TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

June 10, 2009

Approved June 24, 2009

 

Commission Members Present:  Tom Ayer, Tim Clancy, Fred Haulenbeek, Jean Isham, Ashley Orgain, Will Patten, Johanna White.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), George and Karla Munson, Wayne Bissonnette, Alan Norris.

 

Village Growth Area – Reviewing Suggestions for Further Regulation Fine Tuning

The Commission discussed the following issues and suggestions raised at the 4/6/09 public hearing and/or by the Select Board:

Adjusting maximum residential development density for projects that trigger the Inclusionary Zoning provision

There was a lengthy discussion about the effect on density when mandatory and incentive programs are combined – how formulas and multiple priorities (e.g. IZ and density caps) have the potential to conflict.  These points were covered:

-         The 10% inclusionary zoning requirement can make it impossible for a developer to realize their full bonus potential for other programs (i.e. if they participate in other incentive programs within the same project)

-         The group discussed whether to remove the 100% base density cap when programs are combined and/or whether to raise densities.  They agreed that public sentiment had generally been opposed to high densities in the village area.

-         Alex displayed a mock build-out scenario of the Lyman parcel that had been used in initial conversations about the Village Growth area rezoning.

-         Whether “infill” within the core village was feasible or likely.

-         Single family versus multi-family homes

-         Hinesburg as a part of a larger community (Chittenden County)

-         The potential impact on resources if densities were increased; wastewater allocations


The group agreed that IZ (affordable housing) was a top priority and to disassociate the formulas to at least not penalize IZ initiatives.

 

Residential 2 zoning district – adjusting (or not) southern boundary line on Norris & Munson properties

Adding the district designation to more acreage on the Norris property was discussed.  Alan Norris described how the parcel may be constrained if the access point for a development road was directly across from Buck Hill Road.  He said the current boundary to the south had been drawn arbitrarily and that pushing it south would allow for a better layout of buildings and the road itself.  The group discussed the build-able area (non-wetland) that could be gained and at what point a new line could be drawn.  They also discussed the district’s stated purpose and realistic potential as “gateway” district.  They agreed to re-draw the line, allowing more Route 116 frontage for the parcel.

 

Prohibit cottage industries and larger home occupations in the new Residential 1&2 Zoning Districts

The group discussed how these types of businesses may affect current and future neighborhoods intended to be predominately residential.  Peter Erb said a larger home occupation creates traffic and some employees; allowing one in a residential area now may lead to conflict in the future (if the rest of the parcel was built as residential).  The group agreed to disallow them in these districts (clarifying it did not apply to smaller home occupations).

 

Revise village growth area design standards to restrict outdoor storage for non-residential uses.

The group discussed screening requirements and enforcement challenges.  Fred said residential areas proposed to have higher density in the future might also need similar requirements.  The group agreed to draft language to address these issues. 

 

Revise village growth area design standards to prohibit/restrict flat roof canopies that gas stations typically use over gas pump areas

Peter suggested that many gas stations use oversized canopies as a place to advertise.  The group agreed to revise sign regulation language to address gas station canopies-as-signage specifically (and not allow it).

 

Other Business

Commission members voted 6-0 to approve the May 27, 2009 meeting minutes as amended, with Ashley abstaining.

 

Fred passed out a list of further suggested topics for refining village zoning language, noting many good ideas he had received from a seminar he attended this week.

 

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2009.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted: 

Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary