TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

July 20, 2005

Approved August 3, 2005

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (chairperson), Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Kay Ballard.

Commission Members Absent: John Buckingham.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), George & Karla Munson, Bill Marks, Howard Russell, Bob Linck, Susan Mead, Joe Donegan, Gay Regan, Anne Donegan, Pat Mainer, Jeff Tobrocke, George Dameron, Harry Russell, Maryann Ludlow, John Roos, Bonnie Morrisey, Craig Chevrier, Lori Wilson, Carla Wuthrich, Evan Reiss, Lexie Reiss, Chuck Reiss, Steve Russell.

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Russell Family Trust Conservation Project – Request for letter of support:

Jean noted that the Commission (and quite a few members of the public) had done a walking site visit around the Russell Family Trust property before the meeting. Alex distributed letters of support received from Janet Chickering, Jon Trefry, and Harry Scott. Jean read 2 letters of support she received from Ray & Pat Mainer and Mary Kirkpatrick. She also relayed 2 phone messages she received in support of the Russell Family Trust’s conservation project from Stuart Pierson and Mary Eddy Stuart. The following people present at the meeting also indicated their support for the project: George Dameron, Jeff Tobrocke, Laurie Wilson, Carla Wuthrich.

Jean asked each Commissioner for their thoughts. Fred said he was concerned at the last meeting largely because he hadn’t had time to familiarize himself with the proposal or the property. Since that meeting, he said he has looked at the Town’s sewer service area and now has a better feel for the road constraints (for any new Town road infrastructure) thanks to the site visit. He felt that given these constraints, he can support the conservation project.

Nancy asked who would be responsible for maintaining the trails that will be formally opened to the public. Howdy Russell said that the family would do this, with volunteer help from the community. Bob Linck and Craig Chevrier said that the Hinesburg and the Vermont Land Trusts will work closely with the family to ensure these trails are maintained. Nancy asked about public access points to the trail network, and how people who live outside the village will be able to make use of the trails. Howdy said he is excited about a possible subdivision project on the abutting Munson property (to the south) that will likely provide 2 formal pedestrian accesses to these trails. One of these will provide better walking access at the south end of the village. The other (on Buck Hill Road) will include a small, informal parking area so that non-village residents can park, and still have ready access to the trails. Bill Marks felt the issue of maintaining the land was a good one, especially for the sake of the existing working forests. He felt this will happen appropriately with the help of both the Russell family and the Land Trust.

Kay explained that she abstained from voting at the last meeting due to a lack of information about the proposal. She said she feels more up to speed now, and would support the project. George said the Russell Family should have the right to do what they want with their own land. However, he felt the site visit bore out his concern that the eastern portion of the property (to be conserved) has the best portion for any development. The rest of the Commissioners expressed support for the project. Johanna MOVED to send the letter of support that Jean had previously drafted. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 8-0.

Visibility Analysis Map – Guidelines for DRB Usage (see previous minutes for more info):

Fred said the Commission could take a similar approach to what was done with the proposed Forest Conservation Overlay district with regard to buffers along roads. He said the degree of visibility could be eliminated as a factor along the roads since these are the areas where we are more used to seeing houses. He felt this could be particularly useful along the 3 hill roads. He said visibility guidelines could then be worked out for areas away from the roads. He likes the idea of using the visibility map to identify areas where development could happen, rather than using it only to preclude or restrict development. Jean thought the public input from the Forest Conservation Overlay district discussions pointed to a desire to see all areas treated more equally. Fred thought the main sentiment expressed at that time was simply fear that being in the overlay district would preclude any development.

Joe said he doesn’t want the visibility map to be the sole reason to deny a potential homesite shown on a proposed subdivision; however, he feels the map will provide valuable information for the landowner, the DRB, and the Planning Commission. Nancy felt the map should be primarily for Planning Commission use since the regulations don’t specifically mention it, and because the Commission hasn’t completed its discussion on visibility issues. Bill Marks said visibility of the development is not the most important issue for the DRB to address. He felt more objective natural resource data layers were far more important (e.g., wetlands, agricultural land, soils, slopes, streams, etc.).

George said no usage guidelines or new regulations are needed right now. Instead, he suggested simply making sure the map includes a basic disclaimer that it is solely for planning purposes and is not currently linked to any regulatory provisions. He said the visibility discussion can continue once we have the map as a discussion piece. At that point the Commission can come to some conclusion about the extent to which the visibility of development should be regulated.

Fred said the philosophical question is whether the regulations should have a broad or specific approach. Fred favors a broad approach with guidelines that has room for interpretation, and allows the DRB to review each project independently based on the unique circumstances. George said the visibility issue is getting too much play at the DRB level due to a lack of regulatory specificity. He felt the DRB needs more clarity not less.

Jean said that each landowner doesn’t live in isolation, and that the Commission needs to look at the overall community values and how development can impact others. Craig Chevrier agreed with Bill Marks that visibility of development isn’t the most important review criteria when compared to natural resource issues. He felt the Commission should identify just those critical areas where visibility does matter, and be more specific about standards in those areas.

Bill Marks said the Commission should focus its attention on area based density zoning and clustering. He felt once area based zoning is addressed, visibility will become a lesser factor. Alex said that the opposite may be true if area-based zoning allows for and creates incentives for clustered development design. He said that visibility may become even more of an issue under these circumstances, especially in the rural areas, where people aren’t used to seeing housing clusters. Johanna didn’t understand why people felt clustering was bad. She said that creating functional neighborhoods is a good idea that promotes a healthier community. George said the question will be if area based zoning is required or just another option to the landowner. Joe felt all the previous discussion has assumed that it will be an option rather than a requirement.

Jean felt we should go ahead with the maps with the disclaimer suggested by George. Alex will proceed in this fashion.

Minutes of the July 6, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the July 6, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Nancy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.

Other Business:

Kay asked for clarification on what Wayne Bissonette was asking for at the last meeting with regard to a zoning change at Ballard’s Corner. Alex and Jean explained Wayne’s desire to see the commercial district expanded to include a portion of his property on the south side of Shelburne Falls Road. They explained that the Commission may in fact move in this direction, but wants to have a solid plan for the entire west side road area before moving ahead with such a zoning change. Carrie said that she would like to know as soon as possible, if Wayne submits a petition to change the district. Alex explained that the petition process effectively circumvents the Planning Commission process, but not the Selectboard’s adoption process.

Accessory Apartment Regulation Revision – Clarifying Total Floor Area:

Alex said the way “Floor Area” is defined in the Zoning Regulations, makes it unclear as to whether attached garage area should be counted for the purposes of calculating the maximum allowable accessory apartment. The Commission clarified that it was not their intent to allow garage area to count toward floor area for the purposes of accessory apartment creation. Fred suggested adding a caveat to the “Floor Area” definition to exclude garages and unfinished basements for the purposes of calculating the total floor area for accessory apartment size limits.

FY2006 Municipal Planning Grant Announcement:

Alex said that applications for the FY2006 Municipal Planning Grant program are due by the end of September. He said he would welcome grant application ideas, but that he is strapped for time, and cannot take on any new projects in this grant cycle. The Commission discussed various ideas, but decided that developing a capital budget and impact fee structure made the most sense. Alex will work with the Town Administrator on preparing a grant application to hire a consultant to work on this project.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning