TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

April 6, 2005

Approved May 4, 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, Richard Palmer.

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Zoning & Subdivision Revisions – Reviewing draft change language

The Commission reviewed draft revision language based on decisions made at early meetings on changes related to minor housekeeping changes. See March 30 and March 16 meeting minutes for further details on these changes.

Subdivision Regulations:

The Commission felt the proposed revision language captured the changes discussed earlier for the following areas:

· Utility plan/coordination requirement

· Definition of parcel/lot

· Plat requirements

· Street & driveway standards

· Stormwater provisions

George Bedard said that although the new parcel/lot definition was adequate, we need to be careful to properly interpret deeds that describe multiple lots. He said deeds to multiple lots are often written with a reference to a survey (e.g., for a subdivision) without specifically describing each lot in the deed language. The Commission agreed that such a deed description would not jeopardize the existence of the distinct parcels as long as the reference was clear and the survey showed the lots in question.

George Bedard said that the new language on subdivision revisions (section 7.7) should be more specific about which applications require a 2-step process and which ones only require 1 step. George Munson agreed, and both said that a single final plat hearing should be sufficient since the DRB can always continue the hearing if more information is needed. Alex will simplify this section to simply require a warned public hearing prior to final approval.

Zoning Regulations:

The Commission felt the proposed revision language captured the changes discussed earlier for the following areas:

· Access requirements & frontage on private right of ways

· Height limitations & clarification

· Contractor yard locations – minor punctuation/grammar changes noted

· Development on private right of way beyond Town line

· Camping vehicle setback

· Boathouse definition

· PUD open space requirement

· Off Street Parking – minor punctuation/grammar changes noted

· Zoning Permit Applications

· Land excavation definition – with change noted below

· Land development definition

George described possible cul-de-sac arrangements and the affect on the number of lots that could be permitted with some frontage at the end of a road. Joe emphasized that the Commission will need to revisit this concept when area-based zoning is discussed in greater depth because existing frontage requirements may be too limiting in certain circumstances. George explained that allowing 2 lots without frontage at the end of a dead-end road is simply institutionalizing past Planning Commission practice.

There was a lengthy discussion about the new definition for a “boathouse”. Fred suggested requiring a minimum pitch of 1 to 6 to the definition. Fred and George Bedard said that a more specific definition (with pitch requirements) might require something different for boathouses on the water versus those well off the water (but with the 75’ stream & water body setback). Fred expressed concern about large or tall boathouses blocking the view of the water body. He suggested dovetailing a roof pitch requirement with a maximum width of 20’. Richard Palmer felt that boathouses need a steep roof pitch to stand up to winter snow loads. After much discussion, the Commission agreed to the simpler definition as proposed with no requirements for roof pitch and no cap on width or overall square footage.

Karla Munson noted that the wording of the revised “land excavation” definition was somewhat confusing. The Commission made it clear that the intent was only to include commercial land filling and excavation. Karla suggested a wording rearrangement to clarify this, and the Commission agreed this would help. Alex will change the revision language accordingly.

The Commission also discussed a few new regulation revision ideas. First, Alex suggested changing section 5.17 on abandonment to remove the reference to uncompleted or unoccupied construction projects where there has been no “active work” in a year. The Commission agreed that landowners shouldn’t be penalized for uncompleted projects, especially since under current practice, the Zoning Administrator grants certificates of occupancy once a structure can meet its intended use. The ZA does not hold up the final certificate of occupancy until the siding is complete and every last bit of work is done. Furthermore, there is no good way to define “active work”; thereby making enforcement impossible. Joe also felt strongly that the 1-year period described in this section should be extended if the landowner is still trying to settle an insurance claim (e.g., fire damage). The Commission discussed this at length and agreed to add language to that effect with the caveat that the property must be secured for public safety – i.e., a damaged property that poses a hazard should be secured (e.g., fence).

Secondly, Alex brought forward a concern raised by a resident regarding the Town’s ability to regulate and force the clean up of junk and junkyards. Alex reviewed the definitions of junkyard and junk from the existing regulations. He said that commercial junkyards are regulated, but it becomes less clear when considering a profusion of items on a residential lot. Alex passed out some pictures to show an example of a property recently brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator. Nancy, George Bedard, Joe, and Fred all agreed that this should not really be a regulatory issue, and instead should be handled neighbor to neighbor. Johanna said lots covered with items represent a lifestyle choice more than anything else. The Commission agreed that any changes to the junkyard or junk definitions would not constitute a minor housekeeping change; therefore, no changes will be proposed at this time.

Minutes of the March 30, 2005 Meeting:

John MOVED to approve the March 30, 2005 meeting minutes. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0, George Bedard had already left the meeting.

Other Business:

None, except that the April 20 meeting has been cancelled since a few folks will be out of town. The next meeting will by May 4.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date