TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

March 26, 2008

Commission Members Present:  George Bedard, Rodman Cory, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Will Patten, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, Fred Haulenbeek.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Leon Lestage, Dennis Casey, Michael Grillo, Wendy Ordway.

Farm Worker Housing – Possible Zoning Changes:

Alex explained that the Zoning Regulations contain no special provisions to allow for farm worker housing beyond the general accessory apartment allowance.  He said that this issue was recently brought to the attention of the Planning & Zoning office by the farmers (David Zuckerman and Rachel Nivett) who are purchasing 150 acres of former Bissonette farmland that was conserved via the LaPlatte Headwaters conservation project.  He explained that in the future, they would like to supply housing for seasonal workers and possibly a year-round worker/family for the farming operation.  Alex said many other towns have special zoning provisions to allow for this in one form or another.  He distributed examples from the towns of Elmore, Fairfield, and Charlotte.

Michael Grillo (Tyler Bridge Rd) explained that he is a new farmer just getting started here in Hinesburg.  He explained that he too envisions a real need for farm worker housing as his operation grows.  He said that the number of new farmers (non-dairy) is growing, and that the organic farming segment is growing very quickly.  Some of these farms will be viable on relatively small ownerships versus the large acreages of many dairy operations.  He is pursuing organic farming, and noted that this type of farming is very labor intensive, which makes farm workers a necessity.  He said that farm worker housing would be needed throughout the entire growing season, with some increases at planting and harvest times.  Michael described how on-farm apprentice programs function, such that farm worker housing would help not only in acquiring necessary manual labor, but would also help new or prospective farmers learn how to run a farm operation.

Wendy Ordway agreed with Michael’s description of why farm worker housing provisions were important.  She said that it would undoubtedly be difficult to craft regulatory provisions perfect the first time around.  With that said, she felt the Elmore regulations requiring this housing to only be in mobile homes was a bad idea.  She said it makes sense to tie the allowance for the housing to the farm operation, but requiring that it by in mobile homes was too restrictive.  Most Planning Commissioners agreed that this mobile home requirement shouldn’t be part of any new Hinesburg language.  George said the State wastewater permitting requirements will be a farmer’s first hurdle, and that any local regulations should create too many more hurdles.  He suggested looking into how this issue is handled in Addison County – especially in relation to the larger apple orchards.  Leon Lestage suggested talking to the Mazza farm and the Town of Colchester given that the Mazzas bring in so many seasonal/migrant workers for their operations during the growing season.

Will said there are 2 primary issues that he wants to be sure are addressed.  First, that the housing in question is decent housing that meets reasonable standards.  Second, that the housing is tied to the farming operation, so that it doesn’t constitute new/separate residential uses without the necessary subdivision review.  Wendy urged some caution as to the final disposition of structures created for farm worker housing.  She said that new farms have a reasonable failure rate (like any new business), and that we should be careful about what happens to farm worker housing structures if the farming operation ends.  George said the key to address this issue is convertibility to an allowed accessory use.  Alex noted that we could utilize the convertibility provisions already in the Zoning Regulations for accessory apartments and home occupations located in accessory buildings.  Michael felt this wouldn’t be a big problem, because the investment in such housing would be substantial enough to discourage financially uncertain operations from doing it in the first place.

There was consensus on the Commission that Alex should work on draft farm worker housing language, and bring it back for review.

South Hinesburg Industrial Zoning – Route 116, Hollow Road Intersection Area:

** See 1/23/08 & 12/12/07 meeting minutes for earlier discussions **

George said that the subcommittee (George, Carrie, Will) working on this industrial rezoning concept had last met on Monday (3/24).  He said they discussed the existing residential uses of the area in question and the desires of the area landowners.  He said they did not support rezoning a significant area in this location from agricultural/residential to industrial uses.  Carrie and Will also felt that simply rezoning 2 small parcels (e.g., the general store parcel and the one immediately to the south) would amount to spot zoning, and therefore, wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.  George thought it could possibly be justified as an expansion to the adjacent Industrial 1 zoning district.  Carrie felt that any zoning change had to be designed to benefit the community, and that if the primary benefit was to a single business or landowner that it would be spot zoning.

George asked Alex if the VT Well & Pump operation could have options elsewhere in town as a contractor’s yard.  Alex was unsure, and said that the existing contractor’s yard provisions are fairly limiting, and envision such businesses as a special type of home occupation.  Will discussed the real need for properly zoned areas for contractor’s yards, and indicated that these uses might be better located north of the village area to be closer to job sites in Chittenden County.  Leon Lestage spoke in support of the zoning change discussed previously, and pointed out that Hinesburg Sand & Gravel already has a business office on the west side of Route 116, so why not formalize what’s already happening.

Rodman said he doesn’t feel this is the right place for additional industrial land.  He also cautioned that if additional land were zoned industrial, we couldn’t be sure that it would serve solely as a place for contractor yards to locate – i.e., other new/unknown industrial uses may locate there.  Joe Iadanza said he was bothered about creating more industrially zoned land when we have so much across Route 116 in the Industrial 1 district that remains undeveloped.  Will agreed that this was another reason not to pursue the creation of more industrially zoned land at this time.

George explained that part of the reason landowners end up leasing instead of selling land has to do with State taxes on capital gains and related issues.  It was pointed out that this issue was not in the Town’s control, so any new lands zoned for industrial uses may still end up as leased land rather than land for sale.

Dennis Casey indicated that his family (who currently owns much of the land in question on the west side of Route 116) is not interested in seeing much, if any, conversion of the land to industrial uses.  He said his mother (current landowner) would like it to stay the way it is, and he and his kids feel similarly.

The Commission discussed where the Town’s industrially zoned land should really be – e.g., north or south of the village.  Alex said there are already industrial uses in the Industrial 1 district, and that we shouldn’t get too hung up on possible traffic loads from additional industrial development here.  Joe Iadanza agreed, and said that any additional traffic generated here and traveling through the village will be dwarfed by the levels of existing and future commuter traffic from points south.

The consensus of the Commission was not to pursue this industrial rezoning concept any further at this time.  Alex said that the Town could instead work on non-regulatory efforts to help Hinesburg Sand & Gravel and the Casey family make the existing Industrial 1 district more viable – e.g., work proactively to bring 3-phase power, economic development/outreach, etc.

Limiting Expansion of Non-Complying Structures – Possible Zoning Changes:

Alex explained that the DRB wants the PC to discuss possible zoning changes to deal with an upper limit or cap on how much more non-complying a structure could be made via conditional use approval and section 5.10.3 #4.  He explained that the Zoning Regulations governing expansions of non-complying structures have been made more flexible over the years – i.e., prior to 1992 a variance was required to increase the degree of non-compliance; from 1992-2003 it was allowed via conditional use with a 20% cap on the increase in floor area; since 2003 it has been allowed via conditional use with additional review standards related to impacts on adjoining properties and compatibility with surrounding structures.

Alex explained how this issue crops up frequently on the smaller lots around Lake Iroquois and Sunset Lake – many of which have pre-existing non-complying camps or homes that owners are interested in refurbishing and adding on to.  He mentioned a couple of examples on Shadow Lane, where non-complying lot coverage (the amount of the lot covered with improvements – house, driveway, parking, decks, etc.) was allowed to get a bit worse to allow for decks and additions.  He also mentioned an example of a project that was denied on Shadow Lane where a small camp trailer was proposed to be replaced with a 2 story camp/home that would have increased the non-complying front yard setback substantially.

The previous floor area percentage cap was discussed and deemed not to be the best approach since it wasn’t directly tied to the degree of non-compliance.  Instead the Commission discussed adding a percentage cap to limit how much more non-complying an existing situation could become.  This would give the DRB the authority to still require the least deviation from the regulations as possible, while providing an upper limit to address fairness between applications and iterative projects.  Alex suggested retaining the current language, and simply adding a percentage cap in 5.10.3 #4a.  The Commission asked Alex to draft this language and seek input from the DRB on what the percentage cap should be.

Refining Subdivision Definition – Leases & Easements:

Alex explained that the definition of “subdivision” in the Subdivision Regulations includes the division of land for the purpose of leasing land.  This became an issue recently with the Unicel telecommunication facility application that was reviewed by the DRB.  Because Unicel plans to lease a small area (e.g., 20’x20’) around a proposed 10’x12’ equipment shed, the Zoning Administrator ruled that this would require subdivision approval in addition to the conditional use approval that the project just obtained.  Both the DRB and the Zoning Administrator found it silly for such a small lease area to have to go through a full blown subdivision review – especially since the use itself already went through conditional use review.  The DRB was also concerned that the current definition of subdivision could be interpreted to require subdivision review for other land or building leases (i.e., for farm purposes) that need no municipal review.

Alex wondered if leases need to be covered under the Subdivision Regulations given the prohibition of multiple principal buildings on a single lot in non-commercial/industrial zoning districts.  Joe Iadanza felt that there were situations in which a lease area should be reviewed by the Development Review Board.  Carrie thought the significance was tied to the type of use, the lease area, and the duration of the lease.  She wondered if there was some way to exempt very small lease areas.  Joe Iadanza recommended tightening up the subdivision and lease definitions, and adding a new review pathway in the Subdivision Regulations designed for leases versus the creation of lots.  Alex said this was a good idea, because most of the subdivision review submission requirements and review standards assume that permanent lots are being created rather than temporary lease areas.  This way, significant leases would still go through a review process, but not necessarily the same process that traditional subdivisions to create lots go through.  The Commission asked Alex to craft some language on this front for further review.

Other Business:

Minutes of March 26, 2008

Will MOVED to approve the March 12, 2008 minutes as amended.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0 with George abstaining.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2008.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Alex Weinhagen