TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Members Present: Kay Ballard,
George Bedard, , Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris,
Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent: Joe Donegan, Jean
Isham.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Lisa Carlson.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
I. Village Growth Project
Allowed Uses; Discussion of
Crematories as a Conditional Use
- Hinesburg spends $20K annually to maintain its cemeteries
- Vermont has high cremation rates (50%), due in part to long seasons with frozen ground
- Europe has a much higher rate; crematories are part of cemetery properties in Europe, rather than being placed in industrial or commercial areas
She is requesting a zoning change that makes crematories a conditional use, allowing them on cemetery properties regardless of district. She noted a privately-owned crematory on Allen Road in South Burlington that is next to the Lutheran Church and is across the road from Allenwood at Pillsbury Manor, which is a retirement and life care community. As part of a business plan, she is proposing certain family services, green spaces and buildings, some of which may benefit from heat recovery systems used by the crematory. Alex described regulations as overseen by the EPA, as well as costs to deal with amalgam metals. He explained current zoning regulations limit crematories to the agricultural district. The group discussed possible locations for a family-oriented, garden-style crematory, and also the business model (the maintenance of the grounds, how much volume to expect, types and amount of traffic to the facility, etc.) Lisa said her business would include a pick-up service and some retail services, but would not provide funeral home or funeral services.
Energy Efficiency and Green Building Zoning Provisions,
Review Draft 1 3/23/07
Alex explained a few open issues, such as whether these standards should be town-wide, and whether they “trump” other town standards (referring to section 6.10.8 of the Subdivision Bylaws). George noted examples when these standards would conflict with others, such as an order to minimize or disallow tree clearing on lots; he also said they would not fit everywhere due to differences in building sites. Alex said language in the draft did not penalize sites that did not have good solar potential, but agreed that clearing would need to be addressed (to what extent should a lot be cleared to take advantage of passive solar and solar technologies?). He added that he felt rooftops were high enough that clearing around the immediate house will allow for some solar use. George feels education will best allow people to make choices. Fred thought the draft standards provided a good tool for those who want to do green building anyway, but said we should not be trying to force something not suitable for all projects. He asked whether volunteers, perhaps from the newly-formed Sustainability Task Force and/or other knowledgeable parties, could provide information to residents as part of the permit process. Alex suggested re-wording standard #1 to convey something more voluntary (amending to “…encouraged to be sited and designed…”.
George asked if mobile and modular homes were included under standard #2 (regarding Energy Star qualification). Alex said we cannot exclude new mobile or modular homes as they are also affordable housing options for residents. The group discussed energy-saving measures that can be taken during the building process and by homeowners. Carrie asked about new house additions; Alex said he did not think they could be held to these standards, as they would essentially be attached to homes that might not meet the standards. Alex clarified the #4 LEED certification requirement could be satisfied at the certification’s lowest level. The group discussed what kinds of businesses this standard would affect. Alex said other towns have made commitments to building to LEED standards on town projects.
Regarding standard #1, Kay asked who would determine the
form of renewable energy that may be used.
Fred suggested it be based on something measurable, such as a
requirement to provide a certain percentage of the total energy use. The group talked about how projects would be
assessed to meet this requirement, particularly within the DRB review
process. Kay said although she did not
wish standards to be mandated, she also felt it was important for builders and
homeowners to know what to expect. The
group talked about what could make standard #4 clear, but not inflexible. Joe asked whether a business could commit to
using GMP’s Greener Power program, in order to satisfy requirements. George said he felt only larger projects
would produce any energy benefits. Alex
said that collectively, residents and smaller businesses could make an
impact. Johanna gave an example of a
business being held to higher town standards, requiring a more creative
solution in their building design; she felt businesses could be held to higher
standards.
Design Standards, Review Draft 1 3/23/07
Carrie felt sidewalks, if only required in residential and
not mixed-use areas, risk not being connected to public areas that would serve
as destinations for pedestrians. George
suggested changing the titles of the Village Residential Districts I and II to
avoid confusion with those (same-named) districts outside the village. Nancy said she did not agree with parking
regulations in standard #2. Alex said
the standard discriminates between parking lots
and on-street parking. He described the current streetscape
planning, and said the creation of new parking spaces was difficult due to the
number existing driveway cuts. Nancy
was concerned about how businesses would deal with parking and deliveries. Alex described buildings that have entries
on both the front and back facades.
Fred asked about the placement of functional items such as
dumpsters. He drew an example of a
mixed-use development that utilized an access road to its interior; the group
discussed the example with ideas for parking, access, screening, and the
behind-the-scenes functioning of businesses.
Alex explained the intent behind standard #7, the build-to line. Nancy did not feel buildings should be lined
up. George brought up existing language
in the regulations that addressed building next to a neighbor, noting current
restrictions. He felt it was not needed
in the village, but was OK to do in undeveloped areas. Fred gave an example of a subdivision that
might take advantage of allowable densities but only if housing were arranged
in linear fashion. Alex felt the town
would see more creative developments that propose clusters and unfamiliar
arrangements of housing. The group
talked about orientation of houses, and the planning of sites to make a project
aesthetically appealing. Joe I. felt
off-street parking usually required more uniformity. Alex suggested removing the 50% façade requirement and build-to
range language, leaving only the first two sentences in standard #7. Carrie said sidewalks were important in a
pedestrian-friendly community, and more desirable than walking through parking
lots. Joe felt the build-to line and
parking issues were related. He
envisions building happening close to the road on Route 116, with access roads
to the rear of the buildings, resulting in 116 becoming a “pass thruway” rather
than having a new road serve that purpose.
Minutes of the March 14, 2007 PC Meeting
George MOVED to approve the minutes as written. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion
PASSED 7 – 0.
The next Planning Commission meeting is April 11, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary