TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

October 19, 2005

Approved November 2, 2005

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (chairperson), Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek (arrived 8pm), Nancy Norris, Johanna White, George Bedard, Kay Ballard.

Commission Members Absent: none.

*NOTE – There is 1 vacancy on the Commission due to John Buckingham’s resignation on 9/4/05.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), George & Karla Munson, Wayne Bissonette, Tony Cairns, Brian Cairns.

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Ballard’s Corner Discussion with Jiffy Mart Owner, Tony Cairns:

Tony Cairns (Jiffy Mart Owner) explained that Jiffy Mart’s existing building in the commercial district at Ballard’s Corner is “tired” and would need to be completely razed in order for his gas station and convenience store to use the lot effectively. He felt rehabilitation of the existing building wasn’t practical for his relatively high volume use. Tony said a complete reconstruction of the existing site for a new Jiffy Mart might be possible, but he would rather start fresh on a new site with a better layout and traffic flow. He felt the existing building could be rehabilitated for uses that might be more compatible with the surrounding uses – e.g., the library, bank, dentist office.

Tony described his vision for the future of the Ballard’s Corner area – specifically the southwest corner, across Shelburne Falls Road from the existing commercial zoning district. He envisions a new street opposite the Ballards Corner Road that would provide access to the Bissonette property. He envisions a new Jiffy Mart on the west side of this new road (well removed from the Route 116 intersection) and some sort of attractive, village-style mixed use development on the east side of the new road, closer to Route 116. Tony showed a number of Jiffy Mart designs including: modern, colonial, “Adirondack”. He said he is very willing to design a new Jiffy Mart to meet the community’s aesthetic preferences. He is willing to tailor the building, either with one of the designs they have done elsewhere, or with an entirely new design that better suits the community’s desires.

Tony showed a concept drawing of what the mixed use buildings could look like in the area closer to the Route 116, Shelburne Falls Road intersection. The drawing was actually created for the Pearl Street area in Essex Junction immediately adjacent to the Champlain Valley Exposition. Tony and the Commission noted various components of the concept drawing, including: architectural features of the buildings, multiple story structures, relatively high density with parking behind buildings, a streetscape focused on pedestrians with sidewalks, trees, and street lamps. George Bedard and Fred Haulenbeek noted that a new road cut on to the Shelburne Falls Road would likely be slightly west, possibly opposite Pleasant View Lane, to be further from the Route 116 intersection (for stacking) and to better align with the conceptual West Side Road alignment. The Commission discussed the concept and thanked Tony for his input.

Village Growth Project:

Alex gave the Commission an update on preparation for the November 4 design charette. Jean suggested he contact the Lestages to get help setting up and preparing the lunch. Nancy offered to help set up.

Minutes of the October 5, 2005 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the October 5, 2005 meeting minutes. Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0 with George and Kay abstaining.

Other Business:

Regulation Clarification on Accessory Apartments:

Alex explained that Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator) wants the Commission’s input to help clarify one of the provisions in the accessory apartment regulations (Zoning, section 5.9). Specifically, he wants to know what is meant by section 5.9 #5, which says that no additional access drives are to be created for an accessory apartment. Clearly this would prohibit someone from adding a new driveway with a separate road cut to access an accessory apartment. However, Peter wants to know if it was the Commission’s intent to also prohibit new driveways that spur off of the existing driveway to the house. In other words, does this provision mean accessory apartments need to be immediately adjacent to the house or to the existing driveway? Alex explained that this was a long-standing provision in the regulations, and was not changed by the Commission in the last round accessory apartment revisions.

George felt the intent of this provision was simply to restrict additional road cuts. Carrie felt that during the last round of accessory apartment discussions, the Commission was concerned about the fragmentation of a parcel by having a very disparate accessory apartment. Jean agreed that this was a concern. Alex explained that during the last round of discussions, the Commission considered permitting accessory apartment structures within a certain distance of the house, and making the accessory apartment structure a conditional use beyond that distance. He said that the Commission decided to drop that provision in favor of making accessory apartments in new structures a conditional use regardless of location. Fred, Jean, and George felt that regardless of the most recent discussions, the original intent of this provision was to limit the number of cuts onto roads. There was consensus from the rest of the Commission on this point, and most felt that the conditional use review requirement was sufficient to address the few accessory apartment structures that people might seek to build in locations well removed from their single family home.

Alex also noted that Peter’s interpretation of “new” accessory structures is any structure that was constructed after the latest zoning regulations were adopted (i.e., September 19, 2005). This is significant because the new State statute (Chapter 117) limits a municipality’s authority to require conditional use review of accessory apartments in accessory structures to “new” accessory structures only. The Commission felt this was a logical interpretation of the statute, but Jean noted that this is really a legal question that may need resolution in the courts some day.

Agenda Items for November 2 Meeting:

The Commission will focus on new options for expanding the Town’s wastewater treatment capacity and the implications these may have on a future West Side road connection behind the Cheese Factory. Alex will provide more information on the recent study of expansion options, and will invite Rocky Martin (Director of Buildings & Facilities) to attend the meeting.

Announcements:

Alex announced a variety of upcoming meetings, workshops and training events. He also reviewed: 1) proposed net-metered wind turbine on Daggett property at top of Dynamite Hill Road; 2) St. George proposed regulation revisions (Chapter 117 update mainly); 3) hearings for new Town Plans in Shelburne and Williston; 4) final source water protection area for the wells owned by the Saputo Cheese Factory.

Carrie shared information and experience she gathered at the recent Downtown conference in Burlington. She said there was a lot of exciting discussion, including the concept of “branding” for a municipality or downtown area. She thought that Hinesburg could benefit by creating a positive image that focused on the arts and energy efficiency or green technologies, in part to capitalize on the success of NRG Systems. Alex mentioned that Andrea Morgante is interested in developing a reputation for Hinesburg as the agricultural and forestry community in Chittenden County. He suggested a catch phrase like “Hinesburg growing green” or “Hinesburg, a green community”, which would capture the spirit of both traditional ag./forest values and the emerging green technology here in town. Jean said branding could dovetail nicely with the efforts of the Hinesburg Business and Professional Association (HBPA), which is interested in putting up new welcome to Hinesburg signs.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning