TOWN OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 28,
2007
Approved January 9, 2008
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, George
Bedard,
Commission Members Absent: Kay Ballard, Nancy
Norris.
NOTE: there is 1
vacancy on the Commission due to Joe Donegan’s resignation.
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.
Rural Planning Project
Alex passed out a summary document from previous rural planning efforts (2001-2002, working with Burnt Rock Associates), explaining how the documents, other studies and software tools could be useful to current efforts. He asked members to create a project timeline and reviewed upcoming meeting agendas. Jean asked whether a proposal should be mapped out and then brought to the public, or if the group should hold a public informational meeting prior to creating such a proposal. Alex commented on forums that took place before the village planning project. The group agreed to create a list of rural planning “talking points” they felt should be addressed before and during any informational meeting; this list is as follows:
1. Should dense development in the village be tied
to a restriction of development in the town’s rural areas? Feedback from
the forum was discussed. (also see #9 below)
2. Should the transfer of development rights (from property in one district to another) be allowed? Jean thought this would be extremely difficult, and felt the group needed to explain why.
3. Should cluster patterns of development (parcels divided into small clusters of house sites with shared open spaces) be encouraged in the rural areas, as opposed to traditional patterns (parcels divided evenly by larger house sites)? The group discussed state sewer permitting.
4. How can/should zoning density language be clarified for landowners/developers and neighbors/other interested parties? The group discussed the expectation of landowners that their land may be subdivided using the minimum lot size (per district) calculation, often without knowledge and/or consideration of other factors that bear on the DRB’s decision-making process. George thought regulations should allow for a strict acreage divided by minimum lot size calculation. Alex asked whether the intent of the zoning language was to get the maximum number of lots out of a parcel, or to simply state a minimum lot size, not to be considered a de facto lot size. He thought language needed to codify something that approached what the PC and DRB were expecting. George thought landowners had expectations when they purchased property that they would be able to subdivide it someday. He thought regulations should not restrict development, but rather make clear statements about development styles, open space, etc.
5. How will intense rural development affect the town’s dirt roads? Jean said maintenance on those roads is expensive, and questioned who should be responsible for improving roads as development projects are approved. Alex said the group could consider defining goals and zoning for smaller, neighborhood-like areas within the large rural districts. He referred to the forest overlay district process; the group discussed what they thought did and did not work about that process. Fred thought this planning process should put forth a strong definition of the “outcome” (what the community wanted for the rural areas of Hinesburg), suggesting that would help to avoid conflict later. The group discussed the development history of Hinesburg, and whether that should be allowed to continue in a similar way, or with changes.
6. What steps should be taken to determine the majority interest(s) of the community? The group discussed what types of outreach they could do, including traditional forums, smaller get-togethers at a variety of locales and doing a survey. Alex thought the group could research raw rural densities in surrounding towns and counties. Jean asked whether the group should consider hiring a consultant. Alex thought the group had already done solid work leading up to a proposal, that it was more important to get the public to take ownership of the proposal. George suggested the members of the PC articulate their stance on issues surrounding the project; Alex said members should understand how the public wants the board to stand on those issues.
7. Should energy efficiency requirements be included in the rural zoning? The group discussed a few opposing factors (the desirability of trees for shading and screening versus a home’s potential for sun exposure.
8. Should the official map concept be carried over to the rural areas of Hinesburg? Alex thought planning for rural road improvements could be one benefit of such a map.
9. How does the village water and sewer expansion affect development in the rural areas? Joe said he did not see spillover growth (development in rural areas as a central town core becomes more attractive) as a problem, but sees the preservation of open space as a concern. He suggested giving landowners equal or better value for their land and to try to accomplish preservation goals at the same time. He thought cluster development may provide the same or better density landowners believe they have under current regulations. Carrie thought an explanation of the harm fragmentation causes should be provided in discussions with the public. Fred said the word “stewardship” suggests growth can be managed to preserve both what the community wants and what it will need. Alex said because the regulations are unclear, a landowner doesn’t know what their development potential is now. He said in many cases, a 2-acre development pattern would never work due to the land features, soils, etc. of a particular parcel. He recommended a 10-acre pattern for rural areas. The group discussed the public’s expectation to be able to subdivide their land.
The group discussed their calendar, and determined the following:
Dec 12 –
Dec 26 – Planning Commission meeting cancelled
Jan 9 – Conservation Commission green space planning update; open discussion
Jan 23 – Open discussion
Feb 13 – Community forum
Other Business
Alex said the town did not receive a grant to work on the official map. He proposed the PC take on the project anyway, with funds requested in their budget for that effort and also for wetland delineation. The group discussed the state growth center designation and that grant process. Alex explained one benefit of the designation was the formation of tax increment finance districts, which allow towns to retain more assessment taxes locally.
The group discussed the outcome of the water bond vote and how it affected their village growth proposal. Alex thought the town may have the issue resolved within the year. George thought the proposal should not be phased as it could direct village development into desired patterns even if on-site sewer was used. Fred thought interested developers might put up funds for sewer improvements if benefits and incentives from their proposal could be realized. The group discussed phasing; Carrie said the SB had the power to phase the proposal if they wanted to; Alex confirmed the SB controls water and sewer allocation.
George MOVED to approve the November 14 minutes as written. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Fred and Jean abstaining. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: