TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION

 

September 26, 2007

Approved October 24th, 2007

 

Commission Members Present:  Kay Ballard, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Johanna White.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Jean Isham, George Bedard, Joe Donegan, Nancy Norris.

 

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

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.  Carrie noted an article in which Smart Growth Vermont cited a development in Middlebury as a good example of smart village growth.  She thought the project in Middlebury may be of interest to our planning efforts.

 

Revised draft of Village Growth Re-zoning proposal

Alex said the original proposed 6-unit base density for the village core has been dropped to 4 units (a 33% decrease).  He noted critics of the decision who said less density will make housing more expensive.  He thinks this number is a reasonable balance.  Fred said he was concerned about the reduction; his thought was to keep density high, allowing other parameters to spur creative developments with smaller units in general.  Alex said he thought the public was not ready for a change from 2 units to 12 (maximum) units.  He said he researched densities in surrounding towns; a 12-unit base (with no incentives available) was the highest he found.  He thought bringing the base density down under 12 as a maximum was appropriate for Hinesburg.

 

Fred agreed with the decision to exclude roads in the unbuildable land calculation.  The group talked about the possible effect of higher densities on a smaller piece of acreage due to the unbuildable land calculation.  Alex clarified wetlands are included, stream buffer areas are not.

 

Alex said the maximum density is reduced only for the village district, resulting in only a 15% drop in potential buildout.  He reviewed base density charts updated with the new 33% reduction in village district zoning.  The maximum buildout for the entire growth center to the base density is 395 units.  The maximum buildout including all possible incentives is 870 units.  Sewer upgrades will allow for 600 residential units (in addition to other commercial units).

 

Alex reviewed the incentive charts, describing them as an “a la carte” plan.  He noted the commercial bonus for 3+ points was not at 100% so as to not build too many residential units in commercial areas.  He said no changes were made to the bonus section.

 

Alex described two changes to the proposal involving stream setbacks.  He gave details of the decision to remove one streams from the original map. Alex agreed with property owners that one previously-mapped water features wase not a stream.  The southerly stream running from the Quinn property is intermittent but definitely an established stream.  The other is a 3”-4” wide ditch that served as a drainage solution for the Lane family’s yard.

 

Alex said he added language to the proposal regarding uses within setbacks, based on a recommendation from Andrea Morgante that they be managed proactively by the PC.  Carrie thought a physical description of setbacks was lacking, but otherwise liked the language and thought it was addition of uses and thought they were needed and well-written.  She asked whether gravel parking lots would be allowed in setbacks.  Alex asked if anyone recalled adding the paved parking lot provision, and why the group did not also include gravel parking lots.  Fred thought it was to serve as a disincentive to pave surfaces.  The group discussed various surfaces and alternative materials that may be more permeable than a gravel lot.  Alex said existing parking lots would be grandfathered.  He noted a provision that provided conditional use review for a variety of encroachments (Article 2, Section 2.1.3 #5).  Carrie agreed to investigate current parking lot areas for setback requirements.

 

Fred had a general concern about the volume of language regarding stream setbacks, feeling practical solutions could potentially be hindered by too many regulations.  Alex talked about the conditional use provision, that you could be given a permit for non-complying plans if you could prove there was no feasible alternative.  The group discussed those areas that would be put in non-compliance by enacting the stream setbacks as written (Lantmans was used as an example).  Alex thought the rationale behind varying stream setbacks was to recognize the differences in the waterways (some are natural, others don’t have those qualities).  He suggested taking out the highly managed streams.  Joe said those streams are the headwaters of the more natural streams.

 

Fred said there should be considerations for flat land where the water would not move fast.  He felt flat areas don’t need to be scrutinized in the same way as other areas.  Alex said he agreed with Joe’s comments about headwater streams in the village, and suggested indicating downstream restoration areas on the official map, in order to move forward with other village projects.  A wetland area on the Russell property was discussed.

 

Landscaping standards were discussed.  Alex said landscaping was discussed at the community forum.  He referred to South Burlington regulations that calculated the required square footage of landscaping in new developments.  He said very little guidance regarding landscaping was provided in our current regulations and that this new language addressed that.  Fred said a recommendation for the hiring of a professional landscaper would be preferable to a requirement.  He said he would like to see what the DRB would like accomplished by any plan, then to allow developers to come up with a plan that meets that set of standards.  He thought this would keep projects affordable.  Johanna asked what would be provided to the DRB to aide them in scrutinizing a non-professionally rendered plan.  Alex said South Burlington does provide materials that picture desired landscaping that are very detailed and clear.  Fred thought properly executed landscaping could be tied to a certificate of occupancy.

 

Alex asked for comments on a minimum spending requirement for landscaping.  Fred suggested if individuals wished to use their own planting (and thus not meet spending requirements), they could put funds into an escrow fund, to be returned only if their plantings succeeded.  Alex explained how the landscaping percentages were calculated.  Fred wanted to be sure the objectives of the property were met, not just that the landscaping spending requirement was met.

 

Allowed Use Standards were discussed.  The group agreed with all listed.  Alex noted changes to the southern Gateway district.  He said the commercial uses were removed, and the concept of a community center was added.  He reviewed other districts, stating there were not many changes.  A preliminary draft version of the official map was discussed.  Alex discussed the possible locations for recreation fields, stating there was not a lot of enthusiasm by any party for the proposed areas.  Property owners felt wetlands needed to be investigated.  The group agreed those delineations should be done.  Johanna suggested the Ross farm as a possible location for rec fields.

 

Alex discussed the green belt areas and the Quinn family’s concerns regarding Patrick Brook, mainly that its course may be re-routed in the future.  Fred said the green belt area should not be removed in anticipation of something that may not happen.  The canal was discussed; all agreed it should be kept as a viable aqueduct.  Alex said recent weather issues have led to the canal not being full, but it has been at higher levels historically.  Water diversion by landowners was discussed as being very difficult to do under state regulations.

 

Residential 1 boundaries were discussed.  Alex passed out a map of the eastern 100+ acres on the Quinn property.  He said the family liked the idea of having some land included in the new Res district, but preferred that land be developed in the forested area.  Alex looked at three options for revisions, each adding different sized pieces to Res 1.  The Quinns preferred the 107-acre proposal.  Alex said he relayed the benefits of developing closer to Mechanicsville Road.  The Quinns said they wished to protect the open fields.  Fred said if the forest was developed, the meadow areas would be viewed by those people living there, looking westward.  Alex questioned the value of keeping the meadows for the community at large. 

 

Carrie suggested leaving that area as rural residential and to change the western area of the Quinn property, connecting CVU to the village.  Fred suggested covenants as a way to protect land from development.  Joe thought there was a fairness issue at hand.  The eastern Quinn property is a significant potion of the residential build out projections.  The more we put weight on this particular piece of land the more other land owners will be stressed.  The extension of the sewer lines to the eastern side was discussed.  Johanna and Alex said on-site septic for that area had been discussed only.  Alex described new possibilities that could be discussed with the Quinns.  Joe said further expansion of this area did not have to be considered right away.  He would like to go with the density we have now, with possible revisions later on. 

 

Population and build-out projections were discussed.  Alex prepared a Questions and Answers document that addressed citizens’ questions of the 5-23-07 meeting.

 

Other Business

 

Minutes of the September 12th meetings

Johanna MOVED to approve the minutes as amended; Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0.

 

A community forum is planned for the next Planning Commission meeting on October 10th, 2007.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish,

Recording Secretary