TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 15, 2005
Approved July 6, 2005
Commission Members
Present: Jean Isham (chairperson,
arrived 7:45pm), Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White,
George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Kay Ballard.
Commission Members Absent: John Buckingham.
**NOTE: This was Kay
Ballard’s 1st meeting after being appointed by the Selectboard on
June 6.
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), Bill Marks, Dennis Casey.
The meeting began at approximately 7:30pm.
Review final language
for Zoning and Subdivision Regulation revisions – additional changes per
discussion at June 1 meeting:
The Commission reviewed additional changes Alex made to the Zoning Regulation revisions based on the discussion at the last meeting. The Commission felt the changes to the multi-family dwelling use (in rural districts) and the flood hazard section accurately reflected the prior discussion. Johanna MOVED to approve the proposed revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, and to send them to the Selectboard for action. Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0 (Jean hadn’t arrived yet).
Visibility Analysis
Map – Update on new cost estimate from consultant:
Alex summarized the previous discussion at the October 7 and October 20, 2004 meetings regarding the desire to update a visibility analysis map prepared by GrassRoots GIS in 2001 via the Commission’s rural areas project with Burnt Rock Associates. He said that Judy Bond of GrassRoots GIS has provided a revised cost estimate based on using the higher resolution 2004 elevation data that became available this spring. The revised cost estimate is approximately $1600 to $2000, which is approximately double the prior estimate. The increased cost is due to an anticipated 2 extra days of work to process the higher resolution elevation data.
Alex said there is approximately $700 in this year’s budget (FY04-05; professional services) that could be used toward this map. Alex said he has already submitted a request to the Selectboard to carry over these funds into FY05-06 since the consultant cannot complete the work until mid to late July at the earliest. Bill Marks said the Conservation Commission is still interested and willing to contribute funds from their FY05-06 budget (for natural resource maps). Bill said the Conservation Commission would probably cover the balance of the project cost, but that he would have to get this approved at the next Conservation Commission meeting.
Fred said that we need to develop a context for the use of this map as a tool. Fred felt the map shouldn’t be used to deny applications, but rather to help guide well planned development. Fred said the tool should be used to help both landowners and the DRB. Carrie said the Planning Commission would need to write this “guidance” into the zoning and/or subdivision regulations to provide the DRB real context or guidelines. Joe suggested instead that the Commission draft a policy to help guide the DRB’s use of this information. Jean said the Town Plan supports identification of scenic views/areas, and that this map would help achieve this goal.
Nancy and George cited the Iverson subdivision on Silver Street as an example of the DRB’s overemphasis on visibility concerns (for driveway and house sites). Nancy felt the driveway for this subdivision is not highly visible because it is cut into the hillside; therefore, she felt the DRB’s prohibition on using white driveway stone was not necessary. George felt the DRB had gone too far in restricting where the new houses could be built. He said the Board gave very little wiggle room on the house location on one lot, but allowed much wider discretion on accessory structures for the same lot.
Fred said he doesn’t want the map to be used as a “no development” or “off-limits” blanket for certain areas. Carrie said the Planning Commission needs to see the map in order to write appropriate regulations or guidelines for its usage. Joe said having the map in hand won’t necessarily help him in preparing guidelines. Kay cited an example of her daughter’s conditional use approval to replace a non-conforming use/structure (2nd primary residence on a lot), in which the DRB required that 6 trees be planted to help screen the house, when she felt other nearby uses are far more obtrusive. Bill felt this map would simply be a tool for the DRB. George said the Commission must be careful about the DRB’s misuse of such information.
Bill felt the visibility issue is not the biggest issue when it comes to reviewing higher elevation development proposals. He said visibility is just one component taken together with issues of slope, stormwater runoff, erosion, etc. Kay said the map shouldn’t replace the need for site visits. Joe and Fred agreed. Fred also agreed with Nancy that the DRB shouldn’t begin using the map until the Planning Commission develops guidelines for its use. Carrie recommended waiting until the July 6 meeting to make a decision in order to give the Conservation Commission time to discuss. Fred MOVED to approve $700 from this year’s budget toward the production of the revised visibility map, with the Conservation Commission to pick up the balance, and with the understanding that Planning Commission will consider how the map should be used. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-1 with George voting against.
Escrow Accounts &
Performance Bonds for development project improvements – when these are
actually needed:
Alex explained the recent escrow agreements approved by the Selectboard for 2 different development projects – the Creekside project and the Norris development. Alex explained that the subdivision regulations (sections 3.2.4 #2b & 4.2.2 #2) give the DRB the discretion to require that this sort of financial security be utilized to ensure that improvements necessary for the development get completed. He said that this sort of provision is enabled by section 4464 b2-6 of Title 24, Chapter 117 of the State statutes. Alex said that he is looking for feedback on when these financial securities are really necessary, and when completion of necessary improvements can be tied instead to issuance of the zoning permit or certificate of occupancy.
Jean and George discussed the initial impetus for including this provision in the subdivision regulations. Jean thought it was related to improvements that weren’t installed properly in the Farnam project. George said this provision has been in the regulations longer than that.
Fred felt the Town should require an escrow agreement for improvements that will become public infrastructure – i.e., to be taken over by the Town. Fred said why not put the money up ahead of time if the applicant and the DRB agree to the necessary improvements. Both Fred and Joe felt there can be problems when improvements are tied to the certificate of occupancy (CO). Fred said applicants sometimes get temporary COs prior to completion of all improvements. Joe said using the CO creates an enforcement issue, which can be difficult to make stick, and can cost the Town addition money for legal expenses.
Nancy cited her development project as an example of where she felt the Town went too far in requiring street lamps when the Town has no plan for the lamps. Kay used the Green Dolphin project (next to her property) as an example in that a required fence was tied to the CO when she feels it should have been required prior to issuance of any zoning permits.
Fred felt that escrow agreements should be used for projects with infrastructure that the Town will eventually take over, or for major projects with greater potential impact. Otherwise, he felt the improvements should be tied to the issuance of zoning permits or COs. George agreed. Carrie urged Alex to consider which improvements should be tied to the zoning permit vs. the CO.
Minutes of the June 1, 2005 Meeting:
Carrie MOVED to approve the June 1, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0 with Jean, Nancy, and Kay abstaining.
Other Business:
Stormwater runoff & impervious
surface presentation:
Alex said he needs help organizing a presentation on stormwater runoff to dovetail with recent completion of the impervious surface project with the Town of Charlotte and the Lewis Creek Association. Carrie volunteered to organize a presentation at a Planning Commission meeting sometime in later summer or early fall.
Agenda items for July 6 meeting:
· Review priority projects – i.e., Town Plan implementation
· Discuss guidelines for use of the visibility map
George MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Jean SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________________/____________
Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning Date