TOWN OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Approved
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Tim
Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham, Will Patten, Johanna
White.
Commission Members Absent:
Ashley Orgain.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary).
The Commission discussed the following issues and
suggestions raised at the
Should Master Plans be required?
The group discussed whether to require a master plan from a developer for an entire parcel, even if only a portion is proposed for development. Alex said SB members feel it may be an oversight not to have included a master plan requirement; planning for village parcels has been talked about holistically but without a regulation that a developer present either a conceptual plan or one with firm details.
Alex noted two essential master plan elements:
1. Identifying the location(s) of critical infrastructure – it is not necessary to know about all future uses to understand the best location for infrastructure such as stormwater treatment areas, road networks, etc.
2. How to achieve what is desired for that district – this speaks to the goals of the purpose statements for each district
Private or contractual
matters: The Lyman/Milot project currently
under
Size of parcel: Adding an acreage “trigger” – basing the requirement of a master plan on the number of acres being developed – was discussed. One way would be to require a plan for developments over a set number of acres. Joe I. suggested creating an upper acreage limit rather than a lower limit, for example, requiring a master plan for every 25 acres in a larger parcel as they are proposed for development (a 100-acre parcel would have four plans).
The term “mixed-use: A definition for the term “mixed-use” and how to achieve it was discussed; these points were raised:
- Whether each building in a project needed to house mixed-uses (a commercial business at ground level with residential above, for example)
- The timing of multiple projects proposed over time for a large parcel. For example, would it be acceptable to approve a proposal for a single-use proposal as a first project, with the faith that subsequent projects will propose mixed or at least different single-uses?
Stormwater planning: Long-term stormwater planning was discussed at length, whether adjacent landowners, multiple developers and/or the Town could partner to create a shared, well-sited location for stormwater. Stormwater technologies that allowed for low-impact designs, and some existing examples located in Hinesburg, were discussed. The group agreed that wetland delineations are a key first step in determining a good stormwater plan.
Wetland
delineations: The group agreed that a master plan was
difficult to submit without having wetland delineations mapped for the entire
property ahead of time. It was agreed
that although this is expensive in the short-term, it is of value to the
landowner in the long-term to understand the build-out potential of their
parcel, and to plan comprehensively for stormwater treatment. Applicants, however, often do not want to
have delineations done before a project passes the early stages of
The “spectrum” of master plans and their required level of detail: Alex said there are two degrees to a master plan – one that is entirely conceptual and the other a complete picture of development. A conceptual plan could contain overall goals and some details; the developer would not be held to executing those details over time, only to the general goals of the plan. A more complete picture, with details of uses, infrastructure, building sites, etc. is at the other end of the spectrum. Setting a lifespan or time limit for plans was considered.
Federal and state
agencies involved in wetland delineations and stormwater projects: Alex explained how various agencies affect
wetland regulation, and whether a master or global impacts approval could be
obtained for the entire
Impact fees and a town
stormwater utility – Alex said impact fees (not yet instituted in
Hinesburg) could be used over a long period of time. He explained details of bond payback
periods. The feasibility and likely
timeline of creating a town stormwater utility was discussed (The
ACTIONS: The group agreed there should be some requirement for a master plan; Alex said he would draft language for PC review. He will also research Army Corps regulations and whether the town could obtain a global approval for wetlands impact within the Village.
Should adjustments be made to the Village NW to ensure
desired development patterns given apparent wetland constraints – e.g.,
district line changes, density adjustments?
It was agreed that the master plan issues already discussed, particularly wetland delineations, applied to the Northwest district. Alex said delineations could change over time; he explained state versus federal delineations, and related legislation.
Revising
The group discussed the purpose of town sustainability goals, whether it was to address local power supply limits or more global realities such as our carbon footprint, or both. They agreed to clarify that the intent of new zoning language was to ensure tighter building envelopes - buildings with energy efficiencies achieved using good building design (square footage, site orientation, etc.), super insulation and/or renewable technologies. It was NOT to require the use of renewables, nor to require efficient operations (the energy use of equipment within the building, for example). They agreed that buildings should be constructed to surpass state energy standards by 10%, and also to retain the requirement that commercial projects complete a LEED scorecard. How to measure energy efficiencies was discussed; Fred suggested measuring use using a BTU’s per cubic foot standard.
It was also agreed to explore incentive programs (“the carrot approach”) that would accomplish the same green building goals. Will explained a new state law designed to assist homeowners with the investment costs of installing renewables. Towns may now set up a fund to provide loans to citizens for renewables installations that become a permanent part of their home (and can be part of the property assessment). The loan is paid back via property taxes over an extended period of time. He said he would bring details of the program to the next PC meeting.
Adjusting
maximum residential development density for projects that trigger the
Inclusionary Zoning provision
It was agreed that wetland delineations (or lack of) affected the ability to understand maximum development potential. The group discussed how to deal with changing wetland delineations, perhaps to state that the acceptable border for development will always follows the wetland delineation at the time of the application. Joe I. said some parcels contain wetlands interspersed within the whole area, i.e. there is no “border” to measure off from. How to calculate densities was discussed; Alex said he would create several density calculations within different building scenarios.
Other Business
Fred MOVED to approve the
Saputo Redevelopment update: Will said the group is seeking grant money for assistance with developing a site plan. He gave an update on the groups’ progress, noting a commitment to their goals of providing jobs and establishing a connection between the site and the agricultural landscape, work with other task forces and investor interest.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June
10, 2009.
The meeting adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted: