TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

March 11, 2009

Approved March 25, 2009

 

Commission Members Present:  Tom Ayer, Tim Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, , Ashley Orgain, Will Patten, Johanna White.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Jean Isham.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Lisa Carlson, James Burnett, Mark Burnett.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm.

 

The board welcomed Tom Ayer as a new member of the Planning Commission.

 

1.      Preparation for 3/25 Public Hearing on Regulation Revisions

The group reviewed several of the issues that would be discussed at the upcoming public forum.

 

Cemeteries/Crematory provisions

Alex said the proposed language formally recognizes cemeteries as an allowed use in all districts.  It also clarifies that cemeteries with crematory services would be a conditional use, with crematories only permitted as an accessory to a cemetery.  Alex said the language also includes definitions for terms including cemetery, mortuary, crematory, etc.

 

Lisa Carlson spoke to the group about proposed changes that would expand state statute language.  She suggested allowing crematories to include services for animal remains, as this may be something a veterinarian business would be interested in.

 

Lease/Subdivision provisions

Alex said as we don’t often review complicated leases, he suggests exempting the majority of simple leases from review, but requiring more complex leases to be reviewed by the DRB.  Will wondered whether long-term leases were becoming more popular, as they may be a way to avoid capital gains.  He asked what would trigger a subdivision review if someone leased land to someone else on a long-term basis (for the construction of a camp, for instance).  Alex said that sort of lease would trigger the need for review because it is not for agricultural or forest purposes, but that it would be difficult to know that transaction had taken place except for someone applying for a building permit.  In that case, the Zoning Administrator would require the applicant to get DRB approval through a subdivision review. 

 

The group discussed the recent Unicel matter in which a portion of a silo was leased for the purpose of installing a telecommunications facility.  Joe I. said there should be a process to document certain aspects of lease arrangements, as there is always the possibility of a transfer of rights.  The more that lease area is defined, the better. 

 

Alex grouped examples of typical leases as:

                        - leases of land solely for agricultural or forestry uses

                        - leases of a small are for the purpose of a utility structure

                        - complicated leases that should go through a review process

 

Rather than exempting the lease entirely from review, Alex suggested requiring a final plat that includes certain documented items to be submitted.  Alex reminded the group that any telecommunications project will go through a rigorous review process outside a subdivision review (with new zoning regulations) during which many of the same issues would be discussed.

 

Carrie asked about the siting of a telecommunications facility on a church steeple, whether it could happen without a community’s knowledge.  Alex said yes, that in some cases the public would not be made aware through an official notification process but that church officials would likely communicate that information.

 

Noise provisions

Alex discussed specific issues that have arisen in the town over the past year concerning noise.  Fred said he interpreted the proposed language to mean that neighbors should try to first work out their disagreement over noise issues before involving community officials.  Alex said the proposed language spells out how to measure and/or discuss various qualities of noise in an effort to determine unreasonableness.

 

Will felt the word unreasonable is too subjective.  Alex discussed prior noise regulation language.  He said regulations used to limit noise to a certain decibel level but that this approach was found to be inflexible as language did not address other factors such as intensity, duration and frequency.  An earlier PC decided to get rid of that language in favor of this subjective (referring to the phrases “usual and customary” and/or “reasonable”) language.  He said the new language gives the Zoning Administrator some additional facets of noise to consider but does not clarify whether all these factors should be considered.  Will suggested the section state that a combination of factors could be considered. 

 

Tom suggested adding language that addressed historical uses in a neighborhood.  Fred agreed, but said the higher density predicted for towns such as Hinesburg makes it hard to keep historical norms possible.  He described a natural loss of freedoms as people live into closer range to each other.  Alex said regulations already addressed normal residential activities such as chain saw or lawn mower use as acceptable activities.  Fred suggested adding the word “historical” to the new proposed language (i.e. to add it to the noise qualities “list” - intensity, duration, frequency and historical use”) when assessing noise for “reasonableness”.

 

Mark Burnett, a member of the audience, thought that broader wording would open up more complaints.  Alex said there are very few noise-related complaints at the zoning office or police department.  Alex said this section is meant to cover the very tough examples when neighbors cannot come to an agreement.

 

James and Mark Burnett said the word “historic” would help their case.  Alex said that although recent complaints regarding the Burnett facility acknowledged its historical presence in the neighborhood, they argued that the facility’s operations had changed over time, with noise intensified.  The Fenwick/Laberge issue was also discussed.  The group agreed to wait for more public input on the issue before making any further changes.

 

Other Business and Announcements

Alex said he was working on drafting different options for a rural planning proposal that the group would discuss and eventually propose to the public, probably in May at the earliest.

Dirt roads and whether their cost could be calculated were discussed.

 

Will gave an update on the work of the Saputo committee.  He said the group’s efforts are divided into three areas: business planning and financing; legal and political; and conceptual design of the facility in order to maximize the potential of the whole 15-acre property. Will said the group remains focused on three main goals: recover lost jobs, rebuild the tax base and keep the facility tied to the working landscape.  He said there is tremendous interest in sustainable agricultural projects locally and around the state.

 

Minutes of the February 11th meeting

Carrie MOVED to accept the February 11th meeting minutes as amended.  Johanna SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0, with Tom, Ashley and Will abstaining.

 

Next Meeting and Adjournment

Will MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Fred SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0. 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary