TOWN OF
PLANNING COMMISION
September
12, 2007
Approved September 26, 2007
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay
Ballard, George Bedard, Joe Donegan, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza,
Nancy Norris, Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), David Lyman.
The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.
Zoning Administrator Re-Nomination for 3-Year Term
Alex passed out a letter written by Tom McGlenn, chair of the Development
Review Board (DRB) recommending Peter Erb’s re-nomination. Jean said Jeanne Wilson will discuss the Zoning Administrator (ZA) appointment process
with Bill Lippert and ask him to bring the issue to the state legislature. She then asked Planning Commission (PC)
members for their comments regarding Peter Erb in the role of Zoning
Administrator.
George thought the PC does not know and is not in the position to know enough about Peter’s performance. He thought there were some questions as to whether Peter was the right person for the job, and said he would support re-opening the search for a ZA with the assumption that Peter could re-apply. Alex and Jean discussed what action that Select Board (SB) would take if given that direction. Jean confirmed the individual chosen for the role was the final decision of the SB.
Jean thought the PC should give credibility to the unanimous DRB vote recommending Peter for re-nomination, Tom McGlenn’s letter, and Alex’s performance review; Johanna agreed. Joe D. said that although he serves infrequently on the DRB as an alternate, he has seen Peter on that level and can speak to what he has observed. He thinks there are always parties that are for and against the outcome of a ZA decision, with those individuals unhappy with the outcome most likely to complain. He thought that if people felt a sense of intimidation towards Peter it was due less to Peter as a person but rather to the subdivision regulation process itself. He thought Peter was thorough almost to a fault, diving into all the small details and regulations affecting a project. He thought where Peter gets negative feedback, it’s because he has tried to flesh out an application based on a thorough, well-rounded interpretation of the regulations.
Jean said the support Peter gives to
the DRB was part of his ZA job description.
Joe I. said the Town has asked the person in this role to base and form decisions
on an opinion. He thought Peter was
thorough and thought it was appropriate for him to have opinions. George spoke to a study done a few years back
regarding the DRB. He said Mike Munson
recommended keeping the zoning function separate from the DRB proceedings (and
that that advice had not been followed).
George thought Peter was too political.
Jean asked members if they have ever
discussed their comments directly with the DRB.
Kay thought public forum meetings
were not an appropriate venue for some of Peter’s comments, as such comments may
be unsettling to town people. She said
although she had a positive outcome with a personal DRB application, she has
heard her neighbors discuss what they felt to be problems (in dealing with
Peter) with their applications. Kay added
Peter made comments during her own hearing that she felt were not
appropriate.
Joe D. thought comments by staff members were allowable, as they are based on their interpretation of regulations. He related the sentiments of one DRB applicant whom Joe felt had a different interpretation of subdivision regulations (than his own, or Peter’s). He gave this as an example of how density regulations are open to interpretation, and that it’s Peter’s job to provide that. George thought density should be looked at more simply. Joe D. thought the subdivision regulations then need to be clarified, that it’s unfair to say one person is responsible for that. George said he thought the DRB has become more difficult to navigate, and recommended re-opening a search.
Johanna thought everyone’s feelings are well-known on any board or commission, as it is the nature of individuals to express them in those settings. She said she was embarrassed that Commission members were questioning the work of a town employee who is so dedicated to his job. Joe. I agreed, stating he thought Peter worked hard and had invaluable experience. He felt it was allowable for town representatives to form and submit opinions. Kay thought that unless someone has asked for clarification on a point, a board meeting is not a forum for one’s point of view. Fred thought the nature of a board is the right place for opinion and that the SB is looking for a melting pot of experience and background. Fred spoke to the vote they were being asked to render, and felt it was a flawed mechanism replacing what should be a more comprehensive evaluation process. Jean agreed, explaining the process of having the PC vote for the re-nomination of ZA did not change (as it should have) when the DRB was created.
Carrie MOVED to re-nominate Peter
Erb as Zoning Administrator for 3-year term.
Joe
Municipal
Planning Grant project ideas
Alex explained two ideas had come to his attention that may be good
candidates for grant money. The first
(submitted by Howdy Russell and the Hinesburg Trails Committee) involved a trail
network plan; the second (submitted by Rocky Martin) involved town green planning,
specifically for the area behind the fire station. Alex explained that the town could apply for up
to $15,000. Members agreed they were
both good ideas; Jean suggested combining them.
Alex felt it may be a weaker application if that approach was
taken. Jean asked which would be best to
have completed first. Alex felt the green
issue was pertinent and had some energy to it.
He said while the trails network was important, he felt residents would
be more supportive of an official map effort if they knew where key amenities
and infrastructure would be sited.
Joe I. thought the official map effort was a different initiative, and most important in terms of what the PC presented to residents as part of the village growth planning effort. He felt dealing with a wider area (encompassed by the official map) was more important than just dealing with a small parcel. Carrie felt the map initiative need not be complex, that PC members could take that on themselves.
Alex thought wetland delineation by paid consultants may be important to the map initiative; George agreed. Alex said the money could be divided between professional design services (for the map), advice on important road and trail interconnections, and some professional wetlands delineation. He felt wetland delineation supported some fine tuning of elements on the official map and provided some conceptual options for one centerpiece facility. Alex said he would present a first draft of an official map to the PC for their review and comments. George felt until the impact of wetlands on the properties in the proposed NW district was understood, the PC could not bring any official map proposal to the town anyway.
Fred reminded the group of the goal for affordable housing in the NW district, and suggested that having grant money cover the expense of wetland delineation may make a future AH project less expensive. Joe D. said wetland delineation lines change and are a moving target. George would like to see a more thorough look at the area, a “step-up” from a previous consultant’s comments (Dorie Barton). He said the 1995 state delineation found that everything north of Saputo is wetland, except for a small portion on Howdy Riggs property. He said Dorie Barton then pulled out some areas she felt were too broad-brushed by the state, but she agreed much of the village NW district has wetland constraints on it.
Alex said he did not know if grant money was available at all for wetland delineation. He felt the best approach would be to pull other initiatives into the application – the town plan, town green, affordable housing. Joe D. felt covering delineation expenses would help the affordable housing effort by proving the town could use the land at all, but would not affect an AH project’s expenses significantly. Jean asked the group if they agreed with Alex’s approach; the group did.
Other
Business
Alex said a second draft of the village growth proposal would be ready for review by next meeting. The group talked about a public hearing on October 10th. Alex passed out a letter from George Dameron regarding the VSC. He also discussed seminars being offered by the VLCT.
Minutes of the August 8th and 22nd
meetings
George MOVED to approve both sets of minutes; Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0, with Joe D. abstaining.
The next Planning Comm. meeting is
scheduled for September 24th, 2007. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary