TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION
Village Growth Project Forum

May 23, 2007

Approved June 13, 2007

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

Commission Members Absent: Joe Donegan.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Barry Lampke, Katy Demchy, David Blittersdorf, Marty Gray, Patti Drew, Larry Telford, Diane Telford, Kristy McLeod, Jonathan Trefry, Hank White, Sandy White, Jennifer Hunter, Laura Carlsmith, Rocky Martin, Rolf Kielman, Susan Hoeppner, Donna Constantineau, Wendi Stein, John Lyman, David Lyman, Helen Whyte, Al Barber, Frank Koss, Lynn Gardner, Wayne Bissonette, George Munson, Karla Munson, George Dameron, Rich Armstrong, Kristin Haas, Dorothy Pellett, Dona Walker, John Kiedaisch, Pam Mathews, Carl Bohlen, Dave Fenn, Howard Russell, Andrea Morgante, Morgante Pell, Bill Stirewalt, Dianne Stirewalt, Wendy Patterson.

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

Alex introduced and thanked the following individuals and organizations for their assistance with the project:

- Melanie Needle and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

- Helen Whyte and the Orton Family Foundation

- Bob White and the ORW Landscape Architects and Planners

- Kristen Deluca and the Champlain Housing Trust

- The Homebuilders Association of Northern Vermont

Alex stated proposed changes sought to bring zoning regulations in line with the goals of the Town Plan. He discussed planning efforts including previous community forums. He said changes under the proposal are still open for discussion and encouraged public feedback. He said after this evening’s forum, there would be one formal public hearing held by the Select Board who would make the decision to approve or disapprove changes.

Alex showed a map of the current (core) village area and the proposed extended village area(s). He reviewed the proposed changes within the new zoning districts, stating “village” areas are mixed-use zoning and “village residential” areas are only residential. Alex explained densities and allowed uses proposed for different districts. He discussed proposed building incentives for various public good items such as inclusionary zoning, energy efficiency standards and green building standards. Village design standards and stream setbacks were also discussed.

Village wastewater capacity and plan phasing were discussed. Alex said the development proposed in the plan could not happen without an upgrade to the town’s wastewater facility. He described a phasing strategy in which core village area changes would be implemented immediately but other areas would not see changes until after the upgrade is approved and permitted. He and Melanie Needle presented a map created with the CommunityViz tool and Google Earth mapping technology. It showed a hypothetical development scenario of a 13-acre parcel with the new building densities in place. Another map created by ORD was presented, showing a 40-acre parcel with mixed uses and mixed densities. The forum was then opened for public discussion.

Frank Koss asked about onstreet parking and snow removal. Alex said the proposed regulations called for all homes to have two offstreet spaces. Businesses in these mixed-use areas would share that parking during the day, leaving spaces open for plowing at night. Wendy Patterson asked about alternative transportation such as pedestrian and bike traffic, and mass/commuter transportation. Alex said the proposal encouraged accessibility to developments and the clustering of homes, making these areas suitable for a central bus stop, for instance.

George Dameron agreed with a phasing strategy. He asked about sidewalks and connectivity. Fred Haulenbeek said one public good incentive would be to provide infrastructure. He encouraged the creation of a “wish list” of town infrastructure. Alex said current regulations place a heavy emphasis on connectivity. He gave an example of a recent project in which the developers were required to contribute to the creation of sidewalks, even in areas that were adjacent to, but not part of, the developer’s property. George encouraged strong language in regulations that required adequate sidewalk and bicycle access.

Carl Bohlen discussed the difference between current growth and accelerated growth. He asked 1) what growth was expected in Hinesburg and how the proposed changes would meet versus increase growth; 2) what the increase in village acreage would be; 3) what ability was there, and what strategies were in place, to infill the existing village. Alex explained development would not happen all at once. He said the plan was meant to be a “sponge”: for a 20-year growth plan. He could not tell whether the plan would absorb or increase development, but said the Planning Commission discusses re-zoning to allow for comprehensive plans, particularly for large parcels. He gave some statistical information, stating the current village area has about 355 dwelling units; the plan proposed an increase in units anywhere from 460 to 1000, depending on density bonuses utilized and the wastewater upgrade. He said the new village area is proposed to be about 130 acres, approximately doubling the area.

Rolf Kielman said he believes the town needs to be more proactive in planning for public spaces and infrastructure such as a town green and community hall. He felt proposed incentive bonuses might only create these functions in less desirable areas (i.e. not as accessible to all town residents as they could be). He said the wish list described by Fred should specifically state where the town would like those items to happen. He feels the town can ask property owners for something substantial in exchange for the land value increases brought on by proposed changes. Carrie Fenn said such a plan is difficult to develop purely among Commission members and asked for public input and suggestions. Alex explained developers would be required to provide public spaces, that they are not entirely tied to incentives. He said the state allows towns to adopt an “official map” that lays out roads and critical infrastructure. Under the legal terms of this map, when a development is proposed, the developer must take those items into consideration. If they do not wish to develop the planned infrastructure themselves, the town has the first option right to purchase the land to do so. An audience member suggested we hire a planning professional to help with such an official plan.

Ken Brown asked if current zoning would be in place while waiting for the upgrade. Alex said yes, that existing zoning would stay in effect in “turned off” areas. He explained that all new development in the village will be required to tie into the town septic system under new zoning (it will no longer be optional).

Jon Kiedaisch seconded Rolf Kielman’s comments, noting a similar approach in the process that redeveloped Boston’s waterfront area. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to take a similar proactive approach by utilizing a master plan. He asked about the transfer of development rights from rural districts into the village, and also about potential job creation. Alex said transfers have been discussed but are not part of this proposal (see more below). He reviewed a map that depicted potential square footage for commercial expansion, but said square footage numbers that came out of the buildout scenarios were too high to be realistic. He said there is more light industrial planned, especially in the Village Northeast district. Jon said he would like to encourage the inclusion of businesses other than light industrial, such as software development. Alex clarified that current zoning regulations are very permissive and would allow for those types of businesses right now.

Howdy Russell asked about wetland issues in proposed development areas. He asked if unit densities from non-buildable areas on a parcel could be transferred into buildable areas. Alex said yes, and added clustering would be encouraged for whatever densities were available. He described the restoring of wetlands west of development areas as a possibility.

Peter Erb echoed Rolf and Jon’s comments regarding a public spaces/infrastructure plan. He felt some developers might not take the time to develop vibrant structures and spaces. Fred said developers should not be too micromanaged if the town is to benefit from certain incentives such as inclusionary zoning. He felt dictating too many details would raise costs and put those programs at risk.

Tom McGlenn asked about trading densities (from rural to village). Alex said it has been considered but is untested (in other communities) and complicated. He thinks the village growth area does not have the ability to absorb the development that we would likely wish to transfer.

Sue Hoeppner asked how to prevent residents and businesses from abandoning the existing village. Joe Iadanza said the Commission has addressed that concern, pointed to the phasing plan and also plans for connecting the core village to surrounding areas. Alex said our village is already spread out, but hopes to see more connectivity over the next 20 years.

Bill Stirewalt asked whether the town could purchase fields to the northwest of the village for public spaces. He said it was the largest flat green space left near town and wondered how much it would cost. Alex said the Hinesburg Land Trust was already working on a different project with the individual who owned that property. He did not know the costs involved and was not sure whether it was a possibility for the town. Bill Marks felt the fields did not need to be developed to provide connectivity between the library and community school. Alex said he felt connecting spaces was not just a matter of hooking up traffic paths, but allowing for life in between. He said the Northwest Village district would be a mixed use area to compliment and expand the village core. Bill Marks encouraged the infill of the village first.

Chuck Reiss asked whether a portion of a parcel under development could be required to stay as open space, describing the idea of an oasis of green areas that connected the town. He feels we are missing two connections in particular, one to Geprags and to CVU. He added that he applauds the work the Commission did to encourage green building. Pam Mathews said she felt the town should hire a development consultant.

Scott (an audience member) felt the character of Hinesburg should be preserved and was concerned that adding density bonuses to the village core might encourage “teardowns”. Alex agreed that while the proposal would change the town, it tried to identify and address what was special to Hinesburg. He said we want to preserve those special features such as pedestrian-scaled buildings and the mixed use areas. He said that while architecture and development styles evolve, we can still respect what Hinesburg was, we can recognize what it is, and we can realize its future potential.

Diane Telford asked about traffic capacities. Joe Iadanza said there would be some impact with the proposed changes but they are being taken into consideration. He explained that the town has no power over traffic on certain roads such as Route 116, that we as residents should also be paying attention to regional issues as they involve commuter traffic.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 13, 2007.

The forum adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary