TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION

May 9, 2007

Approved June 13, 2007

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, George Bedard, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Joe Donegan, Carrie Fenn.

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

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

I. Other Business

Fred asked if additional housekeeping items should be addressed along with the proposed Village Growth Project (VGP) changes to the Zoning Regulations. The group agreed to focus only changes related to the VGP.

II. Village Growth Project

Alex gave a summary of work left to do for the forum by Bob White and Melanie Needle, mainly visuals and a sketch of the Lyman parcel with possible build out scenarios. Melanie gave Alex new build out information on residential units in the Village. There are currently 244 residences; 469 total projected with base densities applied, and 1040 total projected with maximum densities applied. This was with a 45% residential sewer allotment. The capacity number for residential units possible with the sewer upgrade was 467. Alex does not feel the 45% / 55% split (residential to commercial) is correct; he thinks residential should be set closer to 60%, which would make 630 residential units available with the sewer upgrade. Fred thought Saputo would not need as much water when the upgrade happened, and perhaps that water could be reallocated to residential.

Alex asked for comments about the proposed density numbers; the group agreed the numbers were good. Carrie relayed to Alex that she would like to see the village core get sewer allocations first, then allocations in this order: Northeast (NE) district, Northwest (NW) district, Residential I (RI), Residential II (RII). Fred felt the West Road should be the first priority to create relief on Route 116. Joe does not believe the town can develop much of that road in the short term. Alex thinks the road won’t alleviate issues on Route 116 but will be crucial to new development in the area. Fred described adjacent areas and how he thought the road would connect those areas, developments, etc.

Jean asked about further Route 116 road cuts and questioned language in the NW district section. Alex said an access point there would add some traffic flexibility. Fred suggested installing a merging lane to go into any new development across from Riggs Road. Alex feels a formal, controlled intersection is needed to connect the NW and NE areas to prevent them from being isolated from each other. Joe I. agreed and said it would encourage pedestrian use. George thought the village speed limit (30 mph) should start at Ballards Corner, with another traffic light at Riggs Road. Joe agreed and talked about the possibility of alternate traffic patterns. Alex asked if Riggs Road was the right spot for an intersection, or if the knoll there was too close. The group talked about the location of the road, visibility, wetlands in the area, etc. Alex agreed the town needs a well-enforced speed limit to provide traffic claming queues. David Lyman said he has noticed cars taking a quicker turn out onto Route 116 from Charlotte Road since the speed limit along 116 was changed.

Phasing was discussed. Nancy thought the VGP should be implemented all at once. Joe was concerned about the sewer upgrade not being a sure thing. George said the VGP could not happen if the upgrade did not happen. Joe felt the first priority for sewer allocation was the village, then the NW district, then the NE district. Nancy said even if voters approved the upgrade, the permitting process would take a long time, from 2 to 3 years. She suggested implementing the village (dark green on the district map) first, then all the other districts at once after that; George agreed with this approach.

The group discussed how the SB would handle information and inquiries regarding the upgrade. Alex explained how the proposal would be put to the public for a vote. Joe said cost would be a key question for voters outside the village area. Jean asked about impact fees. Alex said yes, there would be an increase in hook-up and allocation fees.

Jean recalled from public forums that residents wanted to build in, then move out from the village. George felt there are areas that developers will want to invest in and that we should encourage an overall plan but then let whomever invests first to get their development plans implemented. Fred said phasing helps to implement the building of the upgrade infrastructure efficient. George would make Residential I and II lower priorities. He suggested getting developments in the big areas to get the infrastructure started. He feels this will better provide for a big picture development strategy.

Alex said the Select Board (SB) could consider allocating sewer usage by varying percentages in districts. He explained how allocations work now and feels the PC could give some suggestions to the SB to work with such allocations as a form of phasing. Alex said one way to prioritize would be to create percentages around build out numbers. George feels Hinesburg will have an older, built village in the core, and new village up to Ballards Corner. He feels the public would like to see the existing village left alone. The group continued to discuss if and how to phase development. Alex said people who have existing (unused) allocation couldn’t use it except under the current zoning. Those allocations would go back into the pool and be made available to the village area to encourage in-fill there.

Joe said for a master plan to work in the NW district, no other development should be allowed in the short term by turning on all districts at once. The group talked about when the sewer upgrade would go to a vote and how the public would perceive the question. The group decided they wanted district boundaries changed now but not with their associated zoning changes; the exception would be the village core. The group agreed the zoning would become effective when the sewer upgrade was approved AND permitted.

Final Draft Review

Jean asked about dead storage, suggesting this should be a conditional use; Alex clarified why it is a permitted use. Joe asked about home occupations; Alex explained differences between types of home occupations (as defined by the size and nature of businesses). Joe questioned some conditional uses listed in the NW district, such as fishing and hunting, and also asked to rename the Residential I (RI) district. He questioned whether multi-family units should be in RI; Alex explained the difference between those types of units in RI and Rural RI. George suggested changing multi-family units from 6 to 4, adding “more than 4” as a conditional use.

Fred asked about windmills in RI and RII. He would like them to be a permitted use. George said the windmill planned for Geprags Park is considerably smaller than typical commercial units. The group discussed how communities might share windmills. Alex said the PC has authority over non-net metered windmills only, that permitting for others must go through the public service board. The group agreed to make an exemption for windmills 200 feet or less (so as to not trigger the use of lights on a tower). George suggested adding a restriction that towers are set back from property boundaries in a distance equal to the tower’s height (in the event the tower should fall, it would fall on the owner’s property).

Fred talked about smaller setbacks and minimum lot frontage to give greater flexibility to accomplish densities. Alex explained how setbacks would change. George thought smaller setbacks might cause issues with off-street parking and garage buildings. The group discussed the 10-foot min. proposed setback. Alex explained parking criteria found in Zoning Regulations. Joe said arrangements for snow removal and emergency situations should be taken into consideration.

Jean questioned whether commercial uses in RII were too limited. The group discussed what businesses would be appropriate there. A theater and other community function buildings were added.

Joe asked about the 180 days provision in the inclusionary zoning document. The group discussed if this was too long a waiting period for CHT to have the first option to find a buyer (at the time of resale). Jean suggested going to 120 days; the group agreed to leave it at 180 days.

Minutes of the April 25, 2007 PC Meeting

George MOVED to approve the minutes as written. Nancy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7 – 0.

The next Planning Commission meeting is the Public Forum scheduled for May 23, 2007.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary