TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

December 17, 2008

Approved January 14, 2009

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Barry Dugan, Wayne Bissonette, Frank Twarog, Ken Brown, Rolf Kielman, Dorothy Pellette, Andrea Morgante, Alan Norris.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.

 

Saputo Site Discussion

Alex said a meeting took place on December 10th with federal, state and regional economic development reps to discuss possible resources, community ideas and how to organize the re-development effort.   27 people participated in the meeting organized by the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation (GBIC), including delegations from all three state legislators.  Alex said based on its past community outreach, Hinesburg is well positioned to take advantage of available resources from various sources.  He said the Select Board has established a good line of communication with Saputo who has an external real estate agent in place when they are ready to market the property.

 

Will said he spoke with representatives from GBIC who advised an aggressive and proactive approach to the redevelopment effort.  He also spoke with representatives from NRG.  He said they would like to “kick the tires of the property” – do a walk-through, do soil testing, etc.  Will urged the PC and SB to come up with a clear plan for what we want.

 

Alex noted a discussion at the SB meeting regarding the site’s village location and appropriate uses for that location.  They agreed that the site should be re-zoned; Alex said state statute has a provision that allows the SB to adopt emergency or temporary zoning.  It may be done quickly, requiring only a warned public hearing and is not appeal-able as it is meant to be an emergency (stop-gap) provision.  Depending on how the zoning is written, the DRB or the SB would be the review body of any development activity in the district.  Jean asked if the entire site (now in two zones) could be consolidated into one zone.  Alex said the SB has broad discretion and yes, the entire parcel and even (adjacent) land beyond the parcel could be re-zoned.  Joe I. said he thought the interim zoning should be close to what the community ultimately wanted for the site; in other words, we should not go back too dramatically on what we did in interim zoning.

 

Will said he talked to several business entrepreneurs about a wood pellet plant.  One tried to start up a plant from scratch but ran into problems with state permitting due to concerns over emissions.  Another was able to start up a plant only because the business moved into an existing pulp mill that had grandfathered permitting.  He also talked to several people involved in grass pellet manufacturing who stated the technology for the process was very far away (several years). Will concluded that neither a wood nor grass pellet plant would be a realistic option for the Saputo site, at least not in the short term.

 

Howdy Russell said the SB is open to rezoning and is looking for input from the PC on the kinds of uses they envision.  Jean asked for input from PC members on how to proceed with interim zoning.  Carrie and Johanna thought it was a good idea.  Fred wished to increase the uses, making them broader and close to what we ultimately wanted.

 

Rolf Kielman, a member of the Village Steering Committee, suggested interim zoning that matched the village district as a starting point, possibly excluding some functions.  Jean said housing and retail would hurt the potential for jobs at the site.  Andrea Morgante said the parcel did not have to be zoned all the same way, as there is infrastructure that is clearly industrial but areas that could be zoned for other purposes.  She suggested looking at the site in both the context of its village location but also its infrastructure.  Joe I. noted that the site’s Route 116 frontage was underutilized and agreed it made sense to treat the front and back areas of the parcel differently.  It was agreed that the access road into the parcel from Route 116 should stay.

 

Fred suggested integrating the redevelopment effort with the work being done on an official town map, especially looking at road connections.  He suggested the Route 116 access road could be a public road that effectively divided the property into separate uses.  He did not think residential zoning was compatible.  Jean agreed that now is the time to consider roads in and around the parcel. 

 

Will said that the Hinesburg village has a unique profile of mixed-uses (jobs, residential and retail).  He said we should try to keep the facility connected to the working landscape, creating jobs and a tax base there.  He said he would not be in favor of turning it over to houses, parks, etc.  Johanna suggested 2nd floor residences.  Carrie asked if the town owned the land that the town well is on.  George said it owns a small piece less than 100 feet in each direction.  Alex said the surrounding land is primarily owned by the Russell Family.

 

Jean said the parcel could be rezoned into one zone with certain areas designated for certain uses, or that it could be rezoned into two separate districts.  Alex said two separate districts required drawing a line; he suggested keeping it open as we did not know what development proposals might look like.  He said he would be inclined to do a single interim zoning area with clear guidance with what is expected at the road frontage and at the undeveloped area closer to the LaPlatted River.  He said that was the approach taken in the Village Northwest district proposal.  Alex said a purpose statement (for uses in certain areas) included in the zoning regulation would get to the intention of zoning, something that is actionable by the DRB.

 

The group discussed forming a PC sub-committee, or a joint committee with participants from other boards or entities, to establish recommendations for zoning changes.  The PC would draft zoning language based on those recommendations and the SB would approve any changes.  Ken Brown suggested making interim zoning less specific to allow for flexibility when dealing with a potential buyer.  Alex said the approach to interim zoning could be either specific or general, that there are pros and cons to each. He said he thought the DRB would be the better body to make development decisions once zoning was in place, and warned that the vaguer the language, the harder it is on the DRB to rule on it.  Ken thought the widening the scope would give Hinesburg a better position at the bargaining table.  There was more discussion about the scope of interim zoning; Will said any steps taken should be done thoughtfully but also quickly.  George did not think Saputo would find a buyer quickly and suggested that by leaving zoning in place that has limited uses, it perhaps bought the town the biggest block of time.  He agreed that interim zoning should reflect what the town ultimately wanted on the site.  Alan Norris suggested waiting until Saputo had a buyer with a specific plan.  Joe I. noted that bylaws with very specific uses were crafted for NRG.  Howdy Russell asked if any current uses that don’t fit were grandfathered; he suggested that now would be the time to say what we don’t want and make some degree of change.

 

Frank Twarog suggested using the agencies that have offered to help as a resource, that perhaps this process did not have to be reinventing the wheel.  He gave the example of a development corporation that was created in Plattsburgh after the local army base was closed.  Andrea Morgante liked the idea of forming a community development corporation.  She said that is still a possibility, whether it is created privately or with some connection to the town. It would be a non-profit corporation acting on behalf of community interests.

 

Jean asked Select Board members how they would like the PC to proceed.  Andrea said their group would draft a mission statement for a steering committee, make a list of what tasks need to be done and get back to the PC next week.  PC and SB meeting dates were discussed (next SB meeting is Jan. 2; next PC meeting is Jan. 14, a public forum on village zoning/official map.)  Will suggested that a special committee could meet as often as necessary around those dates so that the SB could warn a public hearing as soon (into the new year) as possible.  That committee was discussed.  Will and Joe I. agreed to represent the PC in that effort.  Alex said he did not think the Saputo issue affected work already done on the village rezoning proposal that was to be discussed on Jan. 14th.  Fred and Carrie agreed; Joe I. said that because of Saputo’s stipulation that no dairy operation occupy the site, water capacity on the town system would be gained, presenting both an opportunity (potential for development) and a problem (potential for increased user fees without Saputo’s contribution).   It was agreed to keep the two issues separate, in interest of not delaying the village zoning proposal.

 

Offical Town Map discussion

Alex said a small committee that included representatives from the CCRPC and CCMPO (regional planning and transportation organizations) has been working on a draft month for a few months.  He said the SB felt the map was a necessary piece of the village zoning language.  He reviewed a draft copy of the map, pointing out a minor error on the legend and also that the sidewalk trail going past the library should continue on to Geprags park.  He said the roads and intersections noted on the map have not been reviewed formally by an engineer.  Elements on the official map can indicate important information to potential developers about future sites or connections throughout town.  He reviewed the draft map, pointing out existing infrastructure, sidewalks, roads, natural areas and a potential site for a future recreational area.  Existing trails were not sited on the map.  Notes regarding a wide variety of community facilities on the Saputo property were added to the map, as they wanted to include a general note that recognized that the area is in flux.  Jean asked if language was flexible enough on the map.  Alex said the point of an official map is to give a developer notice that they need to come and talk to the town, effectively opening up an avenue of conversation.  He said by making it more vague, it made the document less effective.

 

The potential site for the recreation area was discussed.  Alex said he and the landowner, Wayne Bissonette were going to meet with the Army Corps of Engineers about the property to determine its viability as a rec site.  He said the wetlands clearly located on the Norris property south of town made it unsuitable for a rec site.  Alex said it was less certain on the Bissonette property.  Frank Twarog, speaking for the recreation commission stressed the need for rec fields of an appropriate size and location, particularly in terms of pedestrian and auto access.  Alex said he would add an access road to the proposed site.  He said he is hoping that Wayne and he could meet before the January meeting to see if the field should even stay.  Alex said he thought the committee should consider sites outside the village area as well.  Everyone agreed that no matter where the fields were located, any site would require significant capital improvement.  The Saputo parcel was suggested as a possible site for the fields, particularly due to its adjacent location to existing town fields.

 

Alex said he would finalize the map with changes and noted that the only outstanding question was the wetland delineation on the west end of the village north property.  He said the SB has been concerned about the lack of public infrastructure (playgrounds, parks, etc.) shown on the map, particularly in the NW growth area where there is the potential for the densest development.  Alex said if it were possible to have a substantial rec area in that area, that would take care of the SB concerns.  Ken  Brown asked why the proposed rec area in the NW district did not get included in the buildable area; Alex said it was left out on purpose to allow for development in the best building areas. 

 

Alex said the description in the zoning proposal speaks to smaller community spaces than those shown in the village area.  Wayne Bissonette reminded the group that the army corps still needs to assess the NW property.  Tim Clancy said it seemed that the park should not be on the outskirts of town and asked what other sites have been considered for it if any.  Joe I said he visited the soccer field behind Lantmans to get a sense for how much land was needed. He felt that field was too small; he said he liked sites with multiple fields as it makes attending multiple games easier.  He said other spaces within the village are small or wet or both.  The Tree Farm in Essex was discussed.  Tim said he thought it was important for a community to have rec space in a prime location.  There was a discussion about the pros and cons of the various sites around town, including the Gilman Road Bissonette property and the Norris land south of town.  Alan Norris said the developer or property owner should be considered in any conversation about siting public infrastructure on their property, and that they should be paid fairly.  Alex reviewed the concept of an official map, that placing elements of infrastructure and other areas gave developers at least an understanding of where they were likely to go.  He said the town must pay for any land it wishes to acquire.  He also explained that the DRB, once the official map is in place, seeks to make sure a development is designed so that it does not preclude development in that area.   Joe I discussed density allowances within certain districts. 

 

Carrie suggested reviewing the official map process before the next meeting.  Alex said he thought Wayne and Alan’s concerns about the DRB process were about the Town extracting something to which they had no rights.  George B. talked about the South Burlington official map process and some current issues related to it.

 

Jean asked Frank Twarog if the Recreation Committee had come up with any other areas in town for rec fields.  Frank said the area west of Geprags is flat but has high-voltage lines.  He said the area on the corner on Texas Hill and North Road might be a good place for open space but that engineering costs would be high to level the area to make it usuable.  He said the area around Lagoon Road on Charlotte Road seems to have some open space but with limitations for the shape of a full size soccer field.  He said all those areas stood out as usable but each had their own significant problem. 

 

The projected build-out in the Northwest district was discussed.  Alex described how he created some allocation scenarios, to come up with about 175 dwelling units.  Alex said recreation can happen anywhere in that district if it was something that a development proposal included.  The buildout assumed it would be throughout the whole zone.  If it were built out at the max, the bulk would be in that clear space, outside the wetland.  Jean asked about the SB concerns.  Alex said even if the PC did not identify a big public park in the NW district, development proposals would include smaller green spaces. 

 

Village Growth Zoning Proposal

Alex said there were very few changes that had been made to the last draft of the document.  He said the only one of substance was about density bonuses related to renewables.  He had talked about shifting the percentages.  He said he talked to Chuck Reiss for how to revise the language, but ultimately decided to leave it as-is.

 

There was a brief discussion about the wetlands in the NW district.  Alex said information from the Army Corp of Engineers would be helpful.

 

Minutes of the November 19th meeting

George MOVED to approve the minutes as amended.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.

 

Other Business

Alex said the January 28th meeting will be held at NRG, as a workshop on stormwater.  He said there would be a few speakers talking about low impact development. 

 

The next Planning Commission meeting is a Public Hearing scheduled for January 14th.

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

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary