TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 16, 2005
Approved March 30, 2005
Commission Members
Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Fred
Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Carrie Fenn, Johanna
White.
Commission Members Absent: John Buckingham.
**NOTE: There is 1
vacancy on the Commission due to Dan Greller’s resignation, which was accepted
by the Selectboard on March 7.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), Dan Greller, George & Karla Munson, Peter Erb (left after rural area density discussion). Approximately 90 other people were present for the Conservation Commission’s presentation on reducing rural area densities. See attached list.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.
Given the large number of interested people, and the lack of space in the lower level conference room, Fred suggested continuing the rural area density discussion to a future meeting. George suggested waiting until 8pm when the Town Hall was available upstairs. Jean agreed, and informed everyone that the Commission would discuss other agenda items until 8pm, at which time the Commission would move upstairs for the Conservation Commission’s presentation.
Zoning Revisions –
Title 24, Chapter 117 statutory changes – Review of Draft Language
Existing Small Lots – Alex summarized the number of existing small lots that are currently undeveloped within each zoning district. He said there are no undeveloped small lots in the Village, Commercial, or Industrial (1-5) districts. He said there are none in the Agricultural district, except for 4 cemetery parcels. He said there are 9 in the Rural Residential 1 district, along with 1 cemetery parcel. Of these 9 undeveloped, small lots, 2 are under the 1/8th acre threshold discussed in the statute and in the Zoning Regulations. Alex said there are 2 undeveloped, small lots in the Rural Residential 2 district, and both of these are under 1/8th acre. Finally, there are 13 undeveloped, small lots in the Shoreline district, of which 3 are owned by the Town.
Alex reminded the Commission that this information was requested in order to make a more informed decision on whether to require the merger of these lots when they come into common ownership with another lot, and on whether to prohibit development on the “super small” lots under 1/8th acre. At the January 19 meeting, the Commission was leaning toward not requiring the merger of these lots if/when they come into common ownership with an adjacent lot. Carrie said she was concerned about additional development in the Shoreline district, given the sensitive nature of that area. She felt these lots should be merged in this district. Alex said he would look into to whether such a merger provision could be crafted for a single zoning district.
Zoning &
Subdivision 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.
Re-subdivision process/protocol (Subdivision, 7.7) – Alex explained that the current process for amending an approved subdivision could use some adjusting to make the process more clear, especially if the Commission expands administrative review options to minor subdivision amendments. The Commission was unsure about this suggestion, and asked Alex to draft regulation language to show exactly what the proposed change would be.
Plat/survey requirements (Subdivision, 4.2.1) – Alex suggested clarifying the plat requirements in the Subdivision Regulations to eliminate old language referring to “blocks” in section 4.2.1 #6, and to move the required ancillary information in section 4.2.1 #7 (road designs, utility poles, septic systems, etc.) to section 4.2.2 so that this information is submitted in supporting documents rather than on the plat. George agreed these changes made sense.
Street & driveway standards (Subdivision, 6.1) – Alex explained that some of these standards apply only to new roads/streets and others apply both to streets and to driveways. He said that both he and Peter Erb (ZA) think that standards related to topography (6.1.3) and drainage (6.1.9) should be modified so as to apply to driveways rather than just streets. George said we need to keep flexibility as to where private driveways go, how they reach the final building site, and where they enter the lot from a private right of way. Peter said that these changes would better implement the Town Plan, which calls for special attention to related issues of stormwater runoff and water quality. Joe agreed that these were important issues, and that potential impacts of driveways can be just as significant as those related to streets.
Conservation Commission Presentation on Reducing Rural Area Development
Density:
Bill Marks, from the Conservation Commission, discussed the increasing pace of development and the corresponding need to reduce the potential development density in the rural areas of Hinesburg. See attached document that was presented by Bill with background information and specific requests for action by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the existing Zoning Regulations allows development at a maximum density of 1 unit per 2 or 3 acres in the rural portions of town. He said that recent subdivision proposals show a trend of developers attempting to create 2-3 acre lots, often near the maximum allowed density for the parcel being divided. He then asked Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator) to summarize information on current applications and development trends.
Peter explained that prior to the meeting, Bill had asked him to summarize this information in his capacity as Zoning Administrator. Peter said that approximately 71 lots and/or units were currently in the review process. Nancy asked what kind of lots were included in this number. Peter explained that this number included new lots as well as new units on single lots. He said most of these (approximately 30) were in the village area. He said there are 63 undeveloped lots that have been approved for development, but have not yet been built. He indicated that this was likely a low estimate. He said that based on office visits, landowners or developers had expressed interest in a total of approximately 85 lots. He stressed that formal applications have not been filed for these, but that they represent possible subdivision interest.
Sam Evanson asked Peter how many building permits were issued in the rural areas. Bill recounted some of the lots currently under review on the Gilman Road and on Route 116 at the intersection of North Road. Tim Casey said that the Town Plan shows no dramatic increase in building permits, especially when compared to past history (e.g., the 1980s). He said the Town’s own data doesn’t support the crisis that Bill described. Mary Jane Ballard said she is starting a new family, and recently converted an existing house to a new one on a smaller lot in the rural Agricultural district. She was concerned that she wouldn’t have been able to do this if 10 or 25 acre zoning was enacted.
Bill said that the Conservation Commission supports farms, and that any interim zoning provision to reduce rural area density would be a temporary measure for no more than 2 years, to give the Planning Commission time to craft permanent regulation language. Richard Palmer said he owns land in both Hinesburg and Richmond. He said that Richmond doesn’t seem to have a problem with 1 acre zoning that is nearly town-wide. Bill said the idea is not to restrict the minimum lot size, but rather the overall density or number of allowed lots per parcel area. He said that the Conservation Commission supports the Planning Commission’s desire to implement area based zoning that could allow for lots as small as 1 acre or less.
A man (no name given) asked Bill how you can have a 10 acre density with small lots and clustering. Bill explained that in many cases small lots are indeed preferable, so that they can be better fit into the landscape and take better advantage of the site constraints of the parcel in question. He explained that the question is really about density – i.e., how many lots could be created for a given parcel. He said the size and placement of the lots should be flexible, but that the overall number should be reduced from what is currently allowed.
Jean asked Bill to finish his presentation. Bill read through his prepared document, and asked the Planning Commission to first vote on whether to support the following statement:
To acknowledge that: Hinesburg is currently, and will continue to be, faced with a substantial increase in high (2-3 acre) density residential subdivisions in its rural and agricultural districts, which under its current zoning regulations, it is unprepared to effectively control; and therefore, is in danger of permanently losing its most valued asset – its rural character.
George said that he doesn’t want the Planning Commission to vote on anything until they hear the entire presentation and have time to discuss and think about the issue. Jean agreed that the Planning Commission is not prepared to vote at this time. Bill completed his presentation by reading the 2nd item he wants the Planning Commission to vote on:
To direct the Town Planner, as a high priority, to work with a representative of the Conservation Commission and any professional experts as may be needed or advisable, to explore the viability of implementing one or more interim zoning plans with the purpose of effectively and expeditiously regulating future proposed developments in our rural and agricultural districts. Such plan or plans may, but not necessarily, exempt lots of 10 acres or less, eliminate minimum lot sizes, mandate the use of the Planned Residential Development provisions in our current ordinances for all qualifying proposed developments, and mandate lowering the maximum densities to 1 house per 10 acres and, in the case of designated aquifer recharge areas, 1 house per 25 acres. The Town Planner and a representative of the Conservation Commission shall report back to the Planning Commission with their findings as early as possible and as often as needed until a final decision is reached by the Planning Commission.
Larry Ketcham disagreed with Bill’s earlier statement that the recent Selectboard election result has any relationship to development trends or pressures in the rural areas. Tom Ayer said that village area landowners would make out quite nicely under the proposed scheme, but what about the landowners in the rural areas. A man (no name given) felt this proposal would increase property prices because forcing 10 or 25 acre lots will make lots unaffordable. Terry Wilson asked Bill what 10 or 25 acre zoning has to do with wildlife habitat. Bill reiterated that the proposal is not about limiting the minimum lot size; rather it is about limiting density. Mary Jane Ballard asked what the implication would be for a landowner with 200 acres.
Rae Harrell felt it is unfair to change the regulations to benefit certain landowners versus others based on “someone’s” idea of what is developable or not. She feels any decision of this magnitude should go before the voters. Ruth Ayer asked when it became a crime to sell land. Larry Ketcham said the Planning Commission should be careful about encouraging additional growth in the village given the potential impact (e.g., flooding) from additional runoff on downstream farms.
George Munson said there is a process for regulation revisions, and that the Conservation Commission’s suggestions should be treated the same way as any other suggestions for regulation revisions. He described the process for previous regulation changes suggested by him and others. He said jumping to interim zoning is not in keeping with the normal process.
Discussion on this agenda item was closed. Most members of the public left, and the Planning Commission returned to the downstairs conference room for the remainder of the meeting.
Zoning &
Subdivision Revisions – Possible Housekeeping changes (cont’d)
PUD open space requirements (Zoning, 4.5.9 #1) – Alex explained that the reduced open space requirement for PUDs, as compared to PRDs in the rural areas, could encourage primarily residential developments in the rural areas with less open space. Joe agreed that PRDs and PUDs should be treated equally with regard to the 25% open space requirement. George agreed, but felt that the required open space formula could be more sophisticated – i.e., based on the ratio of commercial to residential uses. The Commission also discussed the pros and cons of allowing residential uses in the Industrial 1 district.
Stormwater provisions (Subdivision, 6.6.2) – Alex proposed deleting the 2nd and 3rd sentences since stormwater practices now emphasize dealing with runoff on-site as much as possible, rather than simply carrying it away by pipe or ditch. The Commission agreed.
House siting/color/compatibility (Subdivision, 6.10.8 #3) – Alex distributed suggestions made by the Munsons on this topic. He explained that the DRB currently uses this section of the regulations to justify house color restrictions on new lots that are questionable because the building area is highly visible from public roads. Alex said the Commission needs to clarify to what extent the visibility of new homes in the rural areas should be considered during subdivision review. George said visibility is too subjective and shouldn’t be a factor for review. Dan Greller said that rural character is an important issue for the community, and that highly visible new development can have a negative impact. The Commission discussed the DRB’s need for more specificity on this issue. Jean felt this was an important issue, but not a simple one that should be pursued via these housekeeping changes. The rest of the Commission agreed that this issue should be taken up in the next round of more substantive regulation revisions.
Jean tabled the rest of the discussion on housekeeping changes to the next meeting. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on March 30 to try to make more headway on these changes, and to discuss a formal response to the Conservation Commission’s request on rural area densities.
Minutes of the March 2, 2005 Meeting:
George MOVED to approve the March 2, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with Joe abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________/____________
Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Date
from sign in sheet – others attended but did not sign in
3 signatures from the sign in sheet were not legible
Richard Palmer PO Box 386 Hinesburg, VT 05461
John Dunshee 424 Magee Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
David Danforth 319 Magee Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Rae Harrell Loy Harrell 154 Mallard Pond Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Gloria Reynolds Monte Soker 225 Mallard Pond Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Anne Parkinson PO Box 40 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Sue Thomas 431 Beaver Pond Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Bob Gagliuso 49 CB Road Hinesburg, VT 05461
Gary French 751 Drinkwater Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Susan Mead 229 High Rock Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tim Parent 413 North Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Dennis Casey PO Box 31 Starksboro, VT 05487
Mark Ames 3012 Baldwin Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Alan Norris PO Box 368 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Robert Giroux 106 Thorn Bush Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Steven Giroux 238 Place Rd West Hinesburg, VT 05461
Howard Russell PO Box 281 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Bill Marks 1957 Charlotte Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Mary Baldwin 220 Drinkwater Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Jonathan Trefry 452 Baldwin Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Sam Evanson 85 High Rock Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Robert & Bernadette Goodrich 53 Helen Ave South Burlington, VT 05403
Karla & George Munson 69 Buck Hill Rd West Hinesburg, VT 05461
John Lyman PO Box 528 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Donald Palmer 642 Palmer Lane Richmond, VT 05477
Wayne Bissonette 210 Beecher Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Joe Bissonette 12447 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Lloyd Palmer 98 Friendship Lane Hinesburg, VT 05461
Raymond & Ruth Ayer 13020 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Rusty Devoid 871 Hayden Hill Rd West Hinesburg, VT 05461
Larned & Micki Ketcham PO Box 252 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Michael & Rae Driscoll 12724 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Ross Orvis 1845 North Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Raymond Cote 153 Hollow Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Suzanne Richard 206 Aube Ridge Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Jay Robinson 180 Magee Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Bob Quackenbush PO Box 224 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Russ Barone 600 Blair Park Rd, Suite 323 Williston, VT 05495
Jon MacGowan PO Box 550 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Bob Hedges 270 Aube Ridge Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Sandy Veilleux 246 Texas Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Dennis Plau 190 Place Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Steve Orvis 421 Place Rd West Hinesburg, VT 05461
Steve Hoke PO Box 398 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Mary Jane Ballard Ron Derouchie 8910 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Marci Weishaar 9170 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Dave Blanck 421 Mallard Pond Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Kay & Tim Ballard 9260 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Sandra & Glenn Enos 385 Enos Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tim Ayer 795 Gilman Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tom Ayer 80 Bissonette Lane Hinesburg, VT 05461
Dick Franics 995 Hayden Hill Rd West Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tim Casey 174 Hemlock Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Dorothy Pellett Burlington Free Press 667 Bean Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Rob Bast 191 Windrow Lane Hinesburg, VT 05461
Paul Wieczoreck 2800 Lincoln Hill Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Marie Gardner 128 Gardner Circle Hinesburg, VT 05461
John Driscoll 12724 VT Route 116 Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tony St. Hilaire 811 Pond Rd Hinesburg, VT 05461
Tim Brown PO Box 184 Hinesburg, VT 05461