TOWN OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Approved
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer,
Commission Members Absent:
Also Present:
I. Rural Area
Development Density – Reviewing Options & Norwich Model
Alex reviewed past efforts on rural development issues, noting a draft document
with regulatory revisions dated June 2008, and also the review of other towns’ models
including one developed for the Town of
Brian said the
The group discussed the classification of Hinesburg’s roads (class II,
III, IV) and differences in character, usage and costs related to paved versus
dirt roads. Alex said it was difficult
to generalize about maintenance costs by road type as it depended on various
factors including grades and traffic volume.
He reviewed various road and population maps. Road issues discussed in detail included:
-
Hinesburg’s “inter-town” traffic (non-residents
traveling through Hinesburg’s center) as well as alternate routes used by Hinesburg
residents that do not intersect with the center (such as travel to and from the
heavily populated NE part of town).
-
The possibility of overdevelopment (frontage) on
class II roads; Brian said feeder roads into subdivisions would be more likely
to occur than frontage development.
-
Reasons other than maintenance costs to preserve
dirt roads (recreational, their use by other forms of non-vehicular traffic)
-
Access from a dirt road to a paved road (i.e. which
dirt road and where one lives on it affects the overall usage of dirt roads in
Hinesburg).
-
Access to town services such as police, fire and
emergency services
The group discussed whether a village proximity factor should be
considered for a Hinesburg density model.
Brian explained that linear miles, rather than concentric circles, were
used to determine proximity to the
The group discussed proximity to conserved areas, considering these
points:
-
How to assess development near conserved lands –
should all lands be treated equally? Or only those with certain factors such as
their status as a wildlife corridor or as one containing rare habitat?
-
Land is conserved for different reasons (from
protecting fragile habitats to providing recreational opportunities). Alex said access to a recreational area by a
cluster of house would be viewed as desirable by those residents.
-
Should conserved lands carry a “sphere of
influence” that discouraged development close to its borders? Brian Shupe said
Bill Marks gave an update on the Greenspace plan being developed by the
Conservation Commission. He said there
is a rationale for being more diligent about parcels adjacent to conserved
lands. Andrea questioned whether a
better definition of the rural areas would be described differently from how it
is currently stated in town regulations, which seems to assume that residential
development is the highest and best use.
The group discussed the aspect of contiguity, particularly with forested
lands, as being important, not to just look at individual parcels (public or
private) but to look at the context.
Regional planning efforts regarding a wildlife corridor extending from
Shelburne Pond to Bristol Pond were discussed.
The group had a lengthy discussion of whether to include “take-outs”, sensitive
areas that do not count towards a parcel's density calculation, in a rural
density formula. Bill Marks said take-outs can be offset with higher
densities. Tim liked the idea of lower
densities in sensitive areas but was not as supportive of road
calculations. Will asked whether the
newly-adopted village zoning should be linked (at least in conversation) to
proposed rural zoning. Joe I. said he
did not think so, noting 1) public sensitivity to an “us and them” approach
(some are allowed development rights and others are not); 2) reasons why person
wish to subdivide (some to pass land on to children, other purely financial)
and 3) a more densely-populated village makes nearby rural areas more attractive. Ken Brown said where the Town Plan encourages
an increase in village densities, it also encourages the preservation of the rural
areas around it. Joe I. said rural densities
should be based on what we can do (looking at services and resources, for
example) rather used as a way to offset village densities.
Will asked if the CC could provide a prioritized list of take-out
factors to consider, either general natural features (wetlands, forested areas)
or specific (mapped) areas. Alex said
the PC could prioritize such a list but more importantly, they would have to
decide whether to take those items “off the top” before any density
calculation. How to assess parcels
equitably and accurately for sensitive areas and other site constraints (e.g.
wetlands, steep grades) was discussed. The
use of design standards (e.g. clustering, setbacks, infrastructure) and how
they help to naturally control densities was discussed. Alex said our current regulations already require
a critique of site constraints and design standards; the problem is that we do
not clearly define the starting base densities.
He described this as the minimum lot size question, whether:
# of allowed
building lots = acreage ÷ minimum lot size for the district ?
Deborah Howard said she liked the idea of factoring road type into a
density calculation but asked if this could be done without unintentionally incenting
people to pave roads to allow for development. Ken Brown said rising costs are making paved
road types expensive to maintain as well.
Other concerns related to paved roads, such as safety and stormwater
runoff, were discussed.
Members discussed what type of program would be best received by the
public, for instance, one that incorporated incentives rather than take-outs; such
a program may have to begin with artificially low densities. Alex said he would make several options for
easily understandable formulas, considering take-outs versus setting low base
densities. He would also run build-out
scenarios for rural areas using those formulas.
Joe stressed a focus on critiquing the formulas, rather than resulting
(imaginary) scenario numbers, at any public forum. Tom said he agreed that regulations could
restrict building in sensitive areas, but that people’s rights to develops
should not be taken away. He said a
conserved land “sphere” should not impact neighbors.
Other Business
Commission members voted 7-0 to approve the
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July
8, 2009.
The meeting adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary