TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 8, 2006
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Fred
Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza
Commission Members Absent: Joe Donegan, Nancy
Norris, Johanna White
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), George Munson, Chuck Reiss.
The meeting began at approximately
7:40 p.m.
1. Village Growth Project
Affordable Housing Regulatory Options
Alex
presented a summary of the Affordable Housing Committee’s (AHC)
recommendations, drafted at the AHC November 2nd meeting. The AHC recommended the adoption of
inclusionary zoning, with the following key points (in no particular order)
included:
1. Affordable housing (AH) requirements should be town wide,
not just in the village
2. Density bonuses should made available to developers
3. Graduated requirements would start at 10 units; for
example, building 10-20 would require “X” number of AH units
4. Units would be required to be “perpetually affordable”
5. Developer could pay fees into a fund to use on a later AH
project, in lieu of building AH units
6. Developer could build AH units on proposed site
7. Developer could build AH units off proposed site
8. Developers could donate land in lieu of building AH units
The AHC
will put together an initial needs assessment, finalize a white paper to be
used for public outreach, and begin the process of assessing need within the
town of Hinesburg.
Alex said there might be a
conflict with points 2 and 3; he was not sure how to provide density bonuses,
if AH units were required anyway. He
also noted that many of these points were contained in a document called
“Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit”, which has served as a guideline for
committee(s) throughout this process.
George
Bedard felt we needed to assess what we have already accomplished in Hinesburg
towards providing AH units. He prefers
the “carrot” approach, awarding additional development rights to builders based
on the number of AH units they were willing to build. He expressed concern with graduated building requirements, and
warned of unintended consequences similar to those that resulted with ACT 250,
e.g. setting the limit at 10 units would mean developers would always build
9. He was also concerned that enough
local families might not be found to take advantage of the program.
Alex
said the kind of AH envisioned in Hinesburg would be on a small scale; finding
families would unlikely be a problem here (we will not be trying to fill up
large housing complexes, such as those built on Farrell Street in South
Burlington). He also said we could ease
ourselves into the concept by keeping the building requirements mild. He restated our need for information and
local assessments.
George
felt we needed to assess land inventory in Hinesburg; if too many lots were
made available, prices would go down, noting current downward trends in
pricing. Alex thought the level of
affordability of most real estate is still too high for many people. He felt the 10-unit “trigger” was too high,
that perhaps it should be dropped down to 5.
Jean thought that although an AH program in Hinesburg would be limited,
the perpetual affordability component is in interest of the community. Fred felt perpetual affordability could be
achieved either by letting the market assure a lower price for smaller, more
densely spaced units OR by engaging with housing trusts to keep prices
down. Jean asked if Fred was aware of
any market-driven examples that were working; he replied no, adding that
although perpetual affordability seemed more achievable through trust models,
he felt taxpayers ultimately paid the costs associated with maintaining
trusts. Alex said his understanding was that a portion of the
property transfer tax (paid only when property is transferred/sold) helps fund
some affordable housing projects and that we need to know more about how the
non-profit housing trusts are funded. Jean recommended inviting the Champlain
Housing Trust to speak with Commission members to walk through a model of how a
house is sold and resold, to clarify how an individual works with them, and to
provide more specifics on the perpetual component. Joe added it would be helpful to clarify the developers’
experience with them as well.
George cited the town’s three trailer parks as a current
low-income model, suggesting that a new, well-planned trailer park may provide
the affordable housing desired by the town.
However, current zoning requires 3-acre lots in the area where the parks
are now (defeating their affordability potential due to land prices). He felt a trailer park with double-wide
units managed by a housing trust would satisfy AH goals and be desirable to
builders. Alex wondered if we could
flex the current regulations, to make ½ to 1-acre lots for trailers, for
instance. George said yes, noting it
would also provide a good opportunity to re-establish and improve the existing
parks.
Joe questioned the resale value of trailers, suggesting
that in an AH model the buyer can at least make a small profit upon
resale. His impression is that trailers
and their lots don’t have the same economic advantages. George felt the right trailer park model
could provide the same advantages to residents, if they owned rather than
rented the land. He offered that Bob
Audette, who owns the Triple L Trailer Park, had just received approval to
build a 60-unit mobile home park in St. Johnsbury. Units are to be double-wide trailers which some view as being
closer to conventional homes. Jean
wondered if a location with municipal water and sewer could be found for a new
park. George responded yes, but that
the biggest obstacle was the 3-acre minimum lot requirement. Alex thought much of the land in the RR1 and
RR2 districts before the hill areas had good septic potential.
Jean wondered whether units would be owned or rented. George thought both; Alex thought the rental
model is more typical. Jean asked how
this could be made affordable; George thought sharing water and sewer costs
could allow for lower prices. Alex
noted that a key difference between a PRD and a mobile home community is in
their densities. He encouraged George
to look into the RR1 district for transitional areas where town septic may be
extended. George thought extending town
septic to Triple L might be an incentive to get it re-developed.
Fred
rejected the idea that mobile homes are an affordable housing option. He noted they are more likely to be a
depreciating asset similar to a car, and that units are not energy-efficient.
He felt modular homes were a better alternative to conventionally built
homes. Alex thought modular homes are an excellent option but are
more expensive than mobile homes; Fred said they were at least a better
investment. Alex thought double-wide homes had improved in their
construction and appearance and noted that mobile homes (not just in parks but
also on individual lots) are the most common form of affordable housing in
Vermont.
Carrie pointed out that the Champlain Housing Authority
oversaw quality projects, with well-built, units in which residents had a
financial stake, leading to better care of the units. George felt the ideal cost-effective project would optimize land
for maximum number of units. There was
some discussion of current land prices and what formula was needed to purchase
land and still build affordable units.
Fred
pointed out that many ideas had been taken from the Massachusetts document
(noted above), which may not be a good model for a smaller town like
Hinesburg. He felt some of the flexible
options might be too complicated or challenging to the process. He questioned why we shouldn’t just require
that AH units be built in the same development; a housing trust could help keep
builder costs and buyer prices down.
Joe brought up a point about human nature, noting most builders and
buyers of high-priced homes will not want mixed housing in the same
development. Alex detailed the builder opt-out
options again, stating he did not feel they were complicated, rather they give
the developer a lot of flexibility as to how the affordable housing requirement
can be met. With that said, Alex agreed with Fred that we ought not offer
all those options, not because of complexity, but simply to ensure that
affordable units actually get built, and that they be integrated into newly
developed areas rather than segregated. He said some flexibility makes
sense, but not so much that the creation of affordable units becomes an after
thought. There was discussion about how to qualify families for any AH
program.
Jean expressed the need to schedule time with
representatives from the Champlain Housing Trust for a future meeting.
Southern Approach (Route 116) - New Zoning District
Language
A letter written by Chuck Reiss was circulated. It expressed his interest for a zoning
change to the area just north of Buck Hill Road. He discussed several ideas for the Munson property now owned by
he and his wife, Sally, and felt a zoning change would also be in keeping with
what was expressed at the public forums.
Jean drafted ideas for discussion in a document entitled “Southern
Gateway District or Southern Transition District”, which included the
following introduction and points to consider:
PURPOSE: To
provide a visual cue that people are entering the Village, to slow traffic, to
tie the district to the Village via sidewalks and/or trails and avoid sprawl
type development.
DISTRICT BOUNDRIES
PERMITTED USES (RESIDENTIAL)
PERMITTED USES (COMMERCIAL) – EXISTING BUILDINGS ONLY
CONDITIONAL USES (COMMERCIAL) – EXISTING BUILDINGS ONLY
OTHER CONDITIONAL USES
VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS
OTHER – PRDs and density issues
A map was reviewed, showing the three properties to be
included in this discussion: a
triangular-shaped 23.89 acre parcel (owned by George and Karla Munson) on the SW side of Rte. 116, a 6.10 acre parcel (also owned
by the Munsons) on the NE side of Rte. 116 and a portion of the 24.08 parcel
(the Russell/Reiss property) bounded on the south by Buck Hill Road. Jean thought it best, for the purposes of this
discussion, to include only the area within the 24.08 parcel that surrounds the
house and barn, given that what can happen on the remaining area has already
been designated. Chuck Reiss clarified
the house is on Lot 7 and the barn is on Lot 8, for a total of 4 acres. He also noted the location of a pond
alongside Buck Hill Road.
Jean thought a park and ride (P&R) would work in the
larger triangle, which adjoins school properties. PRD provisions could be put in for school fields or a
P&R. George B. questioned whether
existing sewer district lines would be made to match the re-districting. Alex said yes, he thought the Select Board
would approve. George B. brought up wetlands as a potential obstacle, noting
resistance from wetlands officials during the last school expansion. He also thought access from the school to
new fields would be best gained using sidewalks along Rte. 116, as opposed to
traversing the area where the two properties bordered. Fred preferred a centrally located P&R,
in the village. Alex said the town
recently received a grant for a 20-space P&R on the lower parking area at
Town Hall (next to playing fields). He
advised to plan for the doubling in size of any P&R that was built. He said the area behind the Fire Station was
being considered as a multi-use recreation lot and park and ride. Joe thought a P&R may be best on the
west side, to get more people from feeder roads such as Shelburne Falls
Road. George Munson thought having a
P&R on the south side helped to reduce Burlington-bound traffic going
through town. George B. felt businesses
would not prefer this, as they want that traffic through town. Jean thought a dual-purpose lot could serve
as a P&R and provide parking to playing fields. Joe felt there might be a conflict around 4-5 p.m. as commuters
return and games start.
Alex asked for opinions on limiting commercial business to
existing buildings (which are now only the Russell/Reiss house and barn, and
the Munson home). Joe thought it was in
line with the public forums. Jean
thought conditional use modification for those buildings should be allowed,
such as for handicap accessibility.
George B. thought exterior modifications could be minimal and in keeping
with existing architectural style, and that it should be spelled out what
additions could be. Chuck said an
artist’s rendering of an east-side entrance to the barn had been made. He also mentioned a possible expansion from
the house to the garage (about 20 ft. away).
George
B. asked if only single-use residences were allowed under Permitted Uses
(Residential). Alex clarified by
stating that duplexes and multi-family dwellings would need to be added to the
list of allowed uses if the Commission wanted to allow these here – even if
projects are done as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). Jean said people wanted to avoid strip
development along this road. She likes
the idea of density of housing combined with open space, with some visual cue
to slow traffic. George B. thought we
were moving towards copying the village model to indicate a village. George Munson said the key is in the sewer
line and where it was set. Alex agreed
the sewer line did not have to match the district line, and could be used to
control development and preserve open space.
Chuck Reiss noted that 5 acres had been deeded as open space and
clarified boundaries for Lots 7 and 8; he notes Lot 8 follows a path along Rte.
116 to connect to the Village district and will contain a pedestrian path for
Lots 1-6 to get into town. Chuck was referring to the 5
acres of open space dedicated as part of the subdivision on his property
northeast of the 116, Buck Hill Road intersection.
Chuck raised the question of farm stands, stating the
Russells would like one by the pond, in a permanent structure. Jean confirmed farm stands were acceptable
in general, citing Zoning Regulations, pg. 11, Sec. 3.2.3 #6. There was
discussion about the nature of allowable products sold at a farm stand. It was also noted that the Russell’s farm
stand would be on Lot 9, which is not part of this discussion, but that the
Board should look at farm stand language for all districts as a separate issue.
Jean
asked about extending village design standards to this new district; Alex
clarified those to be as previously discussed at an earlier Commission meeting,
not the more recent design standards by the Village Steering Committee. George B. did not think design standards
needed to match those set for the village core.
Mechanicsville Road Area - New Zoning District Language
Fred drafted ideas for discussion in a document entitled “Village
Northeast District (Mechanicsville Road)”, which included the following
introduction and points to consider:
PURPOSE: To
encourage efficient use of developable land in Hinesburg’s growth center for
residential use. Provide increased
density opportunities as an incentive to promote the construction of
sustainable affordable housing. Foster
development consistent with a pedestrian friendly rural Vermont environment.
DISTRICT BOUNDRIES AND LIMITS
PERMITTED USES (RESIDENTIAL)
A map was reviewed, noting these boundaries: the west
boundary is the Industrial E district (NRG) north to CVU Road (a new alternative energy district
discussed at a prior meeting). The east boundary is the existing sewer service area
from the Richmond Road south to the village.
Fred reviewed the Permitted Uses section, noting he did not
think elderly housing in this area was ideal due to predominance of hilly
areas. He noted his addition of
alternative energy sources and efficiency standards. He opened the discussion regarding Affordable Housing (AH) in
this district. George mentioned builder
incentives again, and added that builders do not like to market AH units. Jean asked about congregate senior housing
such as with an assisted living complex.
Fred felt it should be closer to town, but will include in his
draft. Alex cited Wake Robin in
Shelburne as an example of this type of housing being on the outskirts of
town. George thought the cemetery
should be removed from this districting.
The idea of changing the sewer district, adding acreage and
homes to its infrastructure, was raised.
Joe felt this might be controversial, given the cost. Fred thought we could “infill” development,
i.e. from inside the village to out. Alex
suggested, rather than implementing that type of progressive zoning (using
physical boundaries), to use an actual number-of-units cap. He also felt development should be tied to
infrastructure improvements like sidewalks.
Costs of improving the sewer system were discussed further. Alex felt the front-end costs of water and
sewer could be supported by quicker development. There was a general discussion of how village growth could
benefit the town as a whole.
II. Other Business:
Minutes of the October 25, PC Meeting
George MOVED to approve the minutes as amended. Carrie
SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.
The board decided to cancel the
December 27th meeting and discussed the possibility of 3 meetings in
January, on the 10th, 24th and 31st.
Alex noted the budget is due on December 11th,
with a presentation on December 18th.
Alex said the town is submitting a grant proposal for
research on ancient roads, stating legislation had been passed on the subject.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary