TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION

 

April 11, 2007

Approved April 25, 2007

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  Kay Ballard, Nancy Norris.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Gerry Livingston, David Hirth, Nancy Plunkett, Bill Marks, Mark Ames.

 

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

 

I. Hinesburg Conservation Commission (CC)

Gerry Livingston and members of the CC attended the meeting to discuss their group’s goals and current efforts.  He described the Commission’s role as an advisory board, and their interaction with various community and town groups in and around Hinesburg.  He said the Commission is currently focused on addressing development proposals in town and also on the development of the Greenspace and Cultural Resources Plan.  Gerry gave an overview of the Plan, citing these plan objectives:

            - to recommend protection measures

            - to provide scientific rationale for those recommendations

            - to serve as an educational reference

- to identify future data needs

            - to encourage improved decision-making protocols

 

Gerry presented several GIS maps and statistical graphs covering areas such as parcel size by district, land cover inventory, wetlands (including Class III wetlands), surface water areas, deer wintering areas, conserved lands, current use lands, and prime and statewide soils.  Joe D. questioned the land cover inventory data.  Those data sources and methods for data collection were briefly discussed.  Gerry passed out a draft table of contents for the Plan, noting the CC believes water and forest resources to be top priorities for the town.  They are hoping to come back to the Planning Commission by the end of June with draft language those priorities. 

 

Jean suggested getting those drafts to Planning Commission members to review before meetings.  Alex said someone would be assisting the CC and PC with the Greenspace Plan, as part of grant funding received for the project.  The group(s) discussed how to best communicate the Plan and goals of the CC to the public.

 

II. Other Business
Alex reported that Fred, Nancy and he attended the Select Board work session on the proposed wastewater treatment upgrade facility.  He said the decision has been made to move forward with the plan, and that communication of the project to the public was discussed.  Fred agreed to assist with that communication effort.

 

Alex also discussed the Regional Planning Commission’s involvement with ACT 250 proceedings, and our town’s involvement as represented by Hinesburg resident Skylar Jackson.  Carrie agreed to review feedback from the proceedings.  The May 23rd public forum on the Village Growth plan was discussed.  Alex said Bob White would be helping with artistic renderings of streetscapes for use at the forum.

 

III. Village Growth Project

Water Overlay District

Alex wanted feedback from the group on the concept of a water overlay district, which is currently proposed to provide a 75-foot setback for structures to all water bodies.  He suggested the setback could be more flexible in the village area, noting the need for all available land.  He said the setback could range between 25 feet and 100 feet, for small to large water bodies.  He said development in the overlay district would be prohibited, but with other permitted uses.  He also asked the group how they felt about transferring development densities in those undevelopable buffer areas for use in other developable areas.  He gave examples of parcels where this might apply.

 

Fred said he liked the idea of using the whole property for the simplicity of it, stating it would encourage greater densities and better use of the land, but cautioned that this may not be the best way to build up densities (opposed to other density incentives being planned.)  Alex agreed, and gave an example of a parcel’s development potential if density transfers were allowed.  The group discussed how densities could be realized, through large land areas and/or incentives.  Fred described how building footprints are affected by emergency vehicle access and parking regulations.  Alex said the lack of a ladder truck in town might limit building heights, which may be the only way to accommodate densities in the village’s limited space.  The group discussed street parking, a variety of parking solutions and parking regulations for the village.

 

Joe I. reminded the group of the public feedback received during the forest overlay district proposal.  He thought regulations could not take something away from landowners (in this case, densities that were determined by total acreage, not just by developable land on the property.)  Alex said landowners will be getting bigger densities under the new plan, and the group needed to work with landowners to communicate this.  Alex suggested putting transferred densities back into development at a lesser rate.  He talked about commercial land possibilities for square footage and how this differs from calculating residential densities.

 

George talked about the potential for errors in the base of information supplied by the government (referring to the USGS study of flood hazard boundaries for FEMA.)  He said the location of the flood plain on a parcel is the more important question in determining boundaries.  He also questioned the accuracy of government data of minor brook locations.  Alex said those buffers for small streams are there for water quality, not flood hazard.  Joe I. suggested water quality concerns might be reason alone to leave the buffer.  Alex thinks the 75 foot buffer is arbitrary anyway; he would like to investigate the best buffer number to recommend, and will consult water quality experts on that.

 

Joe I. felt transferring densities out of buffer areas made the density calculations more complicated.  He suggested encouraging the abutter to buy the buffer portion of the property, by way of a subdivision.  Fred thinks the portion of village property west of the proposed West Road would be a natural place to create retention ponds for runoff created by development, adding ponds could be used for recreation.  George discussed differences in areas and how they would or would not benefit from a water overlay district.  He said landowners have to deal with flood plain issues and the stormwater permit process anyway.  Carrie like the idea of having the overlay district and wondered if zoning should mention by name the particular streams and rivers to which overlay buffers applied.  Alex talked about protection levels for various drainages.

 

George thought we should have language to let development happen closer to smaller streams if there is an elevation change.  Alex said zoning language should provide the DRB with criteria for considering a waiver for setbacks.  The letter of map amendments from FEMA and FEMA information and processes were discussed.  George does not want to use FEMA info for overlay district mapping.  He thought there should be a mechanism for correcting the info.  Alex feels data gathered from local groups on the LaPlatte River and Patrick Brook was accurate.  He would like to at least include this info in the district.  For all other water bodies he suggested language could leave the setback at 75 feet, with an option to challenge the setback within the development process, OR language could lower the setbacks.  Jean felt trying to accomplish the group’s objectives without an overlay district was best. 

 

Joe D. said if setbacks are fixed by measured distances to a water body, a building’s compliance to those setbacks could change from year to year, due to the changing nature of watercourses.  The group talked about pre-existing, non-complying structures, and a fixed overlay district versus measured distances from a moving stream.

 

Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)

Alex explained how the state used to make a distinction between PRDs and PUDs (mainly that PUDs were mixed developments), but that now all developments are PUDs.  He asked the group if they felt the two types needed separate standards.  He said the only exception should be a purely commercial development with no residential units, adding he would look at language for both to see what could be shared.

 

Fred asked about public benefit wording in PRDs, stating he would prefer to see a plan for open spaces as planned areas instead of sporadic and uncoordinated.  He would like to come up with a plan, with some flexibility, and feels the community should contribute financially to developing those spaces.  Alex said even if there were a plan, developers would have input and different ideas, perhaps with a better plan for space(s).  Joe D. asked about the difference between impact fees versus developers’ contributions to other projects, and raised the issue of access to open spaces.  Fred thinks we should define the West Road, and the framework for collecting impact fees to help develop that road.  Joe D. asked about the possibility of neighborhood impact fees.  Those fees and how they could be implemented were discussed.

 

Jean Isham left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

 

Minutes of the April 3, 2007 PC Meeting

George MOVED to approve the minutes as amended.  Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

 

The next Planning Commission meeting is April 25, 2007.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary