TOWN OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Approved
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Tim
Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham, Ashley Orgain, Johanna
White.
Commission Members Absent:
Will Patten
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Alan Norris.
Farm worker
Housing
The group discussed the definition of a farm worker. Alex relayed two suggestions given to him by
Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator):
1) Workers
should have the ability to live in housing year-round even if they only work
seasonally. The group agreed this
arrangement would fit for a vegetable or alternative (non-dairy) farm. Carrie said farming trends in
2) Rather
than mandating workers to work a 20-hour week, clarify that the work a person
does is necessary and an intrinsic part of the work done on and for the farm. This would avoid creating a loophole that
allowed a non-ag structure to be built for a use other than worker housing
without going through the regular subdivision or permitting processes.
Tim asked if the number of workers should be considered in
crafting the provision details. The
group felt Hinesburg did not have farms large enough to require a large number
of workers. Tom suggested that 6-8
workers would be sufficient for a large farm in our area. .
Alex said Peter had concerns that the language did not
address interns or volunteers that worked in return for lodging. Joe I. thought such an arrangement could be considered
“barter” and therefore still eligible for farm worker housing, even though
money was not exchanged. Alex explained
that Peter reviewed the provision not only for subdivision loopholes but also with
an eye for protecting farmers from potential problems with neighbors; clear
language would avoid both.
New wording was suggested and agreed to by the group:
1) “An employee, intern
or volunteer” … “but must do substantial work on the farm”.
2) “Farm workers
are eligible for year-round use of the dwelling.”
3) “Prior
approved permits and conditions still apply.”
4) “occupied only by
the owner, operator…” “their immediate
family…”
The group discussed structures other than dwellings
(defined by the ZA as “providing eating, sleeping and bathing”) such as
tents. Alex said his understanding is
that these structures do not require permits.
Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities
Tom asked if towers, when being installed, are flown in or
brought in by a vehicle. Carrie said regardless
of how they are installed, facilities have to be serviced and require road
access. Joe I. noted that the tower on
Subdivision
Review of Leases
Jean suggested changing wording in #3d: “…leases of land and structures solely
for agricultural, …”. Jean asked about
state versus town controls on agricultural buildings. Alex said ag buildings are exempt from
zoning. The group discussed the
statement “…provided that no development occurs on the leased land”. Jean asked about leasing land to a farmer who
wishes to then build something (on property they are only leasing); she thought
that statement would prohibit that. Alex
said if it were an ag structure it would be exempt anyway. If it were not, the statement would disallow
it. The group agreed to leave the
language in.
Carrie MOVED to accept all language revisions (Farm Worker
Housing, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, Subdivision Review of Leases) as
amended and to allow Alex to forward revisions to the Select Board. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 8-0.
Village Growth
Area Rezoning
Alex said the Select Board took no action at the hearing
and would discuss the proposal at their April 20th.meeting. The group talked about the meeting’s discussions
regarding phasing, sewer allocation, wetland delineations in the proposed
northwest district. Alan Norris asked if
the NW delineation was “blessed” by the Army Corps of Engineers; Alex said not
officially but that the Corps representative was generally favorable of the
work done by the engineer who did the delineation. Alan said he thought the proposed density for
the northwest district was not that high.
Fred said he agreed that the base units seemed low. Carrie said that density was originally
larger then cut in response to public and Select Board feedback. Fred said affordable housing calculations
required high densities. Alan said he
remembered the conversation included a concern about sewer allocations as
well. He thought because the Saputo
facility would no longer require the same water use, sewer allocation in town
should no longer be a concern.
Alex said a town looking for state “growth center designation”
must have a 4-units-per-acre density in areas to be included in the
center. He said he has recommended to
the SB not to make
The group talked about concerns raised at the meeting regarding
the 10% renewable energy requirement.
Alex said Peter suggested to keep the requirement (that 10% of a
business’s energy use be generated by renewable sources) but to modify it to
apply to the building’s energy use only, not the uses within the building.
Alan suggested looking at BTU usage per building square footage. Alex said the proposal’s language should be clarified,
whether an energy requirement should concern the overall efficiency of the
envelope of the building OR whether 10% of all energy used should be generated
by renewables. Alex said if 10% of the
energy usage for a business proved to be a high number, this measure should
effectively incentivize owners to build an energy-efficient structure to ensure
that 10% stays low.
Wetland delineations and the potential for affordable
housing were discussed, particularly in the northwest district. The proposed West Side Road was
discussed. Alex said if the need for an
“individual permit” (within the Army Corps of Engineer permitting process) was
generated, the question of whether the project (the Road, in this case) could
be done in an alternate fashion would be posed by the Corps. Alex said an ACE rep had doubts that the road
would be approved due to the presence of Route 116 in Hinesburg (thus providing
an “alternate” to the road). The group
discussed their ideas for the West Side Road, in terms of area traffic flow and
how the road would likely be used. How
the denial of a permit for a West Side Road would affect the day-to-day
operations and/or viability of development proposed in the northwest and
northeast district was discussed.
Traffic lights in town were discussed at length.
Alan Norris noted a conflict with
incentives given for affordable housing and other public good incentives; Alex
explained as follows: Adjust the maximum residential development
density so that projects that trigger the inclusionary zoning (IZ) provision
(10 or more units) can still get the full 100% density bonus for green
building, smaller units, renewables, etc. Alan argued that projects that
are required to build affordable units should still be able to capture the full
100% density bonus for other public good elements. The current proposal
provides an automatic 20% density bonus for IZ projects – i.e., a parcel with a
base density allowance of 10 units would get a 2 unit bonus (20%) to help fund
the creation of the 1 affordable unit (10%) required by the IZ provision.
This 20% bonus counts toward the maximum 100% that is possible, so such a
project would not have an incentive to go for the highest bonuses (i.e., 100%)
available in the density bonus/incentive section.
Alan also discussed an issue regarding building orientations
and also a drainage ditch on his property that had been given a 75-foot stream
buffer. Alex said the ditch was
designated as a stream because it was mapped as such by state
hydrologists. Alan asked for the setback
to be changed to 25 feet. Carrie said
the PC had adjusted it to 25 feet before submitting the proposal to the SB, who
subsequently changed it back to 75 feet.
A potential intersection at
Other Business
Fred MOVED to approve the
Various planning-related events were noted:
VELCO
public discussion in
Energy
committee discussion at Williston Library, April 16th
Hinesburg
Business Association’s spring line up of speakers, various dates
Alex gave a short update on the efforts of the Saputo economic development
committee. He said they meet every other
Monday; their next meeting is April 13th.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April
22, 2009.
The meeting adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted: