TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

January 31, 2007
Approved February 21, 2007

 

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, George Bedard, Joe Donegan, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Johanna White.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), David Lyman, Barbara Lyman, Lisa Godfrey.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

 

I. Inclusionary Zoning Provision

There was a conversation about inclusionary zoning, the Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) and their ability to fund projects.  Rental developments were also discussed.  Nancy would like to invite the Affordable Housing Committee (AHC) to a Planning Commission (PC) meeting to help draft policy and answer questions.  She feels the PC is pursuing inclusionary zoning as the only means of providing affordable housing, and perhaps doing so without more information and assistance from the AHC.  Alex said the AHC has provided some parameters to him that have been incorporated into the provision draft.  He also said the AHC is working on other ideas, some regulated and others not (such as encouraging affordable housing developments on town-owned land).  He clarified that the PC then flushes out those ideas that are regulated such as density and inclusionary zoning.  He agrees inclusionary zoning is not the only option, and not a silver bullet to addressing affordable housing in Hinesburg.  He asked PC members to submit specific, more technical questions to the AHC (he would facilitate that via email).  Barb Lyman agreed with Nancy’s concerns and thought a presentation by the AHC would be helpful.

 

George stated he felt the burden of inclusionary zoning would be one-sided, falling to developers.  He read from a proposed house/senate bill that would prohibit this type of zoning legislation.  He feels the “carrot approach”, providing incentives to developers, would be most successful in Hinesburg.

 

Jean reminded the group they were still in the middle of a process, with time to get more information before any decisions are made.  Joe D. asked George if he knew when and where the carrot approach has worked.  Joe D. said he liked Fred’s suggestion of how inclusionary zoning could work; Nancy agreed.  (They were referring to a worksheet Fred had drafted and submitted to the group).  Fred echoed Jean’s statement, saying there was time to consider all proposals before voting on anything.

 

Nancy speculated that if Hinesburg and neighboring towns all adopted some form of inclusionary zoning, that CHT might not have adequate funding.  Alex said it was not the intent of CHT to subsidize developers; rather, the developer sells the units at an affordable rate, with a possible subsidy from CHT to the buyer.  Fred paraphrased his understanding of CHT’s work in Burlington.  Alex said it would work a little differently in Hinesburg; CHT would always verify a buyer’s eligibility, but only sometimes buy the housing.  Joe D. felt the concern regarding CHT’s ability to fund an increased number of projects was legitimate.  He thought more projects would also increase demands on CHT’s human resources.

 

Fred suggested that a development’s market-value units would subsidize the affordable housing units, having the unintended effect of raising housing prices overall.  Alex said certain application fees for those developments could be waived, as one example of helping offset the cost of the AH units.  Jean said density bonuses for larger developments were also intended to help offset costs.  Alex clarified densities currently being proposed.  Joe D. thought that density bonuses were tied to re-zoning, not affordable housing initiatives.  George talked about multi-family densities, and also that sewer upgrades would factor into proposed village densities.  He would like to see the approval of double densities if a large portion of a project’s units were affordable.

 

Alex then introduced the document “Zoning District Parameters – Draft 1”, dated 1/31/07, with two accompanying maps.  Joe I. did not believe everyone in the village district could capitalize on density bonuses to provide affordable housing, citing the 10-unit trigger as perhaps being too high.  Reading from the book Community Rules, Carrie said communities needed to decide if they wanted their inclusionary bylaws to be “compulsory or voluntary”.  Jean reminded the group of the public forums in which residents stated they wanted affordable housing.  Alex thought a modest compulsory provision combined with a robust incentive program was best.  The group then discussed some AH initiatives of other towns in the area.

 

Jean mentioned that a developer would avoid paying a broker’s commission, as CHT would provide a buyer (for no fee to the developer).  The sale price formula for an affordable housing unit was discussed.  George said that a builder would have to stay on target to build units at that price in order to maintain profitability for the entire project.  Jean asked about housing that was not perpetually affordable, i.e. not stewarded by CHT.

 

The zoning district maps were discussed.  Alex explained the Village Water Resources Overlay District, as areas where uses would be specified.  He said mapping out those areas also helped to clarify density calculations.  He explained the Fluvial Erosion Hazard Zones and Buffer Areas.  These areas are most likely to see changes in water flow as streams are allowed to run in a more natural, meandering path.  Lisa Godfrey then gave an overview of a water resources presentation she attended.  Key topics discussed were:

-         watershed-based zoning

-         local stormwater bylaws

-         overlay district mapping

-         public safety

-         reducing losses from flooding and erosion

-         increased water quality and habitat value

 

She said state agencies were working to provide technical support and economic incentives to towns that are proactive in protecting their water corridors.  She said the town of South Burlington, for example, proposed to reduce frontage requirements as a way to help reduce roadways and thus reduce stormwater run-off.  There was some discussion as to whether Hinesburg could benefit from the assistance of a consultant as provided by these agencies.

 

Looking at the maps, George suggested taking out the cemetery land to ensure an accurate reflection of available acreage.  It was also suggested to call out municipal or town-owned properties on the map.  George asked if the Village NE essentially replaced the Industrial V district, now allowing all the same commercial uses and adding residential uses.  Alex replied yes, and that more details would be available at the next meeting.  Joe I. said he would like to see zoning encourage PRD’s and multi-family dwellings.  He suggested eliminating the minimum lot size requirement.  Alex feels a 6000 sq. ft. lot is very small and probably the minimum to be functional.  The group discussed minimum lot sizes, multi-family dwellings, densities, setbacks, parking, and lot coverage percentages.  Joe I. envisioned a 1st floor commercial space, with a 2nd floor residential space above, and questioned how to apply densities to multi-use buildings such as those.  There was a discussion of the development currently being planned by Rob Bast, as well as culverts in the area (off Charlotte Road).

 

The group discussed boundaries being proposed in the area south of the current village zone.  Joe D. envisioned this southern gateway area with a 4-corner intersection at Buck Hill and Route 116; he thought this would be appropriate, especially if the Munson family developed the section on the west side of Route 116 south of the stream.  There was a discussion about the Rural Residential II area.

 

The sewer upgrade and its relationship to densities was discussed.  Alex said that, as a rule of thumb, a community should plan with the assumption that only 40-50% of allowable units will get built out.  The current gallon-per-day per residential household was discussed, both what is allocated and actual usage calculations.  Fred suggested the creation of a water resources incentive, wondering if there were ways to encourage less use.  The group discussed water infiltration (stormwater getting into sewer water that then gets treated and counts as usage).  Alex offered some calculations based on the proposed sewer upgrade:

-         a 200,000 gallon upgrade is being proposed

-         a portion of that upgrade will be allotted to Saputo per their request

-         210 gallons is the average amount used by a household; 1000 homes could be added with the upgrade

-         450 homes (1000  x  45% build-out assumption) is the “floor” of what the sewer upgrade could support.  Note there are 1800 households in Hinesburg now.

 

Alex noted that although the 1000 figure seemed large, when base densities are run, several large land holdings could assume a large portion of those potential households.

 

Kay asked if an individual could install their own sewer system if the town ran out of capacity.  Alex replied yes, and speculated that this may happen due to the rapid growth of the town.  Advantages of private sewer systems versus public “surface systems” were discussed, particularly the advantage private systems had with replenishing groundwater.  Alex added that the proposed upgrade would probably be the last, due to limitations of the LaPlatte River.

 

The next Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday, February 14, 2007.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary