TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

May 4, 2005

Approved May 18, 2005

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  Johanna White.

 

**NOTE: There is 1 vacancy on the Commission due to Dan Greller’s resignation, which was accepted by the Selectboard on March 7.

 

** NOTE: The April 20 meeting was cancelled **

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), George & Karla Munson, Richard Palmer.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

 

Zoning & Subdivision Revisions – Additional changes to mention at May 18 public hearing

Patio setback/structure requirement – The Commission reviewed Peter Erb’s (Zoning Administrator) suggestion to exempt patios from the structure definition and eliminate patios from the setback definition.  Currently, the setback definition is based on the building face, which includes any patios.  The Commission agreed that traditional patios should not be considered part of the building for setback purposes.  Furthermore, the Commission agreed that traditional patios shouldn’t constitute a structure or require a zoning permit.  George and Fred suggested the following definition for patios, “A surface built at grade without a foundation or pier support.”  Joe wondered how terracing the landscape would play into this definition of patio.  The consensus was that changing the grade was essentially landscaping, so a patio extending out to the edge of a terrace (e.g. retaining wall) is still a patio since it is still at grade, and the edge of the terrace doesn’t really constitute a foundation.

 

Flood hazard provisions – Alex noted that new FEMA flood hazard maps will go into effect on August 1, and that according to FEMA, our flood hazard provisions must be updated to reflect this in order for the Town to remain enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program.  Alex said he is working with the FEMA’s state coordinator (Margaret Torizzo) on a review of our existing provisions (incorporated into the Zoning Regulations), but she hasn’t provided feedback on necessary changes yet.  George recommended noting this at the May 18 public hearing, in case the changes need to be made between that hearing and final Selectboard approval.  George also noted that the Zoning Regulations reference the older FEMA maps, but also include a caveat that incorporates any subsequent revisions.  Based on this, it seems like the Town is covered regardless.  Alex will continue working with FEMA to see if any substantive changes are needed.

 

PRD/PUD density bonus provision – Alex noted that the new Chapter 117 provisions allows the Town much more flexibility in setting density bonuses to encourage the use of PRD/PUD provisions.  He said it would be a good idea to take advantage of this to at least make residential density bonuses the same for PUDs and PRDs.  Joe said he would prefer to address density changes like this in the more substantive regulation revisions to come later.  The rest of the Commission agreed.

 

Front yard setback definition – Alex explained Peter Erb’s suggestion to modify the front yard setback definition.  Currently, the front yard setback is measured from the center of right of way or the center of the road, whichever is closer.  Most of the time, the actual location of the right of way is unknown, so in those cases we measure from the center of the road.  In these cases it is conceivable that a structure could be permitted and built closer to the edge of the right of way than would normally be allowed.  Peter suggested increasing the setback requirement a bit in cases where the right of way is unknown in order to be sure structures don’t end up impacting the right of way.  Fred felt this was not really a problem.  He felt that in even the most extreme cases the new structure is still going to be outside of the right of way because of our setback requirement (generally 60’).  George agreed, and said that it should be the community’s burden to properly locate the right of way.  The Commission agreed that no change is warranted.

 

Zoning permit expiration – Alex explained Peter Erb’s request for clarification on when zoning permits expire.  The Commission agreed with Peter’s description – i.e., good for 1 year unless a 1 year extension is granted; good for 2 years with the extension, but if work has not begun it would then expire; if work has begun, another 1 year extension may be granted, so it would be good for a maximum of 3 years under those circumstances.  After that, the permit would expire unless work was substantially complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued.  George referred to Chapter 117 bulletin #7, which discusses this issue and recommends clearly defining “substantial completion.”  Alex said current practice is to issue a certificate of occupancy when the structure can be used for its intended purpose – i.e., substantially complete, but not necessarily finished.  Alex will develop an appropriate definition of “substantial completion” to be added to the revisions.  This will be based on current practice and any examples from VLCT, etc.

 

Minutes of the April 6, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the April 6, 2005 meeting minutes.  Nancy SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

Other Business:

Town Plan presentation – Alex reminded everyone that the Selectboard will hold its 3rd public hearing on the proposed Town Plan on May 16.  He said the Selectboard has asked him to give a brief presentation at that hearing on the proposed changes and their rationale.  Fred commented on Jay Robinson’s letter on the plan regarding bolstering the working agricultural landscape.  He noted that the comments were similar to those of Gil Coates who wondered how we plan to keep open lands viable.  Fred had similar concerns, and wondered if the community should make a financial commitment to keeping lands open.  Carrie felt the Town should encourage PRDs that keep a large portion of a development’s acreage in a single lot that can remain viable for future agricultural use.  George Munson said that many of these open space lots of 25 acres or less are simply not valuable or desirable for today’s farmers.  Richard Palmer said the real problem was that people lose interest in maintaining the land as time goes on.  Fred reiterated that the Town has come ½ way down the road on this issue – i.e., we’ve laid out the principles and goals, but have not furthered the actual implementation.  He said that if maintaining open agricultural land is a community priority, the community should either mandate this maintenance or make it a Town responsibility.  George Munson said he’d like to see the regulations be specific about the maintenance of open agricultural land, perhaps simply via regular brush hogging if active agriculture isn’t possible.

 

Project updates – Alex updated the Commission on a feasibility study just getting started to assess the potential for a new road in the center of the village core, generally between Lantman’s and Lyman Meadows Road.  He said the first steering committee meeting will be May 9.  Alex, Jean, and Carrie updated the Commission on the results of the impervious surface project with the Town of Charlotte and the Lewis Creek Association.  Jean felt the project provided some important information for the Commission to consider, especially regarding stormwater runoff.  Alex will work on finding a time for a public presentation of this information.

 

Nancy MOVED to adjourn the meeting.  Joe SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:25pm.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning              Date