TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

January 19, 2005

Approved February 2, 2005

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham (Chair), Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Daniel Greller, Nancy Norris, Johanna White.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Carrie Fenn, John Buckingham.

 

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

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

 

Village Area Planning Project:

Alex said he plans to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) in order to get a consultant on board to assist with the Village Area Planning Project.  The project timeline calls for having the consultant on board by the end of January, and this will be delayed by about a month at this point.  Alex plans to contact possible partner groups before finalizing and distributing the RFP.  George and Nancy volunteered to work with Alex on the consultant selection.

 

The Commission reviewed the project and overall timeline through March 2006.  The 1st major step (after consultants and partner groups are identified) will be a design charette.  The Commission discussed who to invite to the charette.  Alex reminded everyone that the charette will be a smaller group that can bring their professional expertise to the table.  He said the follow up community forum will be geared for a larger audience.  The Commission discussed inviting architects, engineers, planners, developers, key landowners, business leaders, etc. – both from within and outside Hinesburg.  Johanna recommended considering the list of names discussed at the last meeting for the village steering committee.  Other possible names included: Rob Bast, Rolf Kielman, John Kiedaisch, Howdy Russell, Owisa Makuku, Kate Lampton, John Mace, etc.

 

Regulation Revisions – Focus Areas & Schedule:

The Commission decided to focus on the most immediate Chapter 117 changes through February, hopefully with a formal public hearing in April.  George suggested including as many minor housekeeping changes as well.  Alex said he and Peter maintain a laundry list of possible housekeeping changes.  He suggested discussing these changes at the February 23 meeting.  Other regulation revision priorities (e.g., rural area densities, natural resource or conservation overly districts) will be taken up after the Commission finalizes the Chapter 117 and housekeeping changes.  The village area project will also require time throughout this period.  Jean and Bill said they hope that the village discussion will contribute to the discussion of the other priorities for the rural areas.

 

Zoning Revisions – Accessory Apartments:

The Commission reviewed the Town’s current Zoning regulations for accessory apartments, and compared these to the new statutory (Chapter 117) parameters that will go into affect on September 1, 2005.  Alex pointed out that the statute permits accessory apartments for all single-family dwellings, regardless of what zoning district they fall in.  This will require a minor wording change in the zoning regulations.  The statute requires that landowners be allowed accessory apartments that are, at minimum, 30% of the floor area of the single-family dwelling.  With that said, the statute gives municipalities the flexibility to allow a larger percentage.  Currently, the zoning regulations allow up to 33% of the single-family dwelling with a cap of 600 square feet in accessory structures and 1000 square feet within the principal structure.

 

The Commission was interested in making accessory apartments available to owners of small houses as well as large houses.  Joe asked George what the average size of a new home was currently.  George said real estate journals and other information put the average size of a new home at approximately 2200 square feet.  Joe suggested making the floor area determination be 30% of the single-family dwelling floor area or 660 square feet, whichever is larger.  He said 660 square feet is 30% of 2200 square feet (average for new home), and seems like a reasonable size for an accessory apartment.  The rest of the Commission felt this was a reasonable approach that met the statutory requirements.

 

The Commission also discussed how the 30% would be calculated with respect to the single-family dwelling.  Many Commissioners suggested the simplest possible calculation of simply total floor area, regardless of living area, storage area, etc.  Joe felt the 30% calculation should be based on the total floor area of the dwelling before the accessory apartment was created.  This makes for an easy calculation for apartments in detached structures or that are additions to the dwelling.  For “internal” accessory apartments, completely within the single-family dwelling, the rule would be the same – i.e., the apartment could be 30% of the single-family dwelling before the apartment is created.  In other words, after the creation of the apartment, the single-family dwelling could be 70% of the structure and the apartment could be 30% of the structure.

 

The Commission also discussed the number of allowed bedrooms in the apartment.  The statute defines accessory apartments as 1 bedroom or efficiencies, while our zoning regulations allow for up to 2 bedrooms.  The Commission would like to retain the 2-bedroom allowance in order to serve the intent of the statute (e.g., affordable housing).  Alex said he wasn’t sure if the flexibility extended to the Town would allow an increase in the number of bedrooms.

 

Finally, the Commission discussed what circumstances would warrant conditional use review for accessory apartments.  Joe argued that the Town needn’t be concerned as long as any new structures meet the setback requirements and other standard zoning regulations.  George Munson agreed, but said that past experience has shown there can be issues with regard to parking, especially in the Village zoning district.  The Commission discussed whether parking changes should trigger conditional use review.  Joe wondered if parking changes really mattered in the rural areas or if it was primarily a village issue.  Jean asked Alex to get the Zoning Administrator’s feedback on this issue.

 

Zoning Revisions – Existing Small Lots:

The Commission discussed whether or not to require existing small lots to merge when they come into common ownership.  Prior to the Chapter 117 changes (but beginning in approximately 1997), the statute required undeveloped, existing small lots to merge when they came into common ownership with another lot.  Going forward, the statute leaves this decision up to municipalities.  Alex said he felt that this was sort of a “fresh start” since any of these small lots already in common ownership were already deemed merged under the previous state statute.  He didn’t think the Town could undo this situation; therefore, this decision would only affect small lots that come into common ownership in the future.  After some discussion, there was general consensus that the Town should allow these lots to continue (i.e., no merger) when under common ownership.  Nancy was interested to know how many existing small lots exist in Town.  Alex said this could be calculated from the tax map, but might be difficult given inaccuracies and deed language that isn’t reflected on the map.

 

Minutes of the January 5, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the January 5, 2005 meeting minutes.  Nancy SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business & Announcements:

Agenda items for February 2 meeting:

Alex will select additional Chapter 117 issues that need to be addressed.  He encouraged Commissioners to let him know if there are any particular issues they want to discuss.

 

Johana said she will not be able to make the February 2 meeting.  Joe said he will not be able to make the March 2 meeting.  Alex and Jean said they will not be able to make the April 20 meeting.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:30pm.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner               Date