TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

January 9, 2008

Approved January 23, 2008

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

Commission Members Absent: none.

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

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Matt Baldwin, Dan Baldwin, Gerry Livingston, Lisa Godfrey, Ted Godfrey.

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

Greenspace Plan update

Gerry Livingston with the Conservation Commission reviewed several maps of Hinesburg, noting data taken from the maps, surveys, etc. are being integrated into the Greenspace Plan. Maps were described as follows:

“Aquatic Resources” – showed flood hazard areas as determined by FEMA, and wetland areas as determined by independent research that had been done in the past 10 years.

“Significant Habitats”– data provided by the Fish and Wildlife service showed 1) core forest areas (large tracts of forest considered core habitats particularly for large mammals); 2) rare, threatened or endangered species and 3) clay plains areas.

“Significant Natural Areas” – integrated core forest data, E911 data and distances to streams and land cover in order to identify important habitat. Habitat was further divided into 2 categories: 1) existing habitats not overly threatened and 2) critical areas (mainly connections of waterways, riparian streams). Gerry said this map in particular allows the Conservation Commission to prioritize their efforts. Alex noted area blocks were large without detailed data shown. Gerry said the map is not intended for use at the parcel scale. Alex asked what animal habitats were being considered; Gerry said large mammals (bear, deer, moose).

Carrie asked about the area at the border with Starksboro, off Rte. 116 (as it was identified to be in the “critical” area). The group noted it was the same area under discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting. Gerry said it was designated “critical” due to the Hollow Brook connection to the LaPlatte River. Gerry then talked about the town of Charlotte’s priorities, that they are trying to encourage Hinesburg to maintain forest along their shared border. Jean asked about the Monkton border; Gerry discussed wetlands and upland forests in that area and how the two habitats were directly connected.

“Composite Map of Valued Areas, from the Oct. 8, 2007 Public Workshop” – Gerry said data was derived from a small sample of residents, but hopes a newly-published survey will help to broaden the information. He said this map noted values deemed important by the community, such as scenic vistas, recreational opportunities, trail systems, etc. Gerry stressed that the Hinesburg Greenspace Plan strives to address these social values in addition to habitat concerns.

Gerry described the Commission’s efforts, stating the CC has been working over a year on this plan. He said they recognize the need for input now from the CC, so that PC members can begin to make decisions. He reviewed Town Plan objectives. He then gave data regarding large parcels in Hinesburg and said they are becoming rare. He reviewed different illustrations that showed a typical farm developed in either a conventional and clustered pattern. He raised the question of how to encourage forest management plans among landowners of small forested lots, perhaps by pooling resources together to help individuals maintain their forested land. He described “conservation development” as a concept that allowed development of a parcel at the same conventional density but guided the siting of the houses in order to protect the environment. Referring back to the “cluster” illustration, it showed houses grouped by “single loading of streets” (with houses on one side of the main development road only). He said views of the original farm and surrounding area are maintained and open space areas are managed.

Fred asked how funds were generated to maintain the original farmland and what would happen if the farm operation became un-viable. Gerry said homeowners in that development would pay for that adjacent, conserved land in the cost of their housing. He noted that the marketability of homes in such a development is as high or higher than conventional homes. Fred spoke to affordability, whether adding the extra expense of purchasing the open land allowed for AH units. Gerry said the developer could be provided with incentives to achieve a higher density with smaller lots. He said he would return with data regarding the success and affordability of such conservation developments.

Jean asked about managing forested properties, whether a tax advantage could be afforded to people who put their privately-owned forested land areas together to come up with enough space for management. Gerry said Williston has explored the idea at the town level to streamline the current use program. They do not allow multiple landowners to team up, but do encourage small landowners to participate if they provide a suitable land use management plan.

Jean noted that the Commission has generally discussed affordable housing as being located near municipal services. She questioned whether building projects in rural areas could benefit from savings without access to municipal services.

Rural Area development densities

Alex said he had further reviewed the two town build out analyses. He noted that higher numbers from the 2005 analysis were inflated because they did not factor in prime ag soil limitations. He asked the group to focus on the 2002 analysis. As an addendum to that document, he backed out information regarding various conservation projects (Garvey farm, Bissonette, Isham, etc.). He said in the agricultural district alone, by going through and eliminating those parcels, it took 155 units away from potential development (from 1227 possible units to 1072). RRII also changed (from 655 possible units to 619). Alex said he thought numbers were still large compared to those being discussed for the Village Growth area.

He reviewed data found in the 2002 analysis for the French property as an example. He said analysis results indicated there were 200 acres of total area to work with, but in reality there were only 82, due to various natural resource constraints (prime agricultural soils, wetlands, etc.). With a build factor (the siting of infrastructure in a development) of 85% applied for this parcel, the total potential buildout came down to 33 potential new units.

George thought the numbers were still inflated due to septic limitations, and also that soil information was wrong. Jean thought planning should not be done based on septic considerations; Alex agreed, noting the state took away a town’s ability to manage land use through septic through a statewide set of septic rules. He added that not only do we not have much knowledge of septic capacities (one does not know capacity until an area is dug), but that the town also has no control over new technologies that are added to State’s list of approved systems. He noted the French family has done preliminary septic capacity tests and found suitable septic for 20 houses on the 116-acre portion on the north side of Drinkwater Road. There is likely additional septic capacity for the 70+ acre portion of the property on the south side of Drinkwater Road.

Alex then displayed a map on the table and asked if the group wished to take the approach of dividing the large rural districts into smaller zones. He suggested it might be easier to develop baseline development densities if the large agricultural and RRII districts were divided into more logical pieces. If the group wished to take this approach, he said there were several methods they could use to determine new zoning boundaries:

1) Look at historical development patterns; previously developed areas may be expanded, serving to break the 2 large rural districts into a series of districts. Jean reminded the group of a previous conversation about transitional districts

2) Draw a bull’s eye pattern from the village core that tied development density to the linear distance from the village center

3) Identify areas that are associated with roads, particularly dirt roads.

Alex said any method or combination of methods could then also tie densities to the presence of natural resources. Carrie mentioned the area south of Shelburne pond as notable for its wetlands.

George thought it was best to leave the rural districts alone. Alex said the group should at least try to draft clearer regulations in order to indicate what base densities are, so that everyone understands those densities before entering into the DRB process. George said there is a test of what a landowner/developer has to work with on each parcel, namely septic. He suggested codifying the intentions of the zoning plans for densities, which he thought were to simply take a parcel’s acreage and divide it by the current minimum lot size for the district. Jean said soils could not alone control where building could be allowed. Nancy said the DRB would not allow development to the fullest potential even if land on a parcel was all perkable.

Alex suggested using E911 existing development patterns as a way to inform what those areas might be in the future. He said those patterns mean something now, that new districts could be logically grouped existing districts. Jean asked if regulations should allow for area-based densities. Fred thought area-based density provided flexibility and made sense, but that when a certain unit density was determined for a certain property, more overlays would come to bear on the configuration of where one could site units. He thought the PC must do its best to ensure the landowner can do the fullest amount as determined by area-based density, or the regulations would be rendered moot. George said wetlands are state controlled and that the main constraint to development is septic. He said probabilities for septic potential in certain areas could be developed. Jean spoke to a development’s impact on dirt roads and their related costs to town and taxpayers. She said while a village developer has to pay to build infrastructure, a dirt road developer does not. Joe said he thought clustering was a great tool that ought to be incented. He said the old zoning should be left in place as an option, with an alternative option that gave bonus densities for open-space and clustering. He said a parcel could be developed with either density-neutral units or higher density-incented units through clustering; this would provide the same economic benefit and more open space.

Jean asked if forested areas should be treated differently than agricultural land. The group discussed managed land tracts and incentives for keeping those.

Jean asked for an opinion on larger districts vs. smaller. Joe preferred larger. Alex said the conversation was not only about tools for developers, but about how much development we are planning for. He stated there is no right answer, but believes some sort of base density numbers are needed for each zoning district to make the area-based density option work, and that we should be clear about this at the February 13th public forum. Jean thought people would be looking for that information. Alex explained he understood the agricultural 2-acre (and RRII 3-acre) lot minimum was intended to regulate lot size, not density. The Act 250 10-acre lot phenomenon was discussed. Nancy said it is hard to come up with a number that fits every parcel. Alex suggested the PC could try to recognize those differences with smaller districts. He spoke to previous boards’ intent that Hinesburg was never meant to be developed to 2- and 3-acre zoning. Alex said that density figures have never been set and that making regulations clearer would actually be a way for landowners to argue from a point of strength. Joe said the take-outs are not clear; he said to codify the densities with what some people think densities should be, but mandate take-outs. Joe described examples of constraints that are not clear for landowners and said take-out rules need to be equal. George said a large parcel does not have to be developed solely in a cluster pattern, that development could be a mix of cluster and conventional patterns. The consensus of the Board was that the Agricultural and RRII districts should not be split into smaller zoning districts for the purpose of defining densities.

Village Growth Rezoning Proposal

Alex reviewed final draft revisions for the VGRP. The group discussed signage in the northern gateway area (point #5), whether “free standing commercial signs SHALL be limited”, not “SHOULD” be limited. Alex said although the town already had comprehensive sign regulations they did not prevent single signs from being erected for each business, even if businesses were adjacent/closely located. He wanted to avoid a “row” effect of signage. George thought the sign ordinance should be relied on. He suggested limiting signs to the access sides of buildings. The group agreed on the sentence “Individual free-standing commercials signs will be limited.”

Carrie moved to forward the proposed village growth zoning and subdivision regulation revisions to the Selectboard for action, as described in the October 10, 2007 public hearing material and the final revisions outlined in the summary discussed tonight. Nancy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.

Other Business

George MOVED to approve the December 12, 2007 minutes as written. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0. Alex said Shelburne is proposing zoning changes; he offered those changes up for reading.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 23, 2007. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish