TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

April 23, 2008

Approved May 14^, 2008

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, George Bedard, Rodman Cory, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Joe Iadanza, Will Patten.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Ben Freund, John Keyes, Wesley Bascom, Collin Shore, Dan Beideck, Allen Roth, JT Gravelie, Will Chapman-Hale, Shelby Fraya, Anna Kovaliv, Katrina Parry, Michael Silber, Martha LaPorte, Teddy Dobbin, Dean Vegaps, James Stopps, Zack Clark, Sally Reiss, David Fenn, Sylvia Geiger, Richard Watts, Allison Cleary, Lannon Dennison, Robert (Sparky) Millikin.

Presentation & Discussion – Sustainability Index for Hinesburg, by Chuck Reiss and UVM Students

Chuck Reiss introduced students from his UVM class “Moving Toward Sustainability through Environmental Science”. He said the group has been working to establish what sustainability (defined as “the ability of a given environment to support all life in that environment”) might mean for Hinesburg. He said the study, although not definitive, puts some measurement to the concept of food and fuel sustainability for the town at its current population (4500 residents). Chuck noted demographic and natural resources information about Hinesburg as well as general assumptions about global warming, energy resources and population size.

Food Sources

Chuck said the group reviewed agricultural data and maps, finding 8000 acres of agricultural soil (about 32% of the town). They established the caloric need of residents, translating that to food yields and acreage. A ½-acre backyard garden plan showed how homeowners could supply much of their own food growing native species.

Alex asked why the class used organic farming as a guideline. Chuck said organic is more sustainable in terms of input (manure-based, animal oriented), requiring less fuel (pesticides and fertilizers are derived from fossil fuels). A student described “cow power”, an anaerobic system that derived power from methane released from cow manure using special equipment (methane digester). She said cow manure output at 100% could provide the town with 1.3 million kilowatt hours (1.3M kwh). As that would require that animals stay indoors 100% of their time, the group decided keeping cows at pasture at least ½ the year was best as there are other benefits to that plan. Rodman asked for a general description of THE facilities. The student explained the farm they visited had 600 cows, with separate facilities for the digester (about 100 x 60 feet) and generator and explained how the facility worked. Alex added that large farms cannot move large numbers of cows around anyway, presenting an opportunity for large farms to use the technology. Chuck confirmed that manure processed through a digester still retained its nutrients and organic matters (only carbon and hydrogen were removed) and was much less odorous once spread on fields.

Sources for Electricity

The study described calculations for potential of wind power in Hinesburg. It found higher elevation areas on the eastern sides of the town to be best suited for wind power facilities. Those areas had an annual average wind speed of 12-13 miles per hour. Solar calculations were described. Chuck said the average Hinesburg home consumes 7786 kwh/year. Based on an informal “drive-by” study, Chuck estimated 25% of the 1600 homes in Hinesburg were suitable for solar (south-facing and at a 45% angle). The study concluded the potential for residential solar-produced energy to be about 2.5M kwh, with an additional 1M kwh for larger (commercial) facilities, for a total of about 3.5M kwh per year.

Micro-hydro power (power from falling water) in Hinesburg was discussed. A student said this method had a very low environmental impact and was very sustainable. He described how water could be put through a generator and power inversion equipment at 11 potential stream sites, for a total potential of about 110,000 kwh per year. He said working with 300 feet as a drop is ideal but that the lateral range was not important. He said only a small portion of the stream could be considered, as overseen by federal regulation.

Bio-mass production was discussed. Based on 300 tons of native species wood per year (only 10% of what can be sustainably harvested from the forest per year), every ton can generate 1 megawatt hour per year, for a total of 200,000 kwh per year.

Adding Forest, Cow Power, Micro-Hydro, Wind Power and Solar would produce over 10.8M kwh per year. Annual electrical use in Hinesburg is 12.5M kwh per year, leaving a deficit. Chuck said if homes were made 25% more efficient, annual electrical use could drop to 9.3M kwh, leaving an excess of 1.5M kwh per year, at Hinesburg’s current population. The concept of a micro-grid for Hinesburg as discussed.

Fuel Sources for Heat

Forest resources were discussed, what could be taken out each year and how that could translate to heating homes per year. The study found that only 576 homes could be heated using wood. Switch grass, a native prairie grass that can be grown in the east, was discussed. Switch grass grows 6-7 feet tall and can be pellet-ized to be burned in stoves. 1 acre of switch grass is enough to heat 1 home. Someone asked how much matter and nutrients were needed as input for the crop(s). Chuck said yields assumed a manure-based system and green-cropping. He said switch grass has such an extensive root system that it doesn’t take as many nutrients out of the ground as a crop like corn. Chuck said ideally, a building facility that pellet-ized switch grass would be utilized on a local, shared basis as such a facility would not be practical for a homeowner to own and/or operate.

Report Summary
Agricultural land needed for…

Food: 1697 acres

Heating Fuel: 1024 acres

Fibers: 1000 acres

Total acres of agricultural land needed: 3721 acres (from 8000 acres)

Combined with estimates for sustainable production of electrical power, the study showed that the town of Hinesburg can support another 764 people (4500+764 to equal an optimal population of 5264 residents).

Chuck said if only net zero energy homes were added to Hinesburg’s existing homes, then only ag land for food and fiber would be needed. Extrapolating only those figures, this scenario (adding net-zero homes) would allow Hinesburg to add 7252 residents.

Optimal Population

4500 + 764 = 5264

4500 + 7252 (living in net zero homes) = 11,752

Richard Watts suggested adding transportation costs to the study. A student noted that 125 gallons of biodeisel fuels per person could be produced annually if all land were converted to the production of those crops.

Kay Ballard left the meeting at this time. (8:30)

Telecommunication Facilities – Possible Zoning Regulations

Alex explained the Hinesburg Town Plan includes a statement regarding cellular phone technology. The Plan states that Hinesburg residents value this technology and that the Planning Commission should look into zoning regulations that place facilities in areas where it does not deter from natural resources. He said the state advocates for statewide cellular coverage via state statute and that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) has created a model (suggested) ordinance and set of regulations for towns’ use. He also noted a recent DRB matter involving a facility proposal (Unicel) on Leavensworth Road that has prompted the PC to consider specific regulations to deal with this type of land use.

Alex said the facility was the second to be proposed for Hinesburg; he said a different cellular company (Nextel) had been interested in siting a tower on town land (the sewer treatment plant) but that the deal never went through partially due to failed negotiations between the town and the company. Alex said the engineers for the Unicel application were asked about that site and they said it would not have worked for them. They explained the Leavensworth Road location worked best to cover a gap in coverage in Hinesburg (provided mainly by facility sites in neighboring towns). Fred asked about typical monthly revenue from a cellular company; Alex said a range of $1000-1500 per month.

Alex explained the details of the recent DRB proposal hearing. He said because our town does not have any specific regulations, the proposal was reviewed under our Conditional Use standards. It went through Conditional Use Review, a process with very general standards that seeks to assess impacts on adjoining property, emergency services, etc. He said the DRB reviewed and approved the proposal and that their decision was currently under appeal at the Vermont Environmental Court. He explained the VEC would review the case de novo, as if it were a brand new hearing. The Court (one judge, no jury), using whatever regulations are in place for the town at the time of the proposal, would make its own decision. After that, either side could appeal again to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Jean said the state statute really restricts what a town can do, explaining the legislature told communities last year they can review proposals but only within certain parameters. The statute dictates that communities set up a system so that the appropriate municipal body can make a swift determination on whether a proposal passes standards or not. Alex said this could be tricky, as the range of types of facilities varied as well as the cellular technology. He said the Leavensworth Road facility is only one example (for example, a facility sited on a silo), that the next application might be for a different type of facility or to provide for new technology not in existence today.

Carrie asked which governing body in Hinesburg would review regulations; Alex said the DRB would review proposals, as regulations would be part of our Zoning, incorporated as a Bylaw. He said it’s up to the PC to decide how much authority to grant to the Zoning Administrator and/or to the DRB. Rodman asked about notifying neighbors of a proposal; Alex said only abutting land owners are notified, that notification was not based on a certain distance from the site of the proposal. He added that the VLCT language does not specify a distance.

Alex explained a FCC statute that states a proposal cannot be considered in terms of health concerns. Fred asked what other mandates or constraints were in place that would limit local governments. Alex said the town was obligated to determine which applications had no impact or de minimutus impact, creating standards and a review process to do so.

Fred suggested that no permit be required if a proposal is for the public good (similar to zoning for net-metered power systems). Alex said if a telecommunications proposal were reviewed through a public service board, that process would supersede a town’s process. He said state statute requires that permits be issued without review if equipment meets criteria (antennae measurements and location). Public service board cases (for example, windmills) were discussed, specifically how the Vermont Communications authorities chose to review cases or not. Jean wondered if wind towers and telecommunications towers should be looked at together; Alex thought it was best to approach the issues separately.

Richard Watts, an abutting neighbor to the Leavensworth Road facility, offered background information to the Nextel proposal. He said they proposed and were permitted by the DRB to build a 100 foot monopole without guides and lights. They offered the town $1250/month. He said as recently as a year ago, the Select Board has still designated the sewage treatment plant as an appropriate area for this type of facility. He thought once a location was chosen for a telecommunications site, it became the logical location for the next site (as put forth by Unicel via their goal of co-locating facilities). He asked the PC to consider making the benefits from these proposals be of value to the whole town, not just to one landowner.

Buffer requirements were discussed. Richard said Charlotte proposed and passed a setback regulation for facilities of 1500 feet from a residence. George asked if the state statute contained language regarding setbacks; Alex said no, adding the vast majority of the VLCT model ordinance regulations concern aesthetics. He said setbacks can be very different depending on the facility. Fred described the “drop-zone” measurement (Sec 9, #3) from the base of the tower to a property line. Alex said although health standards are pre-empted by the FCC, a setback gets at some of those concerns. Allison Cleary noted the setback was 1500 feet from a building, not a property line. Compliance issues were discussed; Alex said a setback would apply to a proposed facility but would not prevent a property owner from placing a structure (on their own property) within that same setback. He speculated whether that would then bring the facility into non-compliance, creating an issue for the facility should it ever wish to upgrade or expand.

Rodman asked about co-location; Alex said under the terms of the present private contract there is no provision for any other companies but that ACT 250 encouraged co-location. George thought town property should be considered first for all proposals, as revenues would benefit all citizens. He suggested finding and designating an optimal location for all facilities. He said a few well-placed towers that were high enough to be useful. If town land could not be located, he suggested going to the eastern side of town (with higher elevations) and negotiating with a private landowner. Allison Cleary noted industrial zoned areas in town and asked if facilities could be sited there. She said she regretted that the conversation had not started earlier and thought the town could have come to a better decision (on the Leavensworth Road issue) if it had.

Sparky Milliken, an abutting owner in the LR issue, thought that process was handled poorly due to what he described as a “completely stealth process” without proper and/or timely public notification of the process. He said the tower proposal affected everyone but nobody but the individual landowner involved knew about it. He thought there should be a process in place before an individual is bound to a contract and can’t get out of it. Jean thought the PC would not have the ability to prevent companies from having that initial conversation with a private property owner.

Lanny Dennison, an abutting landowner, said he was concerned about the commercial use of agricultural land in a residentially-zoned neighborhood. Jean said under the terms of the state statute the DRB would not have the authority to deny it on that basis. Alex noted we do allow other commercial uses in those districts. He said regulations could be somewhat specific in not allowing facilities in some districts but that would be difficult in Hinesburg due to how large our districts are.

Allison asked whether the town require companies to approach town officials first before approaching residents. George said an ordinance structured around a designated place for this technology would be best, to invite companies to install facilities where we want them. He suggested talking to the major companies to better understand their needs. Alex agreed but noted potential sites would not all be on town property. Height issues and the sewer treatment plan location were discussed again. It was suggested that companies be required to demonstrate that there is no town-owned site that was suitable. Jean did not think that would be permissible. Alex gave examples of town-owned property that would be suitable (Town Hall, HCS) but not appropriate.

Allison raised the issue of public perception of radiation issues, that cellular facilities still carried the perception of being a hazard even if it weren’t true, leading to a reduction of property values where one is located. Sparky said health concerns existed due to the newness of the technologies and suggested putting setbacks in place now and rolling them back if future studies determine concerns to be unwarranted.

Jean summarized by stating the most effective approach the PC could take is to craft regulations, not a town ordinance. Alex read from a letter submitted by James Myers. Sparky thought lowered property values due to the location of a facility would not pass the “deminimus impact” criteria, making a perfect argument for having a setback.

The public meeting ended, with more discussion by the board. Rodman said his main concern was to site towers in locations best for Hinesburg residents, not necessarily locations most convenient or cheapest for companies. Jean thought regulations could make the process easier for companies to locate on municipal land.

Whether a facility could co-locate on a wind turbine without technical interference was discussed. Fred said a town forest location would site a facility near periodic recreational uses, opposed to an in-town location near year-round everyday uses. Alex said Geprags Park could not be considered due to a restriction of allowed uses there. George said he thought ACT 250 specified 40 feet above tree tops as a suitable line of sight height for towers. Jean noted there were a lot of odd gaps (of cell phone coverage) in our town; what type of tower needed for that gap coverage was discussed.

Other Business

George MOVED to approve the April 9, 2008 meeting minutes as written. Rodman SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6 -0.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2008.

Alex reviewed topics discussed with the Select Board regarding the Village Growth proposal. He said they discussed issues page-by-page and made suggestions for changes in a variety of areas including waterway setbacks and proposed mixed-use districts.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish