TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

February 11, 2009

Approved March 11, 2009

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

Commission Members Absent: Tim Clancy, Ashley Orgain, Will Patten.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Bill Marks.

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

I. Zoning Regulations Revision Proposals

Farm Worker Housing

Jean asked about a statement in the proposal that referred to worker housing conforming to the design of other structures in the neighborhood. The group discussed building aesthetics and the potential for neighbors’ concerns. Carrie thought the statement served to prevent stark or simple structures that would not fit within an agricultural landscape. Jean said housing might be provided in existing buildings such as barns or other ag structures that had been converted, with open or dormitory-style interiors. Carrie suggested a 4-bedroom dorm within an A-frame style building as an inexpensive model. Fred thought the statement provided guidance mainly to prevent outlandishly built structures, i.e. buildings that were very different from typical ag structures. The group agreed they expected high quality structures. They agreed that the language as written was ready to be presented at a public hearing.

Telecommunication Facilities

Jean asked about the subdivision lease provision within the proposal. Alex said while the definition of a subdivision currently includes leases of a portion of land, the entire review process assumes that one is creating actual lots, not leased areas. Joe I. thought leases of land should be documented in the town records. Jean said for a lease to be valid it needed to be recorded in the land records. Joe I. said locating a base station in a steeple or a silo that is also used for a church or working farm (a shared model) was different than giving the telecom company rights to a portion of a parcel (an exclusive rights model).

Alex asked the group how they wished to handle the different scenarios. The group discussed how businesses currently lease a portion of a building, as they do, for example, in the Firehouse Plaza. Alex said in that situation there is a site plan approval for multiple businesses; as long as a new business can function under that prior approval, there is no need for it to go back to the DRB (as long as their use is a permitted use, not a conditional one). Alex said all telecommunications proposals (the shared AND exclusive models) could go through one rigorous review process, just not through DRB subdivision review.

Section 7.7 of the proposal was discussed. Alex said it was added to help clarify Section 2.5.5 of the Zoning Regulations (that requires a lot to have only one principal building) and also to clarify whether a building lease needed subdivision review. He said currently the regulations state only “one principal building”; the new language states “one principal building and/or use”.

Alex said he could craft a subdivision lease provision as a change to the subdivision regulations. Jean said she agreed that when a portion of a lot is leased, it should go through subdivision review. Carrie wanted to be sure the public knew whether a facility was located within a building. Alex said they would know based on the telecommunications review process, under which ALL facilities would be reviewed.

The group asked Alex to remove Section 7.7.2 (leasing a portion of a lot may be allowed without subdivision review). They said they would like such a review if it were for a piece of land. Fred said that if someone is leasing land for a cell tower, it should be well-defined and documented, to understand the setbacks, etc. Rather than remove the section, Alex said he would change it to read “…leasing a portion of a lot requires subdivision review; leasing a portion of an existing building does NOT require review”.

The group discussed “fall zones” and David Blittersdorf’s comments regarding towers, guy wires, etc. Alex said the towers tend to crumple, not fall straight down. Jean asked if there was much difference between the two types of towers (wind turbine and cell tower). Alex said David’s information was specifically about his wind turbine tower, not other designs. Joe I. said structures are supported by cables at multiple heights; if one breaks there would be change in force and the tower would likely bow, causing it to fold. He thought all cables would not instantaneously break. Alex said he also received information from Sparky Milliken, a resident of Leavensworth Road. The group agreed to keep the fall zone to 100% of the tower. They then agreed the document as amended was ready to be presented at a public hearing.

Noise Performance Standards

Alex said the only change to the noise performance standards the PC had suggested was just a brief clarification regarding the definition of “unreasonable”; the group agreed.

II. Rural Area Zoning

Alex gave a history of work done to date. He said in June 2008 he drafted a proposed zoning change for discussion purposes only. The group then had two field trips, one to a parcel on Lincoln Hill and to another at Geprags Park, with the assignment to create a hypothetical development using the proposed standards. Alex said he had sketches from that process and would clean them up for presentation to the public. He said Bill Marks had done research on how other communities deal with rural development, and was particularly interested in the Norwich model which was based on the review of three components: base density; distance from the village center and the level of maintenance or rural nature of your road; and proximity or contiguousness to conserved land. Alex said it was a very different way to deal with density, in contrast to the area-based density model the PC group had wanted to pursue, but that he had continued to work with the CC on their approach in parallel.

Alex thought several options should be presented at a public forum. He said he would work on a Hinesburg version of the Norwich model, as well as clean up the area-based model sketches from last summer. Joe I. asked about the feasibility of applying the Norwich rules to a Hinesburg map. He questioned whether Hinesburg’s star pattern of substantial roads leading out from its center was comparable to Norwich’s road configuration. He said all of Hinesburg’s main dirt roads have multiple access points; he suggested the analysis of this would be important if connectivity to a feeder road were taken into consideration (as it is in the Norwich model). Alex said there were other discreet variables within the Norwich model, that even if many parcels have access to a good quality road, other criteria might affect development on those parcels.

Joe I. wanted to be sure the group considered Hinesburg in its more connected setting (with South Burlington to the north and Monkton to the south). Fred thought the idea of a village center was arbitrary depending on where a person lived. He asked if the Highway Dept. kept specific records by road (labor hours, material costs, maintenance and rehabilitation costs due to soils, slopes, etc.), so that roads could be evaluated by how expensive they were to maintain. He suggested that method of study would be less arbitrary.

Alex said Select Board members are also interested in the Norwich model as it does address the cost of maintaining roads. Fred thought facts - a track record by road – would create the best foundation for any model. Jean said the SB has stated that Hinesburg’s dirt roads are not sustainable for heavy development. Alex said he and Bill Marks would consult Mike Anthony to obtain (at least anecdotally) information on road expenses.

Bill Marks, representing the Conservation Committee, said in addition to road maintenance costs, development potential should be considered in terms of the amount of traffic that is required, i.e. the increased use of cars to the exclusion of other bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Bill said a common neighbor issue at DRB hearings involves the amount of traffic on dirt roads. Alex agreed that any sustainability discussion involved not only the town plan’s goal to favor pedestrian traffic but also in how Hinesburg could preserve its rural nature.

Joe I. discussed the idea of a radius versus continuum calculation. He thought the radius of how far people would walk outside the town center was fairly small. He said he did not agree that an emphasis on a town center necessarily diminished an emphasis on rural development. He thought the biggest problem the board would face is the perception of a take-away from landowners. Bill Marks thought the distance issue made the potential for development near the village better. He said he would investigate where the Norwich proposal originated and where else that particular type of model is being used. He said he thought there were ways to adapt its formula to Hinesburg. He liked that the model did not require a strict set density and could avoid potential strife in that way.

The group discussed the timing of submitting any rural proposal to the Select Board, whether all proposed changes should be submitted at once. They agreed to pass the three items reviewed this evening to the SB without delay and to continue to work on the rural proposal.

Other Business and Announcements

Minutes of the January 14^th meeting

Carrie MOVED to accept the January 14^th, 2009 meeting minutes as amended. Joe I. SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

February 16^th Selectboard hearing on Interim Zoning (Saputo site)

Alex told the group that the SB had noticed that Industrial 5 zoning language described a permitted use as “manufacturing, distribution and warehousing”. They were concerned that “warehousing” could be allowed separately (i.e. not as part of one manufacturing operation as intended) and suggested the PC clarify that language for the NE district.

February 18 LID stormwater workshop at NRG

Alex said the workshop has been rescheduled to February 18^th at 7:00 pm.

Village Growth Area Rezoning proposal update – Selectboard status

Alex said the SB had concerns over the Village NW area, particularly whether the district could realistically be built out the way the PC envisioned, due to wetland areas found in the district. Alex said he would be talking to the Army Corps of Engineers as to why there are different wetland delineations in opposition. He said the SB would like to adopt the official map that included an indication of a recreation area (one had been previously removed by the PC at the last meeting) and may warn a public hearing on the map sooner than the larger rezoning proposal. They understood why the area had been removed but still wanted to explore other places to put one. The group discussed the idea of a descriptive attachment to the map. Jean thought supplemental information could not be considered within a regulatory document. Joe I. agreed, stating the map’s purpose was to be used in the development process to start a legally-defined negotiation process. Jean thought if something was not on the map, it could have no force and effect.

Alex suggested seeking legal advice. He reminded the group of the requirement the DRB has to efficiently interpret what the PC has put into regulation. There was discussion on whether anything charted on the map was literal. It was agreed that while indications on the map do not have to be precise, they do trigger a conversation if they overlay any portion of a parcel that a landowner wishes to develop. Impact fees were discussed; Alex said the SB would eventually adopt those. He said the map is about making sure there is a space reserved, not so much who is going to pay for it. He said landowners do not lose development potential, as the town becomes the buyer in any future transaction should they choose to purchase the land.

Fred brought up density calculations in the NW district and the discovery of more wetland areas than previously thought. He warned that the incentive programs devised for the district may be underutilized, as landowners could climb up to a maximum density (by shifting density potential from wetland areas to developable areas within the same parcel) without employing any incentives. Alex said that was essentially the same problem the SB had with the district, except their concern was over the aesthetics of an urban development scenario. He discussed areas within the village where high density was already occurring (Lyman Meadows and along parts of Route 116). Fred wanted to be sure the district provided smaller, affordable units as envisioned by the PC. He said that density is also controlled by other factors such as heights, setbacks, etc.

Town Plan revision grant award

Alex said the Town was awarded $10K for a Town Plan revision, to be used primarily to hire a consultant with web skills to bring plan online. He said the SB needs to re-adopt the Plan by June, 2010; Alex was hoping the PC could give the SB something to review by January 2010.

CCMPO grant award for transportation planning

Alex said the Town also received a $40K grant as part of the Sustainability initiative, which will be used mainly to bolster the HCRC and Hinesburg Rides program. He said the town would develop a usable carpool matching system relevant to Hinesburg.

Fred said he has agreed to join a subcommittee of the Regional Planning Commission that works mainly to advise the RPC about what towns need from them. Alex said while the RPC’s GIS and mapping resources are fantastic, it is hard to know how to interface with their general planning assistance resources.

It was noted that the February 25^th, 2009 Planning Commission may be cancelled in order to allow more time for proposal drafts and changes. A notice will be posted online as confirmation.

Fred MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Joe SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary