TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

March 30, 2005

Approved April 6, 2005

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  none.

 

**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), George & Karla Munson, Wayne Bissonette, Gary French, Richard Palmer.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

 

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.

 

Access requirements & frontage on private ROW – Section 5.7.1 & 5.7.2

The Commission discussed clarifications regarding lots at the end of private right of ways, which don’t need frontage pursuant to 5.7.2 do not need to have any specific amount of frontage on said ROW, unless required by the DRB.  George explained the intent of this section was to exempt existing lots at the end of private right of ways from the frontage requirements.  Alex explained that staff has been also been applying this to new lots created via subdivision.  Joe recommended simply eliminating the reference to “at the time of initial, substantial development”.  George said there are many examples where 2-3 lots end up at the end of a private right of way.  Joe and Jean clarified that the terminus of the right of way is where the shared portion ends.  The Commission discussed how many lots without frontage should be allowed at the terminus of the right of way.  George explained that the cul-de-sac radius requirements provide some guidance on this.

 

Height limitations – Section 2.6.2 and throughout (e.g., 3.2.3 #3)

Alex explained that certain uses require conditional use approval without regard to height (i.e., could be above 35’ spelled out in height limitation section).  Joe and George explained that these are uses, and as such the reference in each zoning district is still needed.  The Commission agreed to add these uses to section 2.6.2 on conditional use review for certain structures exceeding 35’.

 

Accessory structure setback allowance – Section 2.3.1

Alex suggested eliminating section 2.3.1.  He said it makes no sense that accessory structures over 600 sq. feet and 20’ high are eligible for reduced setbacks (literally down to zero) through conditional use review.  Conceivably such a large structure could end up with a setback less than the reduced setback we allow for small accessory structures.  He felt these are large structures that should meet the regular setbacks.  Joe explained that this gives section gives added flexibility to approve accessory structures in situations when a landowner has no other option for construction due to site constraints.  Joe said that a variance would be impossible to approve in such a situation, even when the use would not be unreasonable.  Joe and George said the intent of this section was not to allow setbacks “down to zero”, and in most situations the setback wouldn’t be smaller than what the regulations allow for small accessory structures.  The consensus of the Commission was that no change was needed here.

 

Contractor yard locations – Section 5.3.2 & 5.3.12 #3d

Alex recommended modifying section 5.3.2 to be clear about where (i.e., in what districts) section 5.3 does not apply.  In other words, 5.3 doesn’t apply in the I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4 districts.  Within the Village and Commercial districts section 5.3 applies to contractor yards but not vehicle repair services.  He also suggested modifying section 5.3.12 #3d to also allow contractor yards on class 3 public roads.  Jean said allowing these on class 3 roads was also a suggestion made by the Selectboard during the last zoning revision.  The Commission agreed with both changes.

 

Development on a private right of way (ROW) – Section 4.4

Alex suggested revising the initial sentence so that the requirement is more similar to the wording in 5.7.1 – i.e., development on a private ROW permit is required for any development, not just for new lots.  He also suggested rephrasing this section to cover use of a private ROW in Hinesburg that is used to access development in a neighboring town.  George and Jean confirmed that traditionally, this approval was required for development on any lot rather than just new lots.  The Commission agreed that this approval should be required in situations where the development is happening across the town line, but the access is through Hinesburg.  The Commission agreed with both changes.

 

Camping vehicle setback – Section 5.21.2

The Commission felt that camping vehicles (single or multiple) should be treated like any other vehicle if it is unoccupied.  The Commission felt that setbacks should only apply if the vehicle is occupied for an extended period.  Alex will make the necessary changes.

 

Boathouse definition – Section 9.1

Alex suggested a definition for a boathouse (developed by the Zoning Administrator): “A structure that must be located on the water and is used for the storage, repair, and/or maintenance of boats and related items; provided that such structure is not used for the storage of any substance that would adversely affect water quality.”  Joe and Carrie suggested removing the terms “repair and maintenance” from the definition due to the possible impact on water quality if the boathouse is located on the water.  Fred expressed concern about the height of boathouses.  The Commission discussed whether or not boathouses should be allowed to have 2 stories.  Richard Palmer said that boathouses shouldn’t be allowed right at the high water mark, where the public is guaranteed access by the State’s public trust doctrine.  Fred said the scale of the boathouse is important given how much development there is on Lake Iroquois and Sunset Lake.  Carrie recommended limiting boathouses to 1 story.  Wayne Bissonette said the Commission would still need to define what 1 story is since the height could still vary greatly.  John recommended the simplified definition of, “Any structure on or near the water used for the storage of boats and related items, and no more than 16’ in height”.

 

Permit notification to State – Section 4.1.7

The Commission agreed to delete this section (requiring special notice to the State on certain permits in proximity to certain State lands), since this requirement has been eliminated in the new Chapter 117 language.

 

Permit Posting requirements – Section 4.1.8

Alex said the posting requirements for zoning permits has changed slightly under the new Chapter 117 language.  He said he and Peter will make the necessary changes to this section to reflect what will be required as of September 1, 2005.

 

Vehicle trips and round trips – Section 5.2.6

The Commission agreed to clarify this section so that all references are to vehicle round trips in order to avoid confusion with single trips or trip ends.

 

Off-street parking standards – Section 5.5

The Commission agreed to clarify that any time there is a change of use (regardless of floor area expansion or not), the new use must meet the off-street parking standards listed in this section and related table.

 

Minutes of the March 16, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the March 16, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.  John SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0 with John abstaining.

 

Other Business:

Jean noted that the Conservation Commission’s has retracted its request for action on lowering rural area densities, which was presented at the March 16 meeting.  Joe discussed some lessons he thought the Planning Commission could take from this issue with regard to future work on area based zoning/density: 1) emphasize flexibility for landowners; 2) educate the public, perhaps with pamphlets and/or mailers; 3) fully review and emphasize the options this tool allows.  George said future Planning Commission discussions should separate zoning tools from base density discussions.  He said he didn’t think the majority of Hinesburgers would go for the clustering concept in the rural areas.  Joe disagreed, and said that the Commission will need to offer incentives or bonuses to make clustering more likely versus conventional subdivisions.

 

Jean brought up a petition that was recently delivered to the Selectboard with approximately 135 signatures.  The petition asked the Selectboard to fire the Zoning Administrator (Peter Erb) for the perceived bias he exhibited at the March 16 Planning Commission meeting with regard to the Conservation Commission’s request to lower rural area densities.  Jean said she was very disturbed by this petition, and felt that it could have a chilling effect on the ability of Town officials and employees to provide information.  She said town employees should not have to fear possible termination of their employment simply because they agreed to provide public information.  Furthermore, she said that Peter is both the Zoning Administrator and a Hinesburg resident; therefore, he has a right to speak at public meetings.  Joe agreed, and commented that all town officials carry with them some degree of their own personal beliefs when they act on the Town’s behalf.  Nancy and Fred said the context in which Peter’s comments were made led to understandable frustration on the part of those vehemently opposed to the Conservation Commission’s suggestions.  Alex said he felt Peter adequately qualified the statements he made at the meeting.  Alex said he didn’t understand why anyone would have taken Peter’s comments as supporting the Conservation Commission’s recommendation, given that Peter himself said that much of the development he was reporting on was happening in the village area.

 

Carrie and Jean reminded everyone that the Selectboard’s 2nd hearing on the proposed Town Plan revisions will be on Monday, April 4.

 

The April 6 meeting will focus entirely on reviewing draft language on the housekeeping changes discussed at this meeting and the March 16 meeting.  The April 20 meeting will be cancelled since some won’t be available.

 

Nancy MOVED to adjourn.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.  The meeting adjourned at 10:10pm.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner               Date