TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

May 18, 2005

Approved June 1, 2005

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris, Carrie Fenn, John Buckingham, Johanna White, George Bedard (arrived at 8:15).

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 (Director of Planning/Zoning), Peter Erb, Scott & Danielle Alexander.

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning & Subdivision Regulation Revisions:

Jean opened the public hearing for comments. Scott Alexander asked for clarification on the maximum size for accessory apartments. Alex explained that the maximum size is based on the total floor area of the single-family dwelling. The maximum accessory apartment size is 30% of the single-family dwelling, or 660 square feet, whichever is greater.

Peter Erb noted that the existing regulations require conditional use review for accessory apartments in accessory structures. He expressed concern that the proposed regulation revisions would only require this review if the accessory structure was farther than 200’ away from the single-family dwelling. He said the Town currently has no general ordinances or zoning provisions to address outdoor lighting, stormwater runoff, or erosion control. By making accessory apartments in new accessory structures a permitted use within 200’ of the single-family dwelling, the Town would relinquish its ability to ensure these issues are properly addressed. He felt that conditional use review is appropriate for any accessory apartment in a new accessory structure. He felt this simply retains the current practice, and doesn’t place an undue burden on landowners or the DRB. Alex noted that 2-3 DRB members expressed similar concerns when this was briefly discussed at the May 17 DRB meeting. Fred, John, and Johanna felt the language should be modified to address this. Fred said conditional use review should be required for accessory apartments in a new accessory structures and for those in existing accessory structures that involve changes to the exterior form or function of the structure, but not to include cosmetic improvements to the facade alone (e.g., siding, windows, doors, etc.).

Peter also asked the Commission to think carefully about making multi-family dwellings (of 6 units or less) a permitted use in the rural districts (RR1, RR2, AG). Peter felt these types of dwellings were appropriate in the rural areas, but he felt they should require conditional use review. He acknowledged that all multi-family dwellings require site plan review, but felt that conditional use review should also be required. His main concerns related to the impact on allowed density as well as the appropriateness of these types of structures. Peter explained that on highly constrained lots, allowing multi-family dwellings would increase the allowed density under the language proposed. He used the example of a specific parcel of approximately 24 acres on Hollow Road that is highly constrained by flood hazard and wetland areas. He said under the current regulations, the maximum build-out for this lot is likely 2 units (via a duplex). He felt the lot probably couldn’t be subdivided to create multiple building lots. He said that under the proposed regulations, a 6-unit multi-family dwelling could be built on this lot (with site plan approval) without the need for conditional use review. He felt this increase in density (2 to 6 units for the parcel) has the potential to substantially change the rural areas of town.

Alex noted that he and Peter disagree on this issue. Alex said that the site plan review standards are quite rigorous, and provide the Town adequate opportunity to ensure the use is appropriately placed, landscaped, etc. He said that while the potential build-out for highly constrained lots would increase, the proposed change would have little to no affect on more typical lots that do have some buildable areas, as well as subdivision potential. Alex said this change is also consistent with the Town’s desire (stated in the Town Plan) to encourage more housing stock.

Fred mentioned that many lots are constrained by septic capacity. He wondered why we should be concerned if the landowner can demonstrate that the lot has adequate septic capacity for the number of units proposed. He felt that encouraging multi-family dwellings was like encouraging the ultimate form of clustering, so as to protect more open space from being impacted by the same number of single-family home lots. Nancy felt the density was no different between a number of scattered lots and concentrated development in the form of a multi-family dwelling. Fred also felt this change is partially an attempt to allow for more reasonably priced housing in the rural areas, where land and homes have become increasingly expensive. Joe said this was really an attempt to encourage clustering and reduce the footprint of overall development. Joe said he is interested in providing an incentive to developers to do the clustering that everyone encourages.

Jean asked if the number of units (6 or less – permitted; more – conditional) for a multi-family dwelling is the right number. Peter said it’s not really an issue of numbers as much as it is an issue of overall density in the rural areas and the level of review for this type of use. He reviewed the difference between density calculations in the subdivision or PRD/PUD process and that proposed in the new multi-family dwelling allowance. He said the proposed language calculates the number of allowed units simply by dividing the total parcel acreage by the minimum lot size or effective density (e.g., 3 acres/lot in RR1&RR2, and 2 acres/lot in AG). He was concerned that this doesn’t take into consideration how much of the lot is actually usable or developable.

Fred suggested limiting the number of bedrooms or the square footage per unit. The Commission discussed average apartment sizes. Most felt that the average 3-bedroom apartment/condo is at least 1500 square feet. Danielle Alexander said that many condominiums are 2-bedroom units.

George said he was comfortable with the language as proposed, but would be willing to consider a lower number of units as a permitted use if the rest of the Commission felt a change was necessary. Jean said she was uncomfortable with allowing a 6-unit dwelling as a permitted use after tonight’s discussion. Joe said his major issue is not the size of the dwelling, and that he would be satisfied by simply lowering the number of units to 4. Peter noted that the Commission may not want to pursue this change at this time, since the level of discussion appears to indicate that it is not a minor or “housekeeping” change, which is how this round of changes was publicized. Carrie thought a good compromise would be to drop the permitted number of units to 4, and require conditional use review for any number of units over 4. The rest of the Commission agreed that this was a suitable compromise.

Alex mentioned the other areas that will require some additional revision: Lot definition, patio setbacks, substantial construction, flood hazard area provisions and map reference, expanded administrative review. Alex said he will draft language on these items for the next meeting, so the Commission can review them, and then forward all the proposed changes on to the Selectboard for action.

Jean MOVED to close the public hearing. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.

Minutes of the May 4, 2005 Meeting:

Carrie MOVED to approve the May 4, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.

Other Business:

Alex updated the Commission on 2 meetings of interest taking place on May 23. The Conservation Commission is sponsoring a presentation on stormwater runoff and the results of the Town’s impervious surface project. This presentation will be in the Town Hall at 7:15pm. The Selectboard is having special meeting with Brett Grabowski to discuss outstanding details related to the Creekside development that is currently under construction behind the police and fire stations. This meeting is in the lower level conference room at 7pm.

June 1 Agenda Items

Alex will bring the remaining regulation revision language for review. The Commission will also view a planning/zoning film titled, “Save Our Land, Save Our Towns”. Jean will not be able to make this meeting.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date