TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION
Rural Areas Public Forum & Discussion Session

March 12, 2008

Approved March 26, 2008

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

Commission Members Absent: Jean Isham, George Bedard.

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

The group discussed the Rural Areas public forum, addressing feedback on each question:

1. What do you value most about where you currently live in Hinesburg? What attracted you and what keeps you there?

The group felt the responses were very similar from one group to another. Alex asked if this question prompted any thoughts about rural character and/or density. He thought these responses showed support for clustering but with slightly larger lot sizes, somewhere larger than ¼ or ½-acre lots but with a maximum of 5 or 6-acre lots. Johanna thought responses were split; some wanted privacy, others thought clustering was a good idea, indicating a need for a variety of lot sizes. Carrie said a mix of lot types and sizes could be worked into a cluster development. She said she felt a consensus for cluster zoning as a good approach.

Alex asked if there were any comments regarding how big Hinesburg could get without losing its small town sense of community; he wondered if a certain population number could be cited as a limit. Will said the village was a common thread, that people like what was going on there in terms of planning and development. Kay described her “community” as an area from Geprags Farm to St. George, that people in her community use her farm the way people use the Russell Farm. Front Porch Forum was discussed, in how it divides towns into neighborhoods (Hinesburg now has 4).

2. Now that we are proactively planning for dense development in the village growth area, do you feel we should plan for more open space and less development in the town’s rural areas? Why or why not?

Will he did not get the sense people connected the two events. Alex said the smart growth concept is not as significant an idea to residents as it is to policy makers. Fred said people chose to be in this town for a reason and as long as things don’t change, they will be happy with that.

Rodman said there was a concern expressed by one landowner that farmers in the village were able to develop their land (at a profit) and that those outside the village would not have that opportunity. He thought the remaining farming community wanted to know how that would be resolved. Johanna said that one individual said they felt they wished they could get the same deal as the Bissonette project. Alex noted a comment he heard that stated “all land is not created equal”, that it is not necessarily where your parcel is located as one parcel has far more development potential – or conservation potential – than another. It’s what is intrinsic to the land (the natural features). Will said when mapping was discussed later, people said they did not want the town making that determination (development potential).

Alex noted a comment regarding large lot zoning as a way to preserve rural character; the individual thought subdivisions of 25+ acre parcels were not viable, that people on those large lots will live only on a small portion and the rest will go unmanaged. Alex said some towns have adopted that form of zoning in an attempt to preserve rural character but that he did not think Hinesburg should take that approach. Fred asked whether Starksboro had that zoning for hill areas; Alex said he would research which towns had that type of zoning.

3. Should cluster patterns of development (parcels divided into small clusters of house sites with accompanying open spaces) be encouraged in the rural areas, as opposed to traditional patterns (parcels divided evenly by larger house lots)? Why or why not?

Fred said his group was positive about cluster development but he got the impression there was not a great depth of understanding about it, only that it was a way of preserving certain valuable aspects of a parcel. Johanna said one question raised in her group concerned who would manage the open space in a cluster development. Fred noted a developed area that had many 10-acre lots, each with horses; he thought there were all types of people who want all types of parcels. Johanna thinks clustering is a new concept, that the 10-acre lot idea is not as appealing anymore. Alex said the cluster concept is not exactly new and likened it to golf course developments (with clustered housing around the course); he said a rural version would have clustering around a working farm or wildlife area.

Will asked what the tool would be to managing common open land; Alex agreed that was key to a development’s success. He said it’s not the town’s purview to dictate how the land will be managed. Alex mentioned a pucker brush problem (undesirable plant species thriving in an unmanaged area.) Joe said when land goes to brush it is the natural first stage of re-forestation, with a set of animal species thriving there also. Kay thought the management of the land depended on what a group wanted as the value of that land (recreation, farming, etc.) Joe agreed it was up to the smaller community around the land to decide how to manage it, that if open land did not have some kind of value to the town, why would the town do it? Carrie said she always thought of cluster zoning as including one large private lot, usable for farming or forestry. Fred thought smaller lots in a cluster development might be more attractive to buyers if they came with ownership in a larger lot of common land, but said it was something regulations did not have to require.

Will asked if increased density would be granted to cluster developments. Joe thought there would be parcels for both types of zoning, the 5-10-20 traditional developments and clustering. With traditional, density would remain the same; with clustering, density would be increased, giving a monetary incentive to the landowner. Alex asked whether traditional zoning, even at a low density, should be allowed if residents were in agreement that clustering was a better option. Johanna thought there were still people that wanted larger lots. Joe gave an example of a development on a former agricultural field, one that could be divided into four small farms growing organic vegetables; he thought regulations needed flexibility in zoning to do that. Will said on parcels where there would be no greater good (to the community, natural resources, etc.), traditional zoning could be pursued. Joe said he did not like the concept of greater good, judging one property over another. Alex said that type of mapping is done now, of ag soils, deer wintering areas, wetlands, etc. He noted a proposal recently approved at the DRB level for a development on a parcel with no notable natural features, that a conventional subdivision for that parcel made sense. Joe thought “greater good” could be generally defined as “resources on which the community places value”. Carrie asked about scenic views, that houses spread across a parcel would compromise the scenic value of that parcel. Alex said views are subjective with no consensus.

Fred noted the DRB process, that one goal of the PC should be to make the review process clearer. He said many interest groups have many different opinions on the best use of a parcel; he gave the example of siting homes at tree lines to protect views or to stay out of ag fields versus siting homes for solar. Johanna thought locating wildlife corridors and natural resources was where planning could begin. Alex said the key is defining what and where those resources are. He said the DRB could only consider whether a site is visible from a public road, but that it’s really only certain views from certain roads that have some scenic value that is important to a community. Fred suggested prioritizing values. Johanna said there is nothing ugly about a well-planned community of homes. Will added that people would enjoy and perhaps rely on cluster developments in the future as energy costs rise.

4. How will intense rural development affect the town’s dirt roads?

Will asked whether anyone could cite, or if their was any agreement on, the basic economics of dirt versus paved roads. There was a general discussion on the topic, with expenses noted for both types. Will asked how the Select Board viewed the topic; he thought it would be expensive to plow out a road with fewer people on it. Alex said dispersed clusters would have the same effect. Johanna thought private citizens had maintained her private dirt road adequately.

The numbers of cars on a road as well as speed limits were discussed. Fred suggested lowering speed limits. Rodman said his group was very mixed and said people were looking for someone to provide the figures financially, comparing the two road types. Carrie said the biggest argument for dirt road is recreation. Alex said he has never seen a good study on the topic, that much of it is specific to an existing road or area. Rodman said people were looking specifically for the town to provide the information about a threshold of building on a dirt road. Kay said public services needed to be taken into account; Alex said review standards in the regulations look at those now. The group talked about town roads versus private roads.

5. Are there elements of the official map concept that you think should be carried over to the rural areas of Hinesburg? An official map shows future public spaces & infrastructure improvements – e.g., future roads, trails, parks, etc.

All PC members thought their groups did not understand the official map concept. Alex said as the concept is currently envisioned in state statute, it is not intended for wildlife, greenways, etc., rather it’s designed for public infrastructure. (Note: Rodman left the meeting at this time, 8:40 pm).

Trail mapping was discussed. Fred noted one resident said he would prefer not to have trails identified in order to keep them in low use. Alex agreed issue was sensitive, creating an official map with trails. Carrie said some towns are attempting to create official roads where trails have been mapped. Alex said trails could be on an official map, along with roads, public parks, etc. Alex discussed what was going on with the Village Plan that included the map concept.

6. What energy efficiency requirements (if any) do you think are most important to include in the rural zoning?

Johanna said there was disagreement on this topic, that some felt the town could not require homes to be energy efficient as it raised building expenses and made houses less affordable. Will thought a real-estate tax advantage at the local property tax level would be the best way to implement efficiency requirements; he suggested at least making energy initiatives revenue-neutral, exempting wind or solar facilities from taxation.

Other Business:

Minutes of January 23, 2008 and February 27, 2008

Fred MOVED to approve the January 23^rd minutes as amended. Will SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0. Carrie MOVED to approve the February 27th minutes as amended. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Alex discussed next steps for the rural planning process. Carrie asked for a meeting with large landowners, and also a review on area-based density. Alex said he would write up a rough draft of what area-based density regulations might look like. Joe asked how an area would be measured. Alex said base density was the other big issue. Fred thought clarifying a density based on how many acres owned would be the simplest way to determine base density. Alex discussed the sketch plan review phase at the DRB level, and whether a landowner needed professional work done up front on a parcel (engineering, etc.) to determine one or more sketch ideas. Alex suggested having a uniform density for an entire zoning district. Fred said the constraining factor was sewer capacity. He said large lot owners have a vision of what a build out could be on their property and guessed it was probably not as great as what others would believe. Fred thought that feedback from large landowners would be helpful. He suggested setting base densities by zoning districts as well as by acreage in ownership; a parcel with 0-50 acres in a certain zone would get “xx”; a parcel with 51-100 acres in a certain zone would get “xx”, etc. Johanna asked land type would figure into that formula; Fred said land type would have more to do with the siting of the houses, not with how many. Joe that smaller lots should be considered as well. Fred suggested a “sunset” plan, allowing smaller lot owners the right to subdivide within a period of 8-10 years, and then having that right expire.

Alex said a number of new topics needed discussion, including:

- Noise performance standards

- Telecommunications facilities, with a sub committee to look at VLCT regulations

- South Hinesburg industrial zone

- Housekeeping changes, including farm worker housing, expansion of non-complying structures; DSL boxes and other minor items

He also said the new Hinesburg Riparian Forest, 301 acres from the Bissonette project. He said a management plan is being formulated by Susan Mead and Paul Wieczorek.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 26, 2008.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish