TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

June 25, 2008

Approved July 9, 2008

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

Commission Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Rob Farley, Lisa and Ted Godfrey, Matt Baldwin, Bill Marks, Charles Kogge, Matthew Probasco, Ken Brown, George Dameron.

Rural Area Development Density – continued from 6/11 meeting

Development density trends from past subdivisions

Alex passed out information regarding “Recent History & Development Density”, a review of proposals that had been approved from 1997 to 2008. He explained at the last meeting it was suggested that historical data would be helpful in determining densities going forward. In 1997, the subdivision regulations changed substantially, mainly in that the 3 “free lots” provision was removed. Findings (with density averages noted) included:

Avg. density overall, 56.6 acres/unit: Alex took parcel size before being subdivided, and then did simple division. He said this number was probably not useful due to several atypical proposals that skewed results (defined on the spreadsheet as “outliers”).

Avg. density excluding outliers, 18.7 acres/unit: Removes atypical proposals from the data.

Avg. density with full buildout, 13.8 acres/unit: Examples include only those projects that clearly represented a full final build-out of the parcel; Alex noted the ESNID project and Bissonnette projects were included here as they are considered final subdivisions of the parcels in each case.

(White line items weren’t good full buildout examples or outliers; they are included in the “excluding outliers” example, but not included in full build-out examples.)

Denied proposals, 4.8 acres/unit: Alex said many proposals that did not receive approval at the sketch plan phase weren’t good examples as denials because their denial decisions weren’t due to density issues; other denied proposals were revised, with subsequent proposals approved. Alex said projects that had been denied typically involved fewer acres per unit than other proposals. He said those denials highlighted in yellow were denied due to density.

Alex concluded by stating he felt the best number to look at as an average density figure is the 13.8 acres, even with the ESNID and Bissonette projects included.

Bill Marks said this data gives perspective on what the DRB has approved but does not represent neighbors’ perception of what is appropriate as a buildout. Alex agreed, adding the applicants’ perspective is also not represented in these numbers.

George said many of the full build outs are not good examples due to their septic potential. Alex said the ESNID project received funding and was also constrained by outside factors. George and Alex discussed specific examples shown as full build outs. George said the ones showing the highest average density don’t reflect an attempt to find out what the maximum potential of the parcel was.

Matthew Probasco thought a more modern approach to how some of these subdivisions occurred might be reflective of a paradigm shift (resulting in less density). Will said he thought this data was helpful in terms of going forward. Alex said he tried to isolate some reasonable examples; he said any acres per unit figure, no matter how you slice it, is greater than the minimum lot size currently allowed for the ag district. Joe said we are proposing not only a change in the density number but in the DRB process, mainly in that the only take-outs would be ROWs. He questioned whether landowners would be put in a better, worse or same position in terms of being able to recognize value in their property. He thought the fact that the DRB process would be made clearer is a value in itself.

Charles Kogge thought the constant discussion (at the DRB level) due to neighbors’ opposition over what goes on next to their house should be corrected, with stronger, clearer regulations. He said the property owners and neighbors should perform due diligence (in terms of understanding regulations that are in place at the time they purchase their property), and live with that understanding. He thought the constant appeal of projects to the DRB is time-consuming.

Alternative density number and scenarios – sliding scale and others

Alex said he is looking for specific feedback on the language he has proposed. Jean said she thought the proposal as written was a good start. Bill Marks said the Conservation Commission had a second discussion about this, finding:

– 0 to 12 acre lots (in areas outside the village) should not be allowed to subdivide. It would contradict what we are trying to preserve as rural character.

– 12+ - 24 lots should not be subdivided more than once and only allowed 2 lots total.

– The CC’s opinion on the formula is that the Norwich example was a very good approach (based on three aspects of the property in question - distance from village center; road access; contiguousness with already-conserved land).

He has asked Alex to study the larger parcels in Hinesburg to see how these criteria would affect development. He said we should be trying to develop a formula that gives people a better idea of what they can realistically divide.

Fred said past planning efforts, such as the forest overlay district proposal, made some landowners feel they were being singled-out and treated unfairly. He said this sort of criteria creates a pecking order, just by the nature of where the property is. Bill noted that the environmental and public expense issues at stake ultimately affect everyone, citing economic issues regarding roads and municipal services. Fred said he thought it was a fairness issue, and also that large landowners tend towards stewardship of their land versus full development. He thought the PC should speak to large landowners about what they think their buildout should be. Matt Baldwin said that is why he attended the evening’s meeting, that large landowners, especially those with working farms, had input and ideas that should be taking into perspective. He declined to give specific thoughts on his own properties. Jean said all Planning Commission meetings are public hearings and that anyone in town is welcome to come. She said the Commission sought input from the public, without specific invitation.

Alex said he was intrigued by the Norwich proposal but did not propose it because it was so different from what has been used or discussed in Hinesburg to date. Fred said he thought it was very important to assume that the village density that is proposed is actually going to happen, with sewer, electric and other energy resources (natural gas) brought to town. Joe said he is not assuming any connection (between village and rural development proposals) at all. He said he does not want anyone in the rural areas to think we are trading their ability to subdivide for development in the village. Fred said he was thinking about affordable housing specifically. Joe said he agreed that density should be increased in the village but that the rural areas should not be tied to that vision. He said if the village becomes more attractive, rural area development will be more attractive. Kay added you can’t have it both ways – if the village grows, the rural areas are going to be impacted by that.

Jean said density in the village is the right place for it to happen, due to public infrastructure. Rob Farley said the board should be tying village growth and the conservation of rural character in outlying areas. A strong village would allow people living in rural areas to travel less (by not commuting to Burlington). Will said the Town Plan is the guiding document for the town and that it calls to build out the village, not rural, areas. Alex said many town plans spell out density specifically but ours does not. He said it came up at the Select Board level (when the plan was being reviewed for adoption), that a lot of fear generated and town plan language ultimately directed the PC to “evaluate and consider” density (rather than use the word “lower”). He said the goals were clear though, that village and rural areas should be different. Joe said the primary emphasis of area based zoning was to maintain open space and workability of the land. He said it was that open space - forest and field – that would preserve rural character; how to accommodate more housing and how to pass a (density) number that people can agree on were the tasks at hand.

Jean suggested crafting alternative scenarios to present to the public. Ken Brown said the SB discussed the Norwich plan, that a plan that takes roads and nearby infrastructure into consideration is something the SB is interested in. Will said that plan gives the SB development oversight (in terms of road planning) that they don’t have today. Jean said the sustainability of road maintenance was discussed at the last SB meeting. Ken said there are 20 miles of paved roads now; within a 10 year plan, existing roads already point to high future costs. Bill said there has been reluctance by residents to pave dirt roads. Alex said two aspects - the quality of a particular road and how much more development it could sustain before more money had to be put into it (their “capacities) – needed to be considered within any plan based on the Norwich plan. Joe said in Hinesburg, all paved roads go from the village to another town, and the usage of those roads will go up. He said we are going to face a problem with those roads with or without the increased tax base. Will said we don’t necessarily feed everything into Hinesburg the way Norwich does. Joe gave examples of dirt roads that connect to paved roads, noting their use by non-Hinesburg residents. Alex cited Williston as a town that generates a lot of their own traffic internally (as a result of intense development). Will said there does not seem to be a correlation between the village center and paved roads. Alex said the Norwich examples goes after two aims – lower road maintenance and keeping development closer to the center, making houses closer to shared infrastructure.

Joe said the town is going to have to address how we repair our roads. We can do that with the rural landscape we have now, or can do some development that includes capital impact fees. Rob Farley spoke about the widening of roads as not a good alternative, that improvements will not necessarily help. Joe said he did not mean to suggest that roads be widened ,only improved in terms of their base, stormwater considerations, etc. Johanna cited transportation trends such as public transportation and bike riding, that we should be accommodating the kind of traffic we are likely to see.

Alex said he would tinker with the Norwich proposal to see how a Hinesburg model could work. He said the last ten years of PC work has focused on area-based zoning, not a large part of the Norwich method. Fred said we may have already implemented measures that out-do what Norwich is trying to do with their regulations, with our village planning. Alex said their plan is trying to address the development patterns outside their growth area. He said the challenge is how to maintain Hinesburg’s present character, as a rural ag community with a strong village center, not a suburban outpost. Fred questioned how people could be brought to change their attitudes about development and amenities it may or may not bring. Matt Baldwin asked Alex if he received input from large landowners. Alex cited public forums and other discussions that have taken place over the years, adding the PC both welcomed and actively sought out input.

Rob Farley asked how the DRB handled accessory apartments. Alex said accessory apartments are mandated and encouraged by the state and are already in the regulations as a given. Carrie suggested submitting an article to the Hinesburg Record explaining this to citizens.

Matthew Probasco said regulations add value to landowners, especially small landowners; he thought ACT 250 probably drove property values up. Charles Kogge asked what the end goals of the town boards were. He suggested reviewing those goals, adding that since the Town Plan was adopted, global warming has become a concern; the real value now for farmers is the sustainability issue, with locally-grown food. He suggested modeling Hinesburg’s growth to the number of units ultimately desired. He said people from other areas (he gave Mid-Atlantic states as an example) are willing to live in smaller units on smaller lots. Alex said various studies on maximum build-out have been done, with numbers ranging from 1100 to 1700 in the ag and RRII districts; he said the difficulty is that there is a recognition that the vast majority of landowners won’t develop to a maximum potential. He said there has been an average of 10 units per year in the RR2 and ag districts historically. He said if 1300 units were the maximum buildout, at 10 units that would take over a century to achieve.

Development constraints were discussed, such as sewage capacities and soils. Bill asked why a maximum number was relevant, that guiding growth in a responsible way should be the goal. He said the DRB and the economy are currently keeping growth under control. He thinks (defining density) is just a step in the process, to make the process more understandable. Charles Kogge suggested taking transportation and the tax rate into consideration and creating a time frame over which development were allowed. Alex said “taxes” are consistently cited to be the most important issue in town surveys. He said any discussion about how large Hinesburg can or should be should center on how much of a tax burden Hinesburg can absorb. George Dameron said the town has no control over traffic to CVU but has control over traffic feeding into the community school. He said towns in England are entirely centrally planned, with affordable housing parceled out to various towns. Rob said water quality and wildlife are two issues that have also been cited as important to citizens.

George said he would like to review the planning document that existed before the forest overlay exercise. The group talked about sustainability within the community, in terms of land use for growing food, energy use, etc. They discussed looking at an example of a developed parcel and how it could have been developed differently - Fletcher Farm was suggested, Jean suggested using her former farm and George suggested using the Bissonette Farm to the south on Gilman that was recently conserved. Fred suggested using a piece of land that has issues such as wetlands and topography. Will suggested finding examples or models that could be taken to the public meetings, with landowner permission. George suggested using Geprags as it has a diverse set of issues. Alex said part of the problem is how to run the parcels through scenarios. He wants input from commission members as to specific numbers.

There was another discussion of the Norwich method. Fred said he and Bill generally agree on the limitation of the development of smaller lots, but that he thinks lots in close proximity to other smaller lots should not be allowed to subdivide and lots NOT near other lots should be allowed to subdivide. He said this approach takes neighbors’ concerns into consideration; Bill agreed. Jean suggested applying the 12-24 acre lot sliding scale to the alternate plan exercise. Joe thought not allowing subdivisions of parcels 12 acres or less would be problematic.

Matthew Probasco said the larger lots hold the opportunity for open space. He suggested closing the loop on the smaller parcels to avoid radically shifting what created the current rural landscape. Joe agreed but said a lot of the 10 acre lots existed because developers did not want to deal with septic regulations; he said regulations now would severely limit development anyway. Septic regulations were discussed, in terms of the need for planning primary and replacement systems. Village development, specifically that infill was not as likely as development in the newly-created districts, was discussed. George said he did not agree with the rural density scale declining so quickly. Fred thought the small lot (0-12 acres) category could be left in, because practical considerations would mean there would not be many examples of those parcels subdividing due to 1) the nature of how they are already developed; 2) septic; and 3) setbacks.

Alex said having the sliding scale start at 4-12 acres is consistent with today’s regulations, even within a liberal interpretation. He explained the draft proposal lists a number of dwellings that includes existing and proposed new. Will asked how many 10 acre lots were in town; Alex said he did not know exactly. Fred asked if there was any sewage scrutiny for an accessory apartment; Alex said yes. Alex said the PRD bonus system addressed George’s concerns, that it would be a by-rights system. He said density is proposed to ratchet down for a conventional development, but up for clustering. He suggested setting the densities at a reasonable level - lower for conventional, higher for PRD. All proposals should be well-planned, but those with open space would gain a higher number of units.

George said there are a large number of buyers that want acreage. He suggested allowing opportunities for a variety of housing, that regulations should not only encourage cluster housing. Alex said the draft allows you to do both. He said clustering does not have to have all houses set close together, that a parcel can be configured in different ways.

Matthew P. said he is an employee of the Agency of Natural Resources. He said the agency generally issues permits that require clustering because it is a much more efficient for stormwater treatment. He thought this external pressure related to stormwater regulations could have a significant impact on where houses are placed.

Other Business

Alex said he is still looking into regulations regarding farm workers. Jean suggested he look into housing, regarding two principle structures

George MOVED to approve the June 11, 2008 meeting minutes as amended. Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 8-0, with Will abstaining.

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

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish