TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

March 15, 2006

Approved April 19, 2006

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham, Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Joe Donegan, Nancy Norris, Fred Haulenbeek, Johanna White.

 

Commission Members Absent:  George Bedard, Kay Ballard.

 

Also Present: George Munson, Russ Barone, George Dameran, Joe Bobee, Wendy Patterson, Jennifer Paronto, Carla McEntee, Sarah Schmidt, Dan Sullivan, David Fenn, Johathan Trefry, Russell Fox, Dubavna Abramovie, Barbara Lyman, Kris Perlee, Ann Thomas, Steve Barnard, Bill Marks, Peter Erb, Paul Wieczoreck, Maureen Barnard, Brian Busir, Rodman Cory, Helen Kopcik, Monique Breer, James Donegan, Gianetta Bertin, Larry Telford, Patti Drew, Craig Chevrier, Donna Constantinueau, Ken Brown, Marty Gray, Sandy White, Carl Bohlen, Al Barber, Sara Quinn, Polly Quinn, Joe Bissonette, Glenn Enos, Kathleen Newton, Bryan Cairns, Bill Maclay (NRG Architect), Stephen Gutierrez, Todd Haire, Cheryl Shavel, Becca Rimmel, John Roos, David Lyman, John Lyman, Margaret Spirack, Erin Seivack, Karla Munson. (53)

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:45 p.m.

 

Alex welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that discussion at this meeting would focus on Mechanicsville Road. Alex reviewed the format of the meeting and encouraged participants to feel comfortable offering ideas as this is the best opportunity for the townspeople to express what they feel should happen with development in Hinesburg. The series of forums is intended to inform the planning commission of the participants' wishes as they begin to draft new zoning regulations.

 

At the March 29th meeting several people have been invited to speak about their ideas of what development they would like to pursue if zoning regulations allow them to do so. In addition. municipal improvements such as sidewalks and new traffic lights will be discussed. At the last public forum meeting on April 5th the LaPlatte Water Shed Group will speak about the hydrology in Hinesburg and the village concept as a whole will be discussed as well as a summary of all the input gathered at previous meetings.

 

Alex explained that throughout this process he has invited large landowners in Hinesburg to get involved in the process since several options on the agenda have to do with land owned by these individuals. Unfortunately the Quinn family did not receive their original invitation and was only recently made aware of the public forums taking place. Alex extended a public apology to the Quinn's for this miscommunication. He added that although many possible development options are being discussed at these forums, any possible future development of a piece of property is  ultimately up to the individual landowner.

 

Sarah Quinn pointed out that discussion question #2 on the night's agenda was not correct as the flow mentioned was not naturalized but rather man-made.  Al Barber, the Hinesburg Fire Chief added that Patrick Brook was never located where the re-naturalization is intended. He noted that in 1981 high water blocked by rubble created the new path of the brook. In addition, Al also mentioned that the Fire Department dredged a portion of the brook in the 1980's.

 

Alex then split the attendees into four different groups to discuss the following five discussion questions:

 

1.      Do you think new neighborhoods in this area should be primarily along Mechanicsville Road or also include side streets to the upper slopes to the east of the road?

 

2.      Should Patrick Brook be allowed to “re-naturalize” by getting ride of the upper portion of the canal (north of Commerce Park)? See map for new neighborhood possibilities.

 

3.      Do you want the Town to control the pace of new growth in this and other “expansion” areas (like south of Ballard's Corner) – e.g., via an annual cap on new dwellings/development, via phasing tied to improved municipal infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, police/fire service, etc.), or other methods?

 

4.      Do you think the area north of Commerce Street should continue to have a residential focus, or should other uses (e.g., commercial) be considered?

 

5.      Should there be a neighborhood green in this area to serve as a focal point? How should this green or common area differ from others proposed in the existing village core or south of Ballard's Corner?

 

After a little more than an hour of discussion, the following thoughts, ideas and opinions were presented by the Planning Commission members on behalf of the attendees.

 

Group 1: Summary

·        Desire for open space.

·        Preserve views along the corridor.

·        Make development walkable.

·        Use two access points for development as opposed to multiple driveways.

·        Any water issues need to be researched by specialist. Complete naturalization may not be possible.

·        Discussed impact fees.

·        Concern about how annual caps could increase development prior to the caps being implemented.

·        Not sure how allowances for development would be equally distributed.

·        Think Mechanicsville Road is a great area for residential development but that commercial development might not be viable here.

·        Discussed the usage of a town green. Concerned about the idea of not having one town green as the focal point.

·        Don't want to see a small green preclude open space in outlying areas.

 

Group 2: Summary

·        Want to see development along the road.

·        More commercial space from Commerce Street to the west.

·        Concerned about the safety of CVU kids on Mechanicsville Road. Might need to add speed bumps.

·        Move brook back to old channel.

·        Any development should be sensitive to the water shed of the brook.

·        Don't close the door on a central storm water option.

·        Phase development and consider impact fees.

·        Make zoning reflect the smaller community.

·        Don't add commercial development north of Commerce Street. Keep the focus on residential and agricultural uses to the north.

·        Create a larger central green and smaller neighborhood greens.

·        Figure out a greens strategy use. Designate usage of greens and make them handicap accessible.

 

Group 3: Summary

·        Would like to see high density development on Mechanicsville Road.

·        Place houses along the road and create a neighborhood development.

·        Is a senior center planned for the village?

·        Group was reluctant to decide on water issue – felt it needed to be researched by experts before any decision is made.

·        Would like to see where the playing fields, sidewalks, parks, etc will be.

·        Development along Mechanicsville Road may work well because the topography creates greater visual interest.

·        Would appreciate green space on Mechanicsville Road.

·        Develop in concentric circles from the village core.

·        Would like to see a master plan for development in Hinesburg.

·        Utilize the common land behind the post office.

·        Keep residential north of Commerce Street – didn't think commercial development would thrive here.

·        Would like to see better exterior details on Commercial buildings. They need to blend with residential buildings.

·        Reverse green space with development to move it off the road.

·        Take into consideration the advantages of southern facing construction to utilize solar power.

·        Focus on affordable housing, possibly multi-family dwellings.

 

Group 4: Summary

·        Hillside is a beautiful location and would like to see it remain usable recreational space.

·        Would like to see houses closer to the road.

·        Keep houses close together to foster a “village” feel. Cluster housing and make it more affordable.

·        Protect the upper hillside and try to keep is open as long as possible.

·        Allow public passage onto back hillside.

·        Small commercial and mixed use zoning is okay here.

·        Quiet traffic along Mechanicsville Road.

·        Commercial on Mechanicsville should have a size limitation.

·        Want to see commercial buildings blend in with residential surroundings.

·        Some felt commercial buildings didn't fit well here and should stay concentrated in the village to draw visitors to town to one location.

·        Some thought there would be more traffic problems in mixed use were allowed on Mechanicsville Road.

·        Supportive of dense development along Mechanicsville Road.

·        Want to keep the canal where it is.

·        Some thought naturalization idea should be considered but that more research is needed.

·        Development on the hill will be more visible while development in the canal's current location would be on grade with the road and would create more of a village feel.

·        Concerned about growth in town causing the school capacity to be exceeded. Use school as a limitation for growth.

·        Impact fees should be used to help bolster increased use of municipal services.

·        Caps could be used to relieve pressure if intense development begins to become an issue.

·        Should have a mechanism to allow for a cap if it is needed in the future.

·        Want to relieve pressure from rural development. Should have the fewest impediments to development in the village to encourage it in this area.

·        Any caps should also apply to rural areas.

 

Other Business:

 

Invitation to Pot Luck Dinner

Alex distributed invitations to the multi-board event.

 

Minutes of March 1 and Meeting:

Joe D. MOVED to approve the March 1 meeting minutes as written. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

 

Intermediate Draft of Regional Plan

Alex said that he had two copies available for the commission members to review. Carrie said she would review a copy.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary