TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION
Village Growth Project Forum

 

October 10, 2007

DRAFT

 

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

 

NOTE: there is 1 vacancy on the Commission due to Joe Donegan’s resignation.

 

Commission Members Absent:  none.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Jonathan Trefry, Rocky Martin, Barbara Lyman, David Lyman, Wayne Bissonette, George Munson, Karla Munson, George Dameron, Kris Perlee, Dorothy Pellett, Carl Bohlen, David Fenn, Howard Russell, Andrea Morgante, Sue Barden, Roger Kohn, Miriam Adams, Steve Giroux, Bill Marks, Ken Brown, Carol Jenkins, Rodman Cory, Ginny Roberts, Geoff Gevalt, Kathy Beyer, Peter Erb, Kristy McLeod, Tom Hackett, Dick Jordan, Joe Donegan.

 

The forum began at approximately 7:40 p.m.

 

Alex explained he would review material discussed at the May 23rd, 2007 forum and present a second draft document highlighting updates.  He started with a review of the Hinesburg Town Plan, describing it as a land use planning tool.  He also reviewed planning efforts to date, then provided the following timeline “What’s Happens From Here?”:

 

-         10/10 – 2nd public forum to discuss revised draft of proposal

-         10/24 – The Planning Commission discusses feedback, refines proposal and sends it to the Select Board for action.

-         11/6 – Community Bond Vote for town wastewater system upgrade and expansion.  Alex noted this vote is tied to (and will influence) the rezoning proposal.

-         The Select Board reviews proposal, makes minor changes, and holds at least one formal hearing to get feedback prior to taking action to adopt or reject zoning changes.

 

After reviewing the draft proposal, Alex introduced a draft “Official Town Map”, a work-in-process document that proposes to site future public infrastructure and amenities that would serve, if adopted, as a legal document to guide development.  He explained the map was not part of the rezoning proposal and it would be voted on separately.  He said while the map needs more work, it seeks to address citizen’s ideas expressed at the last forum.

 

Bill Marks asked about public parks, and the possibility of an official map not being adopted in time to protect desirable areas from development.  Alex said the process and timeline to refine and adopt an official map is do-able within the next year.  He explained that even if new zoning regulations were adopted AND the wastewater bond vote passed, permitting is a long process, providing enough time for the Planning Commission to get such a map settled.

 

Sue Barden asked if the proposed list of public infrastructure (included in the evening’s presentation) was part of the proposal.  Alex said no, that the list was part of the official mapping process running concurrently with the rezoning proposal.

 

Howdy Russell asked if the expansion of the village into more districts (each with different zoning regulations) would be a multi-step process.  Alex said changes to the core village district would go into effect immediately; the expansion districts’ changes would be delayed.  Howdy asked if the Select Board would approve the entire document contingent on the sewer upgrade, or just the village core changes.  Alex said he would consult legal opinion on the question.

 

Kathy Beyer asked if there was a connection with the higher densities proposed in this zoning to a lowering of densities in the more rural areas of Hinesburg.  Alex said no, that work would begin on rural districts after the village proposal process was completed.  Kris Perlee asked if the proposal’s density projections included current development projects already approved (but not built).  Alex said approved projects awaiting construction were factored in as existing development, so the density projections for new development potential do not include these projects.

 

Roger Kohn asked about protection for historic buildings.  Alex said provisions exist now for buildings built in 1940 or earlier, and explained the rezoning sought to protect existing protective measures and add others to allow new structures to fit in.  Roger suggested the Town Plan contain language for maintaining historic buildings.  He then asked about traffic flow and the construction of new roads.  Alex reviewed improvements happening right now (Silver Street and  Charlotte Road intersections) and also future changes including a new west-side road system.  Roger asked if any formal traffic studies had been done.  Alex gave details of a Route 116 scoping study done a few years ago.  He noted north-south commuter traffic and said it will be inevitable (and desirable) that traffic slows through town as development increases.

 

George Dameron asked whether the Select Board had run any scenarios on quality of life for village residents, stating he is concerned about very dense traffic flow.  Alex described a Regional Planning Commission project that modeled state highway corridors and found they were more congested.  Joe Iadanza described details of the project, stating it found the busiest section of Route 116 (through Hinesburg) was between Charlotte Road and Mechanicsville Road.  He said the development being proposed is focused north of that tight spot and traffic generated from development would not be adding to existing commuter traffic.  He also said the proposal plans for greater walkability in the town, so residents in new developments could walk south to access shops and amenities, rather than drive.

 

Geoff Gevalt asked if any studies were done on traffic intending to bypass Route 7.  Rodman Cory thought there was not other good bypass to Route 7 other than going through Hinesburg.  Rodman Cory asked about a previous plan to build a west side connecting road from Charlotte Rd. to Shelburne Rd. (behind Saputo).  Alex noted it was an oversight, that it should be indicated on the map, but not something possible in the near future due to Saputo’s facilities.  Rodman asked if the map would cover just the village or entire town.  Alex said just the village for now.

 

Rodman wished to address the school system, whether more facilities were needed to accommodate the increase in families.  Alex said the PC had reviewed statewide school projections and trends and decided it was unlikely there would be a future need for new facilities, due to already-available capacity in the schools and the demographic info.  Rodman asked about wetlands in the proposed new districts.  Alex said the PC was aware of unbuildable areas, and is planning for regulations that would provide flexibility in concentrating development in buildable areas.  Miriam Adams suggested population trends may be shifting, not decreasing, and suggested new school facilities may be necessary.

 

Peter Erb asked what facilities and retail shops were planned to accommodate population growth.  He also noted that the relationship between the passing of the bond vote and these proposed changes.  Alex said the wastewater upgrade expense will be covered by the tax payers regardless of future growth, but that future growth is anticipated, and new wastewater allocation and hook up fees will help to offset how much of the annual bond payment that must come from general property taxes.

 

Ken Brown asked about stream buffers, whether to encourage property owners to protect them or mandate protections.  Alex explained grandfather rules would only allow for already-cleared vegetation, that landowners would not be able to clear vegetation any further.

 

Carl Bohlen asked if this proposal would shift development to the village, or accelerate growth in Hinesburg overall, as the village core became a more desirable center to live near (not in).  Alex said the Q&A section of the proposal covered that topic (available online), but that some scenarios can’t be predicted.  He stated again that the village proposal was not tied to rural planning, but that it created incentives to draw growth to the village.  He noted that the Fire and Police Departments are doing strategic planning to ensure their facilities and services can keep up with projected growth.

 

Jon Trefry asked about PRD’s in the NW district, to ensure green space is set aside..  Fred said there is every incentive to do a PRD; Alex said residential development in that district was required to do a PRD.  He also discussed lot coverage, stating the village maximum is 75% while the NW district maximum is 60% (meaning 40% of a parcel must be kept free of impervious surfaces.)

 

Kathy Beyer asked about density in the mixed use areas, whether a requirement to build mixed commercial and residential building (2-story) would be best to ensure the desired density was achieved in those areas.  Alex discussed mixed use buildings and how density would be calculated for residential.  Joe I. explained how buildable land calculations could work.  Kathy said she was concerned there was a mis-match between the goal of high density and what the district allows for, particularly by not requiring 2nd story buildings.  Alex said building types could be required, but the PC has not considered that yet.

 

Andrea Morgante asked whether Commerce Park should stay strictly commercial or be changed to mixed-use; Alex said he thought Commerce Park functions as a commercial area and the plan recognizes existing development there will not disappear.  He said a portion of that commercial district is proposed to change to mixed-use.  Richard Jordan suggested making more areas commercial; Alex pointed out mixed-use districts (e.g. The NE district would have residential, light manufacturing and limited retail.)  Richard asked if there should be a provision restricting district(s) from being entirely developed with residential units.  Alex said the zoning regulations are not meant to be prescriptive but to set forth certain expectations for the districts.

 

Ginny Roberts asked whether the proposal should be passed without rural planning.  Alex said the PC did not wish to put off village decisions, that the more the town can plan to absorb growth right now, the better.  Bill Marks encouraged people to send comments about rural planning to the Conservation Commission, which is currently working on green space planning.

 

Peter noted that as new development occurs, only those applications that need to appear before the DRB are scrutinized.  He is concerned about inappropriate development on smaller lots, as there are fewer controls over them.  He suggested as planning moves towards encouraging smaller lot sizes (which don’t fall under DRB review), perhaps regulations should be written to address those applications too.

 

Roger Kohn said he thought quality of life issues had not been examined fully, as to whether life in town would be better with increased growth.  Alex said he strongly felt it would, and gave examples of improvements such as walkability, public spaces and an increase in employers wishing to locate here and providing local jobs to residents who could avoid commuting elsewhere.  He said the quality of life does not have to stay the same, but could be equally enjoyable, just different.

 

Miriam Adams asked whether we needed to absorb growth, or if our town could decide to control it.  Joe I. felt our town would miss out on advantages brought on by development (public amenities and infrastructure).  Carrie Fenn said it was not something that would happen immediately but should be planned for.  Fred Haulenbeek spoke to the affordable housing issue, and suggested that if Hinesburg restricted development, it risked becoming an exclusive community that could not provide housing for workers (school, fire, police, etc.) this town needs.

 

Geoff Gevalt thanked the Planning Commission members for their work.  He asked whether the Official Map could and should be tied to the village growth proposal.

 

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 24th 2007.

 

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

 

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary