TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

March 2, 2005

Approved March 16, 2005

** NOTE: February 16 meeting cancelled due to inclement weather **

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Fred Haulenbeek, George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Daniel Greller, Joe Iadanza, John Buckingham.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), George & Karla Munson.

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Zoning Revisions – Title 24, Chapter 117 statutory changes – Review of Draft Language

The Commission reviewed regulation language changes that Alex drafted based on discussions at the January and February meetings.

Accessory Apartments – The Commission felt that language to ensure the apartment was “subordinate” to the primary single-family dwelling was not necessary. The Commission discussed Alex’s proposed size cap of 90% of the single-family dwelling, and decided this was not necessary given that it would only have a bearing on homes smaller than the 660 square foot criteria. In other words, Commissioners felt the size cap of 30% of the single-family dwelling (or 660 square feet, whichever is greater) adequately addressed these issues.

The Commission discussed an owner-occupancy requirement (of either the dwelling or the apartment). Carrie was concerned about upkeep of the property if the owner did not live on site. George and Nancy were not sure that owner occupancy really mattered. Fred felt the lack of owner occupancy creates a whole different kind of development in that it seems more commercial in nature and could create maintenance issues due to absentee landowners. George suggested requiring owner occupancy only at the time the accessory apartment was created, especially given enforcement difficulties. Johanna and Jean felt an owner occupancy provision would be largely self enforcing via homeowner’s insurance requirements and mortgage and title search requirements. The Commission also discussed State of VT Labor and Industry requirements for rental units. After substantial discussion, the Commission felt the proposed owner occupancy requirement should be retained.

The Commission discussed the Zoning Administrator’s concerns that the accessory apartment be relatively close to the single-family dwelling. Carrie felt this issue would largely be self-limiting due to septic constraints, driveway access limits, and other practical considerations. Jean and George said we should be sure of the definition of “appurtenant” if we’re going to use it in the regulations. After much discussion, the Commission felt that accessory apartments should be permitted within a certain distance of the single-family dwelling, and be subject to conditional use review beyond that distance. Nancy described her own situation with her house and barn being approximately 200 feet apart. The Commission felt 200’ was a reasonable distance to use for the cut off for the permitted versus conditional determination. Alex will remove the reference to “appurtenant” and utilize the above criteria.

Existing Small Lots – The Commission felt the proposed language was adequate, but may revisit this at the next meeting, when Alex provides details on the number and location of the Town’s undeveloped, existing small lots.

Multi-family or multi-unit dwellings – The Commission reviewed the language to allow multi-family dwellings in all residential districts. George recommended starting more slowly by allowing multi-family dwellings of 3 units as a permitted use and multi-family dwellings of 4-6 units as a conditional use. The rest of the Commission agreed.

Childcare facilities – The proposed language simply makes these permitted uses in the commercial and village zoning districts.

Special uses – state or community owned facilities, schools, churches, hospitals, solid waste facilities, hazardous waste facilities – The Commission reviewed proposed language for a new section on this topic. Alex will add “and other public & private institutions for general medical care” to the description of public and private hospitals. This use will be added to the Village, Commercial, RR1, and Agricultural zoning districts. The RR2 district was excluded due to its difficult terrain, access, and overall pattern of unbroken forest land. Medical and dental clinics will remain as a separate use in the Commercial district. George recommended dropping the specific district references for regional solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. Currently, these are only allowed in the Industrial 1 zoning district. The proposed changes will keep this the same, but also allow these uses on suitable municipally owned property elsewhere in town. The Commission felt this added flexibility while preserving ultimate community decision making, since the community will be able to determine which municipally owned properties are suitable.

Subdivision plat/survey filing deadline – Changes were made as discussed at the February 2 meeting.

Subdivision expiration & substantial construction– Changes were made as discussed at the February 2 meeting.

Administrative review – The Commission will discuss this at a later meeting pending input from the DRB and the Zoning Administrator.

Zoning Revisions – Possible Housekeeping changes

The Commission reviewed areas for possible minor or “housekeeping” regulation changes based on recommendations by the Planning/Zoning office and the DRB.

Utility plan/coordination requirement – The Commission discussed the possibility of simplifying subdivision plats by requiring utility information/plans be shown on supporting documents (e.g., site plans or engineering) rather than on the plat/survey. The Commission also discussed deleting the requirement that subdivision applications include a letter of coordination from the utility provider. George felt that more flexibility was needed with regard to the utility plan and where this infrastructure actually goes in the field. He said that on the ground conditions (e.g., ledge, etc.) can require minor changes to utility line installation locations. However, he also felt that some utility information should remain on the plat/survey for information purposes and reference. Nancy suggested including a note on plats that the proposed utility location may be modified when installed due to site constraints. The Commission agreed to remove the requirement for a letter from the utility provider, since this was not always possible to obtain.

Definition of parcel/lot – The Commission briefly discussed more specific definition language, based in part on the State of VT wastewater regulations and on the Westford Subdivision regulations. The Commission was generally receptive to the suggested changes, but George recommended checking the State wastewater regulation definition to see how they treat pre-existing subdivisions.

Jean tabled the rest of this discussion until the next meeting in the interest of time.

Minutes of the February 2, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the February 2, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Other Business & Announcements:

Natural Resource Overlay Maps:

Alex explained that Bill Marks is working on a number of natural resource overlay maps to help the DRB in development review. These would eventually be referenced or incorporated into the Zoning Regulations, possibly as overlay districts. Some of these maps include: areas of high visibility from public roads, aquifer recharge areas, prime agricultural soils (already available).

Agenda items for March 16 meeting:

1) Continue review of housekeeping regulation changes

2) Presentation by the Conservation Commission on rural area density.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Date