TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISION
July 11,
2007
Approved August 8, 2007
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, George
Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris, Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent: Kay Ballard, Joe
Donegan, Fred Haulenbeek.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Frank
Koss, Debbie Koss, Wendy Koenig, Dawn Perreault, Alyssa Lasher, Carrie Harlow,
Donna Constanineau, George Dameron, John Kiedaisch, Gerry Livingston, Jonathan
Trefry, Jennifer Hunter, Caleb Hanson, Ann Brush, Rodman Cory, Rolf Kielman,
Morgante Pell, Andrea Morgante, Peter Erb, Lea Cassidy.
The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.
I. Guest Speaker – Planning for public spaces as a
community grows – lessons from South Burlington – Juli Beth Hinds, South
Burlington Planning Director
Alex invited Juli Beth
Hinds to speak to the Planning Commission and residents regarding her efforts
in South Burlington (SB) town planning process. Her focus was on village center planning and tapping into 3 many
areas of public resources: 1) Regulatory tools such as an Official Map; 2) Investment tools such as impact fees and capital
budgets; and 3) the use of planning in
a targeted way.
Juli Beth displayed the
SB Official Map, stating it was a document legalized by Vermont-state statute
(Title 24, Chapter 117, in the 4380 sections) http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117
that had the same effect as a zoning
bylaw. She described it as a public
geographic statement of desired infrastructure or improvement on public and
private property. Such improvements
include roadways and connections, paths, parks, open space, etc. If a property owner wishes to develop in an
area marked for such an improvement, they must either allow space for the improvement
or give the town the option to develop it.
The town then has 120 days to either pass on the option or proceed by purchasing
the land at fair market value. Juli Beth
said the map gives a formal legal obligation to negotiate with private
landowners. Putting something on a map
sets up a planning conversation that otherwise may not have occurred.
General areas of
development may be indicated on the map with circles, when exact future plans
are not known. Maps do not expire
unless an expiration date is written into it.
SB has had an official map since 1962 last revised in Feb. 2004.
John Kiedaisch asked about the adoption process. Juli Beth said it was identical to the
zoning public hearing process, taking about 3-4 months. The Select Board votes on the map, unless
the town is an Australian ballot town. Gerry
Livingston asked about compensating the landowner. Juli Beth said the process was related to proportional nexus and
rough proportionality, then the negotiation process comes into play. Condemnation proceedings require the town to
begin the purchase process.
Fundraising/investment options
were then discussed:
1. Impact fees – recreation and fire were used for park
land purchases in SB.
2. A zoning requirement for a certain amount of money
to be spent on landscape or hardscape; Juli laid out the fee table that SB uses
(3% of the first $500K of a project, 2% of the next $500K, and 1% thereafter). Such money may also be used for public art
in a village center.
3. Requiring sidewalks, recreation paths or a
combination as part of all development projects ensures there is a zoning-based
effort
4. In SB, a $0.01 property tax was approved in 2000 by
residents for an Open Space Acquisition Fund.
Juli Beth added that anticipation
notes can be written against property tax revenues.
Planning Commission
members were advised to specify what “open space” meant, whether it was passive
or developed, recreational space, and to just say no to wetlands donated as
otherwise unbuildable land. Juli Beth
suggested written language in the Town Plan for what constitutes open space,
such as “the town intends to have a usable green, flat area with a picnic
structure”.
Andrea Morgante asked
about a specific parcel that was preserved without the use of an official
map. Juli Beth said an open space strategy report led to that acquisition. Parcels were identified as areas of focus, “cornerstone”
pieces that were important to the ecology of the city. She explained that an easement had been
given to the town for those lands before the 2004 map revision. She added that some parcels that have
ecological functions are not necessarily eligible for placement on a map, for
their ecological values alone (i.e. no public benefit).
George Dameron felt the
Planning Commission should put together such a map as quickly as possible. Juli Beth agreed, stating it was important
to move quickly, particularly with road connections and systems. She said a map could be created for a
specific area of the town such as the town center, but that each time the map
was changed, it had to go through the adoption process. She said work was done on the SB map over
many years, with contributions from individuals and groups. She said the map has become an aid in the
DRB process, for both the developers and town.
It gives an element of predictability, and that everyone benefits
because it makes plans solid.
Andrea Morgante asked how
stormwater issues were represented on such a map. Juli Beth said stormwater improvements have not been put on the
map since they generally involve small-scale specific easements. She added there was an overriding obligation
to a 2002 stormwater statewide document.
The issue of a town-wide stormwater plan was discussed, as different
approaches (town-wide versus site-specific) are currently under debate.
The rest of the meeting
was turned into a brainstorming session, where participants were asked add to a
list of infrastructure items (started by the PC). The resulting list can be viewed online:
http://www.hinesburg.com/minutes/minutes07/07-0711-PublicSpacesandFacilities.doc
The following comments and
suggestions were made throughout the meeting:
-
Frank K. – put a park
and ride on the side that the cars are commuting from. Alex agreed that was one approach, but then others
would have to backtrack through town to use it. He added the PC feels a distributed model makes the most sense,
with a centralized hub and satellite locations on the south end.
-
John K. – asked about
the Thistle Hill connection; Alex explained that the idea is to create
connectivity between Mechanicsville Road and Lavigne Hill/Buck Hill Road neighborhoods.
-
Peter – have the
Conservation Commission analyze wildlife patterns through the village, to make
sure road and path connections don’t break those
-
George D. – stated the
Village Steering Committee believes sidewalks and bike paths should be given
maximum priority, as well as the geographic core of the village.
-
Rodman C. – felt some
connections should address how to cross roadways
-
Jennifer H. – felt there
should be a plan for sidewalks all the way down Rte. 116
-
Dawn P. – felt sidewalks
should be prioritized over trails
-
Johanna W. – suggested
changing the name of Rte. 116 to Main Street; Andrea thought it could be
changed through the Select Board. Jon
Trefrey added that the town might wish to take over sections of Rte. 116.
-
Caleb H. – suggested expanding
the 4-way at Rte. 116 and CVU Roads.
Alex said that intersection, along with 2 others (at Lantmans and at
Silver Street) have been identified and improvement plans are underway.
-
John K. – suggested a path
connection from town into more wild surrounding areas
-
The location of the skate
park was discussed; Alex said a decision had been made to keep it, possibly in
the Creekside area
-
Jon T. – felt Hinesburg
should locate an area for a future school, even if only for planning purposes. Alex said projection studies regarding
school population, etc. would be important to include in this planning process. Peter noted that if the school moved, it
would free up that building/land for another purpose.
-
Town Hall and its
offices were discussed; Alex said it is in a good central location, and sufficient
for now.
-
Rodman C. – asked whether
a community center and library could be together in one building. Alex said yes, that it was being discussed.
-
John K. asked about
facilities such as the Highway Department buildings, the recycling center, the
sewage treatment plant, etc. Alex said
those were related to the capitol budget process.
-
Donna C. felt a mixed-use
destination zone would be good, a public space that also included commercial
entities like an art space or public historical center mixed with a farmer’s
market, café, etc.
-
Andrea M. – spoke of
an “urban forest” concept, with street trees and overall green infrastructure
-
John K. – would like
to preserve and utilize the VAST trail as much as possible
-
Peter E. – suggested recreation
fields would get more use if lighting were installed
-
Gerry L. – suggested making
use of “white” winter spaces, such as a sledding hill and larger skating area
-
Karen C. – would like a
toddler playground and/or a playground that was accessible to all community
members during the day (the HCS playground had restricted public hours.)
-
Caleb H. – suggested community-scale
wireless cell and Internet coverage
-
Donna C. – compared NRG
to Yestermorrow, as a business with the potential for resident use and
education.
Maps were displayed,
including one that had been marked with preliminary suggestions made by PC
members for desired public infrastructure.
A green belt area was discussed, particularly whether pedestrian use
would still be allowed. Carrie
suggested a looping ability of pedestrian connectivity for the belt, possibly
connecting with the Russell trails. The
question of how to cross Rte. 116 was discussed. Lot 15 in Commerce Park was discussed, as was the adjacent land
owned by the Giroux front Rte. 116, in terms of a possible location for a town
green and connecting access to the fire and police stations (also possible site
of a new community center and other public spaces/buildings) across Rte. 116. The fields owned by the Munson family, south
of town on Rte. 116 were discussed as a possible location for recreation
fields, as was the area west of the proposed “West Side” road.
Minutes of the June 27th PC Meeting
Johanna MOVED to approve the minutes as written. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion
PASSED 6 – 0.
The group discussed how to proceed with the village growth
area initiative, whether zoning changes vs. greenspace and infrastructure planning
should be prioritized.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July
24, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary
SEE ATTACHMENT:
Main
Categories:
1.
Park
& Ride
2.
Mass
Transit Hub
3.
Sidewalks
& Bikepaths
-
Rte.
116 (west side) – Charlotte Rd. to HCS
-
Rte.
116 Lyman Meadows Rd.
-
Rte.
116 (east side) – Mechanicsville Rd. to Commerce Rd.
-
Mechanicsville
Rd. (east side) – Village Heights Rd. to Plaza
-
Rte.
116 (east side) – Buck Hill Rd. to Lyman Meadows Rd.
-
Rte.
116 (both sides) – Commerce St. to Shelburne Falls Rd.
4. Recreation Paths &
Trails
-
Lyman
Meadows to Kelley’s Field
-
Buck
Hill Rd. to Rte. 116 through South Farm development
-
CVU
& CVU Rd. to Commerce St.
-
VAST
Trail
5.
Future
Roads
-
Mechanicsville
Rd. to Lavigne Hill Rd.
-
“West
Side Rd.” – Farmall Drive to Shelburne Falls Rd.
-
Riggs
Rd. to CVU Rd. – 2 paths, east of hill and west of hill
-
“Center
Rd.” – Lantmans to Rte. 116 behind Hart and Mead
6.
Crosswalks
– crossing roads safely
1.
Bandshell/Amphitheater
2.
Multigenerational
Center – “Community Center”
3.
Fire
and Police Station – co-location and expansion
4.
New
Library Location – more central
5.
Skate
Park
6.
Future
School
7.
Indoor
Pool
1.
Town
Green
2.
Recreation
Fields and/or Complex/Outdoor Swimming Pool
3.
Farmer’s
Market Venue (larger)
4.
Community
Gardens (vegetable gardens)
5.
Pocket
Parks
6.
Dog
Park
7.
Greenbelts
– Riparian, along streams; also along a portion of Rte. 116
1.
Green/Renewable
Energy Locations & Technology
2.
Integrated
Elderly Housing
3.
Village
Center Commercial Anchor, e.g. Lantmans
4.
Wireless
Cell & Internet Coverage