TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

July 9, 2008

Approved September 10, 2008

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  Rodman Cory, Will Patten.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary) Wendy Patterson, Bob Linck, David Zuckerman.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.

 

Rural Area Development Density

Alex said he queried surrounding communities for rural density information, documenting specific info by town including Base Density, Take-outs, PRD Bonus and Minimum Lot Size.  He reviewed a rural planning document drafted in 2000 by former Town Planner, Faith Ingulsrud.  Jean said she thought the material was very similar to the current PC draft proposal.  Alex clarified that his density numbers include existing dwellings; the group agreed that the 2000 document’s numbers included existing dwellings as well.

 

Fred asked if all large rural parcels would automatically have conservation guidelines or PRD/PUD development imposed on them or whether individual parcels, particularly those with non-productive acreage or productive-but-isolated acreage, could be conventionally developed.  Alex agreed that, for instance, some ag soils are marginal because although they are mapped as ag soils they are not in a usable area.  He said good development design would be encouraged for all subdivisions whether they were PRDs or conventionally subdivided.  He said conservation guidelines would clearly lay out what areas were to be avoided (Primary Resources: flood hazard areas, Class I and II wetlands, slopes over 25%, rare, threatened and endangered species areas) and what areas should receive minimal impact (Secondary Resources: ag soils, large blocks of forest, significant wildlife corridors).  Fred asked what guiding document would be used to determine those resource areas.  Alex said ideally the Conservation Commission’s Greenspace document, once adopted, would be used.  Jean suggested getting the county forester’s opinion.  Johanna suggested an all-boards meeting. 

 

The group discussed the idea that resource definitions or specific findings can be open to interpretation (defining terms such as “large block of undeveloped forest” or “critical wildlife habitat”).  Fred thought removing the subjectivity of resource definitions and relying on criteria for mapping conservation areas was important in order to remove contentiousness during the Development Review process.  Alex said in the Norwich example, it was the town’s responsibility to identify resources on parcels and provide findings to the applicant who could then accept or contest findings.  Fred said using criteria to assess parcels would be the most helpful.  Alex said state soil maps don’t attempt to define areas less than 2 acres.  George talked about working with state maps and whether they were accurate.  He said mapping done by the state soil conservation service is most accurate on parcels where landowners cooperated during the initial investigation.  He said mapping for other parcels assessed using photo analysis or assessed too quickly is not as reliable.

 

The group discussed the exercise of having PC members examine a parcel and create sample development scenarios for it.  Jean said a conventional design scenario should be included to show what is possible now.  Fred said as minimum lot size is not always used as a way to determine a conventional subdivision, it may be misleading to provide a “current” design scenario.  George said a conventional development under Hinesburg’s lot sizes, without the Act 250 exemption, would have a pattern to it (unlike the diagram shown as “conventional” in the 2000 document that simply drew straight lines through a parcel).  Jean said good site design should be stressed.  Fred said the key is to show how a greater density would be allowed if the design was well-planned.  Alex said all development plans should be well-designed, based on the same design standards; if a plan contained more land dedicated to open space, more units and/or more flexibility with setbacks could be approved.  Fred thought time constraints could be a deterrent to a PRD approach.  Alex said once a subdivision mylar is filed and the applicant has complied with the conditions of the original approval, there is no expiration date to the approval (the 3-year expiration date has been dropped).

 

Alex suggested using the following steps as an approach to the parcel exercise, using a 128 acre parcel on Lincoln Hill (now conserved as part of an HLT initiative):

1)      Review a context map that included the parcel and surrounding areas

2)      Review a satellite map of the parcel

3)      Make a site visit and speak to neighbors and other parties with knowledge of the parcel

4)      Map primary resource areas on the parcel: slopes, streams, wetlands. 

5)      Map secondary resource areas on the parcel: ag soils, forested areas, scenic areas (with good views) or highly visible areas (that could be viewed by other areas in town).

6)      Determine development potential, using proposed density tables

7)      Determine house sites, roads and finally, lot lines

 

Alex suggested running the scenario using a maximum septic potential assumption, as actual septic was not available.  George suggested that the cost of development would be less if development were placed nearer to the main road(s).  Fred asked if allowing only one house in a scenic view area would be acceptable, if the trade-off was preserved open space on the remaining acreage of a parcel.  Ridgeline zoning was discussed.  George said he thought no impositions regarding future subdivisions should be put on homeowners.

 

The group discussed how to approach the exercise; it was decided that two teams would each review two parcels, the Lincoln Hill property and also the Geprags property.  George suggested reading past DRB applications and minutes to understand the DRB process.

 

Farm Worker Housing Provision

A draft proposal for farm worker housing regulations in Hinesburg was discussed.  Alex said a definition for “farm worker” was not included.  Hinesburg farmer David Zuckerman spoke to the Commission about his farm’s business plan which included 8 or 9 seasonal employees, not all necessarily living on the farm.  He said people interested in working seasonally on a farm are often looking for housing for that time period as well.  Regarding the proposed 6 occupant limit, he thought a larger number would be helpful.  He said he planned to convert one of the existing barns to housing, accommodating workers without significantly changing the visual of the barn exterior other than adding more parking.  He said raising diverse crops of food and animals required more farm hands than a typical dairy operation, for instance.  Having workers live in close proximity with easier access to certain crops or animals might require housing in more than one area of the parcel.  Alex said another Hinesburg farmer, David Carse, gave almost identical comments.  Carrie said having some control over the number of people was simply meant to addresses sewer capacity.  Alex said the state permitting process would regulate that.  Jean asked if any state regulations applied beyond the septic issues.  David Z. said he was not aware of any but thought there may be some farm worker provisions related to Current Use and/or minimum space requirements. 

 

David asked whether temporary structures (yerts, tents, etc.) would be acceptable.  Alex said he was not sure if those structures would constitute “dwellings” under current zoning.  Fred said it was allowable to park a camper on a property for up to 6 months.  George thought farm dormitory structures should be allowed, with no limit to the number of structures, or people within a structure.  Year-round dormitories were discussed; conditional use permitting was discussed.  Jean asked if the 6-month limit for temporary dwellings would be long enough.  David said changing scenarios within produce production are allowing for extended seasons; he cited increased greenhouse use and the possibility of climate change as examples.  Tent housing was discussed.  Bath and kitchen facilities were discussed, that those considerations would be addressed under state regulations.  The group agreed to eliminate the “6 occupants” provision in the Farm Worker Dormitory section.

 

A minimum work week was discussed; it was agreed that an average 20-hour work week, for example, could be calculated using a 12 month period of occupancy, with 6 months working 40 hours and 6 months off.  David said an exceptional worker may be invited to stay year-round, but that it was not likely.  George thought any hourly minimum should be dropped, as it would be hard to enforce anyway; the group agreed to make that change.

 

Language regarding the size and type of dwellings was discussed.  Alex said draft language was meant to ensure a correlation between the worker housing and the actual scale of the farming.  Language regarding the conversion of housing to an allowed use was discussed (“…shall be designed to be converted”).  Jean said there are usually restrictions with Land Trust land; David explained his experience.  Regular subdivisions and PRD were discussed as options.  Joe said converted housing would be treated like an accessory apartment.  Alex said either the structure must be designed to allow for a future conversion to a garage or accessory apartment or the applicant must demonstrate that the property could be subdivided (to include the structure as a primary residence).  Jean said she was in that situation with her property; they subdivided their property first, then built a structure with its own utilities.

 

Other Business

Limits on the expansion of non-complying structures

Alex asked the group to review language related to the proposed expansion of a non-complying structure.  He said one conditional use criteria states that a structure shall “modify the setback requirements as little as practicable”.  Alex said the PC had added that wording in place of previous wording that limited an expansion to “20% of the structure”.  Alex suggested adding a simple cap that allowed for an increase in square footage up to a stated number limit.  He proposed basing the number on a size typical for a deck or common addition.  He said applicants could apply for a variance if they wished to exceed that number.  Carrie said she did not mind deck additions; Alex said Peter Erb agreed, and suggested that pervious decks could be exempted.  Fred suggested drafting different regulations for decks and living space.  Alex noted that decks could infringe on neighbor’s space.  Joe suggested drafting regulations that took the degree of infringement on a setback into account.  Alex made the distinction between applicants who wanted to get closer to setbacks (reducing the linear distance between their structure and their neighbors) and those who want to simply put more of a structure in the same distance (not closer, just more).  Regarding a proposed square footage cap, Alex said the number would be “fixed” to the property and would apply in perpetuity, so that future owners would have to comply with the limit if it were used up.  Alex said he would address the issue again with members of the DRB.

 

Official Map Project

Alex said he would seek help from the regional planning commission (MPO), a regional transportation organization and wetland delineation experts.  Carrie and George agreed to help.

 

Town Green

Alex said Rocky Martin is looking for public input on what to do with the land behind the Police and Fire station.  Alex said he would notify the group about upcoming planning meetings.

 

Lake Iroquois home owners association

Alex noted the formation of a new home owners association and their action to appeal a permit to expand the boat launch area.

 

Election of Planning Commission officers

Jean said she would remain as chair but would be happy to pass the position to someone else if anyone were interested; Fred said the same.  Kay MOVED to nominate Jean Isham and Fred Haulenbeek as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 7-0.

 

Rules of procedure

Alex noted PC members could draft and adopt rules of procedure if they wished.

 

June 25th meeting minutes

George MOVED to approve the June 25th meeting minutes as amended; Fred SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

The July 23rd and August 13th public meetings will be cancelled.  The group agreed to meet on August 13th to work on the parcels exercise; Alex said that meeting would be considered a special work session. 

 

The next Planning Comm. meeting is scheduled for August 27th, 2008.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary