TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

January 14, 2009

Approved February 11, 2009

 

Commission Members Present:  Kay Ballard, Tim Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham (Chairperson), Ashley Orgain, Will Patten.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Johanna White.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Karla and George Munson, Peter Erb, Rolf Kielman, Henry Erickson, Bill Maclay, David and Barbara Lyman, John Lyman, Jonathan Trefry, Tim Ballard.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

 

Official Town Map discussion

Alex gave an update on several map-related issues raised since the last meeting.  He said he spoke with Wayne Bissonette regarding a future recreation area that had been sited in the NW district.  A wetland delineation of the area had been done by a private consultant who concluded that the area contained non-functional wetlands and may still have potential as a rec area.  The next step was to speak with Mike Adams of the Army Corps of Engineers but Wayne and Alex agreed that seemed premature, as any answers they received from the Corps would be preliminary.  Alex said other potential rec areas were still being explored.  He recommended removing the area and reconsidering its location in a future version of the map.

 

Alex reminded the group of a conversation with Lisa Carlson last year about adding crematories as a use in the village growth center.  He said they had agreed to make those changes but noted the use had only been added in the NW district (page 9).  The group discussed adding the use to the other districts.  Carrie thought previous discussions had focused on the Residential 1 district as it was adjacent to the town cemetery.  Jean asked whether crematories had been included in previous zoning as a conditional use; Alex said mortuaries and funeral parlors which do not offer crematories are allowed currently as conditional uses.  Joe said he would not want that use in the NE district.  Jean agreed the NE district should be preserved for light manufacturing.  Carrie thought the issue had been discussed more in the context of the Rural Residential districts.  Fred thought little or no limitations needed to be placed on that use in the growth center; he thought a crematory would likely be just one facility with limited impact.

 

Jean asked about the new town cemetery off Gilman Road; Alex said it was in the Ag district (not currently under discussion for rezoning).  The group reviewed language in the proposal re: allowed uses in the NE district (page 11).  Fred noted that Lisa had described her vision of a crematory as being a green facility situated in a natural setting.  Alex said we would not be prescribing a certain type of facility by adding this as a use.  Fred thought something large-scale and less people-oriented in the village districts would be fine.  Will said he would not want to displace something else in the village districts that would be a better fit.  Joe I. stated again that he did not want the use included in the NE district.  Carrie said it should be an allowed use in Residential 1 only.  Alex clarified that the northern boundary of the Residential 1 district constitutes the southern boundary of the cemetery which is in the Rural Residential district.  Alex said putting the use in the Residential 1 would make it one of the only commercial non-residential uses (others include educational institutions, tourist homes, daycare facilities, outdoor recreational facilities limited to public playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis courts, places of worship).  The group concluded to allow the use only in the Residential 1 district.

 

The group discussed the future recreational area proposed in the NW district.  Fred asked how long it would take to investigate that and other potential areas.  Alex said he and Rocky Martin have been talking with Andrea Morgante on a different location that might work. He said Frank Twarog, the Rec. Committee chair, has also suggested other locations that need investigation.  Alex said he is planning more wetland delineations for the spring.  Joe thought we could remove the recreation area from the NW district but that the group should revisit its location periodically.

 

Fred raised the idea of constructing retaining ponds on the west side to ease the flow of storm water from the village area.  He said westerly views would be better preserved with those ponds in place, and that a master storm water plan shared among landowners/developers could make development in the NW district more economically viable.  Jean thought the limited number of landowners in that area could make such an approach possible.  Fred said he did not think the project would involve the town; landowners (currently only 2) could work with a developer(s) to make that type of facility happen.  Alex said some of the preliminary ideas he’s seen on similar parcels show that storm water treatment takes up a lot of space.  Fred asked if there was a way to indicate such a facility on the map without officially designating one.  Alex said the map was a regulatory document that should not have ambiguous items on it.  Joe agreed that there should not be anything on the map that was not meant to ultimately be public infrastructure.

 

Jean asked audience members for comments.  Peter Erb expressed concerns he had regarding development on steep grades in the NE district.  He said slopes there were as high as 25-30%.  He said the NRG building and the Thistle Hill developments were each on slopes at about 15%.  Carrie asked if design standards addressed the steepness of grade.  Alex said grades and other impediments to lots are addressed in the Subdivision regulations.  He read from basic planning standards found in Sec. 5 (pg. 14), “Suitability for Development”.  He said other sections talk about natural resource protections and soil erosion in terms of the developability of a lot.  Peter thought encouraging building on small lots with steep slopes may be setting up expectations for development potential that could not be met later.

 

Bill Maclay, an architect speaking on behalf of the land owners, the Blittersdorfs, said he thought the flexibility now found in the Subdivision regulations allowed engineers to creatively address slope development.  He added that the south-facing hillside in the proposed NE district allowed for berming, and also that small lots are to the town’s benefit in terms of encouraging higher density.  Peter agreed that appropriate engineering can overcome the challenge of building on a hillside; he said he only wanted to see more refined language regarding lot sizes.  Bill stated that the residential subdivision currently being reviewed at the DRB takes up much of the land in that district anyway; the remaining developable land is at the lower portion of the hillside.

 

Bill Maclay raised another issue, a proposed road connection to CVU Road, stating it was a concern to the Blittersdorfs and that they are requesting that it be removed.  He said the road would require blasting and tunneling through the hill.  He said if the intent of the NE district is to allow for larger industrial-type buildings, a road would severely limit some of the best building sites.  He felt pedestrian access through the area would be fine but not a regular road.  Alex said the road was sited there as a way to minimize road cuts off Route 116.  Joe added that such a road would integrate the whole district (connecting the west and east sides) instead of having to go around using CVU and Mechanicsville Roads.  Bill noted a wetlands floodplain, north-facing slopes and stream setbacks that left little land for a road.  Alex said the Blittersdorfs support a pedestrian/bike path connection.  Bill agreed that the idea of a connection made sense but that there were many property constraints to consider. 

 

Alex clarified that it was the westerly road being discussed, the one close to Route 116.  The other road proposed to go onto the Quinn property was OK.  Bill agreed that that (second) road was feasible.  Alex said the Blittersdorfs planned to build part of it anyway to access a subdivision that is in the process of being reviewed.  All commission members agreed to remove the westerly road from the map.

 

Rolf Kielman asked if the second road would become a public ROW.  Alex said yes, that Riggs Road itself would become part of it, serving the connectivity function that Joe was talking about.  Alex said not all roads on the map were proposed to be wide high-speed roads; he said this one in particular had a lot of constraints if ever built.  Alex does not see it as a shortcut used by CVU students; he said Riggs Road is now a private road and he suggested extending the proposed road (the gray area) to it.  Jean asked if Riggs Road had been built to town standards.  Alex said no, that it was not meant to be a high-volume road.  He said that it has the potential to be a public road but not one serving thousands of trips a day.  Jean suggested running the road to connect to the Riggs Road.  Jon Trefry said his understanding is that the official map is not obligating the town to do anything so he did not have a problem with extending the connection.  Fred thought all roads, including the proposed west road (through the NW and Village districts), should be meandering to discourage speeding.  Alex said the reason the gray areas are so wide (about 200 feet) was to allow for roads to be configured with curves.

 

Public roads were discussed further, including connections at Lavigne Hill Road, the Creekside roads, and those going by Lyman Park.  David Lyman asked if it was the board’s intent to make intersection improvements before the map was adopted (he was specifically referring to Intersection #1). Alex said the map only indicates that we would improve that intersection in the future; he said developers would need to look at those indications.  Jean asked how the state would be involved.  Alex cited the Middlebury Bank’s improvements required by ACT 250.

 

Alex suggested having members of the PC discuss the official map with members of the DRB, to explain their intent of the map, the language, etc.  Will asked if a document could be attached to a map; Alex thought it was a possibility. 

 

Jean summarized map changes: 1) remove the future rec area from the NW district; 2) remove the road from Riggs Road to CVU Road; 3) extend the proposed road off Route 116 to Riggs Road.  Fred said he liked that connector indication left as-is, as the road was not improved to town standards.  The group discussed whether such road connections should be indicated on the map.  Will thought putting as much on the map as possible was best.

 

Jean asked about revisions to language regarding slopes.  Carrie said she thought subdivision regulations should address that and Will agreed that proposals could then be discussed at the DRB level upon review.  Joe and Fred preferred flexibility in the regulations to allow for more creative solutions.  Peter Erb agreed that flexibility was important but that a certain burden is then placed on the DRB to force them to make the applicant be creative.  Jean suggested addressing the issue by reviewing of the subdivision regulations that are applicable town-wide, opposed to addressing zoning by district.  Alex said road grades are limited in regulations but not driveways grades.  Fred said a driveway more than 10% is not practical.

 

Peter raised another concern regarding the treatment of wildlife habitat or corridors in developments, that subdivision language (Sec. 4.5.8 D) should specify how to treat those areas across the entire parcel under development review, not just the area being set aside as open space in a PRD.  Fred thought those concepts would be addressed when the Commission took up the rural rezoning effort.  Joe thought the village rezoning effort had the effect of “shaking off our ag roots” in the village area.  He said he would not want the DRB to consider ag soils in the village district as the plan now was to disconnect those from development in the village area.

 

Barb Lyman asked why a certain portion of the Lyman parcel (to the west of the proposed NW district) had not been included in new zoning.  Alex said it was due to flood hazard area mapping.  He said if that mapping changes in the future, there is the potential to change the zoning but that for now it would remain in a low density area due to wetland constraints.

 

Fred said the proposed west road intersection with Shelburne Falls Road might be problematic if lined up with the Ballard road due to the right-hand turn lanes onto and off Route 116 in the area.  Alex said he has had that conversation with officials at the CCMTC and that VTrans has also done some planning for that intersection.  He said VTrans had the federal funds to pursue an intersection improvement but that the ROW acquisition had been difficult to procure.  Alex said if a developer proposed something on the south side of Shelburne Falls Road, having the intersection sited on the official map at least allowed for conversation about either side of the road.  He noted wetland issues in the area, opposite Pleasant View Lane.

 

Tim said he was concerned about removing the recreation area from the NW district especially because residential development was planned there.  He thought recreation areas were vital to a community and removing any indication of one on the map would lessen the commitment to replacing it in the future.  The brown spaces sited in the village area were discussed as sites for community facilities, not rec fields.  Will agreed he thought it would be a better map to have rec fields sited.  John Trefry agreed it was important to give rec facilities some priority.  Alex said there was a strong indication that one wouldn’t work in the NW location and thought leaving it in that location perhaps created false hope for one (he cited the Army Corps involvement again).  Carla Munson suggested considering the new town forest area (off Gilman Road) as a potential rec area.  Alex said another area under discussion was town-owned land behind Town Hall.  He said it was in a walkable, central location but that it would still have wetland and other issues.  Tim thought there should be some recognition of a recreation area, some way to denote that we are continuing to look at it.  Alex questioned whether a design intent standard or other written intent that could be (officially) attached to the map.  There was further discussion about whether the rec area in the NW district should be left on the map.  Alex said a smaller area could be shown in that district to indicate “pocket parks”, those areas that could be planned by private developers to address public spaces.  He said those did not have to be identified specifically but that language could simply state a desire to have them.

 

Fred asked why the riparian park indicated on the map did not extend through the Lyman Park.  Alex said there was a larger conservation emphasis there, not just one concerning stream setbacks.  Fred asked if the setback area could be used recreationally.  Alex said yes but that development would not be allowed there.  Jean said the setback area could have hiking and walking trails through it but that it wouldn’t necessarily be a public green space.  John Lyman asked about areas that may be taken over by the town.  Alex explained the town map concept.  David Lyman asked if the town was ready to purchase land when the map was approved.  Alex explained the town has 120 days to either instigate negotiations or to pass on purchasing land.  Tim Ballard asked who set the value for land.  Alex said an appraisal would be done, with subsequent negotiations and a settlement on a price.  Will asked if the public spaces proposed near the post office and police station could be brought together.  Alex noted the development potential on the parcels in between them after the zoning changes took effect.

 

Alex read from the purpose section written for the NW district (pg. 8) that stated “new development shall address the need for public spaces”; in other words, developments were not to be designed as gated communities.  He also referred to the general purpose section which describes the district as having a mix of uses.  Jean asked if that language was strong enough to take the concept of pocket parks into consideration.  Jon Trefry said PRD/PUD language found in Subdivision regulations (Sec. 4.5.8) addressed such an open space provision.

 

Alex said he would make the agreed-upon changes and forward the revised official map to the Select Board for their review.  Will MOVED to close the public hearing and to direct staff to amend the official map as discussed and forward it to the Select Board.  Carried SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.

 

Saputo site update

Alex said the Select Board has created a Saputo redevelopment committee that included himself, Rolf Kielman of the Village Steering Committee, as well as five other members to be appointed.  He said the SB wishes to adopt interim zoning now and have asked Alex to draft something for them to review.  Alex offered two ideas to the Commission regarding interim zoning: 1) take the existing Industrial District 3 language, strike some items no longer reasonable for the area (e.g., dead storage, auto repair, etc.)and change all permitted uses to conditional uses to create interim zoning for the area; 2) take the core Village zoning that surrounds the Saputo property, add the Industrial 3 uses that compliment those Village uses, and combine those to create interim zoning for the Saputo facility or for the entire (former Industrial 3) district.  Alex said the 2nd approach would create a wide variety of allowed uses, giving the DRB flexibility as the review board considering future proposals.

 

Alex said the only other issue to consider concerns district lines, whether to treat portions of the parcel differently or descriptively (such as making the front of the property more “village-friendly”).  Jean said she would like to see a master plan for the whole area before such division lines were put into place. 

 

Will said the purpose of the interim zoning is to get site control, not to put too much work into a rezoning effort.  Jean suggested removing certain uses now found in Industrial 3.  Carrie thought the best approach would leave uses in that could be high-employer elements.  Alex asked for specific suggestions on what uses to keep.  Joe agreed that high employee concerns should be prioritized, instead of looking for a certain type of business or industry to fit into that spot.  He suggested wording that encouraged breaking that facility up into incubator space.  Will said the intent of interim zoning is not to redevelop the property; he said when a proposal comes in, then regular zoning could be discussed.

 

Will gave an update on several conversations he has had regarding the property.  He has met with officials from the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation (GBIC) who have indicated there may be Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) available for another food enterprise (similar to the Fairfax project).  He said there is much energy at the state government level behind this type of economic development project.

 

Fred said he did not think adding interim zoning as proposed was necessary.  He would like to see the Commission create a zoning district now, by looking at the whole property and creating certainty between Saputo and potential buyers.  Jean thought it would take time to go through that rezoning process.  She said interim zoning would help to control the site instead of putting it at risk.  Alex gave the creation of the Industrial 5 district as an example (the NRG property), noting that the Commission met weekly over the course of 3-4 months.  Joe added that there had been a vision (green, light industry) for the NRG property that is lacking for the Saputo property, at least in the short term.  Will said the Saputo site committee will be charged with creating such a vision, within a short time frame, that will drive the rezoning effort.  Alex agreed that some kind of consensus about the vision for the property was crucial.  The group discussed how the process should proceed.  Jean thought the Commission might be spinning its wheels until the redevelopment committee has given feedback.  Ashley suggested adding descriptive language, similar to that found in other district’s purpose statements, to interim zoning.

 

The group MOVED to approve the December 17th meeting minutes as amended.  Alex passed out information regarding the 2nd annual Chittenden County Planning Conference on January 29th and 30th. 

 

The next Planning Comm. meeting is scheduled for January 28th, 2009. It is planned to be a stormwater workshop to take place at the NRG facility.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary