees, etc.  However, he wants to make sure that the requisite infrastructure needs are met first so we don’t spoil what we already have and what we hope to achieve while new development is happening.  He reiterated that infrastructure improvements in the existing village should receive top priority.  John Lyman said that if infrastructure needs have to be addressed, people should come with specific ideas to improve them rather than trying to halt or stop all growth while we wait for improvements.

 

Bill Marks said the reference to area-based zoning is made explicitly in section 3.4.3 for agricultural areas, but not in 3.4.4 for forest areas.  Joe said the intent was to consider area-based zoning for both areas.  Bill also said that limiting the conservation overlay district to just public lands in section 3.4.5a seems overly restrictive, especially given the broader language in 3.4.7b.  David Spitz clarified how conservation districts typically work in other towns.  He explained that conservation districts are usually limited to public lands because development uses are prohibited, and it’s a hard sell to include much private land in such a district.  Overlay districts on the other hand, often do allow some sorts of development, but simply have a higher level of review or a smaller area that is off limits.

 

Peter Erb would like to establish an e-mail chain or another vehicle to allow people to see comments made by others and encourage more of a dialogue.  Craig said he would be happy to set something up, and encouraged people to get him their e-mail addresses.  Peter also disagreed with some of the Plan’s language in the housing section.  He said that reducing regulations will not make housing more affordable.  In fact, he felt that affordable housing will benefit from having clear regulations that encourage development in the places that can support it.  He said the real reason for high housing prices has more to do with the housing market as well as higher costs for engineering, surveying, alternative septic systems, long driveways and associated maintenance, and running power to areas that are poorly suited to development.  He suggested creating a set of goals or expectations, so that any developer coming to Hinesburg will know what is in the realm of possible, and what is simply not realistic.

 

Andrea Haulenbeek said that the intent of conservation districts versus natural resource overlay districts would be better served if section 3.4.5 referred specifically to public lands, and section 3.4.7 referred specifically to private lands.  She felt that large landowners should have the flexibility to sell their land.  She said these families have been here a long time, and there rights shouldn’t come 2nd to newcomers who might have moved into developments nearby.  David Lyman agreed with this sentiment.  She also felt that the area on the east side of Route 116, to the north of the NRG facility, has a lot of potential for light commercial in addition to the currently permitted residential uses.  She felt this area is still close to the village, allowing people to walk to a variety of services.

 

Lynn Gardner said zoning should be changed to allow for more light commercial uses (e.g., small stores) in existing pockets of higher residential density.

 

Jon Trefry said we should be working on a trail system throughout the Town to make everyone more connected.  He felt it was important to identify such a system, so that right of ways and easements could be obtained when lands are subdivided.  This would make life better for residents and could make Hinesburg a real destination for trail users from outside of town.  Alex said it would be great to have a map in the Plan to show the desired trail areas.  He said this would help the DRB in their review process.  Jon, Lynn, and Andrea said there a fair number of trails and trail maps for VAST trails, state lands, town forest, etc.  George Dameron mentioned the work of the previous recreation path committee, and said that work should be reviewed and revived.

 

Paul Wieczoreck asked what the look and feel of the West Side area would be as well as its extent or limit.  Fred explained his vision as chair of the West Side Road Subcommittee.  Fred described an area with mixed residential and commercial uses that would incorporate community gathering places and green space.  He described an area with a network of streets off of a new West Side road, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for additional curb cuts on to Route 116.  He talked about the importance of walkability and the infrastructure (sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.) to support this concept.  He would also like to see a significant emphasis on truly affordable or lower-income housing as part of the residential make up of this new area.  Paul said he liked much of what Fred said, but felt that all this energy and creativity should be focused on the current village core.  He felt the existing village area could be built out more, especially if it received the attention it needs.  Jean said that the Town has a unique opportunity to work with 2 landowners to plan for the future of the West Side area.  Paul said he isn’t opposed to any expansion in the West Side, but he felt that it should be a smaller area.  He doesn’t think it should reach all the way out to Ballard’s Corner.  He said that the Plan recognizes the importance of the agricultural and open land that provides contrast to the village itself.  Alex said the Commission had talked about the approach from the north (along Route 116), and that the visual break was not the West Side area, but rather the Ballard Farm well before Ballard’s Corner.  Paul said that the West Side area was the visual break when approaching the village from the west along Shelburne Falls Road.

 

George Dameron reiterated that the infrastructure needs in the core village area may be neglected if we grow too fast to the north.  He said the tax implications of all this new growth could be substantial.  John Lyman said that the new development will help pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements.

 

Andrea said the Plan needs more information and data to back up the growth projections and the need for more growth areas.  She said we need to better understand the cost implications before we take this step.  She also said that the natural resources section is a bit too disparate, and needs to focus more on ecological systems.  She also felt that the Plan should recognize the social and natural resource connection, and why that is so important to the community.

 

Peter Erb said the Commission needs to have more input from people who live in the village.  He said the Plan should call for the creation of a group to focus on and better understand village issues.  Jean said there is in fact a recommendation in the Plan to do just that.

 

David Lyman said that people need to understand that the village has already moved toward Ballard’s Corner.  He said the Town library is already there along with the only bank.  He also said that all the development in Commerce Park has already pushed the village area northward.

 

Craig said he would like a better and stronger definition of rural character.  He felt the Town should go beyond State requirements for the preservation of natural resources.

 

Chuck Reiss said we should focus more on the existing village core area.  He doesn’t want to stretch the village out over a mile to Ballard’s Corner.  Andrea Haulenbeek asked where else the Town could expand, if not to the north.  Paul Wieczoreck said maybe the Town should buy this land and hold on to it until we really need to develop it.

 

Bill Marks said that section 4.7 on page 34 puts an emphasis on forest edge habitat for quality wildlife habitat.  He said these edge areas are in fact poor quality habitat for most species, and open field and forest interiors are more important.  He said this was important because we often seek to put development on the forest edge.

 

Peter Erb said the West Side area currently has little development potential, and that the Selectboard should realize its value once town sewer is extended here along with zoning changes.  He said any good business analyst would see the incredible value the Town would be adding to the property, and should be sure to work with the 2 landowners to ensure the community interests are also served.

 

Andrea Morgante said we need better data and we need to better understand where the data comes from.  Fred said the Commission is comprised of volunteers whose time is limited.  He said that to do much more data collecting and analysis would require more staff time and support.  Andrea said that the Selectboard needs to hear that.

 

Peter Erb and George Dameron thanked the Commission for all its hard work..

 

Town Plan Revision – CCRPC Feedback:

Alex said that Ian McDougal at the CCRPC reviewed this draft of the Plan, and said that it was excellent both in format and in substance.  Ian felt the Plan could likely be confirmed as is, and only made 2 minor suggestions for changes.

 

Town Plan Revision – Changes & Timeline:

Fred suggested changing the village section of the Plan to clarify that bettering the existing village area is just as important as exploring new expansion in the West Side area.  Jean also suggested additional language to emphasize that infrastructure in the village core will be addressed.  George Bedard said that this shouldn’t hamper or postpone new development.  Alex said we could add language to explore development opportunities in the existing core (e.g., in-fill) as well as expansion on the east and northeast sides of the village.  Deb supported this idea, and also supported the idea of the Town considering the purchase of the West Side area so as to have control over when and how it is developed.

 

Carrie mentioned that she would like language in the village section to recognize the importance of creating a village green.  Originally, she thought lot 15 in Commerce Park (behind Post Office) would be an ideal location.  However, she made some contacts with State wetland personnel and at the Act 250 office, and these people felt this area has limited value for such a use.

 

David Spitz recommended that the Commission slow down the process a bit, and take the time to consider the suggestions made by the public tonight.  The Commission agreed to discuss this further at the May 5 meeting.

 

Minutes of the April 7, 2004 Meeting:

Deb MOVED to approve the April 7, 2004 meeting minutes.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business & Announcements:

None.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner               Date