TOWN OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved April 8, 2009
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Tim
Clancy,
Commission Members Absent:
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning & Subdivision
Regulation Revisions
Fred opened the
public hearing and took comments from the audience and Planning Commission
members on the following proposed revisions:
Noise performance
standards (revisions of section 5.12.1)
Tim Casey spoke representing Hinesburg Sand and Gravel. He suggested adding language that considered noise by zone. James Burnett of Burnett Scrap Metals said his non-conforming business was located in a residential district and that a by-zone provision would be problematic for his business; he preferred to add a notation about historic or current uses. Tanya Bouchard asked whether the new regulations would include a decibel notation and also how spikes in noise would be dealt with. Fred said PC had already come to the conclusion that a decibel level would not be set.
Gary Fenwick thought new regulations would not pertain to a
business that was pre-existing and therefore grandfathered. He also noted that he had received land use documents
from the P&Z office that stated many towns are setting a decibel level within
regulations because it can serve as a baseline in an argument over the
definition of “unreasonable”. Alan
Norris said he thought the proposed language was still too subjective and open
to interpretation by different parties.
He added that he thought riding motorcycles was a reasonable activity in
the country. Tanya Bouchard said the Town
of
Fred said the PC could consider crafting highly-descriptive
language that considered zones, exemptions for each zone, etc. but that they
wished instead to encourage neighbors to communicate with each other and
accommodate each other first on specific matters. Brock Francis asked about the process that
followed after a ZA decision (appeals,
Gary Fenwick said Act 250 also had “unreasonable” as its norm but dropped its use in favor of a decibel level. Alex explained how zoning regulations had evolved (going from language that included a specific decibel level to the present language in which it had been dropped.) He said a previous PC had found the decibel level to be too inflexible and recommended to the SB to delete it and deliberately insert more subjective language. He said this PC has gone back and forth on whether to create a noise ordinance, delete the current noise performance standards or to do nothing. He said he thought their compromise was a reasonable one, to insert in existing language several terms with which to assess noise (frequency, duration, intensity) and thus provide framework on how to consider the term “unreasonable”.
Gary Fenwick asked why most other towns are adopting a decibel level. Alex said he did not have specific data on what other towns were doing but acknowledged that towns more developed than Hinesburg (e.g. Williston) probably have those ordinances due to a higher level of controversy. Judy Laberge said she knew of one town that defined unreasonableness by activity. Alex reminded the group that this section of the zoning regulations does not apply to most things considered usual and customary activities that create noise (lawn mowers, etc.). Tanya Bouchard said she thought bike riding was a customary activity on Hayden Hill. Alan Norris added that it made a difference as to when a noisy activity occurred.
Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator, described regulatory language outside the Zoning performance standards section, stating there are a dozen different mentions of the word “noise” and about 4 mentions of the word “unreasonable”, scattered through language written for individual districts. He said because activities in all districts are held to the more general performance standards, he thought those instances of “unreasonable” and “noise” should be looked at more carefully within each district statement of purpose to ensure consistency. He added that the most effective zoning language would provide clear parameters to the ZA that were also enforceable by the police; he thought that was a whole different system than what was being proposed, clarifying that he did not mean breech of peace.
Wireless
telecommunication facilities (new section)
Tim Casey asked whether an existing tower would have to
comply with the proposed requirements.
Alex said the new regulations would apply only for planned expansions or
changes of use of existing facilities.
Fred noted a provision that encouraged the practice of co-location. Charles Kogge said all towers have to comply
with existing federal regulations and also the VT Telecommunications authority. Andrea Morgante asked if there had been any
discussion about identifying the best place for towers in town. Fred said the PC did discuss that sort of
proactive planning but felt they did not have the resources or technical
expertise. Alex discussed particular
towers and cell providers in the area and the goal of providing coverage,
particularly in-building service within the village. Many people agreed that there are still gaps
in coverage. Joe I. said that discussion
should not be limited to cell phone coverage, that many other technologies with
different frequencies may require different tower location or configurations. Alex clarified that the proposed regulations
do not compel companies to share their space.
Alan Norris said he thought the state should require that.
A review of leases
and types of leases that are exempt from Subdivision review
Joe I. said the PC had been interested in having leases of land that would be dedicated for telecommunications towers go through plat review, to recognize that there was a relationship between the landowner and the lessee. He said if the equipment was located in an existing building it would not require that type of registration.
Andrea Morgante asked about access to these sites, whether leases included deeds or ROW agreements. She noted that often damage to a property having to do with a tower involves the access to it. Alex said the provision as proposed would not require any level of approval for small leases and would not address access in terms of damage to the property, etc. Alex said a permit is required for the facility and access would be reviewed during that process.
Wendy Patterson asked about safety considerations for
facilities on an existing building. Joe
I. explained that facilities would be handled much the same way a sub-lease is currently
handled, for instance, as with
Farm worker housing
(new section)
Missy Ross said she thought the new regulations were written too broadly and did not consider the potential of structures to be converted to more permanent residential structures in the future. Without subdivision review, a building might not meet stricter building, setback or other permitting requirements in the future. She thought a landowner could run into significant problems later and that allowing these kinds of large structures without going through subdivision may actually do them a disservice. She noted that landowners already have the opportunity for accessory apartments. She suggested requiring subdivision review for larger or multiple family structures as they are very different from creating living quarters in an existing farmstead building. Missy raised the issue of illegal apartments that have created problems for listers and also noted a trend towards much smaller farms on which permanent residential density would be a problem.
Fred said the PC envisioned farmers utilizing existing structures and agreed that the regulations as proposed allowed for new structures. The group discussed the potential for intentionally subverting the regulations and whether they should be written to only allow temporary structures. Requirements for water and wastewater (specifically whether they were required for temporary structures) were discussed. The group discussed dwellings vs. non-dwellings.
The group discussed the definitions for “farm worker” and “active
farm”. Alan Norris suggested having all
worker housing go through
5) Cemeteries with
on-site crematories (new section)
Andrea Morgante wanted to ensure new regulations did not limit the definition or placement of a cemetery. She raised the idea of a linear cemetery, something on a publicly-owned piece of land that would incorporate a bike path through cemetery grounds along the side. Alex said cemeteries are not defined in our regulations nor did this proposal add them as an allowed use in every district. He said if such a linear cemetery-as-bike path were proposed for in a portion of the village district it could not happen under this proposal. Alan Norris suggested more of a memorial park concept, with portions of the bike path sold “in memory of” but not literally have it traverse a cemetery. Wendy Patterson noted Battery Park as such example of a memorial park.
Fred closed the public hearing portion of the meeting (
1) Noise performance standards - the group voted to submit
the revisions as written to the SB.
2) Wireless telecommunication facilities - Alex will look into access issues (esp.
dealing with erosion, stormwater and preservation of town assets) and adjust
revisions as needed.
3) Farm worker housing - Alex
will revise language for lesser review of temporary structures and greater
review of more permanent residential structures.
4) Cemeteries with on-site
crematories - No major changes were proposed.
5) Leases – the same action(s) described under “Wireless”
(above).
Other Business
The group briefly discussed Tom’s input regarding the energy initiatives and incentives proposed in the village zoning regulations. Fred’s input was also discussed; both Fred and Tom agreed to attend the Select Board public hearing before having the PC revisit the issues.
Minutes
of the March 11th meeting
Fred MOVED to accept the March 11th
meeting minutes as amended. Will SECONDED
the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.
Next
Meeting and Adjournment
Will MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Fred SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.
The meeting adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
Recording Secretary