TOWN OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
June 11,
2008
Approved June 25, 2008
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay
Ballard, George Bedard, Rodman Cory, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza,
Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent: Will
Patten.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Bill Marks.
Rural Area Development Density – Draft 1 of possible zoning
changes
Alex said he has been working on the
area-based zoning concept that has been discussed for a number of years and is also
mentioned in the town plan. He explained
it would disconnect the minimum lot size requirement from the allowed density
so that they could be adjusted independently of each other. Alex said the question is what the density
should be in the rural areas and what method to use to get to that number. The draft includes a sliding scale density
formula based on parcel area. The draft
also includes the following:
Amending existing lot area
definition
Planned Residential/Unit
Development (PRD/PUD) changes
-
Density bonuses by
right to encourage use of this option
-
Requiring a higher
percentage of green space
Refining purpose statements for
the Agricultural and Rural Residential 2 districts
Refining/hi-lighting “Conservation
Design” principles in existing Subdivision Regulations
Alex described one method as a sliding
scale density based on lot area. Small
lot owners would have the ability to divide off a lot but the same density would
not be applied to larger parcels; a sliding scale ratchets that density down. He said the town of Middlebury uses this and
that he has proposed in draft form something similar to theirs but with
different numbers. He described a
different method used by the town of
1.
Overall size of parcel with adjustments made for the distance the parcel is
away from the town hall
2. Proximity to particularly important preserved lands
3. The quality of the road that the parcel is on (paved, dirt, substandard dirt
road, class IV, etc.)
Alex said Bill Marks researched
many other towns and how they are dealing with rural area densities. He said there are a number of other towns
that do take-outs of non-buildable areas as a way to limit density, starting
with low or high densities in the areas.
As examples, Starksboro has 1 unit per 25 acres (low); Warren has 1 unit
per 5 acres (high) in which a 100-acre parcel could initially have 20 units but
then resource areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) are taken out. Fred thought that method would be very
contentious. Alex said
Alex said his initial draft does
not have any take-outs except for existing ROWs. The whole parcel counts towards density
calculations. The draft also includes a
conservation subdivision design. He said
historically the DRB requires that the applicant show where the natural
features are during sketch plan review, the phase in which to identify building
constraints based on resources, topography, etc.
Bill said Starksboro still has
conventional zoning, with a PRD option to get bonuses. George said most communities that have large
lot zoning regimes have them in conservation-type districts. Alex agreed stating large-lot zoning probably
wouldn’t be appropriate for the entire agricultural district but in
particularly sensitive areas. Carrie noted
that the forest land overlay initiative, which included limits as to what kinds
of development could occur at a distance from the road, was not well received. Alex is not proposing this, as he realizes it
was a problem for this community. What
he has done is not a set of proposed
changes to address specific natural resource concerns but instead just addresses
the density issue. He said to some
extent those conservation areas play into that and could be looked at later,
but his first draft is narrower in focus.
He said the development potential of the site ought to be judged on the
development potential of the area.
Carrie noted that the four steps
that are designated for the conservation zoning are take-outs. Alex said yes, in terms of developable area
but not in terms of density. He said it
was not meant to be a way to constraint how many house sites can be put on the
developable part of a property. Rodman
asked about future subdivisions. Alex
talked about a numbering system that would be applied to every parcel in the
rural area; calculation would not be reset every time someone came forth with a
proposal. He said it may become
complicated in this system, for example, how much potential would each of those
initial subdivision parcels get? Example:
a 100-acre parcel with a house could have 7 additional house sites. If it were initially subdivided into 4 lots
but with the ability to have done 8, that means there would be 4 lots left to
subdivide. Each of the first 4 lots
could have 1 extra lot attached to each or they could be divided up differently
as dictated by the town or the individual.
He said it may not make sense to divide development potential among lots
evenly if one parcel has better septic, for instance, than another.
George felt the draft language was
not simple enough and that people would feel threatened. He said landowners are predisposed to
thinking that land is theirs and the chart would be a major taking of
development potential. He said the town
should focus on guiding people towards decent development, not taking away
development potential. Joe said he was
concerned about landowners with relatively small acreage (10+/- acres) and
their ability to subdivide multiple small lots for their children. Joe thought a fair number of Hinesburg
landowners would be in that position; some may be content to stay at that size
but others wish to subdivide for their children or to get value out of their
land. He said one concern with the chart
was not allowing bonuses to kick in until 20+ acres. Alex said relatively small lot owners should
have the ability to divide off a lot for a child. He said larger parcels would be allowed a base
number if divided conventionally and allowed more lots with a PRD. Alex said he is more concerned with larger
developments from large parcels, not the 10-acre developments cut into a few
houses. Jean said the same effect could
occur with many smaller subdivisions.
Alex noted that as accessory apartments are already a permitted use for
single-family homes, the potential for doubling the density also exists. Joe agreed but pointed out landowners already
have that (i.e. we aren’t giving them anything extra with new zoning).
Joe thought the lower the allowed
lot number was for the 4 to 12-acre category, the more arguments would be heard
over the proposal before it was adopted.
He questioned whether it was more important to stick on the 4 to 12-acre
parcels or to address the open spaces we still have. George thought the focus should be less on worrying
about the impact of the already-divided 10-acre parcels and more on the larger
parcels, as they could be better designed developments starting from a cleaner
slate. He suggested allowing developers to
consider septic resources and put together an open space plan. Alex said that approach was already in the
draft in the form of PRD bonuses. George
said the proposal does not encourage good planning; he referred to changing
regulations as stealing property.
Jean noted that the Select Board
has said our roads cannot sustain intense development. Alex agreed, stating the SB is very concerned
about the level of development in the rural areas. Jean said it would be helpful if the SB could
indicate what the roads could handle, in terms of specific information by
road. Johanna asked how the town of
Alex said actual existing density
is shockingly low. Bill Marks thought
the whole community was very misled but the current system. He also noted that while one side to
development concerns the expectations of owner, the other side concerns the
neighbors’ perspective. He agreed with
Joe’s approach, to basically catalog examples of proposals over the last 2-3
years, mapping where they were from the town and main roads, looking at lot
sizes before and after. He felt educating
Hinesburg residents was important, to try to let people know what actually
happened/is happening, then codifying and clarifying what landowners can really
expect. Joe agreed it was part
salesmanship, part setting the numbers based on what has actually happened.
George said one of the problems
historically is that when landowners looked at minimum zoning, many were afraid
of the process and instead took the 10-acre (ACT 250) exemption or subdivided larger
lots, because they felt they were too many stumbling blocks. He thought historical data was diluted
because of that. Joe suggested addressing
that by not looking too far back in the past; Alex agreed, suggesting starting
with when septic rules changed. Jean
spoke to the concept of neighbor concerns, noting the Hinesburg town plan is
very strong in the area of maintaining rural character. Bill said he agreed the small lots would be
contentious, but questioned whether it was reasonable to assume all would stay next
door. Kay thought just preserving the option
to do was important. Johanna said her
own 14 acres would have been difficult to subdivide due to geographical
constraints. Joe agreed the option
itself had value. George said it should
not matter why or for whom you divide your piece of land, as it is a monetary
asset that represents value. He thought
nothing in zoning language should make reference to subdividing for a specific
purpose. He also thought most people
enjoy their land and would do the least with it as possible, that presenting a document
that encouraged good planning would achieve that. Bill said he thought Alex’s proposal does
that. Alex asked the group what density numbers
should be. He said the SB would not
likely pass anything that codifies the current minimum lot size as density
going forward.
There was a discussion of the
current minimum lot size calculation, how to codify what land can really be
subdivided for, and that community education is needed to manage the
expectations on both sides. Alex asked
George what specific numbers he is looking for.
George said he does not believe in upsetting people, that other
constraints such as road acreage play into calculations. He said he felt an avenue for people to
divide in a more regular fashion should be made available, with the option to
receive more lots with clustering. He
said an entire parcel could be divided into a variety of pieces. He said he was reluctant to enter into a
perceived taking scenario, that people currently feel density numbers are
calculated by dividing acreage by minimum lot size. Jean asked again exactly how George would propose
the regulations would read. Bill asked
if there were any other
Alex said numbers should
necessarily play out into how the town could provide municipal services. How to get to a maximum or “worst-case”
subdivision scenario was discussed. Joe
asked how many people would subdivide given any density numbers and how many
years would it take to exhaust those numbers.
Alex said it would be hard to gage historically because of the septic
changes in the past. George said an
average of 16 to 20 new houses have been built in this town per year in this
decade, with a few exceptions (Creekside, 37; Barone, 57; Lyman Meadows, 80). Joe thought diluting it over the last 5-10
years would probably be most reliable.
Fred questioned whether landowners
in the 4 to 12-acre category had the expectation that their land was subdividable. He gave the Fletcher Farm as an example of an
older subdivision in which lots are established, that residents there may not
want a neighboring lot developed due to the character of the established
development. Fred said in a large
grouping of 10-acre lots, it’s a 10-acre density and suggested not allowing
density to be increased there. George
said such neighborhoods were created due to certain conditions at the time (ACT
250, clay soils, etc) that drove the 10+ acre sizes and people in those areas
now liked what they had. 10+ acre lots
in or out of those neighborhood settings were discussed. Fred thought allowing such a well established
pattern to be diced up would not be desirable and suggested there be a caveat in
regulations about those kinds of neighborhoods.
Jean said most of those lots do not have restrictions on them. Alex confirmed there were no automatic
covenants on those 10-acre lots (driven either by the town or state).
Bill said the Conservation
Committee discussed the 4 to 12-acre category and felt the density was too
high. He spoke of Fletcher Farm from his
perspective as a homeowner there, with houses well-sited so as to not intrude
into the forest, and with a large agricultural field that is viable. He thought residents should be educate about their
land, that whatever they may have interpreted as a build-out on paper may not
have been realistic. He suggested having
a town official on hand to go out with a landowner to help with that process.
Jean summarized the discussion(s)
by stating she felt PC members generally wanted to do area-based density. Fred agreed and said they should come up with
a density that people could count on, making house placement the “battleground”
issue rather than the number. He
suggested promoting land stewardship through the use of a priority list that
would drive the placement of houses. Carrie
said such a list essentially spoke to conservation efforts. Bill thought it would be difficult to
guarantee a specific number of houses, that other towns do take-outs first. Fred agreed that septic and resource areas
would constrain the number (in other words, not guarantee it). Alex said the number would stand as a base;
if a parcel could not achieve the stated base number of units, it would be
through no fault of regulations or the town but purely site constraints. Fred said an objective of regulations should
be to make the development process less contentious but spelling out what could
be counted on before site constraints. Jean
thought the discussion regarding existing neighborhoods was important; Alex
thought it would be difficult to pinpoint or define every existing
neighborhood, as some houses that look like they belong to developments weren’t
in fact built at the same time. He
reminded that everyone had different expectations for their parcel and their
neighbors’ parcel(s).
Bill said the natural resources
section of the Subdivision regulations should be updated (section 6.10.8, Rural
Area Design Standards). These
regulations protect natural and cultural resources but do not necessarily prevent
all houses in those areas from subdividing.
The French property proposal was discussed, as an instance where the developer
did try to meet most of the subdivision standards but where ultimately the DRB
rejected the plan for a number of reasons including density. The Ballard proposal was discussed and
compared to the French proposal, in terms of the roads in the area. Alex noted the
Kay asked if Monkton had been
looked at, as they are a similar community with some development pressure. Alex said he and Bill focused on those
communities that went after area-based zoning specifically, but that he could
do more research. He asked the group to
look at the draft language and give feedback on the numbers, the neighborhood
issue and any other sticky points. Jean
suggested going through the document at the next meeting to see how it could be
refined. Alex said he could provide
additional materials such as maps or other data. Bill asked about public forums and how to
begin the process of community education.
Jean said they wished to have a draft in place before discussing
anything with the community. Living room
forums were discussed.
George suggested getting a clear
understanding of what the natural and cultural resources are for Hinesburg and
to what degree we expect them to be constrained by the rules. Alex said that idea is encapsulated in a
brief sense on the last page. He
suggested approaching rural density by first defining numbers (disconnecting
the link between lot size and density) and then talking specifically about
primary and secondary resource areas.
Alex said a consultant had been hired as part of the Greenspace Planning
effort to identify those areas, but that they delivered a rough and incomplete
draft. He said something more complete
would not be available until later in the year (winter). Bill said the DRB is looking at resource
areas now, that work on the Greenspace Plan had not discovered any new
phenomena or issues and is directed instead at trying to set a document with
more specificity. He said the value in
the plan is an inventory of resources.
Other Business
George MOVED to approve the May 28, 2008 meeting minutes as
written. Carrie SECONDED the
motion. The motion PASSED 6-0, with Joe
and Johanna abstaining.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 25, 2008.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 pm.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish