TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

May 5, 2004

Approved June 2, 2004

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham (Chair), Fred Haulenbeek, Carrie Fenn, Deb Howard (left at 9:45pm), John Buckingham, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Johanna White

 

Commission Members Absent:  none.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), Bill Marks

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

 

**NOTE** This was Johanna White’s 1st Commission meeting.  She was appointed to the Planning Commission on April 19, 2004.  This was Deb Howard’s last Commission meeting.  She has resigned from the Planning Commission, and the Selectboard recently appointed Daniel Greller to fill her seat.

 

Town Plan Revision – Village Area Issues:

Alex said the main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the public feedback gained from the April 21 meeting.  Alex felt that 3 major issues were identified: 1) existing village infrastructure (priority and detail); 2) extent of proposed village expansion (primarily to the north); 3) rural area density.  Jean said there is no question that the existing village area needs help and resources.  Carrie felt that the draft Plan does include recommendations to address these concerns, such as 3.2.6.  Alex said the concerns appear to be about the lack of priorities, specificity, and timetables.  George said we can’t dictate when taxpayer dollars can or will be spent.  He said these are issues for the voters to decide.  Joe said he doesn’t want to invest in infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks) now, that will have to be torn out in just a few years once long term or permanent improvements are ready for the entire Route 116 corridor.

 

Nancy said we have a unique opportunity to work with the major landowners (Lyman & Bissonette) in the West Side area.  She said that these landowners will not wait forever to develop their property, and that it would be unfortunate if they chose to do some residential development under the existing zoning.  In other words, dropping a few 2 + acre lots in this area would hamstring long term planning for the village area.  Joe said that the Commission always wants landowners to do master plans, and this is the Town’s opportunity to do just that for the greater village area.

 

Deb said we need to emphasize planning for the West Side area and not just development possibilities.  She said the public was afraid the Commission was moving too fast.  She said there shouldn’t be any hurry, and that the Commission should take the time needed for this planning.  There was consensus that the Plan language should be modified to make it clear that the Commission still needs to do much planning on this concept, and that this will involve substantial public input and dialogue.

 

Joe said we could also re-order the recommendations in the village section of the Plan to better emphasize the need for infrastructure improvements in the existing village core.  Joe also recommended adding a priority level back to the implementation section the way it was originally structured.  Alex suggested adding a top 10 list of recommendations at the beginning of the implementation section to clearly identify the most important action items.

 

George asked about the status of the Route 116 Scoping Study.  Alex explained that it has been delayed again and again, first because of staff changes at the consulting firm working on the study, and most recently because of inaction at the CCMPO.  Deb suggested drafting a letter to the CCMPO to push for the completion of this study.

 

Various Commissioners made suggestions to clarify recommendation 3.2.1a on the West Side growth area.  Clarifications needed include: unique zoning district, process to create it, linkage to available sewer, consistency with sewer service area.  Alex asked if it made sense to say what we don’t want to see in this area, as a way to assure the community that it won’t turn into something at the scale of Taft Corners.  Bill felt that preserving the rural village character is the concept to emphasize.  Deb concurred with this.  George, Fred, and Jean said the Plan is not the place to put in specifics.  They felt that additional work and public feedback is needed before deciding on the specific look and feel of this area.  Deb disagreed because she felt some general goals for this area should be included in the Plan, including: 1) maintain rural village character; 2) ensure walkability; 3) accessible; 4) creates appropriate gateway to the village.  Alex noted that many of these general concepts are discussed as separate village area recommendations.  He said perhaps the West Side section should refer to these other sections.  Fred and John said that the eventual plan for the West Side area must be completed prior to opening up this area to new development.  George said he doesn’t want to impose too many limitations on what can be built or how it is built.  Alex will rewrite the village section to incorporate the various suggestions.

 

Town Plan Revision – Rural Area Density:

Bill did some research on the area based zoning/density concept, and shared some of what he found.  He said the concept is fairly new to Vermont and has not been used by many towns to date.  He said Starksboro’s zoning may be the purest example of it, but that there are also related examples in Hyde Park, Middlebury, Norwich.  He said it has been used extensively in Maryland, and he mentioned a study done there that demonstrated that area based density allocations had no negative economic impact on land values.  Bill said that it is critical that the Commission reduce the base density in the rural areas in order to make this concept work, and that this new density be established in the Plan as a guidepost for future zoning changes.  He suggested reducing the base density from 1 unit per 2 or 3 acres to 1 unit per 10 acres.  He also said that establishing a maximum lot size is key to the success of the concept so that real open space is actually conserved.

 

Jean and Fred asked why the Commission must identify the base density number now.  Both felt that that was a detail that could be established when the zoning regulations were modified to implement the concept.  George said that it would be unfair to change the density for existing landowners.  He also said that reducing the density would continue to feed the lack of affordable and reasonably priced housing.

 

Bill said that sufficient flexibility could be established in the zoning to allow the DRB to approve innovative plans or exceptions to the density formula via conditional use review.  Fred said that giving the DRB that much flexibility would be a bad idea because it would lead to uncertain results both for the Town and for applicants.  George agreed, and said the DRB needs a firm checklist so that there is less subjectivity and room for uncertainty.  In any case, there was strong consensus of the Commissioners that establishing a maximum lot size in conjunction with the area based concept was a bad idea.  Many Commissioners felt larger lots might be used effectively in some situations to conserve agricultural or forest land.

 

Alex agreed with Bill that the Plan really should address the need to reduce the base density in the rural areas.  He said that the existing 2-3 acre zoning establishes a wholly unrealistic buildout potential for the rural areas of town.  He said it makes sense to enlarge the village growth center and to provide rural landowners with more flexibility when crafting subdivisions; however, there must be a balance to all of this growth in order to preserve the character of the rural areas.  George disagreed with this, saying that the existing patterns of development in the rural areas was fine.  Alex felt the Commission had 3 basic options on this issue: 1) establish a base density figure for the rural areas; 2) just say that the current rural density should be reduced, but identify a figure later; 3) leave it an open question.  He advocated for option 2.

 

Deb suggested clearly identifying values and goals for the rural areas, again with the focus being to conserve the rural character.  Jean suggested adding the phrase “consider a lower density in the rural areas”.  Deb supported this.  Nancy didn’t want to encourage density language in the Plan as she felt people could demand action on this even if the Commission decides to abandon the area based zoning concept.  George warned that selling the whole concept to the community will be difficult if it involves a reduction in the overall allowed density.  After further discussion, there was consensus among the Commissioners that Jean’s suggested language was appropriate and provided enough flexibility.

 

Town Plan Revision – Other Items:

Carrie felt the Plan needed a separate section to address the burgeoning elderly population.  She felt this section should address elderly housing needs, safe walkways, good transportation, social/cultural needs, and a senior center.  Carrie will write this up and get it to Alex for incorporation into the next draft of the Plan.

 

Minutes of the April 21, 2004 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the April 21, 2004 meeting minutes as amended.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0 (Deb had left, Johanna abstaining).

 

Other Business & Announcements:

Alex will e-mail the list of housekeeping changes that he and Peter maintain on an ongoing basis.  The Commission will consider whether some housekeeping changes are warranted if the Commission follows through on its plan to allow multi-family housing in that portion of the RR1 zoning district within the sewer service area.

 

The Commission cancelled the 5/19 mtg. to give Alex time to prepare the next draft of the Plan.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner               Date